Local industries and an old hobby

Haven't posted in a while... sorry!

Many years ago, my dad asked me what we make in our area.  He's an old-school fella, and has concerns about the viability of a service-based economy.  I'm not so sure he's off base here.  At the time, I didn't have a good answer.

Recently, my ADD-addled brain brought me back around to an old hobby I dabbled in as a child - model railroading.  While doing a little background research, I started looking at what industries there were in my area that are served by the railroad.  Some interesting finds resulted:

• A lightbulb plant
• A peanut-butter plant
• A sand/gravel/brick maufacturer
• A scrap metals and recycling center
• A major auto manufacturer
• An army base
• A major crane manufacturer
• A manufacturer of packaging labels
• Several agricultural and lumber businesses
• A PET packaging manufacturer
• A wire manufacturer
• A plastics manufacturer
• A paper manufacturer
• An electrical equipment manufacturer
• A specialty steel products manufacturer

And these were just the obvious ones picked up by scanning the railroad tracks around town on Google Maps.  It doesn't even count all the manufacturers who don't use rail transportation, or who used to use rail but no longer do.  Nor does it count this area being the home of a regional railroad line and services company.

Interesting what you find out about your town when you start poking around a little bit.

Letter to my Senators on Healthcare

Dear Senator,

You'll shortly be receiving for your consideration the health care bill that was passed by the House (as if you didn't already know that!).

I'd recommend that you and your fellow Senators simply burn it and start over from scratch. It's a horrible travesty of a bill that doesn't even try to address health care issues in America.

Not only do I think the bill passed by the House is the wrong answer... I'm not even sure it's the right question!

I think we should work towards a market-based approach that encourages and rewards creative solutions by the private sector by doing things like (in no particular order):

1. Crack down hard on fraud and abuse.
2. Establish "best practices" for common diagnostics that will simultaneously give doctors freedom to handle individual cases individually, but also avoid trapping them into ordering a CAT scan for every head cold.
3. Streamline the billing and payment system for more efficiency, lower cost, and better transparency of those real costs to the end user.
4. Promote HSAs and other things that will allow end consumers to understand the real costs of their health care, while encouraging competition to drive those costs down.
5. Encourage "team care" and better sharing of medical records so that patients don't have to start over from scratch with each new specialist they see for a particular condition.
6. Understand that PROFIT is a motivator, and can be a good thing if utilized correctly.
7. Understand that government is inherently inefficient (that's not necessarily a bad thing, but must be taken into consideration), and should be in the business of setting the rules, not playing the game.

There's probably a few more ideas I could come up with, but that's a start. The point is, we don't need government mandates, single payer, "public option" and all of that. We need efficiency - and efficiency comes from a competitive market with the right safeguards in place.

It is well known that business - like people - respond far better to positive reinforcement than negative. The House bill is a stick, and it's being used to fix the wrong problem. Throw it out and grow a carrot that will fix the right problems!

I'm sure you'll do the right thing regarding this issue. After all, your job depends on it!

Thank you,

BGTwinDad

The road to Hell...

A recent article on Weather.com echoed a sentiment i've heard many times recently, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. Antibacterial and antimicrobial cleansers, soaps and other materials may be a classic case of the best of intentions gone far awry.

There's a couple of different mechanisms at work here. First, the antibacterial stuff kills of most, but not all of the bacteria, encouraging the "stronger" ones (more resistant to the anti-) to proliferate. Second, the antibacterial chemicals are present in low concentrations in the retail products, so it takes a long time (if ever) for them to do their job. Couple this with the fact that most people only wash their hands for a few seconds (if at all!), and the stuff has no chance of working.

Third, research is showing that exposure to a variety of germs can help to keep our immune system active and healthy. Killing the germs off can result in a "bored" immune system, thought by some to be a contributing factor to allergies and asthma.

All this together means that we're really no better off (and possibly actually worse off!) using antibacterial soaps in most instances than using regular soaps.

Whoda thunk?

Mac mini vs. Dell, Round 3

And now, for Round 3 in our Mac mini vs. Dell debate.

Today, we'll compare Mac mini vs. the Chipper Chicken - the least expensive desktop model I could find on Dell's website. Our third Dell contender is the Inspiron 537s, and its specs (as compared to the mini) are as follows:

Item	Mac mini	Inspiron 537s
Price	$799	$269
Processor	2GHz Core2 Duo E7300	Celeron 450 2.2GHz
L2 Cache	3MB shared	512kB
Frontside Bus	1GHz	800MHz
Memory	2GB DDR3 1GHz	2GB DDR2 800MHz
HDD	320GB/5400rpm	320GB/7200rpm
Video	GeForce 9400M	GMA X4500
Network	Gigabit	100Mbit
802.11N Wireless	Included	Optional
PassMark CPU	1371 / 192	668 / 377

And here we go...

Mac mini vs. the Chipper Chicken

The first, most obvious thing we notice is that purchasers of the Insprion 537s save a whopping $530. That's quite a savings, no matter how you cut it. In fact, you could buy nearly three Inspirons for the price of the Mac mini!

But what do you get for your savings? The mini's processor is significantly faster, despite the Celeron's slightly higher base clock. This is due to the Core 2 Duo's inherently more powerful core and, of course, the fact that there are two of them. The mini also sports six times the L2 Cache, a faster memory bus, and the more efficient DDR3 memory.

In addition to the formidable processor and memory differences, the mini sports a significantly more powerful graphics processor, a faster network port, and built-in 802.11N wireless.

All of this points to the fact that, unlike Rounds 1 and 2, these two computers aren't really in the same class. It's like comparing a Yugo to a Mustang. Sure, they've both got four wheels, passenger seating and all the mandatory safety features, and sure, the Yugo is much cheaper, but they really don't compare.

That being said, a computer like the Inspiron will be a good choice for a surprising number of people, especially those on an extremely tight budget. It should do well for basic web browsing (though not, likely, with significant video content), text editing, and other such non-intensive activities.

Still, if you can afford them, any of the other reviewed machines would provide a far better long-term solution for most folks' computing needs.

Next Episode: Software! OS-X vs. Windows!

All of this results in a computer that isn't really even in the same class.

Mac mini vs. Dell, Round 2

Round 1 of Mac mini vs. Dell ended in either a draw or a slight lead on hardware to Dell. Of course, we have a long way to go.

Today, in Round 2, were go head to head on features. Our Dell contender this go round will be the Studio Slim, a trim midrange model that I found by using Dell's parametric search tool and searching on as close a processor match as I could find to the mini's Core 2 Duo processor.

For reference, here's a replication of the specs chart from Round 1:

Item	Mac mini	XPS630	Studio Slim
Price	$799	$799	$539
Processor	2GHz Core2 Duo E7300	3GHz Core2 E8400	2.66GHz Core2 Duo E7300
L2 Cache	3MB shared	6MB	3MB
Frontside Bus	1GHz	1.3GHz	1GHz
Memory	2GB DDR3 1GHz	2GB DDR2 1GHz	2GB DDR2 800MHz
HDD	320GB/5400rpm	500GB/7200rpm	500GB/7200rpm
Video	GeForce 9400M	Dual GeForce GTS 240	GMA X4500HD
Network	Gigabit	Gigabit	Gigabit
802.11N Wireless	Included	Optional	Optional (included)
PassMark CPU	1371 / 192	2156 / 99	1794 / 129

So, here we go...

Mac min vs. the Spec Match:

The Dell Studio Slim is one of Dell's fashionable midrange models. Weighing in at a slim $539 with the optional 802.11N wireless card added, it's significantly less expensive than the Mac mini. What other differences can we find between the two?

The mini is still by far the smaller machine. It also boasts the newer generation, faster DDR3 memory, running at a faster 1GHz bus frequency. This means the memory subsystem is about 30% faster than the Dell. It also has the somewhat more powerful NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics processor.

On the other hand, the Studio Slim boasts a somewhat faster 2.66GHz processor (PassMark at 1794 vs. 1371 for the Mac), a modestly larger 500GB hard disk, and - of course - more room for expansion.

The performance differences outlined above would be relatively minor at price parity, but factor in the $170 price difference and this is a significant win for Dell.

Here we see fairly clearly the cost tradeoffs of the Mac mini design. One of the core design principles for the mini is its extremely compact size. To reach that goal requires the use of more expensive laptop components vs. the Studio's standardized (and less expensive) desktop components. Dell is able to exploit this to a fairly significant value difference.

Keep in mind, though, this is only a hardware comparison, and as we will see in a later round, there are significant differences in the software load that may make this a closer match than it appears here.

Next up: Mac mini vs. the Chipper Chicken!

First Day of School Rant

Oooh... I'm going to get into SO much trouble for this post.

A lot of my friends and acquaintances have children who are attending school (usually Kindergarten) for the first time. My own two went off to third grade a few weeks ago, so it hasn't been all that long since I did the same with them. Plus, we spent a fair amount of time volunteering in the church nursery when they were little, and I saw a lot of parents dropping off their little ones for the first time - or the thirtieth time.

Folks.... GET A GRIP!

Your child is just FINE. Your child is where he (or she) is SUPPOSED TO BE. Your child is GROWING UP. Your child NEEDS to learn that it's perfectly normal to go away from mommy for the day and hang out with his friends and teacher.

Now, certainly, there are the rare exceptional case of a child who's particularly troubled in one way or the other, but I've seen FAR too many parents and children with separation problems!

Is that first day of school bittersweet for the parents? Yes. Is it a bit scary for the kid? Certainly... but only for the first five minutes or so before he meets Bobby in the chair next to him and starts chatting wildly about Bakugan. Then, usually, he completely forgets the issue until he gets home to his worried parent who, by expressing his/her concern and sadness, reminds him that going off to school is a scary thing.

My son HATES transitions. He doesn't like changing clothes. He doesn't like changing channels. He doesn't like leaving the house, the car, or anything else. And yes, the night before the first day of THIRD GRADE, he told me he didn't want to go to school. And guess what? The next morning, we got up, had breakfast, left the house and I dropped him off at school just like it was mid-November and he'd been in the routine for months. And when his mom picked him up that afternoon, guess what? He was all excited about the new friends he'd met and the old friends he'd reconnected with. Same reaction he's had every year since that first day of preschool.

I always cringed while doing nursery duty (on principle, we never watched our own kids unless it was unavoidable) when a nervous mom or dad (or both!) would make a big deal of dropping their kid off. The most well adjusted kids were always the children of parents who dropped them off, signed the papers, and casually said "see you after Church, honey!" while walking away like it was the most normal thing in the world. The children, almost inevitably, would saunter off, find a friend and/or a toy, and be happy as a clam until mommy returned. Even on the rare occasion when a child seemed traumatized, the vast bulk of time once mommy was out of sight the child would dry up, find a friend and/or a toy and play contentedly until mommy's return (at which time, promptly, the waterworks would be turned back on...). I could count on one hand the number of times a child was truly inconsolable - and most of those, the kid was probably ill.

I'm convinced that in the vast majority of cases, parents unwittingly project their own separation anxiety onto the children, who are usually much better adjusted to the situation than the parents. Those who teach their kids early on that it's normal to be apart for a while (church child care, occasional babysitters, preschool, then school) end up with self-confident kids who trot off to school like it's the most normal, everyday thing in the world - WHICH IT IS!

I made a rule when our kids started Kindergarten. I do not accompany them to school unless I have a need to (a) haul heavy stuff or (b) talk to the teacher. First day of school it's "Have a nice day, and watch the seatbelt when you shut the door!". Am I a mean daddy? Probably. Do my kids fret and cry over going to school? Nope. Not a bit. They usually hit the ground running.

Kids are supposed to grow up. They're supposed to go off to school, to be independent, to tie their own shoes, make their own beds and pack their own suitcases. Don't shed tears when they do these things. Laugh and clap for joy. Worry when they don't, or when they can't. But make sure they're not just picking up that vibe from you.

Go ahead... < puts on fireproof suit > Fire away...

Mac mini vs. Dell, Round 1

VS.

The top two complaints I hear about Macs from PC users are price and compatibility. In all fairness, Macs hold only about 10% of the market, and they at least appear quite expensive, bang-for-buck.

I'm very enamored with my new Mac mini, but to be fair, I thought I'd do a breakdown vs. some comparable Dell models. The intended use matters very much in choosing a "best" system. In this case, it's a typical home user who surfs the web, uses office apps, perhaps uses Netflix instant movies or Hulu, runs Quicken, and the like. Heavy duty gaming is saved for the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3, not for the computer. No heavy video editing or graphic arts, either. I believe that this is the type of user Apple is targeting with the Mac mini. A significantly different use case would require a different selection of computers.

For comparison, I chose the $799 2GB/320GB mini model, and sought out three Dell models to compare it against: (a) the cheapest desktop they have, (b) the desktop their parameter searcher brought up as the same price ($799), and (c) as close as I could get on a feature-for-feature customization match.

I came up with the Inspiron 537s Slim ($269), the Studio Slim ($539) and the XPS630 ($799). Here's a chart of the specs:

Item	Mac mini	XPS630	Studio Slim
Price	$799	$799	$539
Processor	2GHz Core2 Duo E7300	3GHz Core2 E8400	2.66GHz Core2 Duo E7300
L2 Cache	3MB shared	6MB	3MB
Frontside Bus	1GHz	1.3GHz	1GHz
Memory	2GB DDR3 1GHz	2GB DDR2 1GHz	2GB DDR2 800MHz
HDD	320GB/5400rpm	500GB/7200rpm	500GB/7200rpm
Video	GeForce 9400M	Dual GeForce GTS 240	GMA X4500HD
Network	Gigabit	Gigabit	Gigabit
802.11N Wireless	Included	Optional	Optional (included)
PassMark CPU	1371 / 192	2156 / 99	1794 / 129

Item	Mac mini	Inspiron 537s
Price	$799	$269
Processor	2GHz Core2 Duo E7300	Celeron 450 2.2GHz
L2 Cache	3MB shared	512kB
Frontside Bus	1GHz	800MHz
Memory	2GB DDR3 1GHz	2GB DDR2 800MHz
HDD	320GB/5400rpm	320GB/7200rpm
Video	GeForce 9400M	GMA X4500
Network	Gigabit	100Mbit
802.11N Wireless	Included	Optional
PassMark CPU	1371 / 192	668 / 377

I'll explain the meaning and details of some of these values as we go along. All of these machines are easily obtainable from either Apple or Dell, and they're pretty much off the shelf configurations. I did add the optional 802.11N wireless to the Studio Slim since it was supposed to be as close to the Mac mini as I could make it. The wireless option is included in my price of $539. I did not include any tax or shipping costs. None of the prices include monitors, keyboards, mice or other peripherals either, just to keep things fair.

I've chosen the PassMark benchmark test suite results to compare the processors. These tests are an average of many user submissions, and is easily available.

The Dells, as priced, don't include any productivity software, and I'll hold off on comparing OS X vs. Windows until the end, since those comparisons are the same across all machines. However, these differences can be the deal maker/breaker, so hold on.

But first, the hardware comparisons!

General Observations:

A few general observations can be made about the mini vs. all the Dells. The mini is obviously much smaller than even the Studio Slim. It's also quite an attractive package.

On the other hand, because the Dells are all made with industry standard PC parts (except the Dell-custom motherboards), they are generally easily repaired and easily upgraded. This can result in more flexibility and a longer use life. The Mac mini is generally not user-modifiable, unless you're a "hacker" and don't mind voiding the warranty.

Mac mini vs. the Price Match:

The Dell XPS630 is marketed as the base model of Dell's gaming machines, which means it's supposed to have some serious horsepower. Also, note that the XPS630 is quite a bit larger than the mini.

The XPS630, at the same price, sports a significantly faster processor, a moderately larger hard disk (500GB vs. 320GB), and dual video controllers. Also, largely by virtue of its larger size, it provides several PCI and PCIe expansion slots, drive bays, and more USB ports. It does not, however, come with wireless, though this is a low-priced option. On price, I'd say the larger hard disk and lack of wireless are a wash - unless wireless is particularly important to you.

In short, if raw horsepower and expandability matter, and size doesn't, the XPS630 wins. On the other hand, for this type of user, too much horsepower is wasted, expansion ports often go unused, and size very well may matter, so I think the mini is still competitive here.

Next episode: Mac mini vs. the Feature Match!

Remembrance of Things Past

Driving to work this morning, I was reminded of some simple childhood fun.

When I grew up, I lived on the only road on our side of the river. The interstate had not yet been completed, so there were quite a few semi trucks driving by the house. We used to sit on the bank by the road and watch the traffic go by. When a truck would approach, we would stand up and make the horn-blowing fist-pump motion - upper arm straight out, forearm straight up, hand in a fist, pumping up and down, simulating pulling on the activation cord for the air horn. The truckers would usually reward us with a blast or two on their air horn in response.

Fast forward thirty years. On my way to work this morning, I was behind a semi truck passing a group of kids waiting for the school bus. One of them was making the motion, and the trucker responded in kind.

If you're reading, chime in with a favorite childhood memory or two...

Some things never change, I guess...

Mac mini - First Impressions

My trusty iMac G5 is finally getting long in the tooth and showing some erratic behavior after five years of nearly flawless performance. Since we use this as our family workhorse, especially tracking finances and communicating with others, we needed a quick, cost effective replacement.

Of course, our household is pretty sold on Mac products, Windows XP is old, Windows 7 is still vaporware, and I wouldn't touch Vista with the proverbial 10-foot pole, so we headed to the Apple Store (online) and considered our options.

Our original plan (before old Smaug started coughing a bit too much smoke) was to buy a MacBook Pro for mommy and daddy, and then follow up eventually with a Mac mini for the kids. However, sometimes plans have to bend to reality, and there was no way we were going to be able to bridge the iMac until the second computer purchase. So, instead, we went straight for the Mac mini and put off the MB-Pro.

Of course, the mini is a BYOKMD box (bring-your-own-keyboard-mouse-and-display), so we also added a nifty 24" widescreen display from Dell and dusted off an old PC keyboard/mouse combo I had laying around. We also, following the "buy the highest performance one you can afford so it won't go obsolete next week" line of thinking, picked the $800 2GB / 250GB mini instead of the cheaper $600 1GB/150GB model.

Here are my first impressions.

Ordering Experience:

First, the ordering process was very simple. Even the "cheap" Apple products are pretty well decked out, so there weren't a gazillion options to choose from. Upgraded processor (no), memory (no), hard disk (no), a few pre-installed applications (again, no), keyboard and mouse (not yet!), accessories, and service plan. Click a few radio buttons, hit the "Buy it" button, and on through the usual checkout process. One relatively nice thing (in the "this should be expected") is that a single click-through on the confirmation status took me to the "Order Status", and a single click from there took me straight to FedEx's tracking data. Very simple and clean.

By contrast, the Dell process was not quite so simple. Don't get me wrong - Dell has a very nice website and ordering system. Still, by contrast, it was harder to find and select the best monitor choice (partly because they have so many choices!), and the checkout process was a bit less clear, due in part to somewhat over-fancy graphics. Again, I'm talking a "9" or maybe a "9.5" vs. a "10" here. It really wasn't a big deal. Dell also shipped via FedEx, and the monitor arrived a full two days prior to the computer. Granted, they were shipping from Texas, not China, but they won the race there.

Where Dell really fell short was their shipping confirmation email. It was in plaintext (not a big deal), and had no less than 10 separate links pertaining to various aspects of my order (including definitions, terms & conditions, a copy of the order confirmation, service rebates, etc.). It was difficult to pick out which one would give me the one piece of information I really wanted - the tracking info! To make matters worse, the top link on the page went nowhere. It was a real letdown in an otherwise excellent ordering experience. To me, once I get the "your order has shipped!", the only question I care about is "Where is my package?". All the rest of the stuff should be in a separate email (maybe the ironically much cleaner order confirmation?) or relegated to clearly lower priority part of the email. I want a single, boldfaced, prominent link that says "TRACK YOUR PACKAGE".

Out Of Box:

Out of box, both products scored very well. I especially noted how they were securely packaged using a minimum - and a minimal variety - of packaging materials. I got the sense that both companies have put a lot of thought into how to safely ship their product with an absolute minimum of waste. And best of all - NO PEANUTS!

The monitor, at about 17lbs, shipped in a slim brown corrugated cardboard box with folded, corrugated cardboard "brackets" to suspend the display within the box. There were also two plastic bags (one for the screen and a second for the base) and a minimal amount of plastic scratch protection over shiny parts. One clever idea: a large paper sheet served double duty as protection for the screen face and as the quick setup sheet with only a handful of pieces of tape to hold it in place. Good thinking on someone's part. Why waste another piece of paper or plastic here? The accompanying "product guide" (legal / warranty mumbo jumbo) and documentation CD were also safely but minimally packaged. Well done, Dell!

As hard an act to follow in this sense as the Dell monitor was, the Mac mini certainly gave it a run for its money. I'll have to explain this one from the inside out, though. First, the computer itself is relatively tiny, at only 6 lbs (shipping weight!), 6.5" square and 2" high, with a separate power brick. The computer, power brick/cord, remote, CDs and paperwork are packaged in tight-fitting cardboard spacers (no styrofoam!) inside a cardboard retail box that is shrink-wrapped. The retail box is then suspended within a corrugated cardboard shipping box by a pair of formed pieces of what I can only describe as the paper equivalent of particle board. The only "downer" I can see here is a nearly excessive use of a cellophane-like plastic wrap around the computer, remote and power brick for scratch protection.

Installation:

Installation couldn't be much easier. The monitor, like virtually all monitors was quite simple: snap in the base, plug in power and video cables, and turn on. The computer was not much more complex. Power, video and keyboard cables (and all other cables) plug into the back. One minor complication was in the video cabling. Because the Mac mini is so small, there is no room for a standard DVI connector on the back. Instead, it provides both a mini-DVI and an Apple DisplayPort, along with a min-DVI to standard DVI adaptor in the box.

Unfortunately, this brings up the one serious downside I have found so far. Cable management is an important issue. Right now, I have five cables coming from the back of this small box: power, video, ethernet, keyboard and an external USB hub. The mini is sitting on my desktop and the cables dangle off the back of the desk. It presents a relatively clean appearance. However, none of the connectors provide more than simple friction to keep them in place. I have already accidentally unplugged the power and mini-DVI connectors more than once while messing around with my desk organization. Losing video is disconcerting, but the computer recovers happily. However, losing power will cause the computer to crash. While OS X is relatively robust to accidental loss of power, this is never a good thing for a computer. For this reason, a better design would provide a more secure power connection. However, it doesn't seem likely that once I get things settled I'll be moving the thing around and knocking the cables loose, and some careful cable management behind the desk will likely further protect things.

Initial User Experience:

Now that I've been using the new mini for a few weeks, I can comment on the user experience. First, this little guy is quiet! Our G5 iMac had a rather annoying fan control bug that caused it to be quite loud. Since my wife suffers from migraines, this did not endear her to the computer. Not so the Mac mini. It is sitting atop my desk at approximately chest level, and I have yet to hear a peep from it, except when loading a DVD. It is virtually silent.

It is also remarkably fast. For everyday tasks, it seems to run effortlessly, with very little wait time. I have a MacBook Pro at work with a 2.4GHz Dual Core processor and the same memory load, and frankly I can't tell the difference. I have yet to run any benchmarks, but I did compile the Apache 2.0 web server, and (compared to compiling it on the iMac) at first I thought the compile had failed, it finished so quick.

As for the operating system, right now it is running OS X 10.5.8 (Leopard), and I have pre-ordered OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard), due out next month. The iMac was - and still is - running 10.4 (Tiger). Leopard has been out for a while now, and its usability on the Mac mini is much the same as any other Mac: excellent. I especially like the improved parental controls over Tiger. I can place more meaningful limits on the kids' computer use to match their age and maturity. The new features in iLife 09 are very handy (I'm especially enjoying the facial recognition and place marking in iPhoto!), and the look and feel is quite pleasant.

In short, I'm well pleased with my purchase. Macs are expensive computers, there's no doubt, and the Mac mini is no exception. All told, I'm just over a thousand dollars into this box, and a "comparable" PC might have cost half that. However, in my estimation, the overall experience is worth it. We're quite happy with our new little addition.

Quick Update on the Shaving Experiment

The Good:

My first razor lasted approximately twice as long as I estimated in the original analysis. That would cut the overall cost of disposable blade shaving in half, making it far more competitive with the electric razor on cost. Plus, with even a little practice, blade shaving is fast, certainly faster than the electric - or at least it seems so. It fits very conveniently in my routine between shower and tooth-brushing.

The Bad:

Turns out, you've pretty much gotta shave every day, or at most every other day. Otherwise the stubble gets into this messy range where it's too long to comfortably shave, but not long enough for the trimmers. That makes for an unpleasant shaving day. 5:00 shadow doesn't look so good at 9:00 am.

The Ugly:

My mug when it's not hiding behind a copious amount of facial hair. Ya gotta sport what the good Lord gave you, though.

Blogs on Blogs...

How fun is this... we're planning a birthday party for the Twins. We are having a movie themed party, and we had these nifty popcorn-box shaped cards to use for invitations. Unfortunately, the available print space is too small to put all the information we need...

Solution: Create a blog and put the URL on the invitation. The blog post includes all the party details, including a Google map of the theater. The embedded map can be scrolled and zooomed, and switched between map and satellite views. It's neat!

And, folks can RSVP by commenting on the blog!

Then, the same evening, I get the bright idea to start another blog to handle news and discussion for the Cub Scout pack we're trying to start at the school. Shazam! Blogger to the rescue. All of a sudden I'm managing a half dozen different blogs.

Ain't the interwebs great? :-)

On Cousins

Due to the recent additions to the extended family, I got curious and studied up on the whole naming convention surrounding cousins...

Apparently, the first/second/third thing is defined by the minimum number of generations separating one of the two people in question from their nearest common ancestor, while the "once removed / twice removed" thing is the difference in generation between the two people in question.

Easier explained by example (actually, easiest explained by the chart in the above-linked article!)

So, TwinGirl & TwinBoy and TwinCousin (my newly arrived nephew) are one generation away from their nearest common ancestor (TwinMamaw & TwinPapaw), so that makes them, naturally, first cousins. There's no "removed" because they are all of the same generation. However, assume for a moment, some time in the future, TwinGirl has a child named Fred. Fred and TwinCousin would be "first cousins, once removed" because again the common ancestor is TwinMamaw, one generation from TwinCousin ("first cousins"), but TwinCousin and Fred are a generation apart ("once removed"). Now, if TwinCousin has a child, named Mary, Fred and Mary would be second cousins because you have to go two generations back to a common ancestor, but not removed because they're both the same generation. However, Mary and TwinGirl would be first cousins once removed for the same reason Fred and TwinCousin are.

Now, let's look at a more complicated example.

Starting with TwinGreatGrandpa, there's TwinGrandpa, then me, then TwinBoy. Also, there's Uncle DH (who married TwinGrandpa's sister), Cousin DH (his son), Cousin JH (his son) and then cousin BH (his daughter).

Cousin DH and I are first cousins, JH and I are first cousins, once removed, and BH and I are first cousins, twice removed. Cousin DH and TwinBoy are first cousins, once removed, JH and TwinBoy are second cousins, and BH and TwinBoy are second cousins, once removed.

So basically, I am first cousins (+/- some removes) with every descendant of TwinGreatGrandpa because I am one generation away from the "start of the tree". My kids are first cousins once removed with TwinGreatGrandpa's grandchildren (because those grandchildren are one generation away), but second cousins (+/- some removes) with his great-grandchildren and their descendants (because the nearest person is two generations away from the common ancestor).

Confusing? Yes, but not so bad once you grok the pattern.

Welcome to the family, TwinCousin!!

Decisions, decisions: Shaving!

Hrm.

I've had a fairly decent Norelco cordless razor for about 4 years, and it's close to giving up the ghost. I haven't replaced the heads - ever - though I've kept them clean, and the battery is not holding a charge anymore.

I'm not very interested in replacing it right away, so I grabbed a package of disposable razors and a can of shaving cream at the supermarket last night. Result: the closest shave I've had in years. But, being an engineer, I can't help over-thinking the decision. So, here's a rough cost/benefit analysis of several forms of keeping my mug from looking like Gandalf's.

First, some notes about my shaving habits. I usually don't until I have to. I sport a goatee, and I don't function well before a shower. Since I'm not usually in contact with customers, I can get away with several days stubble most weeks. The electric razor is nice because I can touch up without using water, but the apparent cost of blade replacements keeps me from doing that regularly, and frankly it's a poor shave. I could spend a big pile of money on a "good" razor, but I don't know how much that would help. Having to remember to shave before I shower is also a bit of a negative, especially on early mornings.

Option 1 - Electric Razor:

• Up Front Cost: about $50 (could be over $200, but we won't go there)
• Replacement blades: about $35/year
• 5-year TCO: $190
• Shave time: fairly slow, to get it as good as possible
• Shave quality: acceptable for daily use
• Pros: dry shave
• Cons: must shave dry skin (i.e. before showering), more often, and bits of hair fly everywhere.
• Environmental Impact: The razor uses a small amount of power from the mains to charge the battery. The battery is recyclable through local battery recycling facilities, but according to Philips Norelco, the rest of the razor is not, except through specialty electronics recycling houses.

My electric razor was a fairly basic Norelco (older and simpler than the one I linked to above), and admittedly I've never replaced the blades. Still, even when new it took significantly longer to get an acceptable shave than the disposables I was using before. It also left little bits of hair all over my sink and chest. A better quality razor with periodically replaced blades would no doubt perform significantly better, and there are models that can be used in the shower, so it's not entirely fair knocking my razor on those scores. However, knowing my personal behavior, I am not likely to shell out the up-front cash to buy one of the wet or high-zoot razors.

Option 2 - Disposable Razor:

• Up Front Cost: about $10 ($7 for razors, $3 for shaving cream)
• Replacement razors: $7 for a pack of 4, average 1 week/razor = $91/year
• 5-year TCO: $455 plus shaving cream
• Shave time: quick!
• Shave quality: good to excellent
• Pros: smooth skin, less time shaving, can (should) shave after shower
• Cons: risk of cuts, disposables in trash, shaving cream mess.
• Environmental Impact: Disposable razors are in theory recyclable, except they suffer the usual problem of having sharp metal blades embedded in (and hard to remove from) the plastic. One could reduce this by cutting the heads off (or by using disposable-head razors at some additional cost), but this increases safety risk. Also there are brands made with recycled plastic that would reduce the impact. However, generally speaking the razors (or at least their blade heads) are landfill material. Note that the shaving cream cans are generally very recyclable steel and plastic.

I made this analysis based on the relatively cheap Gillette Sensor 3 triple-bladed razor, which I picked up in a 4-pack. This blade gives a very good shave over most of my face, with an acceptable job on my neck. In all cases it is better and faster than the electric razor. I'm skeptical how much better a more expensive disposable would be, and quite sure that the far cheaper BIC razors would do well and save some cost.

Option 3 - Classic Safety Razor:

• Up Front Cost: $60-$250 (Razor $50-$240 plus $10/pack for blades
• Replacement blades: $6 for a pack of 10, average 1 week/razor = $32/year
• 5-year TCO: $210 plus shaving cream
• Shave time: quick!
• Shave quality: good to excellent
• Pros: smooth skin, less time shaving, can (should) shave after shower
• Cons: risk of cuts, disposal of blades, shaving cream mess, debatably poorer shave than multi-blade disposable.
• Environmental Impact: The razor itself will last essentially forever, and being made of steel is highly recyclable. The blades, while disposable are also stainless steel and can be recycled.

This, for those of you who don't remember is a reusable metal razor handle which takes double edge disposable razor blades. This is the disposable razor's crotchety old grandfather.

Bottom Line:

When combining shave quality, cost, convenience and environmental impact, the hands down winner is the old-fashioned safety razor. Its TCO is less expensive than the electric razor and far less than the disposables. Shave quality is much better than the electric and competitive with if not better than the disposables. On convenience, the safety razor matches the disposable and beats the electric on the "can shave after shower" and speed sub-scores. Finally, on environmental impact it's hard to argue with the safety razor. The entire system is 100% recyclable and contains no batteries.

Even better would be a straight razor, but I don't trust myself not to slice off an ear...

The other two have significant drawbacks. Disposables are surprisingly expensive, despite their enticingly low up-front cost, and they generate a mountain of unrecyclable plastic garbage. The electric razor has significantly poorer shave performance, cannot be used well on wet skin, and has a Ni-Cad or Li-Ion battery to recycle.

In the end, it seems, that this is a classic case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" The safety razor was a definite improvement over the straight razor in that it allowed millions of men who were not so dextrous to safely shave their own faces. Big bonus points for convenience, not so good for business at the barber shop. The disposable razor and electric razor were further "improvements" on the safety razor, but given the above analysis it's hard to argue that they truly make any kind of improvement on the original (unless you're a Gillette or Norelco shareholder...).

Now, to find a good old fashioned safety razor...

Saving produce, part deux...

My first experiment with keeping fruit and veggies fresh consisted of simply eating a lot of them. This works well, but it ends up with a lot of trips to the grocery, and still some rotten fruit. There's only so much fruit one man can eat, after all.

So begins Phase Two of my experiments:

These are the Rubbermaid Produce Saver containers. Clear plastic containers with snap on lids that have little vents in the rims and trays that allow air to circulate under the produce. For storage, the trays, lids and bowls snap together so that the parts don't become lost.

Rubbermaid claims these containers will preserve produce up to 33% longer than standard containers. The set I bought had three containers in small (2 cup), medium (5 cup) and large (14 cup). These are just large enough to hold a box of blackberries, a box of strawberries, or a bag of grapes, respectively. My sister has a set, and she says they do in fact work well.

I've only had mine for a couple days. The square shape does pack much more efficiently in the refrigerator than the round bowls I was using last week. We'll have to see how the fruit fares.

UP Up, and away!!

One word: Wow!

Saw Disney's new animated film "UP" in 3D last night, and it was very, very good.

First, the bad news. This was (for me) an eye-poppingly expensive trip to the movies. For two adults, two kids, two sodas, a large popcorn and a bag of M&Ms, the tab ran to about $65! Yikes! The tickets alone were $45. We won't be doing that again soon.

The not-so-bad news: The incremental cost for the 3D version vs. 2D was only about $2 per ticket, and, to me, well worth it at least once.

The good news: This movie is classic Pixar greatness. I don't know what these guys put in their coffee, but they make some really great movies! I went into UP with low expectations, since I hadn't read much about it and the premise of the movie wasn't terribly clear to me. I expected it to be your basic animated kid flick. Boy was I surprised. The story is engaging, with a nice balance of fun, whimsy, and poignant moments.

The opening story tells how the old man Carl meets his beau, Ellie as a child and follows their romance (silently) from marriage to Ellie's death bed (handled quite well even for the young set). Immediately, you are engaged and feel for this guy. I found myself looking over at my wife and wondering how I will feel if I should be the one to outlive her after such a lifetime. That's good screenwriting when you identify with a character that quickly and deeply with so few words spoken.

The rest of the movie is a well-handled mix of pure fun and just enough seriousness. We follow Carl as he and Roger (a Cub ScoutWilderness Explorer with an absentee dad) as he uses a bunch of helium balloons and a clever bedsheet->sail arrangement to float his house to the remote Paradise Falls in South America. Here, he encounters a strange bird, a bunch of talking dogs ("Squirrel!") and a disgraced explorer who was Carl's childhood hero.

I won't spoil the plot for you, but this is definitely a must-see. It ranks up there with Pixar's best, and is quite engaging for the grownups, too.

Now, as for the 3D. This is some seriously cool technology. Put your geek hat on for a moment. A normal animated film is projected at 24 frames per second onto the screen. Both eyes see the same image, and it changes 24 times a second, creating the illusion of smooth motion.

For Disney Digital 3D (a brand of RealD Cinema technology), they make a few changes. First, they hand you a cheap pair of plastic sunglasses. The lenses are circularly polarized, but in opposite directions - so the left lens is polarized clockwise and the right lens is polarized counterclockwise. Polarized lenses only allow light that is polarized the same way as the lens to pass through.

Next, they increase the frame rate to 72 frames per second. A polarizing filter is placed in front of the lens that switches the polarization of the image for each frame. So, instead of projecting a single image on the screen every 1/24 of a second, six images are projected in sequence, like this:

1. Left Eye (clockwise)
2. Right Eye (counter-clockwise)
3. Left Eye (clockwise)
4. Right Eye (counter-clockwise)
5. Left Eye (clockwise)
6. Right Eye (counter-clockwise)

Whichever image is being projected, the "wrong" eye sees black, or nearly so. This all happens so fast that your brain can't really follow. What it "sees" is a pair of slightly different images in each eye, creating the illusion of 3 dimensional sight.

The end result, compared to earlier attempts at 3D, is nothing short of fantastic. The image doesn't just jump out at you. It appears three-dimensional, stretching both into and out of the screen, just as if you were viewing a real three-dimensional scene from a short distance away. All of this works quite well, and because it uses circular polarization instead of linear, you don't have to hold your head still for it to work correctly. Brilliant!

There are a number of movies already out, and many more on the way using this technology, and it really works - even with live action! You feel like you could reach out and grab some of the screen objects.

I will mention one subtle but very, very important thing that "UP" has over previous 3D attempts. The movie itself makes proper use of 3D. No gimmicks. No shots where something "jumps out" at you clearly for no valid reason other than to show off the 3D effect. Nothing cheesy at all. The three dimensionality quickly fades into the background and becomes just another part of the movie. Scenes where it makes sense to see 3D, such as when the fighter planes are circling the house are shown in 3D. Scenes where it doesn't make sense (such as close-ups) are not, and it all blends together into a masterful whole.

In short, this is an excellent work by some near-genius filmmakers and technologists. Despite the expense, I highly recommend checking this movie out in 3D if it won't break your budget. I'm not sure I'd spend the cash to see it twice in 3D, though when it goes to the "dollar theater" I'd be happy to see it again in 2D... and if the 3D version shows up at the dollar (not likely due to the extra costs for a modified digital projector and special screen), I'd pay a little extra to see that!

The real "Moby Dick"

I just finished a thoroughly fascinating - if horrifying - book. In the Heart of the Sea by Nathaniel Philbrick.

In the Heart of the Sea is the true story of the Nantucket whaleship Essex, its encounter with an 85-foot sperm whale in the central Pacific, and the subsequent 3,000+ mile journey of the survivors back to rescue near Chile. Philbrick's tale is based upon the narratives of the first mate Owen Chase and cabin boy Thomas Nickerson.

Having read Melville's Moby Dick earlier this year, I was curious to learn more about the true story upon which his epic tale was based. A bit of quick Wikipedia study led me to Philbrick's book, which I then dutifully picked up at the library.

Unlike Moby Dick, where the epic battle between whale and man comes at the final climax to the book, Leviathan strikes barely halfway through the story in In the Heart of the Sea. While the Essex had adventures enough on its journey from Nantucket around Cape Horn to the Pacific whaling grounds, it is the epic journey of survival after the ship sinks that sets this story apart.

I won't spoil it for you. This is reality at its harshest, and Philbrick weaves the tale expertly. For certain, put it on your reading list.

A theory about snacks...

I spent the weekend at my parents, celebrating the Memorial Day holiday. She's always got a variety of snacks, but most importantly, the fridge and counter have fruit readily at hand. Apples, bananas, oranges, peaches, cantaloupe, grapes, you name it.

I like having fresh fruit around. It is obviously much healthier than chips, cookies and candy, and it generally tastes better... once you've weaned yourself from the fat-and-sugar train. However, I find that I don't keep it around as much as I could, and this weekend made me wonder about why?

Of course, I now have a theory.

At home, I'm generally the only person who eats a large quantity of fresh fruit. It should be different, and my kids do enjoy fruit, but that's the way it is. Being essentially "fruit-single", I find myself trapped between going to the market almost daily and having so much fruit around that I can't eat it all before it goes bad.

On the other hand, the pre-packaged, mass produced stuff - the cookies, candy, chewy bars and chips - will last effectively forever. I can stockpile it in the pantry and eat it at will. There's always plenty, it almost never goes bad, and requires no preparation. Perfect food!

Except, it's not perfect. In fact, it's usually pretty terrible. Whatever you think about HFCS, it's not sugar. And it's most certainly not natural. Plus, the chips are greasy, the cookies are a terrible choice for a diabetic, and all of it is way too many carbs and not enough nutrients.

Sure you could stock up on nuts, granola, and other non-perishable natural or organic things, but it just isn't ... fruit.

So I'm going to go on a mission. How to make it easy to keep fruit around the house without having it rot on me and without having to make too many trips to the store.

Step one: Get my kids to eat more fruit...

A beginning of sorts...

Today is the first day of the rest of my life.

I keep telling myself that. And yet, somehow I frequently fail to act on it. Habits are hard things to change. I keep telling myself that I need to start exercising more. I keep telling myself I'll start tomorrow. Tomorrow doesn't seem to come.

I have an old high-school friend I've reconnected with on Facebook. She regularly runs 2-3 miles, seemingly every day. Every time I see one of her updates, I think, "I really should start doing that."

Part of the problem is that I tend to think that if I'm going to run, I need to be fast, or be a marathoner, or complete an Ironman. I make myself think that I've got to be "all or nothing." Generally this results in either burnout or an overuse injury in a few months that lands me back on the couch. Trying too hard can be worse than not doing anything at all. Not only can it lead to injury, but the inevitable failure leads to a negative spiral of lower expectations and feelings of ... failure.

In reality, all I need to do is... something. Just do something. Anything. Daily, or at least several times a week. Walk, jog, bike, hike, swim, shop aggressively at Meijer. Whatever gets my heart rate elevated for a while each day. At my level of fitness, it all counts. It's all about getting off my duff and moving.

And I've got to stop using the kids as an excuse. They need to be out there moving, too. It's as important as a healthy meal or their homework. So, whenever I say, "well, I can't go walk because I've got to watch the kids" I'm cheating myself and them.

This week, I started taking a step. Several steps, in fact. Behind our elementary school there's a paved trail about 1/2 mile long. It's a section of what will eventually be a much longer multi-use path system. Almost daily this week, I've tossed the kids in the car, drug them to the trail and walked it while the kids walk or rollerblade. Afterwards, they get to play on the playground while I cool down. Today I jogged short intervals.

It's only a start, and it's very easy for this to slip back into an oblivion of couch-sitting as the stresses of life inevitably intrude. But it is a start.

What a waste!

I was hungry after lunch, so I ran through McDonald's. Picked up a Fruit & Walnut snack (good, since I only eat the fruit and a few walnuts) and an Apple Pie (not so good, but I get them rarely).

Then I noticed the packaging.

The Apple Pie was in a cardboard box, in a bag with at least 2 napkins. This bag was nestled, along with the Fruit & Walnut Snack in a second, larger bag with at least 4 more napkins, plus a fork/knife set wrapped in plastic. Nearly all of which ended up in a landfill. Keep in mind the Fruit & Walnut Snack is hermetically sealed in a clear plastic box itself.

I sure wish I'd asked them to keep the bags and at least most of the napkins.

To be fair, Mickey-D's isn't any worse than any of the other fast food chains at this. They all seriously over-package their "to go" orders.

Of course if I'd parked and walked in, I could have much more easily refused all the packaging, saved some gas, and gotten a tiny extra bit of exercise, too.

Folks who live in glass houses...

A quick hike...

I've been looking for a place to take the kids for their first tent camping trip. Requirements include convenience (close to home in case we bail), good sites, privacy, activities, and a nice view. On Saturday, the kids were at a friend's house and Mama was napping, so I slipped over to Fort Boonesborough to have a look around.

Front entrance to replica fort

Fort Boonesborough, as you might guess from the name was the site of a fort constructed by Daniel Boone along the banks of the Kentucky River. It's since been converted into a state park complete with boat ramp, RV parking, large picnic shelters, a beach and a swimming pool. It also has a couple miles of trails as well. There are a small number of primitive tent camping sites, and a guidebook that I consulted indicated that they were pretty nice.

Unfortunately, due to the immense amount of rain we've had lately, they were also nearly all underwater.

However, the rest of the park was not, and it appears that it will suit the purpose well. In addition to the abovementioned features, there's a small camp store that has firewood, a miniature golf course and a playground. The park also has a replica of the fort (situated much higher up the hill than the original) and a museum, but there's a fee to enter these two.

Pioneer Forage Trail

I spoke briefly with the campground attendant, drove around the lower part of the park, and then hiked the 1/2 mile trail up the hill to the fort to have a look around. It having just rained, the forest had that wonderful shade of green I love so much, but fortunately the trail was dry enough not to be a horrible mudhole.

The trail from the campground follows the right fork of a stream up a valley before crossing and doubling back to follow the left fork up the hill to the fort. From there, you can take a paved trail back down the hill to the picnic shelters at the other side of the parking lot. A nice, stiff mile of up/down hill, just enough to get the heart rate up.

Creek on Pioneer Forage Trail

I enjoyed this visit, and I think it will make for a good place to start the kids off, if for no reason other than it's only 1/2 hour from home if they bail. Somehow, I don't think they will, though.

A nice, if slow, improvement...

You may have noticed the slide show of pictures in my side bar. Those were from a trip to Denver (actually Westminster), CO, last fall. One of the things I really enjoyed about my brief visit was the extensive network of well maintained multi-use trails that literally spiderwebbed the city. From seemingly anywhere, you could walk to nearly anywhere else, with some pretty nice scenery to boot.

Back home, our fair city has been taking a few notes. On a recent trip to the new Wal-Mart near our home, I took the kids to visit a nice feature. Out at the far end of the massive parking lot is what would ordinarily have been a fenced-off, trash-strewn overgrown, ignored, nasty gully with a runoff stream through it.

Instead, it's a pleasant creekside meadow with paved walking paths and discreet lampposts, mostly free of garbage (though I did spy one shopping cart embedded in the stream), with small mowed lawns surrounded by tall trees that had been left by the developers.

Now, I know perfectly well that this little mini-park was part of the conditions of sale for this particular piece of horse-farm-cum-urban-wasteland - partly because it is host to a small, but elegant cemetery/memorial for the farm's founder/owner/namesake. But it's nice. It will be even nicer when-and-if the many small parks in our fair town are internconnected and extended so that one can walk all over town.

This little park is actually quite pretty, even though it is sandwiched between two major commercial developments. I find it quite clever that they made good use of what would have otherwise been either bulldozed over or ignored entirely.

Next time we visit, I'll try to snap a few photos and share them. I really hope our town planners and developers continue to make such excellent use of the "in between" spaces. It's a great way to, in a sense, have our cake and eat it too - urban devleopment with trees!

Itching...

No, not the skin-irritant-scratch-till-it-bleeds kind of itching...

... the gosh-it's-nice-weather-can't-wait-for-my-schedule-to-allow-some-biking kind.

I went out to get lunch today, and it was 60F and sunny, with just a bit of a wind. Wow, it was nice. And it's supposed to stay nice through the weekend. Very nice. Downright hot kind of nice.

Now, if I can just work out my schedule so that I can make it on a bike, all will be well. Unfortunately, tomorrow I have to make a "guest speaker" visit at the University, so I don't know if that will work. Friday is looking good, though.

It's a good thing that I'm feeling antsy. I really do need the exercise.

Movie Review: Appaloosa

Meh.

Granted, I watched this at 11:00 at night when I was tired and distracted. Still, this was a pretty lukewarm performance. I have to agree with one of the Rotten Tomatoes critics who said that it was like Ed Harris couldn't decide whether he was filming a Western or a Romance. He seems to try to meld both and simply falls short.

Now, don't get me wrong, it was an entertaining, engaging movie, and I don't regret putting it on my Netflix queue. But I just couldn't seem to get invested in the characters like I did with Tombstone or with 3:10 to Yuma.

The acting was well done, the scenery excellent, and the characters entertaining. But the storyline was very thin and seemed strung together, as though the writer made up a checklist of "Classic Western" set-pieces and then came up with a basic thread to hang them all on. There's the rich bad guy who wants to control the town, complete with a band of thugs who raise heck. There's the saloon/hotel, the train hijack, the old Marshall getting murdered, the tracking/hunting/chasing expedition through the brush, the Indian attack, the showdown between the Marshall and the bad guy's cronies at the porch of the jail, and of course the love triangle between the lead, the sidekick and the girl. And, at the risk of giving away the somewhat anticlimactic surprise ending, the classic shootout hastily tacked on, almost as an afterthought, at the end of the film.

I think, as good as the final twist was, that in a way it was the worst part. Not because it wasn't surprising or well played, but because it just sort of showed up apparently without warning. There wasn't really any build-up to it. Frankly, I was expecting at least another half hour of film when all of a sudden the movie was over!

As much as I might complain, it really wasn't all that bad a movie. Certainly fits the "Western" formula well. As I said, most elements of the film were excellent (acting, costume, scenery, effects, etc.). Wrapped around a decent, non-formulaic story, it would have been awesome. As it was, however, I'd say 3 stars is a stretch.

How not to change the oil in your car

During my self-imposed exile (due to combined chronic cases of busy-itis, lazy-itis and freezophobia) from cycling, I've put a lot more miles on the cars this winter. Accordingly, it was time to do another simple oil change on one of them (an older Saturn, if you're curious). Now, changing the oil, especially in a Saturn is a fairly simple process:

1. Unscrew the drain plug in the oil pan and drain the old oil into an approved container.
2. Remove the old oil filter
3. Screw on and tighten the new filter
4. Replace the drain plug(!)
5. Pour in 4 quarts of new oil.

It can normally be accomplished in 30-45 minutes in the driveway, including allowing 15-20 minutes of doing other stuff while the oil fully drains from the engine. Simple, effective, and usually cheaper than going to one of the instant-oil-chamge places.

Not this weekend.

Day 1:

First, I drove over to the auto parts store and spent nearly $40 on fresh oil, a new filter, and a new air filter to go along. Normally, Valvoline charges me about $45 to do the whole job for me in about 10 minutes. So I'm already nearly at break-even cost before I get home.

I pull in the driveway and shut down, pop the hood and open the oil fill cap on top of the engine. This helps prevent a vacuum lock and helps the oil drain quicker. At least I remembered that the drain plug takes a 14mm wrench, so I didn't have to try three different sizes. I slightly jack the car up (it's low-slung and I'm not skinny anymore), shove the drain bucket underneath and remove the plug. For the first time in years, I manage to do this without spilling hot oil all over my hand. So far, so good!

I give that about 15 minutes and then return to handle the filter. There are two ways to reach the filter on this particular car: from underneath, where there's not much room and it's hard to see, but no disassembly is required, or from inside the right front wheel well where visibility and access are very good, but the wheel and wheel well cover must be removed. I opt for the under-car method.

I slip the strap wrench over the filter and begin to turn it... but it won't budge. The handle turns to tighten the strap, but goes no further. Worse, I can't seem to remove the wrench without an unusual amount of wriggling. I reach up to feel it and realize that I have slightly crumpled the back end of the filter. Bad news. No way this thing should be so tight. Even worse, my wrench is now coming apart.

Cursing softly under my breath (the kids are in the yard...) I crawl back out from under the car, jack it up further, and remove the wheel and wheel well to inspect the situation. Sure enough, not only is my wrench bad, but the filter can is now crumpled enough that it wouldn't work anyway. Off to the auto-parts store for a new, different wrench. I'm now $55 and over an hour into a job that would have taken $45 and 10 minutes at Valvoline.

The new wrench doesn't work either, merely crushing the can further. Next step: drive a screwdriver through it (yes, this is actually fairly easy - the filter's shell is not much thicker than a soda can) and use that for leverage. No go. Turning the screwdriver merely tears a larger hole in the can. Further attempts with larger screwdrivers and other wrenches only worsen the situation. I now have the dirty oil that was trapped in the filter dripping all over my drive shaft, frame, and driveway, not to mention my hands and tools. At least it's cooled significantly.

After two hours and a number of other tools, I take a break and call the "master mechanic" - my father. He suggests removing the shell of the filter. Once that is done, the base of the filter, where it screws to the engine block is accessible. This base is a plate with a large, central hole which threads onto the pipe through which filtered oil flows from filter to engine, ringed by a set of smaller holes through which dirty oil enters the filter from the engine. Once this is accessible, one can insert a pair of pins into the inlet holes and wrench the base plate free.

Doing so, however, requires some tools I don't have, so I clean up and take the family to the mall for a stop at Sears. $50 later I've got a pair of side-cutters (useless for this particular task, but might have worked), a pair of "aviation snips" (tin snips), and a pair of mechanic's work gloves (to protect my already bleeding fingers from shrapnel). Tally so far: $105 and four hours, not counting trips to stores.

Day Two:

A bit of luck on this day. After handling other chores till nearly 4:00 and worrying about lack of daylight, I dive back into the task. As expected, the side cutters do not work on the filter shell - they're designed to cut copper wire, not tin sheet metal. The aviation snips, however, work fantastically, if one discounts the large size and close quarters. After another hour of struggle, I'v e completely dismantled the filter, except for the tightly-jammed base plate. I can now clearly see what is needed, but have no way to accomplish the task.

After a few failed attempts to build a homemade spanner wrench with two nails and the available lumber, it's off to the auto-parts store again. There, I spy the (nearly) perfect tool for this task: a cheap pair of long-handled 45 degree angled needle-nose pliers. These pliers have extra long handles and most importantly long, narrow, pointed jaws that are bent 45 degrees from the plane of the handles. This crucial feature will allow me to open the jaws wide, insert the tips into opposite holes in the plate, and get lots of leverage to turn the handles in the direction needed to un-jam the plate.

Returning home yet another $10 poorer, I set to the task. The pliers turn out to be ideal. While a 90-degree bend would have allowed me to apply somewhat better torque to the plate, it also would have required me to put my arm through the right wheel strut. The 45-degree bend gave me room to work.

Summoning all the limited upper body strength I had (remember, I'm a fat, out of shape cyclist...), I nserted the plier tips, squeezed the handles tightly to grip the plate, and began to turn. At first, no joy, but after repeated attempts, the plate began to turn ever so slowly. Finally, after an exhausting effort to get it loosened, the filter base spun freely from the spindle and into my waitinig hand. The wrench, of course, was ruined by the twisting presssure placed upon it. Good thing it was a cheap one.

I cleaned and inspected the mounting point for the filter on the engine block, and saw no issues. The new filter spun smoothly into place, and the rest of the oil change went as smoothly as ever. Fifteen minutes later, the car was running, the tools cleaned and put away, and the mess cleaned up.

Tally: $115, 6 hours over two days, four trips to auto-parts and/or tool stores, one Band-Aid, one tool ruined, and a half dozen other chores deferred to next weekend.

Did I mention that an "oil change" on a bicycle is far, far simpler?

Wii Fit - Initial impressions

Santa brought the kids (myself included!) a new Wii for Christmas, and - once the supply backlog was caught up - a Wii Fit balance board as well. We're having so much fun with it, I thought I'd break my long silence on this blog with a review.

Just a touch of update. I've been a bad boy so far this winter. I've fallen into my usual sedentary habits, sitting on the couch, doing chores, lamenting the "bad weather", and not exercising much at all. The commuter bike has been languishing in the garage, and the road bike isn't even set up on the trainer right now. Shameless, I know. I'm more tired, have gained a few pounds, and my sugar levels are out of whack, too.

So, enter the new Christmas toy. I'll try to keep this review short, and to the point re: fitness and such. This review will cover the Wii system and the balance board hardware. I'll devote a separate report to the Wii Fit game itself.

Wii itself

First, the Wii itself is a LOT of fun. It may not have the high end graphics of the other systems, and might be missing the latest shoot-em-up, but there is a lot of family fun to be had, and the motion sensitive controls are a hoot! Even with the bundled Wii Sports games, you can get a quick workout. It's easy to work up a sweat with Boxing or Tennis, and the Bowling and Golf are surprisingly realistic.

We've also tried We Ski (awesome!) and Shaun White Road Trip snowboarding (also rocks!). These I highly recommend for some relaxing fun. They will get your adrenaline pumping.

The downside: Despite the many titles that do encourage you to get up and move, there are quite a few things that will also encourage you to sit down and vegetate in the traditional video game style. TwinBoy is addicted to LEGO Star Wars (admittedly a very fun game). It does allow you to initiate attacks (specifically Jedi moves and lightsaber attacks) with hand motions, as well as a few other things, but mostly it exercises your thumbs. Don't worry, he gets plenty of exercise jumping up and down and yelling at the game. He can't sit still to save his life.

It would be nice to have a game that does lightsaber duels by tracking your actual "blade" motions, rather than simply triggering a predefined attack move. This may already exist and perhaps I just haven't seen it.

It should be noted that Wii games are generally by nature cartoonish. If you are looking for hyper-realistic visuals, look elsewhere. This is the land of Mario, Sonic, and Miis, so you have to expect that sort of style.

Wii Balance Board (Hardware)

The Wii Balance Board itself seems well constructed. Solid, heavy, able to take some abuse. I would have preferred it come with a rechargeable battery instead of alkalines, but the starter kit (extra $$) included one. The standing surface is smooth and sturdy, and a nice, clean white color - for now.

This is the first downside I see. I'm not sure how to keep this clean. I can see why inexpensive covers for the board are a popular item. It is also just a bit slick if wearing socks, but works fine in shoes or barefoot. Again, an aftermarket cover would help with this issue.

The board dimensions are reasonable. It's small enough not to be overly obtrusive, but large enough to do its job properly. I'm 6 feet tall, and it is wide enough for me to place my feet shoulder width apart - barely. I could see an aftermarket "outrigger" cover with a stiff board that is wider for some games, or for very large or broad-shouldered people. It seems strong enough to hold quite heavy folk.

I have only one other major complaint so far. Apparently, only one board can be used at a time with the Wii, and it takes the place of one of the remotes. This is apparently a limitation of the way the balance board is recognized by the Wii system.

It would be nice to be able to use multiple boards for group exercise or multi-player games. For example, Shaun White Road Trip allows up to 4 players (with remotes) to zoom down the hill in multi-player mode. If you use the balance board, only one can use a balance board, and since that person also needs a remote (for tricks), only three can play. It would be nice to be able to use two boards.

Other than that, it's an incredible system. I can see why it is so popular and hard to get. The complaints I have are very minor, and do not detract significantly from the overall enjoyment.