Saturday, July 30, 2005

What the hell is this thing?



I have these caterpillars all over a bush in my front yard. They are evil and aggressive. If you brush up against them they lunge at you and regurgitate a greenish liquid that they try to deposit on whatever touches them (as shown in the pictures). I'm afraid of them. I think they might bite or sting, so I have avoided touching them. They have destroyed the bush they inhabit. Their appearance on my bush did coincide nicely with the arrival of my new Nikon Coolpix 4500 which I just purchased for $350 refurbished. One of the main reasons I chose this camera was for its excellent macro ability and the cool swivel design. So click the images to check out my evil caterpillar and let me know if you know anything about it. I'm very curious to know if it can sting or if it's just bluffing.

UPDATE: After further careful study of the photos I took, it would appear that this thing can sting the hell out of you. You may notice from the photos that the caterpillar has 3 sets of front legs and 3 sets of back legs. The three sets of front legs are different from the back ones though. They have pointy segmented portions that extend from the base of the leg and if you look closesly, you can just see what appear to be the little white tips of stingers protruding from inside these segmented legs. So it would appear that this biotch can sting you with six stingers at once, while simultaneously spitting some sort of green vomit at you. This is like some kind of Hollywood/Sci-fi caterpillar from another planet. Truly disturbing.

FINAL WORD: It would seem, after further investigation, that this caterpillar is harmless to humans despite the fierce show. Thanks to luvweasel (who also has a great blog at blogbybent.blogspot.com) for pointing out this page which identifies the creature as a species of Datana, also known as an Azalea Caterpillar. In my investigations, I also came across the following fantastic pages in case anyone out there needs to identify their own critters:
http://bugguide.net
http://www.whatsthatbug.com

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

My Kickass Javascript ternary operator trick.

I'm sure someone else has done this before, but I just discovered it myself, and it's mine now. Mine all mine.

I was just in need of a somewhat lengthy if-else statement to assign a string a particular value based on a series of variables. It's for a browser sniffing script I'm using to tell if someone's browser needs to be updated before they use an online course.

Basically, i'm assigning the variable platform a value based on the value of a bunch of other variables:

if (is_win98==true)
   platform="win98";
else if( is_winme==true)
   platform="winME";
else if( is_winxp==true)
   platform="winXP";
else if( is_win2k==true)
   platform="win2k";
else
   platform = "";
So anyway I needed this longish if-else statement and I wondered if it could be done in 1 line using ternary operators strung together. To my utter surprise, this works just like the above...

platform = is_win?"win":is_winme?"winME":is_winxp?"winXP":is_win2k?"win2k":"";

So how cool is that? Pretty cool I think.

Attention Clueless NASA Engineers

I have no engineering degree, no higher math education of any kind really. But I've got a shitload of common sense and I'm great at doing mental simulations as I've discussed previously in my blurb on daydreams. I am now going to use my superior intellect for the benefit of all mankind and solve a little problem that the fine folks at NASA are apparently too smart to figure out.

When the space shuttle Columbia crashed (the second shuttle disaster) there was a flurry of speculation on what caused it, despite the fact that there was video from the very start that showed a large piece of insulating foam breaking off the external fuel tanks and impacting the leading edge of the shuttle's wing. As soon as I saw that I said, "well, obviously the foam was the cause". I have at least two witnesses to this proclamation. Meanwhile, many "experts" initially dismissed the foam as a potential cause because it "lacked the density" required to cause much damage to the wing. Actually, most of them just said something like "it's not hard enough to do that kind of damage", but they meant it wasn't dense enough. To me it was obvious that a piece of foam traveling at several hundred miles per hour would have no trouble smashing the hell out of the tiles and I called it that way immediately on seeing the footage the day of the disaster. And I was right. It was in fact a piece of insulating foam that ultimately caused the demise of the shuttle Columbia.

Today, about two years after the Columbia disaster, the space shuttle Discovery blasted off and wouldn't you know it, a giant fucking piece of foam broke off and fortunately, missed hitting the shuttle by a good bit. NASA is now saying they don't know why the foam is breaking off, they thought they'd fixed it. The last time this happened, they actually said the foam was designed to break off on purpose. Whatever.

So, to save NASA the additional time and aggravation of actually THINKING about things before coming up with random excuses and solutions, I will now provide some possible reasons for the foam problems. Since I'm such a nice guy, I'll also go ahead and provide the solutions.

Reasons for the Foam Problem:


The foam is breaking off the external tanks for two reasons. Obviously, the adhesive used to attach the foam to the surface of the tanks is failing. This is most likely due to condensation on the tanks which I am speculating are very cold prior to launch since they are filled with liquid hydrogen and oxygen. Condensation under the foam would mean that your foam and adhesive is either porous enough to let humid Florida air pass through it to the underlying surface, or the expansion and contraction of the underlying tanks is greater than the adhesive and foam can handle. Perhaps the foam is not expanding or contracting enough and is tearing. This is causing failures in the adhesion, most likely at seams between sections of foam. Air is getting forced into the seams and undermining the already weakened or failed adhesion. If the adhesive is brittle from being cooled by the fuel tanks, this can probably happen very easily. There is also the chance that the adhesive has nothing to do with it, and the foam itself is not structurally sound enough to take the air pressure during high speed flight. Regardless of whether it is the adhesive or foam or both things failing at once, the solutions are the same.

Solutions to the Foam Problem:

To solve this problem you have two alternatives. You can either reengineer your adhesive and and/or foam to correct these failures OR you could simply pre-cut the foam insulation into 1-3cm squares and glue them on individually. This way when foam rips off, it will not come off in giant pieces that will bash the shit out of your lovely spacecraft. You might even be able to get away with just scoring the foam without completely cutting it. This will make it easier to attach. Capiche?

Plea for Money:

Now, if you use this idea, I'm going to need about $100,000. After all, the freelance spacecraft repair business is very unpredictable and I don't have a PhD or anything to fall back on like all you NASA folks.

That is all.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Alex Jones is an ignorant fucktard, but I like him.

I love the alternative press that has sprouted up online over the past decade. You get whackos from all over the world that gain their own little following and become pseudo-famous among their own harmless little group of crazies. It's so cute.

Take Alex Jones for instance. Alex Jones, in case you haven't heard (and you probably haven't), is a right-wing conspiracy theorist and talk show host who does a talk radio show out of Austin Texas, and more recently a series of videos tackling issues ranging from the modern atrocities collectively known as "The War on Drugs" (TWOD) to the modern atrocities collectively know as "The War on Terror" (TWOT). Anyone who has bothered to educate themselves on these issues know that both TWOD and TWOT are a load of shit, orchestrated by the government to maintain and exert various levels of control over the lives of non-billionaires in all nations.

Alex Jones has managed to somehow blindly stuble backwards and fall into some of these truths, which he now hurls at his listeners and viewers in a distracted montage of paranoid rantings. To be sure, his videos are quite interesting and often times even offer valueable documentation on the troubling and likely criminal behavior of our leaders, our increasingly militarized police forces, our criminal use of our military abroad, and the rich elite who have joined forces across international borders to control all this through corporations and international financial markets. Unfortunately, he somehow manages to combine all his arguements with some kind of reference to the Second Ammendment and how the government is trying to take our guns away like they supposedly did to all the Canadians. (Unfortunately for Alex, Canadians have tons of guns, they just don't kill each other with them so you don't notice them quite so much and their governement doesn't have to raise the issue every year like they do here in the US. The next time I hear some idiot talking about how Canadian's have no guns and no rights, I may have to shoot the motherfucker and move to Canada.)

Seriously though, I really like Alex Jones because he's sort of like a Republican that makes more sense than your average republican. Still childlike in his level of education and understanding of things, but he's got at least one set of wheels on the track most of the time. Recently however, I heard a show of his that really pissed me off.

I'm not sure when it aired, but I saw this Alex Jones audio file on the file sharing networks the other day and I downloaded it because it was an interview with an intellectual I've come to admire, named Noam Chomsky. If you've heard of Noam Chomsky, you most likely either love him or hate him and if you're an ignorant piece of shit that knows nothing and has no facts to explain your opinions, then you probably hate him.

At any rate, Alex Jones apparently had Chomsky on his show sometime in the recent past, under the guise of holding a civilized interview, but without really having a topic in mind, other than Jones' usual rambling list of conspiracy topics. Unfortunately, Alex Jones' knowledge on most topics is informed only by his own interpretations of his own research. Much of his research is gathered first hand, but I'll give him credit for doing tons of homework too. He's got reams of documents from every source imaginable to back up much of what he says. It's hard to say what percentage of these documents are taken out of context, unverifiable, or have already been proven as factually inaccurate. Usually though, it is not so much a question of whether his documentation is bad, so much as it is his interpretations and conclusions just being wacked out by his overbearing Christianity and Second Amendment issues. So usually he ends up combining some legitimate first-hand observation or documented fact, with a bunch of random Christian gun lover bullshit. I've usually got no problem with the gun nuts, I myself am the proud owner of four guns. But the Christian bullshit I just can't ignore. It practically invalidates everything that comes out of his mouth. It's amusing, bemusing, tiresome and frustrating all at once. Best in small doses during moments of anti-government angst, provided you can ignore the random conservative Christianity.

But there was a point to this post, I'm sure I remember....oh yeah. In his recent interview with Chomsky, Jones asked a bunch of questions clearly designed to get Chomsky to give him the kind of answers he could later berate. That was expected and Chomsky wouldn't walk into any of the rhetorical traps Jones was feebly trying to set for him, so Jones pretended to be civlized for a few minutes. Then as it became apparent to Jones that he would not make Chomsky look like an idiot as long as Chomsky was actually there to defend himself, the interview was cut short by Jones suddenly instulting Chomsky and then cutting him off (I can't remember if they cut him off in mid sentence or if they actually went to a commercial first). This was followed up by several minutes of Jones calling Chomsky various names, and continuing to argue his point against Chomsky who could not answer or defend himself now that the interview was over. Rather than actually debate Chomsky (who has more facts on the criminal behavior of our government than Google does) Alex Jones, like an adolescent child, threw a little temper tantrum and continued spouting a stream of near obscenities about Chomsky for several minutes.

Alex Jones lost major points with me for that. I apparently gave him more credit than he deserved as a purveyor of fact, but now I know better. I'll probably still watch his psychotic rantings for entertainment purposes, but not as a source of reliable information.

Daydreams = Thought Experiments

The daydreamers of the world are a special sort. Perhaps I'm jaded since I am one, but I was just daydreaming about daydreaming, and it occurred to me that to many people, the word "daydream" has negative connotations. Even to me, it brings up images of listless know-nothings who bumble through life in spite of themselves. It seems worth mentioning because, I remember how much grief I used to get as a kid for being a daydreamer.

As a 15-year old "child" daydreaming was a source of consternation for parents and teachers alike. There was no appreciation of daydreaming as the important reasoning skill it truly is. As a 34.9 year-old "adult" I know the true power of a strong imagination, and that's the power that daydreams give you.

Albert Einstein knew that, he was famous for his daydreams. When Einstein had daydreams, people called them "thought experiments", but they were daydreams nonetheless. They may have been very well informed daydreams, but in the end, it was still just a really well educated and creative man using his imagination to perform a set of tasks or to simulate a hypothetical event.

The mind is a fantastic parallel computer by any standard, and those who know how to use it to perform mental simulations benefit in much the same way an a scientist benefits when he uses a supercomputer to perform a simulation. Certainly, these mental simulations are not as testable, verifiable, or repeatable as their computer-driven counterparts, but given the ease with which some people can perform mental simulations, there's certainly a lot of bang for the buck. This economy of time and resources makes them very useful for certain types of experiments that, for whatever reason, could not be done another way (eg: light rays being bent by the curvature of space, a theory that could not be tested until many years after it was imagined in one of Einstein's thought experiments).

Of course, all the imagination in the world won't help you at all if your head is filled with nonsense, lies and other forms of non-facts, which is why a thorough and broad education based on actual fact is still essential (I could digress here about conservative Christians and other forms of Bush voters, but I'm trying to turn over a new leaf with regards to meandering posts...yes I'm talking about you, you bible-stroking fucktards).

What I'm suggesting is simple. If you have a child (or adult) who likes to daydream, rather than discouraging it, maybe you should let them perfect their skills while encouraging them to apply that skill to the task at hand, such as their classwork, rather than treating them like they are doing something wrong. Daydreaming is thought experimentation, and experimentation is after all, what education is all about.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Severance Pay(off) - The Golden Parachute

Keeping with my tradition of posting commentaries that still need editing...

ABC News just ran a story this evening on Stephen Crawford, ex-co-president of Morgan Stanley. He quit just 3 months after being named co-president and was rewarded with a $32 million severance package. This amounts to slightly more than $300,000 per day. Many people are aghast at these mega-severance packages from Fortune 500 companies that seem to try to out-do each other year after year. News agencies report them over and over and it's as if the shareholders of these companies have their heads up their collective asses. There is zero accountability. They are being fucked again and again and again by these corporate thieves and they just scratch their heads and never bother asking any questions, like WHY are these people getting these sums of money. Often these corporate executives are being fired or quitting due to poor performance, so why should they be getting this much money? How on earth can it be that all these companies, whose sole responsibility is supposedly to make as much money as possible for shareholders, be allowing people to walk away with millions for doing nothing -- literally taking money out of the pockets of shareholders?

The answer is so simple, and yet you will find very few people on TV or in the financial news willing to say it. But first you must accept the simple fact that everyone involved in these transactions is a CROOK. These companies are run by super-ultra-mega-rich people who conspire on a regular basis to manipulate markets and profit off severe swings on stock prices. This is the way Wall Street works now. This is sort of how things have always worked, but it's now been turned into a totally blatant science. No matter how poorly their companies perform, the executives at these companies all get filthy rich. Often they tell lies about how their companies will perform, jack up the stock price, then sell out before it crashes (Enron). Or they overestimate earnings and then miss the estimate to kill a stock price so they can buy it up cheap. They use their positions in investment banks to extort huge numbers of shares from companies during IPOs and then pass them off to their friends who dump them for enormous profits (free money anyone?). They steal investors money and they steal taxpayers money. Hell, half of them run the government, stealing directly from taxpayers (eg: Halliburton), the other half run all the major corporations. These days they can even do both at the same time, just ask Dick Cheney.

So what does this have to do with severance pay? The reason people get huge sums of money they don't deserve when they leave a company is simple. Think of it. If you were leaving a company that had been involved in illegal activities and you knew everyone there who had been involved because you were hired by and worked with them -- if you worked in a situation like that, would you leave quietly, or would want some extra money to keep your mouth shut? Exactly. When you see these CEOs getting $32 million for 3 months of shitty work, it's like an announcement that someone was a witness to some seriously illegal shit. So imagine you're on the board of Enron. You're sitting there around your giant boardroom table discussing how you just jacked California for another half-billion and Ken Lay suddenly stands up and announces that he's tired of living a lie and raping his shareholders and he just can't take it anymore. He reaches into his briefcase and before he can even pull out his signed resignation, checkbooks are literally flying through the air like salmon swimming upstream. People in $15,000 suits are literally falling over each other to make sure Kenny-boy knows just how much his criminal fellowship means to them. They're gonna give him enough money to sedate any conscience Kenny-boy might ever develop. They might even give him $32 million for doing nothing at all.