Grocery Stores
One of the first things I had experience with when I was young was grocery stores. My mother would take me to the local Wegmans in Rochester, New York when she went shopping. I was most interested in the cereal. Later on, the big company in town, Kodak, bought the land the Wegmans was on, but it opened elsewhere, including one store that looked really futuristic for its time in 1960, with conveyers that took your groceries to the outside. Since then Wegmans has continued to expand, now offering stores where you can do all your grocery and department store shopping in the same place, somewhat suggesting Wal-Mart but much better.
I eventually moved to Richmond, Virginia. In Richmond, the top store is Ukrop's. Since I have been here, Ukrop's has meant short lines becausae there was always enough help available, good quality but expensive food, and large stores with a restaurant facility. The one thing I find objectionable about Ukrop's is their closing on Sunday. The large Ukrop's stores remind me of Wegmans. I hear that both stores rate highly among grocery stores throughout the nation. They have a lot in common: large stores offering more than groceries, a CEO whose name is the same as the store (Joseph Ukrop at Ukrop's and Robert Wegman at Wegmans), so is a family business, and a regional extent.
As of late Wegmans has been expanding southward, into Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Now for the first time they will open a store in Virginia, early next year near Dulles Airport. Do they plan to expand into the rest of Virginia? I notice that Wegmans is about five times as big as Ukrop's and offers the same excellent environment. It would seem to me that if they want to expand into the rest of Virginia, a good first step would be for Wegmans to buy out Ukrop's. That would put Wegmans stores all over the place near Richmond, and from there they can expand to western Virginia and the Tidewater area. They would not have to construct a lot of new stores. Further, it would mean I can get the good deli and bakery items, the restaurant, and the good service I get now with Ukrop's from Wegmans, and further, it would be open on Sunday. I say go for it, Wegmans.
A Journey through Blogrealm
2003/11/10
Lunar Eclipse
Yesterday I observed one of nature's more interesting phenomena - a lunar eclipse. I was attending a meeting in Baltimore on 2003 November 9, and left a little early to be back to Richmond by 1800 (6 o'clock) to set up my equipment for the eclipse. I got back at 1740 and ate dinner at a nearby McDonald's. Then I went over to the Science Museum, where a public skywatch was taking place. I got out my eight-inch Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope and aligned it with the stars. I then pointed it at the moon. What followed was an interesting night.
The Moon first entered the Earth's shadow at 1833.Gradually the moon lost more and more of its lit surface, and an eerie red took its place. An eclipsed moon shows up red, because it is reflecting all of Earth's lovely red sunsets, sunrises, and suntouches around the world. If you were on the Moon, you would see a total eclipse of the Sun by the Earth. The dark or night side of the Earth would show, and it would be surrounded by a red circle or ring where the sunrises and sunsets are. It would look like a ring of fire in the sky, and that ring would be shining its red on the Moon, making the lunar landscape red. We see this redness from the Earth when we look at a total lunar eclipse.
I took several pictures of the Moon by placing a digital camera right up to the eyepiece until the image shows on the digital display of what the camera sees. I then snap the shutter and this results in a picture. It is a fairly easy technique, and it produces good pictures. One visitor even wanted me to take pictures with her digital camera. I took it and she had a pictorial souvenir of the eclipse.
Later in the evening, the moon came out of the shadow of the eclipse. It was not a long eclipse. The Moon just barely came entirely inside one side of the Earth's umbra, or what might be termed the Great Shadow of Night (we were in it, too). There was one bright side to the disk of the moon, making it look as though it were not fully eclipsed. After the Moon started coming out of the eclipse, people wanted to see other things. It was a beautiful night, with only Richmond light pollution holding us back from seeing all the wonders of the heavens. I pointed the telescope at Mars. It was still a good object to observe, but it is not as easy to pick out markings on the planet now. Someone wanted to see Saturn. This is always a prizewinner at public skywatches, because of its unique appearance. So I told the telescope to point to Saturn. It went completely level, then rotated and pointed at some lights in a walkway near the Museum. It was too low to see. A little later, I saw it but when I tried to point the telescope at it, a light pole was in the way. It moved away from the light pole, and then I got the telescope on Saturn. Then I showed people Saturn with its rings through the telescope. They expressed great wonder at the planet, and some even said it didn't look real. But it was real. It was Saturn in the telescope, with its rings.
Given a clear dark sky, any skywatch held when Saturn and the Moon are both up will be a success.
Yesterday I observed one of nature's more interesting phenomena - a lunar eclipse. I was attending a meeting in Baltimore on 2003 November 9, and left a little early to be back to Richmond by 1800 (6 o'clock) to set up my equipment for the eclipse. I got back at 1740 and ate dinner at a nearby McDonald's. Then I went over to the Science Museum, where a public skywatch was taking place. I got out my eight-inch Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope and aligned it with the stars. I then pointed it at the moon. What followed was an interesting night.
The Moon first entered the Earth's shadow at 1833.Gradually the moon lost more and more of its lit surface, and an eerie red took its place. An eclipsed moon shows up red, because it is reflecting all of Earth's lovely red sunsets, sunrises, and suntouches around the world. If you were on the Moon, you would see a total eclipse of the Sun by the Earth. The dark or night side of the Earth would show, and it would be surrounded by a red circle or ring where the sunrises and sunsets are. It would look like a ring of fire in the sky, and that ring would be shining its red on the Moon, making the lunar landscape red. We see this redness from the Earth when we look at a total lunar eclipse.
I took several pictures of the Moon by placing a digital camera right up to the eyepiece until the image shows on the digital display of what the camera sees. I then snap the shutter and this results in a picture. It is a fairly easy technique, and it produces good pictures. One visitor even wanted me to take pictures with her digital camera. I took it and she had a pictorial souvenir of the eclipse.
Later in the evening, the moon came out of the shadow of the eclipse. It was not a long eclipse. The Moon just barely came entirely inside one side of the Earth's umbra, or what might be termed the Great Shadow of Night (we were in it, too). There was one bright side to the disk of the moon, making it look as though it were not fully eclipsed. After the Moon started coming out of the eclipse, people wanted to see other things. It was a beautiful night, with only Richmond light pollution holding us back from seeing all the wonders of the heavens. I pointed the telescope at Mars. It was still a good object to observe, but it is not as easy to pick out markings on the planet now. Someone wanted to see Saturn. This is always a prizewinner at public skywatches, because of its unique appearance. So I told the telescope to point to Saturn. It went completely level, then rotated and pointed at some lights in a walkway near the Museum. It was too low to see. A little later, I saw it but when I tried to point the telescope at it, a light pole was in the way. It moved away from the light pole, and then I got the telescope on Saturn. Then I showed people Saturn with its rings through the telescope. They expressed great wonder at the planet, and some even said it didn't look real. But it was real. It was Saturn in the telescope, with its rings.
Given a clear dark sky, any skywatch held when Saturn and the Moon are both up will be a success.
2003/11/04
The Election
I came into the voting booth about 2003 November 4 0620 in the morning. The big race that was talked about all over the place was the Bermuda District Supervisor race. So that was the one I was concerned about. I thought there would be other races, but no one ever talked about any of them. No TV show, no newspaper, no signs littering the landscape said anything about any other race. So when I walked into the booth I was surprised to be confronted with about 10 different elections! There were unopposed races for state assemblyman and senator. I was opposed to both unopposed candidates so I took the action that was suggested by someone at the Toastmasters convention I want to last weekend. The winner of the Humorous contest spoke with a title of "Vote for Me", where he said what he would do if he were running for Governor of Virginia. That someone suggested the idea of writing him in. The election PTB (powers that be) will be befuddled by this one person getting votes in several counties and cities. So I did it. I wrote him in on my ballot.
But there were other races. There was county treasurer, school board, county sheriff, and a couple of others. I did not know anything about these people, and some of these were contested. I just skipped them. I had wanted to know about these before the election. The hypermedia centered in this one race in Bermuda and perhaps a few others and completely ignored the others. I think they did the people of Chesterfield County, Virginia a disservice. It used to be that the local newspaper (Richmond Times-Dispatch) would list all these ballots, but I saw absolutely no sign of this in the past Sunday paper. Now maybe they squirreled it away under some ads, but I could not find it. I think from now on the hypermedia should quit harping about contested races and tell us about all the candidates who are running. The first duty of a citizen is to be in the know about who is running the government or who is running for running the government, and the media made it hard for the citizen to fulfill this duty.
I came into the voting booth about 2003 November 4 0620 in the morning. The big race that was talked about all over the place was the Bermuda District Supervisor race. So that was the one I was concerned about. I thought there would be other races, but no one ever talked about any of them. No TV show, no newspaper, no signs littering the landscape said anything about any other race. So when I walked into the booth I was surprised to be confronted with about 10 different elections! There were unopposed races for state assemblyman and senator. I was opposed to both unopposed candidates so I took the action that was suggested by someone at the Toastmasters convention I want to last weekend. The winner of the Humorous contest spoke with a title of "Vote for Me", where he said what he would do if he were running for Governor of Virginia. That someone suggested the idea of writing him in. The election PTB (powers that be) will be befuddled by this one person getting votes in several counties and cities. So I did it. I wrote him in on my ballot.
But there were other races. There was county treasurer, school board, county sheriff, and a couple of others. I did not know anything about these people, and some of these were contested. I just skipped them. I had wanted to know about these before the election. The hypermedia centered in this one race in Bermuda and perhaps a few others and completely ignored the others. I think they did the people of Chesterfield County, Virginia a disservice. It used to be that the local newspaper (Richmond Times-Dispatch) would list all these ballots, but I saw absolutely no sign of this in the past Sunday paper. Now maybe they squirreled it away under some ads, but I could not find it. I think from now on the hypermedia should quit harping about contested races and tell us about all the candidates who are running. The first duty of a citizen is to be in the know about who is running the government or who is running for running the government, and the media made it hard for the citizen to fulfill this duty.
2003/11/03
Longhorn: What I would like to see
The history of computers over the past decade or so has been a history of version after version of Microsoft Windows coming out. There was Chicago (Windows 95), and then Memphis (Windows 98?) and Cairo (Windows 2000) and Windows ME. Then Whistler (Windows XP). Each one came with its own set of conniptions. Some things became better. Others became worse. Many items have shifted from place to place, from the Control Panel to Explorer to the Desktop Menu in a dizzying circle. People can't find things because they have been shifted around so much.
In particular for Windows XP, I find that the Find utility has been dumbed down and is no longer as valuable. I had to download Effective File Search to get an adequate search replacement for Windows Find, which I find sometimes does not find when it should. Windows insists on throwing up these dumb huge icons in its Explorer windows, which means I can't see the items on the list but must shift through visually through a forest of symbols. You have to explicitly set for each Explorer window whether to bigicon the files or to list them in a detailed list. In one version I have seen, deleting a tray icon deleted a desktop icon and vice versa. That I don't like. It means I either have to give up my desktop's usefulness, or I have to give up the taskbar.
So what would I like to see in a new version of Windows? I want to see DOS maintained and all DOS programs runnable. I want a Find and an Explorer similar to previous versions, not to XP. I want the Classic interface to return as the default. Luna means you can't find what you are looking for. I want the default for Explorer to be to include the file extension. That is an important part of the file name. MyData.txt is different from MyData.doc is different from MyData.csv is different from MyData.xls. I don't want all four of them to appear in a list entitled "Mydata". That is mass confusion. Most of all I want it to support all types of programs including standard Java. I don't want .NET and only .NET, which is where Microsoft seems to be headed.
But I don't know if I will get these items. Most likely I will get an operating system that will discombobulate much of what I have, and will cost me more frustration and time than having to put up with the signs of aging of an older interface would.
The history of computers over the past decade or so has been a history of version after version of Microsoft Windows coming out. There was Chicago (Windows 95), and then Memphis (Windows 98?) and Cairo (Windows 2000) and Windows ME. Then Whistler (Windows XP). Each one came with its own set of conniptions. Some things became better. Others became worse. Many items have shifted from place to place, from the Control Panel to Explorer to the Desktop Menu in a dizzying circle. People can't find things because they have been shifted around so much.
In particular for Windows XP, I find that the Find utility has been dumbed down and is no longer as valuable. I had to download Effective File Search to get an adequate search replacement for Windows Find, which I find sometimes does not find when it should. Windows insists on throwing up these dumb huge icons in its Explorer windows, which means I can't see the items on the list but must shift through visually through a forest of symbols. You have to explicitly set for each Explorer window whether to bigicon the files or to list them in a detailed list. In one version I have seen, deleting a tray icon deleted a desktop icon and vice versa. That I don't like. It means I either have to give up my desktop's usefulness, or I have to give up the taskbar.
So what would I like to see in a new version of Windows? I want to see DOS maintained and all DOS programs runnable. I want a Find and an Explorer similar to previous versions, not to XP. I want the Classic interface to return as the default. Luna means you can't find what you are looking for. I want the default for Explorer to be to include the file extension. That is an important part of the file name. MyData.txt is different from MyData.doc is different from MyData.csv is different from MyData.xls. I don't want all four of them to appear in a list entitled "Mydata". That is mass confusion. Most of all I want it to support all types of programs including standard Java. I don't want .NET and only .NET, which is where Microsoft seems to be headed.
But I don't know if I will get these items. Most likely I will get an operating system that will discombobulate much of what I have, and will cost me more frustration and time than having to put up with the signs of aging of an older interface would.
Chesterfield County elections
An important election is that of Bermuda District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, USA, supervisor. This supervisor is one of a board of five supervisors, one for each of the districts in Chesterfield County. There are three candidates: an incumbent independent Jack McHale, a Democrat Ree Hart, and a Republican Dickie King. So which of these am I going to vote for?
National affiliation. That an Independent is the incumbent is a wonder to behold. That is in Jack McHale's favor. He's been at the job for 12 years! I tend to favor Democrats over Republicans but I take each case separately. Nevertheless this would have me favoring Ree Hart over Dickie King.
Developers. This is a serious issue. The developers come in here, plow down our trees, removing our landscape's beauty and destroying the habitat for a number of species, build houses and sell them via realtors to people who clog the highways with children who crowd the schools. The politicians talk about school problems. They talk about highway needs. No. That's not the main point. Both of these problems will be resolved if the developers are kept in check. Which candidate is best for doing that? Well, since I have seen all sorts of development here, that disfavors McHale, the incumbent.
Schools. Jack McHale has voted to decrease property taxes, and this supposedly hurts the schools. Only if the politicians let it. They can decrease property taxes and increase them somewhere else or cut back on other budget items. Further, the main problem is not taxes or schools but developers.
Roads. There are several needs for roads in the county, and traffic jams are on the increase. Limiting development is the best way to deal with road problems.
But the biggest issue for me is the refusal by the board to allow Cyndi Simpson, a Wiccan, to give invocations to the Board of Directors, while allowing Christian and Muslim religious leaders to give invocations. I want to vote for a candidate that will allow her to give invocations. Apparently Jack McHale has not been with the rest of the board on this. When I asked Ree Hart about it, she was wishy-washy about it and said she was Christian. So I am not certain about her. Dickie King appanretly thinks the Board is a private club for whom the invocations serve only it, not the rest of the community. Mr. King, the Board is a public institution. There is no privacy on the board. If you let a Christian give an invocation, you must let Ms. Simpson give one too. As far as I am concerned, Dickie King is out.
That leaves Jack McHale and Ree Hart. I feel that Dickie King's stand on the invocation issue is so extreme that the first priority is to defeat him. That means choosing which of Ree and Jack is most likely to win. From what I hear, Ree is. So I may vote for her. But in truth, this is a difficult decision to make between these two. I am sure either is capable of serving us well.
An important election is that of Bermuda District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, USA, supervisor. This supervisor is one of a board of five supervisors, one for each of the districts in Chesterfield County. There are three candidates: an incumbent independent Jack McHale, a Democrat Ree Hart, and a Republican Dickie King. So which of these am I going to vote for?
National affiliation. That an Independent is the incumbent is a wonder to behold. That is in Jack McHale's favor. He's been at the job for 12 years! I tend to favor Democrats over Republicans but I take each case separately. Nevertheless this would have me favoring Ree Hart over Dickie King.
Developers. This is a serious issue. The developers come in here, plow down our trees, removing our landscape's beauty and destroying the habitat for a number of species, build houses and sell them via realtors to people who clog the highways with children who crowd the schools. The politicians talk about school problems. They talk about highway needs. No. That's not the main point. Both of these problems will be resolved if the developers are kept in check. Which candidate is best for doing that? Well, since I have seen all sorts of development here, that disfavors McHale, the incumbent.
Schools. Jack McHale has voted to decrease property taxes, and this supposedly hurts the schools. Only if the politicians let it. They can decrease property taxes and increase them somewhere else or cut back on other budget items. Further, the main problem is not taxes or schools but developers.
Roads. There are several needs for roads in the county, and traffic jams are on the increase. Limiting development is the best way to deal with road problems.
But the biggest issue for me is the refusal by the board to allow Cyndi Simpson, a Wiccan, to give invocations to the Board of Directors, while allowing Christian and Muslim religious leaders to give invocations. I want to vote for a candidate that will allow her to give invocations. Apparently Jack McHale has not been with the rest of the board on this. When I asked Ree Hart about it, she was wishy-washy about it and said she was Christian. So I am not certain about her. Dickie King appanretly thinks the Board is a private club for whom the invocations serve only it, not the rest of the community. Mr. King, the Board is a public institution. There is no privacy on the board. If you let a Christian give an invocation, you must let Ms. Simpson give one too. As far as I am concerned, Dickie King is out.
That leaves Jack McHale and Ree Hart. I feel that Dickie King's stand on the invocation issue is so extreme that the first priority is to defeat him. That means choosing which of Ree and Jack is most likely to win. From what I hear, Ree is. So I may vote for her. But in truth, this is a difficult decision to make between these two. I am sure either is capable of serving us well.
2003/10/22
Rock Paper Scissors
Yesterday (2003 Oct 21) in Aaron Brown's Morning Papers, Aaron presented the Detroit Free Press with a story about the game Stone Paper Scissors. This I remembver well from childhood. Some other boy taught it to me. You put out your hand in the form of a stone, paper, or scissors, and the rule is that stone smashes scissors cuts paper covers stone. I played it a few times but did not think much of it.
Later on, when I was a teenager reading about game theory, I encountered the game in the classic book The Compleat Strategyst, by JD Williams. In the book JD shows how the "three active strategies" method leads to the optimal strategy of selecting each turn completely at random, with 1/3 odds on each of scissors, paper, and stone.
JD also showed some other games that are from the scissors-paper-stone family. These games are characterized by each of two players selecting an object from a set S (with replacement), at the same time without knowledge of what the other player is doing. If they select the same element, the game is a draw. If they select different elements, there is a relation > such that for each pair of elements from S, s and t, either s > t or t > s; one of them "beats" the other. JD describes another form of scissors-paper-stone by adding glass and water to S, and they describe a 7-element example in the form of two medieval damsels who each choose a knight from a set of knights and have these two knights joust with each other.
What is unusual about the article is that it describes the Rock-Paper-Scissors society, which had a recent meeting in the Detroit area. Another article appeared in a Fort Worth newspaper. (this link may go dead in a few days). I can't see how so many people can form an organization about a game whose solution was solved decades ago. How many ways are there of choosing at random an element out of a 3-element set? What I would want to do is to form a theory about all such games. I did some research on some of these, such as variations of the Stratego game (1 beats 2 beats… beats 9 beats spy beats 1, a part of a board game Stratego that was popular a number of years ago) and simple extensions of Rock-paper-scissors, for example, add a hammer and say that scissors cuts a hammer's head off, paper covers a hammer but a hammer smashes a stone to bits. If you solve the game, you get exactly the same strategy as with scissors-paper-stone: pick one of these three randomly and ignore the hammer.
Despite the devotion of some of these people to a game that has been settled years ago, at least in a game-theoretic sense, it was good to be reminded of an old childhood friend.
Yesterday (2003 Oct 21) in Aaron Brown's Morning Papers, Aaron presented the Detroit Free Press with a story about the game Stone Paper Scissors. This I remembver well from childhood. Some other boy taught it to me. You put out your hand in the form of a stone, paper, or scissors, and the rule is that stone smashes scissors cuts paper covers stone. I played it a few times but did not think much of it.
Later on, when I was a teenager reading about game theory, I encountered the game in the classic book The Compleat Strategyst, by JD Williams. In the book JD shows how the "three active strategies" method leads to the optimal strategy of selecting each turn completely at random, with 1/3 odds on each of scissors, paper, and stone.
JD also showed some other games that are from the scissors-paper-stone family. These games are characterized by each of two players selecting an object from a set S (with replacement), at the same time without knowledge of what the other player is doing. If they select the same element, the game is a draw. If they select different elements, there is a relation > such that for each pair of elements from S, s and t, either s > t or t > s; one of them "beats" the other. JD describes another form of scissors-paper-stone by adding glass and water to S, and they describe a 7-element example in the form of two medieval damsels who each choose a knight from a set of knights and have these two knights joust with each other.
What is unusual about the article is that it describes the Rock-Paper-Scissors society, which had a recent meeting in the Detroit area. Another article appeared in a Fort Worth newspaper. (this link may go dead in a few days). I can't see how so many people can form an organization about a game whose solution was solved decades ago. How many ways are there of choosing at random an element out of a 3-element set? What I would want to do is to form a theory about all such games. I did some research on some of these, such as variations of the Stratego game (1 beats 2 beats… beats 9 beats spy beats 1, a part of a board game Stratego that was popular a number of years ago) and simple extensions of Rock-paper-scissors, for example, add a hammer and say that scissors cuts a hammer's head off, paper covers a hammer but a hammer smashes a stone to bits. If you solve the game, you get exactly the same strategy as with scissors-paper-stone: pick one of these three randomly and ignore the hammer.
Despite the devotion of some of these people to a game that has been settled years ago, at least in a game-theoretic sense, it was good to be reminded of an old childhood friend.
Similarities between 2001 and 2003
Here is one of these conglomerations of coincidences that the laws of probability say must happen on occasion. The years 2001 and 2003 resemble each other a lot. Take for example:
Something catastrophic happened to the World Trade Center in September.
Something catastrophic happened to a pentagon-shaped building in September.
In 2001 the catastrophes involved 3 buildings; in 2003 the catastrophes involved 1 building.
The buildings in both years were near wide rivers, and all but one was near a harbor.
In both years there was a hurricane in the vicinity of the Northeastern US.
As with the coincidences between 1991 and 2003, especially regarding the reelection chances of President Bush, there are some notable differences as well:
The World Trade Center in 2001 was in New York; the one in 2003 was in Baltimore.
The pentagon-shaped building was the Pentagon in 2001, but was the World Trade Center in Baltimore in 2003, the world's tallest pentagon-shaped building.
The hurricane in 2001 was well off shore, while the one in 2003 hit Baltimore and in fact caused the catastrophe.
And the important one: The catastrophe (Planeattack) was caused by humans in 2001, and was caused by Nature (Hurricane Isabel) in 2003.
The World Trade Center in Baltimore was flooded up to 16 feet and forced to close for over a month; it just reopened today. The hurricane in 2001 was Hurricane Erin.
Here is one of these conglomerations of coincidences that the laws of probability say must happen on occasion. The years 2001 and 2003 resemble each other a lot. Take for example:
Something catastrophic happened to the World Trade Center in September.
Something catastrophic happened to a pentagon-shaped building in September.
In 2001 the catastrophes involved 3 buildings; in 2003 the catastrophes involved 1 building.
The buildings in both years were near wide rivers, and all but one was near a harbor.
In both years there was a hurricane in the vicinity of the Northeastern US.
As with the coincidences between 1991 and 2003, especially regarding the reelection chances of President Bush, there are some notable differences as well:
The World Trade Center in 2001 was in New York; the one in 2003 was in Baltimore.
The pentagon-shaped building was the Pentagon in 2001, but was the World Trade Center in Baltimore in 2003, the world's tallest pentagon-shaped building.
The hurricane in 2001 was well off shore, while the one in 2003 hit Baltimore and in fact caused the catastrophe.
And the important one: The catastrophe (Planeattack) was caused by humans in 2001, and was caused by Nature (Hurricane Isabel) in 2003.
The World Trade Center in Baltimore was flooded up to 16 feet and forced to close for over a month; it just reopened today. The hurricane in 2001 was Hurricane Erin.
2003/10/15
Borderline Plays
The post-season baseball play is starting to become interesting. The Chicago Cubs have not won a World Series since 1945, and the Boston Red Sox have not won any since 1922. Further, I was near Chicago, studying for my doctorate in mathematics, in 1969 when the Cubs led most of the way, only to falter to the Mets near the end of the season. So I started looking at the games. To me the most interesting plays are the borderline plays.
These are plays that are close to the borderline to being other plays. An example of what I mean is a batted ball that bounces just along the left foul line and stays fair. This could be a single. Just a little bit, an epsilon (mathematicians use this Greek letter to denote a small quantity) to the left and it's a foul ball. A single and a foul ball have vastly different effects on the game. So this is a borderline play. In this case the border is physical: the foul line. On the other hand, a long fly to center is caught by the center fielder. If it veers in any direction about a foot way from this, the center fielder would still catch it. So this play is "in the middle", and is not a borderline play.
There have been several borderline plays in the pennant playoffs. One Yankee hit a long fly ball that was caught at the fence by one of the outfielders for an out. A little epsilon higher, and this Yankee would have had a home run. In another case, with bases loaded and one out, a grounder was hit to the shortstop, who threw to second baseman, who threw to first. The throw to second resulted in an out, but the throw to first was just a microsecond too late. A run scored, nearly tying the game.
The biggest one happened though on the night of 2003 October 14. The first batter flied out, and the second (Pierre) doubled. Castillo hit a foul ball right on the boundary of the stands. Into the stands, and it's a foul ball, a strike. Within the ballpark, if fielder Alou could catch it, it's an out. Alou just barely made the catch, only to have a fan strike the ball and deflect it away. The result was an eight-run Marlin outburst. Here is the play by play:
Flyout 000 (0) 1
Double Juan Pierre 010 (0) 1
controversial foul ball deflected by fan
Castillo walk 110 (0) 1
Wild pitch advances Pierre 101 (0) 1
Rodriguez singled in run 110 (1) 1
Cabrera grounder errored by Gonzalez 111 (1) 1
Derrek Lee double scores two 011 (3) 1
Lowell walk intentional 111(3) 1
Conine sacrifice fly 011 (4) 2
Hollinsworth intentional walk 111 (4) 2
Double Mordecai scores all the runners 010 (7) 2
Pierre single scores Mordecai 100 (8) 2
Castillo popped out 100 (8)
My notation 010 (1) 2, for example, means no runner on first, a runner on second, no runner on third, one run scored in the inning, and two out. Now what would have happened had Alou caught Castillo's ball?
Flyout 000 (0) 1
Double Juan Pierre 010 (0) 1
Castillo fouls out to Alou 010(0)2
Wild pitch advances Pierre 001 (0) 2
Rodriguez singled in run 100 (1) 2
Cabrera grounder errored by Gonzalez 110 (1) 2
Derrek Lee double scores one 110 (2) 2
Lowell walk intentional 111(2) 2
Conine flyout ends inning 111 (2) 3
Now the Marlins score only two runs, and quite likely the Cubs would have won the game. But is that so? How do we know the Marlins would then be scoreless in the ninth and the Cubs in the eighth? Here the butterfly effect occurs. If there are a lot of borderlines, the system becomes unstable and unpredictable. The stepping on a butterfly in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas. For that matter, would Lowell have been walked if the fan had not interfered? With runners on first and second, two out, there is a play at any plate. What advantage is there in getting one at home, too? If Lowell had been pitched to, then maybe he would have hit and scored runners, and the Marlins would have won anyway.
So if you tiptoe over the borderline, the whole universe goes awry and may not seem what you think. In particular, it is not necessarily true that the fan's interference with the ball lost the Series for the Cubs.
The post-season baseball play is starting to become interesting. The Chicago Cubs have not won a World Series since 1945, and the Boston Red Sox have not won any since 1922. Further, I was near Chicago, studying for my doctorate in mathematics, in 1969 when the Cubs led most of the way, only to falter to the Mets near the end of the season. So I started looking at the games. To me the most interesting plays are the borderline plays.
These are plays that are close to the borderline to being other plays. An example of what I mean is a batted ball that bounces just along the left foul line and stays fair. This could be a single. Just a little bit, an epsilon (mathematicians use this Greek letter to denote a small quantity) to the left and it's a foul ball. A single and a foul ball have vastly different effects on the game. So this is a borderline play. In this case the border is physical: the foul line. On the other hand, a long fly to center is caught by the center fielder. If it veers in any direction about a foot way from this, the center fielder would still catch it. So this play is "in the middle", and is not a borderline play.
There have been several borderline plays in the pennant playoffs. One Yankee hit a long fly ball that was caught at the fence by one of the outfielders for an out. A little epsilon higher, and this Yankee would have had a home run. In another case, with bases loaded and one out, a grounder was hit to the shortstop, who threw to second baseman, who threw to first. The throw to second resulted in an out, but the throw to first was just a microsecond too late. A run scored, nearly tying the game.
The biggest one happened though on the night of 2003 October 14. The first batter flied out, and the second (Pierre) doubled. Castillo hit a foul ball right on the boundary of the stands. Into the stands, and it's a foul ball, a strike. Within the ballpark, if fielder Alou could catch it, it's an out. Alou just barely made the catch, only to have a fan strike the ball and deflect it away. The result was an eight-run Marlin outburst. Here is the play by play:
Flyout 000 (0) 1
Double Juan Pierre 010 (0) 1
controversial foul ball deflected by fan
Castillo walk 110 (0) 1
Wild pitch advances Pierre 101 (0) 1
Rodriguez singled in run 110 (1) 1
Cabrera grounder errored by Gonzalez 111 (1) 1
Derrek Lee double scores two 011 (3) 1
Lowell walk intentional 111(3) 1
Conine sacrifice fly 011 (4) 2
Hollinsworth intentional walk 111 (4) 2
Double Mordecai scores all the runners 010 (7) 2
Pierre single scores Mordecai 100 (8) 2
Castillo popped out 100 (8)
My notation 010 (1) 2, for example, means no runner on first, a runner on second, no runner on third, one run scored in the inning, and two out. Now what would have happened had Alou caught Castillo's ball?
Flyout 000 (0) 1
Double Juan Pierre 010 (0) 1
Castillo fouls out to Alou 010(0)2
Wild pitch advances Pierre 001 (0) 2
Rodriguez singled in run 100 (1) 2
Cabrera grounder errored by Gonzalez 110 (1) 2
Derrek Lee double scores one 110 (2) 2
Lowell walk intentional 111(2) 2
Conine flyout ends inning 111 (2) 3
Now the Marlins score only two runs, and quite likely the Cubs would have won the game. But is that so? How do we know the Marlins would then be scoreless in the ninth and the Cubs in the eighth? Here the butterfly effect occurs. If there are a lot of borderlines, the system becomes unstable and unpredictable. The stepping on a butterfly in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas. For that matter, would Lowell have been walked if the fan had not interfered? With runners on first and second, two out, there is a play at any plate. What advantage is there in getting one at home, too? If Lowell had been pitched to, then maybe he would have hit and scored runners, and the Marlins would have won anyway.
So if you tiptoe over the borderline, the whole universe goes awry and may not seem what you think. In particular, it is not necessarily true that the fan's interference with the ball lost the Series for the Cubs.
The Nine Dwarfs
I recently heard a debate among the nine Democratic challengers to George Bush for the Presidency in 2004. My opinion is that any of these candidates would make a good replacement for Bush for 2005-2008 and therefore my vote will go for any of these if they are nominated. I wanted to see which ones I liked best, though. I prefer a candidate who will get us out of Iraq and who opposed the war in the first place. However, all of these candidates opposed the invasion. That makes it hard to choose. After some deliberation, here is what I came up with, based on this debate only:
Carol Moseley-Brown: Good candidate, who seems to have some caring and personable characteristics, as well as having a solid platform. I give her a B.
Al Sharpton: Like his name. A sharp candidate, asking if Judy Woodruff is costing him time. Needs to have some ability to manange and lead a governmental body. C+.
Gen. Wesley Clark. Opposed the war in Iraq and has stands similar to the other Democrats. I would have liked to have seen him run as a Republican and challenge Bush for the nomination. This could have toppled Lichtman Key 2, improving chances of a Democrat winning the presidency. He may have charisma; if so, his nomination would topple Key 13. However, I felt his performance this night was somewhat lackluster. B
John Kerry. Generally good performance, agreeing with the others. B
Howard Dean. Somewhat disappointing. He definitely does not have charisma; his more liberal views attracted people to his meetups earlier. He got into an argument with Kucinich in which he said that we need to hold our troops in Iraq until they can handle themselves. Not what I would like to hear, but it's sad to say that we may have to do just that. B
Dennis Kucinich. Looks like a scrappy youngster, with two bright ideas. One is to pull all the troops home now from Iraq. OK if the US really needs them here, but we don't want an Islamic republic to be set up there. His other idea is really interesting: a Department of Peace. That would give the US a more congenial view to the world and help dispel some of the hatred that people have for Americans. However, absolutely no military can come into such a department, lest it becomes a 1984ian Ministry of Peace in a future Orwellian administration. A
Dick Gephardt. Performed much better than I expected. At one time he was able to rattle off a complete program for his presidency. He had good answers to most of the questions and to many of the statements of the other candidates. He is older than the other candidates, and I think the extra experience may be having an effect. A
John Edwards. I can see where he gets his charisma. But he seems to have a scrappy boy face, something that I did not like about either Don Beyer or George Allen in Virginia - but I voted against both of these for other reasons. His program is much like the others, and he had a few good answers once in a while. But he does not distinguish from the other candidates. B
Joe Lieberman. Another surprise. Much better than I expected. He reminds me of a history professor in both his appearance and manner. I liked his statement that any of the other 8 would make a good candidate against George Bush. He is somewhat more conservative than the other candidates, and I fear he may go in a Bush-like direction if elected, but in general I regard him highly. B+
In reviewing my reviews, I find that I am attracted to the older candidates - Gephardt and Lieberman. This may reflect my preference for the compromising Silent Generation (1925-1942) over the more strident Boomer generation (1943-1960). My feeling is that there is a crisis in the near future, that these two candidates would better handle it than any of the others.
Which one has the best chance against Bush? Probably Wesley Clark, but only if he is charismatic. The Lichtman Key model tells me that this is the only characteristic that matters in a challenging candidate. So my favorite candidates right now are Clark, Dean, Kucinich, and Gephardt, in about that order.
I recently heard a debate among the nine Democratic challengers to George Bush for the Presidency in 2004. My opinion is that any of these candidates would make a good replacement for Bush for 2005-2008 and therefore my vote will go for any of these if they are nominated. I wanted to see which ones I liked best, though. I prefer a candidate who will get us out of Iraq and who opposed the war in the first place. However, all of these candidates opposed the invasion. That makes it hard to choose. After some deliberation, here is what I came up with, based on this debate only:
Carol Moseley-Brown: Good candidate, who seems to have some caring and personable characteristics, as well as having a solid platform. I give her a B.
Al Sharpton: Like his name. A sharp candidate, asking if Judy Woodruff is costing him time. Needs to have some ability to manange and lead a governmental body. C+.
Gen. Wesley Clark. Opposed the war in Iraq and has stands similar to the other Democrats. I would have liked to have seen him run as a Republican and challenge Bush for the nomination. This could have toppled Lichtman Key 2, improving chances of a Democrat winning the presidency. He may have charisma; if so, his nomination would topple Key 13. However, I felt his performance this night was somewhat lackluster. B
John Kerry. Generally good performance, agreeing with the others. B
Howard Dean. Somewhat disappointing. He definitely does not have charisma; his more liberal views attracted people to his meetups earlier. He got into an argument with Kucinich in which he said that we need to hold our troops in Iraq until they can handle themselves. Not what I would like to hear, but it's sad to say that we may have to do just that. B
Dennis Kucinich. Looks like a scrappy youngster, with two bright ideas. One is to pull all the troops home now from Iraq. OK if the US really needs them here, but we don't want an Islamic republic to be set up there. His other idea is really interesting: a Department of Peace. That would give the US a more congenial view to the world and help dispel some of the hatred that people have for Americans. However, absolutely no military can come into such a department, lest it becomes a 1984ian Ministry of Peace in a future Orwellian administration. A
Dick Gephardt. Performed much better than I expected. At one time he was able to rattle off a complete program for his presidency. He had good answers to most of the questions and to many of the statements of the other candidates. He is older than the other candidates, and I think the extra experience may be having an effect. A
John Edwards. I can see where he gets his charisma. But he seems to have a scrappy boy face, something that I did not like about either Don Beyer or George Allen in Virginia - but I voted against both of these for other reasons. His program is much like the others, and he had a few good answers once in a while. But he does not distinguish from the other candidates. B
Joe Lieberman. Another surprise. Much better than I expected. He reminds me of a history professor in both his appearance and manner. I liked his statement that any of the other 8 would make a good candidate against George Bush. He is somewhat more conservative than the other candidates, and I fear he may go in a Bush-like direction if elected, but in general I regard him highly. B+
In reviewing my reviews, I find that I am attracted to the older candidates - Gephardt and Lieberman. This may reflect my preference for the compromising Silent Generation (1925-1942) over the more strident Boomer generation (1943-1960). My feeling is that there is a crisis in the near future, that these two candidates would better handle it than any of the others.
Which one has the best chance against Bush? Probably Wesley Clark, but only if he is charismatic. The Lichtman Key model tells me that this is the only characteristic that matters in a challenging candidate. So my favorite candidates right now are Clark, Dean, Kucinich, and Gephardt, in about that order.
2003/10/14
Pledge of Allegiance to be Heard
Today the Supreme Court of the United States decided to hear the case of the California doctor who did not want her child to hear the Pledge of Allegiance at her school because it contained the words under God. This case came to light around 2002 June, when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled that the doctor was correct: the Pledge in school is unconstitutional because it says under God.
It is official policy in this country, codified in the First Amendment, that church and state are to be kept separate. One of the reasons is that religious beliefs are not provable and thus are subject to utterance as decrees by the government in which ever way the government feels. For this reason, Islamic states don't work very well. Our country does not have a religion, contrary to what many on the Religious Right think. Besides, espousing a religion constitutes a form of discrimination against those with other religious beliefs. Assuming the existence of God in a public place makes atheists and agnostics into second-class citizens, as though they somehow don't belong. This is not the American way, as was demonstrated when Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of a bus.
So this is one ruling that should be supported by the Court. I did not have hope that the Court will support the 9th Circuit Court, but a piece of good news did come out today. Justice Antonin Scalia took himself out of the decision citing a conflict of interest. This makes a tie possible, and a tie upholds the 9th's decision. So to defeat the 9th requires 5 justices out of 8 - only 4 are needed to support it. So there is some hope that 4 justices will see the light and choose to support the ruling.
As far as the pledge itself? It does very well without "under God"; that was the original pledge. Or consider this version, which corresponds more with my personal philosophy of "Just add one.":
I pledge allegiance to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands:
One nation, beyond God, indivisible,
With liberty and justice for all.
Even better is this one by the singing group Relative Viewpoint:
I pledge allegiance to the people of this country
And of all the world
And to the republic which lends a hand.
One planet under peace,
With liberty and Justice for all.
Today the Supreme Court of the United States decided to hear the case of the California doctor who did not want her child to hear the Pledge of Allegiance at her school because it contained the words under God. This case came to light around 2002 June, when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled that the doctor was correct: the Pledge in school is unconstitutional because it says under God.
It is official policy in this country, codified in the First Amendment, that church and state are to be kept separate. One of the reasons is that religious beliefs are not provable and thus are subject to utterance as decrees by the government in which ever way the government feels. For this reason, Islamic states don't work very well. Our country does not have a religion, contrary to what many on the Religious Right think. Besides, espousing a religion constitutes a form of discrimination against those with other religious beliefs. Assuming the existence of God in a public place makes atheists and agnostics into second-class citizens, as though they somehow don't belong. This is not the American way, as was demonstrated when Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of a bus.
So this is one ruling that should be supported by the Court. I did not have hope that the Court will support the 9th Circuit Court, but a piece of good news did come out today. Justice Antonin Scalia took himself out of the decision citing a conflict of interest. This makes a tie possible, and a tie upholds the 9th's decision. So to defeat the 9th requires 5 justices out of 8 - only 4 are needed to support it. So there is some hope that 4 justices will see the light and choose to support the ruling.
As far as the pledge itself? It does very well without "under God"; that was the original pledge. Or consider this version, which corresponds more with my personal philosophy of "Just add one.":
I pledge allegiance to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands:
One nation, beyond God, indivisible,
With liberty and justice for all.
Even better is this one by the singing group Relative Viewpoint:
I pledge allegiance to the people of this country
And of all the world
And to the republic which lends a hand.
One planet under peace,
With liberty and Justice for all.
2003/10/08
Enforcing a contradiction
I am fortunate to have a workplace near a small national park. Therefore, I run at lunch hour into the park, something I have been doing since the late 1970s. I notice that recently they have been closing trails due to water damage, ice storms, and the like and I notice that when they do that they often do it inconsistently. That is, they will put up a sign saying that it is prohibited to enter that trail, but it will still be possible to get to the other side of that sign by other ways that have not been signed. My feeling is that I should not cross such a sign or tape from the outside to the inside, but there is nothing wrong with going the other way, from inside the "forbidden" area to outside. Indeed, if I can do this, there is something wrong with the signs. They are not consistent. If they are going to bar certain trails to the public, then they should do so everywhere and consistently, so that the only way to cross a sign from behind is to have crossed a sign from in front, defying its wording.
Isabel uprooted hundreds of trees in the park, so they closed most of the trails. But I notice that there is one way to enter the park without encountering a sign or tape, in such a way that the signs are inconsistent. But I found out that not only did they put the signs up inconsistently this time, but they are also enforcing it by having a ranger at some of the places. Yesterday, I ran into the park through a trail that had no signs on it. Someone in a truck stopped me and said it is open, but look out for the workmen fixing things up. I turned left towards the main road of the park, which was open. Today I ran to the same spot but turned right, towards the part that was taped off. There the officer was, asking me if I parked there, and telling me that I should be heeding the yellow tape. I told him that I saw no such signs or tape when I entered the park. I don't know if he got the message.
For inconsistent signs make me feel uneasy. The reason is that the sign that prohibits tell me that -T, where T is the statement that I may enter the park at that point, and that nothing at all tells me I can enter, which is T. This means they are enforcing T and -T, which is a contradiction. A contradiction implies any statement, so this implies that they can enforce any law or rule, even one that they dream up on the spot. That is Gestapo or 1984 law - a law of men rather than of words. They should put up signs that prohibit entering the area at all possible places, or they should tear them all down. But don't enforce a contradiction.
I am fortunate to have a workplace near a small national park. Therefore, I run at lunch hour into the park, something I have been doing since the late 1970s. I notice that recently they have been closing trails due to water damage, ice storms, and the like and I notice that when they do that they often do it inconsistently. That is, they will put up a sign saying that it is prohibited to enter that trail, but it will still be possible to get to the other side of that sign by other ways that have not been signed. My feeling is that I should not cross such a sign or tape from the outside to the inside, but there is nothing wrong with going the other way, from inside the "forbidden" area to outside. Indeed, if I can do this, there is something wrong with the signs. They are not consistent. If they are going to bar certain trails to the public, then they should do so everywhere and consistently, so that the only way to cross a sign from behind is to have crossed a sign from in front, defying its wording.
Isabel uprooted hundreds of trees in the park, so they closed most of the trails. But I notice that there is one way to enter the park without encountering a sign or tape, in such a way that the signs are inconsistent. But I found out that not only did they put the signs up inconsistently this time, but they are also enforcing it by having a ranger at some of the places. Yesterday, I ran into the park through a trail that had no signs on it. Someone in a truck stopped me and said it is open, but look out for the workmen fixing things up. I turned left towards the main road of the park, which was open. Today I ran to the same spot but turned right, towards the part that was taped off. There the officer was, asking me if I parked there, and telling me that I should be heeding the yellow tape. I told him that I saw no such signs or tape when I entered the park. I don't know if he got the message.
For inconsistent signs make me feel uneasy. The reason is that the sign that prohibits tell me that -T, where T is the statement that I may enter the park at that point, and that nothing at all tells me I can enter, which is T. This means they are enforcing T and -T, which is a contradiction. A contradiction implies any statement, so this implies that they can enforce any law or rule, even one that they dream up on the spot. That is Gestapo or 1984 law - a law of men rather than of words. They should put up signs that prohibit entering the area at all possible places, or they should tear them all down. But don't enforce a contradiction.
Globalization is a bad name
I hear that "globalization" of the world economy, and the enforcement of a free market, hurts poor people and countries, because all the goods go to the rich. There are protestors whenever globalization meetings meet, in Seattle, in Europe and other places. For a while I did not understand this. These people are apparently against freedom. Why should we oppose a free market? Then I read that globalization is not globalization after all. When "globalization" is used without adjectives, it means ALL globalization, or global globalization. However, the anti-globalization literature make it clear that they oppose it because the corporations benefit. If so, then it should be called "corporate globalization". If it is expressed in this manner, then yes I am opposed to it because I believe in freedom for all, not just corporations and their leaders. So don't say "globalization". Say "corporate globalization".
I hear that "globalization" of the world economy, and the enforcement of a free market, hurts poor people and countries, because all the goods go to the rich. There are protestors whenever globalization meetings meet, in Seattle, in Europe and other places. For a while I did not understand this. These people are apparently against freedom. Why should we oppose a free market? Then I read that globalization is not globalization after all. When "globalization" is used without adjectives, it means ALL globalization, or global globalization. However, the anti-globalization literature make it clear that they oppose it because the corporations benefit. If so, then it should be called "corporate globalization". If it is expressed in this manner, then yes I am opposed to it because I believe in freedom for all, not just corporations and their leaders. So don't say "globalization". Say "corporate globalization".
2003/10/05
Transgender Hurricane
I have been looking at the hurricane map to see if any more storms threaten our neck of the woods. Juan formed but then went north to hit Nova Scotia. Kate formed; she headed north, then northeast, then back to the southwest, and now west. She is heading first for Bermuda and then for the Carolinas. But the weather forecasters say this big beautiful too cold for this time of the year air mass over us is going to block Kate and make her go north, about now. So we don't have to worry about her.
Then there's Larry. He formed deep in the Gulf of Mexico near Honduras, and has been sitting there the past few days. Then they said he was going to cross to the south and get out into the Pacific, where it will climb up the coast as a Pacific hurricane. This means supposedly that he gets a new name, since the Pacific has their own system of hurricane names. Hurricanes have changed names before. Fifi changed her name to Orlene after causing thousands of deaths in Honduras. That was back when they named all hurricanes after women. Himmicanes did not come into existence until 1979. But when they did, that brought up the possibility that a hurricane will undergo a sex change. The latest attempt at this was Himmicane Cesar in 1996, which was going to become Chantal or something like that when he crossed Central America. But some other storm became Chantal instead, and so Cesar merely changed his name to Douglas. But now Larry wants to get into the Pacific. If so, the latest tropical storm in the Pacific is Olaf, near Cabo San Lucas. The next name is Patricia. So will Larry become Patricia? Will a tropical storm change gender? Is Larry transgender?
Then I read in the 12 noon hurricane report that if Larry retains tropical storm strength as he crosses Central America, he will retain the name of Larry in the Pacific, but if he dissipates (I suppose become depression or lower), then regains strength as a tropical storm in the Pacific, then it becomes Patricia, provided another storm hasn't appeared first in the Pacific. Besides, the latest predictions call for Larry to dissipate and stay dissipated. That's that with transgender hurricanes; apparently it won't happen.
I have been looking at the hurricane map to see if any more storms threaten our neck of the woods. Juan formed but then went north to hit Nova Scotia. Kate formed; she headed north, then northeast, then back to the southwest, and now west. She is heading first for Bermuda and then for the Carolinas. But the weather forecasters say this big beautiful too cold for this time of the year air mass over us is going to block Kate and make her go north, about now. So we don't have to worry about her.
Then there's Larry. He formed deep in the Gulf of Mexico near Honduras, and has been sitting there the past few days. Then they said he was going to cross to the south and get out into the Pacific, where it will climb up the coast as a Pacific hurricane. This means supposedly that he gets a new name, since the Pacific has their own system of hurricane names. Hurricanes have changed names before. Fifi changed her name to Orlene after causing thousands of deaths in Honduras. That was back when they named all hurricanes after women. Himmicanes did not come into existence until 1979. But when they did, that brought up the possibility that a hurricane will undergo a sex change. The latest attempt at this was Himmicane Cesar in 1996, which was going to become Chantal or something like that when he crossed Central America. But some other storm became Chantal instead, and so Cesar merely changed his name to Douglas. But now Larry wants to get into the Pacific. If so, the latest tropical storm in the Pacific is Olaf, near Cabo San Lucas. The next name is Patricia. So will Larry become Patricia? Will a tropical storm change gender? Is Larry transgender?
Then I read in the 12 noon hurricane report that if Larry retains tropical storm strength as he crosses Central America, he will retain the name of Larry in the Pacific, but if he dissipates (I suppose become depression or lower), then regains strength as a tropical storm in the Pacific, then it becomes Patricia, provided another storm hasn't appeared first in the Pacific. Besides, the latest predictions call for Larry to dissipate and stay dissipated. That's that with transgender hurricanes; apparently it won't happen.
2003/10/01
C4ISR
I note that the Department of Defense has a lot of acronyms, such as DOD, TRADOC, METT-TC to name a few. I feel one of the more interesting ones is C4ISR. This acronym is actually growing over the years as if it were a tree! Maybe some of the reason for its growth is that it refers to the most abstruse area of the military: electronics and technology. Initially it was a simple, humble C2. That stood for Command and Control. But then people saw that intelligence was part of this. So now it was C2I. Then computers came along and became an essential part of Army technology. So then it became C3I. And then it was C4I and now C4ISR, which stands for command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. I hunted for acronyms that begin with C4I and found a whole bunch including Ts for Targeting or Technology, EW for Electronic Warfare, and I for Information. So I combined these together to form the acronym C3I3T2SCREW, which stands for command, control, communications, information, intelligence, Internet, technology, targeting, surveillance, computers, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare. I can just imagine a military unit having a C3I3T2SCREW officer. A what kind of officer?
Another possible acronym is CITRICC CITIES, which omits the W in warfare. That suggests where centers of CITRICC CITIES for the military should be - in places like Naranja, Florida (naranja is Spanish for orange, a citrus fruit). In any case I expect the acronym to continue to grow. It may grow to C6I6T4G3BRAVONEWSTATUS by 2100, at which point they may decide the acronym right there and go back to the old command and control (C2).
I note that the Department of Defense has a lot of acronyms, such as DOD, TRADOC, METT-TC to name a few. I feel one of the more interesting ones is C4ISR. This acronym is actually growing over the years as if it were a tree! Maybe some of the reason for its growth is that it refers to the most abstruse area of the military: electronics and technology. Initially it was a simple, humble C2. That stood for Command and Control. But then people saw that intelligence was part of this. So now it was C2I. Then computers came along and became an essential part of Army technology. So then it became C3I. And then it was C4I and now C4ISR, which stands for command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. I hunted for acronyms that begin with C4I and found a whole bunch including Ts for Targeting or Technology, EW for Electronic Warfare, and I for Information. So I combined these together to form the acronym C3I3T2SCREW, which stands for command, control, communications, information, intelligence, Internet, technology, targeting, surveillance, computers, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare. I can just imagine a military unit having a C3I3T2SCREW officer. A what kind of officer?
Another possible acronym is CITRICC CITIES, which omits the W in warfare. That suggests where centers of CITRICC CITIES for the military should be - in places like Naranja, Florida (naranja is Spanish for orange, a citrus fruit). In any case I expect the acronym to continue to grow. It may grow to C6I6T4G3BRAVONEWSTATUS by 2100, at which point they may decide the acronym right there and go back to the old command and control (C2).
2003/09/30
2003: The weird year
This has got to be one of the weirdest years of my life. It's even weirder than 2000 was (see the link). Aren't the weirdness and trust, both public and private, related? You expect something to happen, and instead something else happens. If "it" were a person instead, then you would expect the person to do something, and instead he does something else or doesn't do it. That leads to mistrust. You can't mistrust natural things such as hurricanes, so I am not sure of the term here. In any case it makes you feel more insecure. But it also gives an excuse to do weird things, doesn't it? After all, if the rest of the world is weird, why not be weird yourself. In any case, these are among the events that make this year weird for me:
1. The US makes charges that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and attacks that country and overthrows it, only to discover (so far) no weapons of mass destruction there after all.
2. I was assigned to duty at an installation operations center for a month, where I did almost nothing.
3. Hurricane Isabel came roaring through here at a weird angle.
4. The election in California. This is the intersection of the Weird State with the Weird Year, and so is doubly weird.
5. Rain and snow and cold snaps in every month in the spring, following a year of extreme drought.
6. Four famous people die recently including this year at age 100: Count Basie, George Burns, Bob Hope, and Strom Thurmond.
7. The weirdest of all. A tree leaning against another tree in our yard because of Isabel mysteriously gets chopped down. Nobody has to pay the bill, apparently.
This has got to be one of the weirdest years of my life. It's even weirder than 2000 was (see the link). Aren't the weirdness and trust, both public and private, related? You expect something to happen, and instead something else happens. If "it" were a person instead, then you would expect the person to do something, and instead he does something else or doesn't do it. That leads to mistrust. You can't mistrust natural things such as hurricanes, so I am not sure of the term here. In any case it makes you feel more insecure. But it also gives an excuse to do weird things, doesn't it? After all, if the rest of the world is weird, why not be weird yourself. In any case, these are among the events that make this year weird for me:
1. The US makes charges that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and attacks that country and overthrows it, only to discover (so far) no weapons of mass destruction there after all.
2. I was assigned to duty at an installation operations center for a month, where I did almost nothing.
3. Hurricane Isabel came roaring through here at a weird angle.
4. The election in California. This is the intersection of the Weird State with the Weird Year, and so is doubly weird.
5. Rain and snow and cold snaps in every month in the spring, following a year of extreme drought.
6. Four famous people die recently including this year at age 100: Count Basie, George Burns, Bob Hope, and Strom Thurmond.
7. The weirdest of all. A tree leaning against another tree in our yard because of Isabel mysteriously gets chopped down. Nobody has to pay the bill, apparently.
2003/09/23
Hurricane Damage: Our Fault?
Last week Hurricane Isabel breezed in to North Carolina, Virginia, and other states and caused massive power outages that may take two weeks to fix in some cases. At least this is not like Planeattack where we can say that some group of people caused it. It was a perfectly natural event; a windstorm with 40-60 mph winds that caused a lot of damage to this area. Or was it completely natural?
60 mph winds should not cause that much damage! Just how did Isabel wreak such destruction with only gale-force winds? Firstly, note that just about all damage due to Isabel was due to trees falling down on things: power lines, homes, cars, trailers. Almost none of it in central Virginia was due to direct effects of the winds. Only on the Outer Banks and surrounding areas did that occur. Second, take a look around the neighborhood. Go through the streets and go into the woods. What do you find? Trees that are all by themselves are the ones that fell. Trees that are with other trees are less likely to have fallen. If you go into the forest you find that almost all trees are intact. If there is a wide path through the woods, the path is probably impassable with fallen trees, but the forest is just as before. It is just like it was before the hurricane. It is easy to see why that is the case. Trees around other trees are not subject to the same winds as trees all by themselves, because they protect each other Trees on the edge are more likely to get knocked down by the winds, and isolated trees are even more likely.
Which brings up a human cause for the damage: the developers. The developers, it seems, don't care anything about who lives in the houses afterwards. They just want to throw up houses quick, chop down trees quick, collect their bucks, and leave isolated trees to fall during hurricanes. When building houses, developers need to either leave no trees in the yard or a continuous area of them. If they leave isolated trees, they leave bombs which later on damage the homes they build. So it is not all nature's fault. The developers had a hand in it, too.
Last week Hurricane Isabel breezed in to North Carolina, Virginia, and other states and caused massive power outages that may take two weeks to fix in some cases. At least this is not like Planeattack where we can say that some group of people caused it. It was a perfectly natural event; a windstorm with 40-60 mph winds that caused a lot of damage to this area. Or was it completely natural?
60 mph winds should not cause that much damage! Just how did Isabel wreak such destruction with only gale-force winds? Firstly, note that just about all damage due to Isabel was due to trees falling down on things: power lines, homes, cars, trailers. Almost none of it in central Virginia was due to direct effects of the winds. Only on the Outer Banks and surrounding areas did that occur. Second, take a look around the neighborhood. Go through the streets and go into the woods. What do you find? Trees that are all by themselves are the ones that fell. Trees that are with other trees are less likely to have fallen. If you go into the forest you find that almost all trees are intact. If there is a wide path through the woods, the path is probably impassable with fallen trees, but the forest is just as before. It is just like it was before the hurricane. It is easy to see why that is the case. Trees around other trees are not subject to the same winds as trees all by themselves, because they protect each other Trees on the edge are more likely to get knocked down by the winds, and isolated trees are even more likely.
Which brings up a human cause for the damage: the developers. The developers, it seems, don't care anything about who lives in the houses afterwards. They just want to throw up houses quick, chop down trees quick, collect their bucks, and leave isolated trees to fall during hurricanes. When building houses, developers need to either leave no trees in the yard or a continuous area of them. If they leave isolated trees, they leave bombs which later on damage the homes they build. So it is not all nature's fault. The developers had a hand in it, too.
2003/09/21
Isabel and Dark Skies
Isabel caused a lot of power outages, damage to homes caused by trees, and other destruction. But when it left, it left behind a jewel. I went outside yesterday (2003 September 19) to see the stars, and I saw the darkest, most brilliantly star-studded sky that I have ever seen from my house. About 80-90% of the surrounding area did not have power. Therefore, the sky glow from light pollution was a lot less. I could easily see all the stars of the Little Dipper, and the Milky Way was visible from horizon to horizon. I went out with my telescope to try to see Mars, but I had trouble aligning my telescope, and I think part of it was that it was running on batteries. I did see it eventually and saw a dark stripe across the middle of the Red Planet. It was a real treat seeing a sky so dark from my house and I realize that this is something that occurs only about once every 50 years, when a hurricane as powerful as Isabel comes through here. I know that a teen-age woman named Jennifer Barlow has been trying to get people to turn off their outside lights in order to provide for a dark sky; in particular, declaring a Lights Out day. That was not too successful. It seems that Jennifer couldn't get people to turn off their lights. But Isabel could, and did. What is this society we belong to coming to anyway, when we need a hurricane to be able to see the night sky? I say make every day a Hurricane Isabel day. If you could not turn on an outside light during Isabel, then don't turn it on at all. I know some lights are needed for safety, but these may be far fewer than most people think. If everyone would do this, dark skies and knowledge about astronomy, especially among young people, would return.
Isabel caused a lot of power outages, damage to homes caused by trees, and other destruction. But when it left, it left behind a jewel. I went outside yesterday (2003 September 19) to see the stars, and I saw the darkest, most brilliantly star-studded sky that I have ever seen from my house. About 80-90% of the surrounding area did not have power. Therefore, the sky glow from light pollution was a lot less. I could easily see all the stars of the Little Dipper, and the Milky Way was visible from horizon to horizon. I went out with my telescope to try to see Mars, but I had trouble aligning my telescope, and I think part of it was that it was running on batteries. I did see it eventually and saw a dark stripe across the middle of the Red Planet. It was a real treat seeing a sky so dark from my house and I realize that this is something that occurs only about once every 50 years, when a hurricane as powerful as Isabel comes through here. I know that a teen-age woman named Jennifer Barlow has been trying to get people to turn off their outside lights in order to provide for a dark sky; in particular, declaring a Lights Out day. That was not too successful. It seems that Jennifer couldn't get people to turn off their lights. But Isabel could, and did. What is this society we belong to coming to anyway, when we need a hurricane to be able to see the night sky? I say make every day a Hurricane Isabel day. If you could not turn on an outside light during Isabel, then don't turn it on at all. I know some lights are needed for safety, but these may be far fewer than most people think. If everyone would do this, dark skies and knowledge about astronomy, especially among young people, would return.
Isabel the Windy Storm
This is my last report on Isabel. It was hard to see from radar just where this storm was going. Its wobble first had it seemingly scraping the coast, then at another time, it seemed to be headed straight to Raleigh. But it followed pretty much what the models and NOAA had been saying about what the storm would do. Floyd in 1999 was a rainy and floody storm. Isabel was a windy storm - not too much rain fell.
I was afraid of the high winds that would come here. They were predicting 75 mph winds for Petersburg. They canceled my place of work for two days, so I was at home when it occurred. In the morning it was a gentle but steady breeze. It started to increase by lunchtime. It seemed like it was almost calm at ground level - our maple tree did not sway much, but the tall trees, about six stories high, swayed back and forth. In the afternoon, the wind got much fiercer, blowing twigs off the trees, but then it eased up about 3 pm to 5 pm. They started picking up after 5 pm, and we lost power at 1729 (5:29 pm). At that time the center of the storm was just crossing into Virginia. I did not get any more visual pictures after that; the TV station was broadcasting over radio, and I could hear what the weatherman was saying. At 1852 a roar occurred outside. When it arrived, the trees in our back yard started bowing way to the left at a 45 degree angle or more, and one tree bowed over straight. It was falling down! It landed harmlessly along our back yard boundary, although it missed our telephone box by about two feet. The storm continued from 7 pm to 10 pm, howling and producing more wild bendings of the tree. I heard that the TV station recorded a gust of 63 mph - on the boundary between whole gale force and storm force - now I know what a whole gale is like. Sure enough, it uproots trees. After 10 pm the winds died down considerably, and the rain ebbed to a mere drizzle. Hardly any rain, but the wind was still fast and howling. I went to bed and heard them and it seemed soothing in a way, like there was something going on out there and I was safe in bed - it was the same sort of feeling as when I get when I hear a train pass about two miles way.
The next morning, I went out at 7 pm. Guess what? There was a party going on in the street. The weather was beautiful. There was lots of clear sky and some altostratus clouds, and it was nice and cool. We went out in the neighborhood to see the damage. I found out that a tree had fallen on another tree near our house. On one corner of our house, about 10 feet away, there are three trees and I was afraid that a storm some day would blow them on our house and cause serious damage. So I wanted to get rid of them, but an association board member and a tree surgeon told me that they were sturdy trees - the house would go before them. So I never got around to having them chopped down. Good thing I didn't. One of those trees protected my house from being hit from the tree behind it in my neighbor's yard. If I had had those trees removed, the tree from the neighbor's yard would have damaged my house. I will probably leave them there, then; they are guardian angel trees. The neighborhood had lots of trees down, including an attractive willow. Two houses were damaged by a tree hitting a corner of their house.
Phone service went out with the power, and I figured I would have to wait a day or two for power. But surprise. It came on at 1519 yesterday (2003 September 19), and so did the phone service, but not cable TV. But still I seem to be in a favored class. 325,000 out of 425,000 customers of Virginia Power currently don’t have power. So cable TV (and high-speed Internet) seem to be small potatoes. It does indeed affect me still. The gasoline stations are closed because of lack of power, and those that are open have huge lines at them. This suggests what will happen when the Big Petroleum Shortage Rollover occurs, probably near the end of the decade, from what some geologists say. The banks are closed, and I am afraid to use ATMs for fear they will swallow my card. It was to be an active weekend, but Isabel wiped out four, or possibly six, events that I was maybe going to.
It was the worst storm ever to have hit the area that I lived in. It was worse than Fran and Floyd. Fran gave us a 2.5 hour power outage, and we never lost power during Floyd. The only storm that comes close was the Great Christmas Eve Ice Storm of 1998, which caused a 21-hour power outage at my house. The unusual thing about it is that 16 days before, on 2003 September 8 (it looked like it would hit on the 24th then) I knew that it could hit the East Coast. At that time I saw a virtual storm coming. Well, the virtual storm headed straight towards the real storm and came together right over my head.
Look at my weather page. I had not changed this in a while, but I am going to be converting this to a page on Isabel, including all the blogs that I have made to Blogtrek on this hurricane.
This is my last report on Isabel. It was hard to see from radar just where this storm was going. Its wobble first had it seemingly scraping the coast, then at another time, it seemed to be headed straight to Raleigh. But it followed pretty much what the models and NOAA had been saying about what the storm would do. Floyd in 1999 was a rainy and floody storm. Isabel was a windy storm - not too much rain fell.
I was afraid of the high winds that would come here. They were predicting 75 mph winds for Petersburg. They canceled my place of work for two days, so I was at home when it occurred. In the morning it was a gentle but steady breeze. It started to increase by lunchtime. It seemed like it was almost calm at ground level - our maple tree did not sway much, but the tall trees, about six stories high, swayed back and forth. In the afternoon, the wind got much fiercer, blowing twigs off the trees, but then it eased up about 3 pm to 5 pm. They started picking up after 5 pm, and we lost power at 1729 (5:29 pm). At that time the center of the storm was just crossing into Virginia. I did not get any more visual pictures after that; the TV station was broadcasting over radio, and I could hear what the weatherman was saying. At 1852 a roar occurred outside. When it arrived, the trees in our back yard started bowing way to the left at a 45 degree angle or more, and one tree bowed over straight. It was falling down! It landed harmlessly along our back yard boundary, although it missed our telephone box by about two feet. The storm continued from 7 pm to 10 pm, howling and producing more wild bendings of the tree. I heard that the TV station recorded a gust of 63 mph - on the boundary between whole gale force and storm force - now I know what a whole gale is like. Sure enough, it uproots trees. After 10 pm the winds died down considerably, and the rain ebbed to a mere drizzle. Hardly any rain, but the wind was still fast and howling. I went to bed and heard them and it seemed soothing in a way, like there was something going on out there and I was safe in bed - it was the same sort of feeling as when I get when I hear a train pass about two miles way.
The next morning, I went out at 7 pm. Guess what? There was a party going on in the street. The weather was beautiful. There was lots of clear sky and some altostratus clouds, and it was nice and cool. We went out in the neighborhood to see the damage. I found out that a tree had fallen on another tree near our house. On one corner of our house, about 10 feet away, there are three trees and I was afraid that a storm some day would blow them on our house and cause serious damage. So I wanted to get rid of them, but an association board member and a tree surgeon told me that they were sturdy trees - the house would go before them. So I never got around to having them chopped down. Good thing I didn't. One of those trees protected my house from being hit from the tree behind it in my neighbor's yard. If I had had those trees removed, the tree from the neighbor's yard would have damaged my house. I will probably leave them there, then; they are guardian angel trees. The neighborhood had lots of trees down, including an attractive willow. Two houses were damaged by a tree hitting a corner of their house.
Phone service went out with the power, and I figured I would have to wait a day or two for power. But surprise. It came on at 1519 yesterday (2003 September 19), and so did the phone service, but not cable TV. But still I seem to be in a favored class. 325,000 out of 425,000 customers of Virginia Power currently don’t have power. So cable TV (and high-speed Internet) seem to be small potatoes. It does indeed affect me still. The gasoline stations are closed because of lack of power, and those that are open have huge lines at them. This suggests what will happen when the Big Petroleum Shortage Rollover occurs, probably near the end of the decade, from what some geologists say. The banks are closed, and I am afraid to use ATMs for fear they will swallow my card. It was to be an active weekend, but Isabel wiped out four, or possibly six, events that I was maybe going to.
It was the worst storm ever to have hit the area that I lived in. It was worse than Fran and Floyd. Fran gave us a 2.5 hour power outage, and we never lost power during Floyd. The only storm that comes close was the Great Christmas Eve Ice Storm of 1998, which caused a 21-hour power outage at my house. The unusual thing about it is that 16 days before, on 2003 September 8 (it looked like it would hit on the 24th then) I knew that it could hit the East Coast. At that time I saw a virtual storm coming. Well, the virtual storm headed straight towards the real storm and came together right over my head.
Look at my weather page. I had not changed this in a while, but I am going to be converting this to a page on Isabel, including all the blogs that I have made to Blogtrek on this hurricane.
Update - Wesley Clark for President?
Earlier I had said that if retired general Wesley Clark was going to run, then he should run as an independent or as a Republican, challenging Bush. True, if he did these things, he could cause a Lichtman key to topple, perhaps leading to Bush's defeat. But then I found that Allan Lichtman himself said that Wesley Clark was possibly charismatic. I said earlier that who the Democrats pick does not make any difference, but there is one exception: if he is charismatic, he causes Key 13, challenger charisma, to fall. If he is indeed charismatic, then that topples Key 13. All that is needed to defeat Bush then would be a bad economy. Indeed, Clark seems the ideal candidate in some ways. He has military experience but is opposed to the war in Iraq. He has the same views as former President Clinton in many areas. So Clark appears to be a Clinton opposed to the war in Iraq and without the stained dress. Indeed, he could be charismatic. If he is nominated, then the Bush candidacy would depend even more on keeping the economy perking, for none of the dissatisfaction keys (third party, challenge to nomination, and social unrest) would need to fall to ensure Bush's defeat.
Earlier I had said that if retired general Wesley Clark was going to run, then he should run as an independent or as a Republican, challenging Bush. True, if he did these things, he could cause a Lichtman key to topple, perhaps leading to Bush's defeat. But then I found that Allan Lichtman himself said that Wesley Clark was possibly charismatic. I said earlier that who the Democrats pick does not make any difference, but there is one exception: if he is charismatic, he causes Key 13, challenger charisma, to fall. If he is indeed charismatic, then that topples Key 13. All that is needed to defeat Bush then would be a bad economy. Indeed, Clark seems the ideal candidate in some ways. He has military experience but is opposed to the war in Iraq. He has the same views as former President Clinton in many areas. So Clark appears to be a Clinton opposed to the war in Iraq and without the stained dress. Indeed, he could be charismatic. If he is nominated, then the Bush candidacy would depend even more on keeping the economy perking, for none of the dissatisfaction keys (third party, challenge to nomination, and social unrest) would need to fall to ensure Bush's defeat.
Isabel and nautiluses
On 2003 September 17, Hurricane Isabel changed from its normal spiral galaxy-like shape to a spiral shape reminding me of a nautilus. It was interesting how the
storm looked on radar when it was about 24 hours from landfall. The hurricane looked like a smaller copy of itself with a spiral tail coming from it. This means that the smaller copy looked like an even smaller copy of itself with a tail coming from it. A nautilus has a similar structure, and it is remarked that the ratio of the size of the nautilus to the smaller copy of itself is 1.618033989 or (sqrt(5)+1)/2, the golden ratio. However, Isabel's spiral did not fit that description. I used Paint Shop Pro to make an estimate of the sizes of the smaller copy of Isabel and its tail, and found the ratio to be somewhere between 1.29 and 1.35. This means that the tail is not in a square box, like it is for the nautilus. It is more of a rectangle, and one can build spirals with any kind of a winding ratio. I wonder if this ratio of about 1.32 is common among hurricanes or if anyone has studied it. I tried to estimate the rotation speed. I got first of all about one rotation every 12 hours and then a little while later, it was one every 6 hours. I tried to make a prediction of intensity levels based on this - it would get strong on Thursday afternoon, then weak later in the afternoon, then really strong at night in two separate bands. I was pretty much correct - I observed these things actually happening.
What caused the nautilus structure? I think that all spirals, including spiral galaxies and hurricanes, have this type of structure, although it may look like a disk. Most hurricanes and unbarred spiral galaxies have several spiral arms that make it look like a solid disk. Isabel caught a collection of cold, dry air in its western periphery, and this cold air got into it destroying some spiral arms. Only one was left, and this enables one to see the spiral structure easily. It looked like Isabel had several eyes at one point. In any case, it did not affect the predicted (which turned out to be actual) effects of Isabel, as one of the worst hurricanes of our lives.
On 2003 September 17, Hurricane Isabel changed from its normal spiral galaxy-like shape to a spiral shape reminding me of a nautilus. It was interesting how the
storm looked on radar when it was about 24 hours from landfall. The hurricane looked like a smaller copy of itself with a spiral tail coming from it. This means that the smaller copy looked like an even smaller copy of itself with a tail coming from it. A nautilus has a similar structure, and it is remarked that the ratio of the size of the nautilus to the smaller copy of itself is 1.618033989 or (sqrt(5)+1)/2, the golden ratio. However, Isabel's spiral did not fit that description. I used Paint Shop Pro to make an estimate of the sizes of the smaller copy of Isabel and its tail, and found the ratio to be somewhere between 1.29 and 1.35. This means that the tail is not in a square box, like it is for the nautilus. It is more of a rectangle, and one can build spirals with any kind of a winding ratio. I wonder if this ratio of about 1.32 is common among hurricanes or if anyone has studied it. I tried to estimate the rotation speed. I got first of all about one rotation every 12 hours and then a little while later, it was one every 6 hours. I tried to make a prediction of intensity levels based on this - it would get strong on Thursday afternoon, then weak later in the afternoon, then really strong at night in two separate bands. I was pretty much correct - I observed these things actually happening.
What caused the nautilus structure? I think that all spirals, including spiral galaxies and hurricanes, have this type of structure, although it may look like a disk. Most hurricanes and unbarred spiral galaxies have several spiral arms that make it look like a solid disk. Isabel caught a collection of cold, dry air in its western periphery, and this cold air got into it destroying some spiral arms. Only one was left, and this enables one to see the spiral structure easily. It looked like Isabel had several eyes at one point. In any case, it did not affect the predicted (which turned out to be actual) effects of Isabel, as one of the worst hurricanes of our lives.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)