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...