Category Archives: General

General

Just plain eerie…

Over at Slate.com is a fascinating article, with some equally fascinating pictures, concerning…

Abandoned Amusement Parks

The article is about Seph Lawless, a photographer who has an interest in this subject matter and has released a book with his photographs of abandoned parks.

My favorite picture, from the article, is probably this one (I say probably because there are other almost equally great ones to be found.  This picture, by the way, is from the remains of the “Joyland Amusement Park,” Kansas):

joyland1

There’s something eerie about seeing these childhood amusement centers abandoned and slowly being overrun with vegetation.  It’s like something you could find either in a horror novel or some nostalgic tour through memory lane.

If you’re interested, you should check out the other pictures.  They’re fasinating.

General, TV

It was just a matter of time…

Dukes of Hazzard Pulled From TV Land Schedule Amid Confederate Flag Controversy

For those who know nothing about the Dukes of Hazzard, it was a comedic/action TV show that aired from 1979 to 1985 and which had the main characters drive around in the car presented below, complete with this gaudy orange paint job:

Your eyes do not deceive you.  What you see on the car’s roof is indeed the Confederate Flag.  Every single episode of the show’s run featured this vehicle and its colorful paint job and, yes, Confederate Flag.  The car itself, by the way, was called the “General Lee”.

I was a big fan of the show for perhaps a season or so waaaaay back when it originally aired and before the formulaic plots bored me away (this all occurred well before the original “Duke” boys were replaced by other actors, a move which likely hastened the show’s eventual cancellation).

At that time I knew very little about U.S. Civil War and, more importantly, post-Civil War History, having lived in South America for several years.  Believe it or not, the schools there didn’t care all that much about the U.S. Civil War, preferring for some mysterious reason to spend more time teaching their own history. 😉

When I eventually moved out of South America and started attending high school in Northern Florida, I received my first lessons regarding the Civil War.  Having digested that information, I was rather surprised to find so many people in and around that city, including friends I had in the school itself, using/displaying the “stars and bars” on things as diverse as baseball hats, shirts, and vehicle paint.  Though I was living in what could be considered part of the deep south, given what I learned about the Civil War I was curious why many people back then (we are talking the early 1980’s) both romanticized and ignored elements of that war.

Before I go any further, I should note that my personal observations are from that specific time and involved the people I lived in and around and should NOT be considered a broad generalization of everyone who lives in the South.  Again, these experiences are limited to those I knew at that time.

Having said that, when the subject of the Civil War came up, I often had the impression that many of my schoolmates, at least those who were into the romanticism of the Civil War, perceived it as one of Northern aggression, even though the “South” was the first to actually attack.  Similarly, these same people didn’t view slavery as the central issue on which the war was fought, rather describing the conflict as the North trying to destroy the Southerners’ “way of life” and their care-free, “rebellious” nature.

Though I was quite young at that time, once I had a general understanding of the Civil War I grew uncomfortable seeing the Stars and Bars on people’s clothing or flagpoles or on vehicles.  In my mind and backed up by every legitimate historical book/account, the Civil War was fought by the South to continue their barbaric practice of slavery.  The North’s stance, the idea that slavery was an odious practice which needed to be gotten rid of, was the right one while the Southern side clearly wanted to keep their heinous practice going.  I’m not unsympathetic to the massive loss of life on either side of this war and the general horrors present therin, but one can at least understand, when one looks at the historical records, what this fight was actually about and which side was fighting for something -slavery- I think we can all agree upon was beyond simply a very bad thing.

So back then I couldn’t help but wonder what African Americans (of which there were plenty both in the city and in my school) must have thought when seeing this flag so prominently -and proudly!- displayed by many locals.

That was thirty five years or so ago and today, a full one hundred and fifty years since the Civil War ended in 1865, it appears society may finally be coming to the realization that displaying this flag, and therefore what it represented, may not be such a great idea after all.

I suppose its better late than never.

As for the Dukes of Hazzard TV show, I never got the impression it was trying to show off “Confederate” values or somehow fuzzying up the history of the flag, though it most certainly was offering a “good ol’ boys” view of the south.  In fact, the show was for the most part harmless fluff, but I can certainly understand why there might be those who find it painful to look at that flag, even (and especially) in such a light hearted entertainment medium.

General

Sorry for the dearth of posts lately…

It’s been a rough week and time simply didn’t allow me to post.  That’s the way it goes when a close relative has health issues and everyone has to scramble.

Regardless, things are looking up now and I finally have a bit of time.  So, how about something fun?  From TV’s Mythbusters, Jamie and Adam, comes a list of…

9 “Lost” Inventions That Could Come In Handy Today

Interesting that of the 9 listed, two came from Nikolai Tesla.  It’s sad to look back and see Mr. Tesla’s life and realize that we had among society one of the more forward thinking individuals of recent memory…and we could have done so much more with him, had we invested even more than we did in his ideas.

Having said that, all the mentioned items are fascinating, and I was depressed to find that Starlite (the second “lost” item listed) is among those lost.  I distinctly recall seeing a video years ago on TV showing the incredible properties of Starlite, specifically the demonstration with the egg which is part of the video below…

…and thinking this was a product that would truly revolutionize the world.

Is Starlite indeed lost?  The above video states that while the inventor died, his surviving family may well know the formula to the material.  One can’t help but wonder if maybe the military -US and British- do as well.  Then again, if you hit the link under the word Starlite above, one of the comments produced stated that while the material was very good, it only lasted two weeks or so before decaying/falling off whatever it was painted on.  This comment noted the product still needed work to become a more “permanent” paint.

Still, what a wonderful concept, and clearly one that appeared to work!

General

A bill of goods…

A couple of days ago I wrote about how Beats headphones were made to appear “heavier” by inserting a few metal pieces into the devices (the metal pieces had absolutely nothing to do with the material that actually made the headphones work).  The reason for this was to deceive customers into thinking that heavier somehow equals better quality when test results indicate the Beats headphones are overpriced and underwhelming.

As obnoxious as it was to find this out, this may well be even more obnoxious:  It turns out candidates for various offices have turned to a “Rent a Crowd” company to fill up their events/speeches.  Why?  Obviously to make it look like whatever rally/speech they’re currently doing look more well attended and, hopefully, will look better in the evening news:

http://libertychat.com/2015/06/rent-a-crowd-company-admits-politicians-are-using-their-service/

…and it pains me to say this but: Is this really where we’re headed?  Is everything out there, every business and/or sales pitch, some kind of con?

I suppose its always been that way.  We advertise ourselves and/or our products and this makes more and more people see them and, hopefully, consider buying/electing them.

The ends, in these cases, justify the means.

If as a candidate for whatever office you want you have to rent a crowd to get yourself some traction, you hope that it leads to getting actual crowds interested in your candidacy later on.

Similarly, if you have a product you’re trying to sell and you create a TV commercial for it, you inevitably hire actors to show how much they like said product in the hopes that it will sell all the better.

And so it goes.

General

Counterintuitive…?

Researchers have found that…

Listening to Heavy Metal Music May Actually Make You Calmer

…at least according to a study published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.

While studies like this have to be taken with at least a small grain of salt (there must be some exceptions to the rules, as there usually are), I’m not entirely surprised by the results of this study.

It’s been nothing more than a “hunch” of mine for a while, but I’ve felt that people have to balance their lives in some way.  If you work in a job that involves meeting and conversing with many people, I’ve wondered if in your free time you tend to want to do the opposite and be on your own in a quiet setting with as few people around you as possible.

In my life, this is certainly the case.

Another bit of anecdotal evidence: I enjoy listening to Howard Stern’s radio show, particularly for the in depth interviews he snags out of various celebrities.  For those who have never heard his show, it is essentially a four plus hour long party (one that at times gets quite raunchy) with him at the center of it and various characters and personalities around him.

Listening to him, one might be forgiven for assuming that in his free time Mr. Stern would continue the “good times”.  You would think his showmanship would have to extend to after hours, and he must be the type of person who loves going to parties and hanging around with friends and having fun.  Yet whenever Mr. Stern talks about his free time, he notes how he wants to be alone.  He has stated on many occasions that he doesn’t like going out and wants to get to bed early.  His latest hobby, in fact, is watercolor painting!  Listening to him talk about his free time, one gets the feeling it runs directly opposite to his radio work.

And so we return to the topic of Heavy Metal Music.  Perhaps those that listen to it get their emotions revved while listening to it and that, in a way, uses the emotions up and allows them to be more “steady” afterwards.

An interesting, if not earth shaking, bit of information, if proven true.

General

Amusing…in a sad way…

P. T. Barnum’s famous line regarding “There’s a sucker born every minute” resonates even today, especially whenever I see a company selling (sometimes a little too well) a product to the masses I may find not worthy of anyone’s time or money.

Don’t get me wrong: In the great supermarket that is this world, there are plenty of genuinely excellent products worth seeking out and buying.  Yet there are times I can’t help but shake my head in wonder when some item becomes “hot” and I just know said product is not worthy of acclaim or attention.

Understand, I’m not some kind of supergenius who uses his x-ray vision to determine what’s good or what sucks.  Quite the contrary, my opinion often comes down to experiencing said product(s) (yes, after stupidly spending money on them) and coming to the conclusion that they do indeed suck.

Which brings me to this article, concerning the Beats headphones:

How Beats Tricks You Into Thinking It Is A Premium Product

This one, as they say, is really personal.

A couple of years ago Target was having their annual Black Friday sale following Thanksgiving and my daughters were both really, really, reaaaaaally obsessed with getting their hands on the “heavily discounted” Beats headphones.  In the end, the wife and I wound up paying something like $100 for each pair of headphones and that wound up being part of their Christmas presents for that year.

I was dubious of such expensive headphones but the girls insisted they were great and that the sale was awesome: “They’re normally priced at over $200!!!” they proclaimed.

Curious to see how these very expensive headphones sounded, after the girls got them I decided to give them a try.  Now, I have a pretty big head (insert appropriate jokes here) and immediately found the headphones were too small.  Not only didn’t they wrap themselves well around my head, the earpiece was also small and, after using them only for a few seconds, I actually felt pain from having pinched ears.

Having said all that, the headphone size didn’t matter all that much: My daughters’ heads (thank the Gods) aren’t as big as mine and they claimed the headphones fit them fine.

So I turned my attention to what was the ultimate proof as to whether these headphones were worth their very high (even discounted!) price: How did they sound?

To that end, I was shocked to find how ordinary they sounded.

For the past three years I used a $20 pair of Sony headphones and, to my shock and horror, the five times more expensive Beats headphones were not only more uncomfortable to wear but they sounded just about the same as my very inexpensive Sony headphones…maybe even a little worse!

My daughters, bless ’em, soon realized they, like many other teens across America and the world, were suckered in by the hype that was the Beats machine.  Not three months after getting the headphones, my eldest daughter’s pair broke (the wire connecting the device to your music player frayed).  She no longer cared to get a new wire (Priced, I believe over $20) and instead was happy to spend that $20 on a newer pair of Sony headphones like the one I was using.  She’s been happy with them ever since.

My younger daughter still uses her Beats headphones now and again, but if hers should fail, I doubt she’ll want to spend as much as she did for another pair and will likely opt for those less expensive Sony models as well.

Which brings us back to the article linked above.  It shows that part of the showmanship in selling Beats headphones is to give them some weight/heft.  It makes the client holding them think something along the lines that the added weight proves there’s more quality equipment inside the headphones.

Turns out that’s a sham.

As the article points out, the extra weight is caused by nothing more than a few unnecessary metal pieces inserted into the headphones’ inner parts.

Simple as that.

For shame, people.

General

I know I promised…

…but here’s one more really fascinating article regarding self-driving cars.  Written by Matt Windsor for UAB News, it focuses on a truly interesting question regarding this technology:

Will Your Self-Driving Car Be Programmed to Kill You?

Ok, the headline may seem…cheesy, but the ideas explored are actually very serious: What if we reach a point where self-driving cars are the norm and a situation arises where the car has to choose between saving you or other(s)?

The gist of the article is contained in this paragraph (I have put in bold what I consider the most important question raised):

Google’s cars can already handle real-world hazards, such as cars’ suddenly swerving in front of them. But in some situations, a crash is unavoidable. (In fact, Google’s cars have been in dozens of minor accidents, all of which the company blames on human drivers.) How will a Google car, or an ultra-safe Volvo, be programmed to handle a no-win situation — a blown tire, perhaps — where it must choose between swerving into oncoming traffic or steering directly into a retaining wall? The computers will certainly be fast enough to make a reasoned judgment within milliseconds. They would have time to scan the cars ahead and identify the one most likely to survive a collision, for example, or the one with the most other humans inside. But should they be programmed to make the decision that is best for their owners? Or the choice that does the least harm — even if that means choosing to slam into a retaining wall to avoid hitting an oncoming school bus? Who will make that call, and how will they decide?

Certainly this is not a small consideration and will no doubt be a source of great debate in the years to come.

Having read about how the self-driving cars operate, my understanding is they are very slow and careful, essentially “granny”-drivers and therefore, at least in city settings, would find very, very few examples where they might face a “serious” collision.  On the other hand, there are those who speculate that highway driving will allow self-driving cars to operate at speeds far in excess of the speed limit and that self-driving vehicles might form a “chain” of cars not unlike a train to move along highways.  The possibility for something going very wrong in a high speed situation is obviously raised.

Then again, the point may become mute: There are those who theorize the day that self-driving cars become a reality, “human” drivers and cars will be limited to driving only in certain areas.  Some have even speculated that human driving might become outlawed entirely on public roads.  Before you think this is the rise of some kind of automotive fascism, one must also realize that if self-driving cars are successful, people will likely welcome the technology.  All that time you spend driving could instead be devoted to watching TV, reading the newspaper or a book, or talking with friends on your phone.

Further, if it becomes the norm that no one actually drives themselves and, assuming any software glitches are accounted for and taken care of, self-driving cars may be put into a collision situations only on the smallest of occasions.

At least one hopes that becomes the case!

Regardless, the article is a fascinating look into yet another facet of what I’m increasingly certain will be the future of personal travel.

General

News (for the most part) not related to self-driving cars…

Before we get to them (self-driving cars, that is), we’re seeing great strides in electric car production, with the Tesla Model 3 looking particularly impressive.

The article linked to below offers a rundown of features for the car, most impressive of which is its range (said to be around 250 miles per charge, which is equivalent to most gas powered vehicles) and a list price of $35,000, very reasonable given the new tech:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/tesla-model-3-performance-specs-news-rumors/

Oh, and it does have some self-driving features, too…

General

The Facts vs. David Brooks

I’m very much a “liberal” when it comes to political thought.  I also like to think myself level headed enough to analyze all types of information and, when something runs counter to my ideas/ideals, I hope to be intellectually honest enough to accept cold hard facts versus my own personal notions.  Because of this, I can listen to conservative talking heads and find something interesting in what they say…even if I may ultimately disagree with much of it.

Getting to the topic at hand, I generally enjoy David Brooks when he’s on TV.  Again, I may not agree with all (or even most) of his opinions, but he usually presents his material clearly and not without a good bit of wit and humor.

However, after reading David Zwieg’s article, The Facts vs. David Brooks, I’m finding it hard to justify whatever interest I had in listening to him in the first place.  You can read the article here:

The Facts vs. David Brooks

The upshot of the article is that in recent times Mr. Brooks has been quoted using a Gallup poll to make a point about today’s generation and their need to be “important” versus “humble”.  Mr. Brooks’ thesis first came to Mr. Zweig’s attention via a lecture delivered at 2001’s Aspen Ideas Festival, where Mr. Brooks stated…

“In 1950 the Gallup Organization asked high school seniors “Are you a very important person?” And in 1950, 12 percent of high school seniors said yes. They asked the same question again in 2006; this time it wasn’t 12 percent, it was 80 percent.”

In Mr. Brooks’ book The Road to Character, Mr. Zweig notes that Mr. Brooks wrote the following, which roughly follows what he stated in the lecture:

“In 1950, the Gallup Organization asked high school seniors if they considered themselves to be a very important person. At that point, 12 percent said yes. The same question was asked in 2005, and this time it wasn’t 12 percent who considered themselves very important, it was 80 percent.”

Ah, but note that the second study’s year changed from 2005 to 2006.  I know this is a very small change, but as you read Mr. Zweig’s article, you find this is but the tip of the proverbial iceberg.  For Mr. Zweig searches for the supposed Gallup study (big shocker: there is none) and eventually finds the actual study Mr. Brooks most likely quoted.  In the process he realizes that almost everything Mr. Brooks quoted about it is wrong.

To begin, the original statistics from the article Mr. Brooks most likely was talking about, Mr. Zweig finds, were not made in 1950 but in 1948 and 1954 with the subsequent data coming from 1989.  The questions in the study were asked to 14-16 year olds, not high school seniors.  Finally, the 1989 boys responded 80% to the question while the girls were at 77%.

I can understand if you think these differences aren’t all that and you may think Mr. Zweig is being a tad picky toward Mr. Brooks.

But consider this: Why are Mr. Brooks’ incorrect quotes so important to his thesis that today’s culture is not humble enough?

Because as incorrectly presented by him, Mr. Brooks is leading his audience down a nice easy path of his own making.  By following the logic of his incorrect statement, we are 1) meant to be impressed that we’re dealing with a prestigious poll by Gallup (hey, they wouldn’t lie, right?!) and 2) by thinking the years of the supposed poll are correct (ie a 1950 youth versus a 2005-6 youth) I get the feeling Mr. Brooks wants us to make the leap to say “Of course!.  Today’s generation is waaaaay too narcissistic!  They’re only interested in themselves and their cellphones and their selfies and…”

…and the problem is that given the actual year of the subsequent poll, 1989, we cannot say this.  From a technological standpoint, the 1989 generation, when the internet was but a newborn on its baby steps (and smartphones were only a theory), is as relevant to today’s smartphone generation as it is to that of the 1950’s.

And suddenly we realize that Mr. Brooks’ “little” errors maybe weren’t so very little after all.  Why mention Gallup unless you’re trying to bring some prestige to your quote?  Why get the years so very wrong unless you are trying to point a finger at today’s generation?

Kudos to Mr. Zweig for investigating something others -even I- might have just take for granted.