I've decided to put together a list of random, completely pointless things that I just randomly wonder about. Well, perhaps not completely pointless things - but mostly random... Newest ramblings are at the top.
So, we ran out of toilet paper yesterday. I used the last sheet on the last roll I really would have liked one more sheet, but, oh well. To the shower... Anyway, while I was out buying a carpenter's square and some paper plates, I figured it would be a good idea to pick up some toilet paper. Immediately I looked for the "bales", because I like to try to only need to buy TP a couple of times per year. I picked up some Charmin, because it was 60 cents cheaper than the Cottonelle for the same 36 rolls of 200, 1 ply sheets per roll. As I was sticking about 10 rolls in the bathroom cabinet (for quick access in an emergency), I noticed that the package said "new nuevo" I'm pretty sure that's just new in 2 languages (english and spanish), but as I looked, I wondered, "what is new about this?" On the side it said 'unscented'. That seems pretty common for unused TP, and I prefer that it be unscented until after I used it. I don't think tha's new either. It also said there were 200 1-ply sheets per roll, and that they were 4.5x4.0 inches. Since that was the same as the "not new" cottonelle, I figured that wasn't new either. After about 10 minutes, I looked at the back. It claimed to have a new structure. There are "pillows of softness" and "channels of strength" on my paper. Apperently, claiming that it was "ribbed for my pleasure" would'nt go over as well... Anyway, how is that new? Charmin has always been soft, as per the "Don't squeeze the Charmin" guy, Mr. Whipple. I don't remember Mr. Whipple ever complaining about having brown fingertips, so I think strength has always been there too. But, since I don't have any old charmin to compare it to, I must assume this is new. My question is, how was it before? So, if anyone out there has some old Charmin that they could send me for comparison, or if they could just describe it, lemme know. I'm thinking about putting up a comparison of TP's now. Maybe something like stinkymeat.net.
I think it'd be cool if I had a sterilization gun. It should be small enough to carry everywhere, because I never know when I'm gonna meet someone that simply should not be allowed to breed. To be fair, I think that this weapon should require 3-4 hits to be rendered permanently sterile, so that in the case of temporary idiocy, the target would have a chance to redeem himself. I would have no objection to others having these guns, but there would have to be a stringent exam to obtain one, and being rendered sterile by one of these guns would obviously render an applicant ineligible. The sterilization process should be completely painless, but should turn the hair of the target bright purple, so as to make them immediately identifiable. Also, there should be a mandatory 10 minute wait between shots to allow the shooter to calm down. Being annoyed enough to sterilize someone is probably traumatic.
I also think it would be cool to have a de-vulcanizing gun. For those that don't know, vulcanization is the process that makes rubber hold a shape, rather than being a runny goo that comes from trees. This would be a good thing for cops to have, because it would allow immobilization of fleeing vehicles without any real horrible consequences (aside from the loss of braking ability and most directional control). It would sure be neat to see a car chase end up with the chased car sliding to a stop on gooey liquid rubber tires though.
Please note that, although I actually do think that some people really should not be breeding, I don't really think a sterilization gun would be safe, or that a de-vulcanizing gun would ever be used for good purposes. I think they're rather humorous ideas, however. :) I guess I should give Ryan credit for the de-vulcanizer, since I guess it was his idea to begin with. He doesn't have a rambling page, though. I need to go to bed now. It's 1 AM.
I was gonna complain about under appreciated educators, but I think I'll go on about laws instead. Since I recently got a speeding ticket, I'll throw out my plan to fix that area. Modern cars are already equipped with OBD II devices, which, among other things, can record your highest speed and emissions system tampering. This is good, because it takes away the car owner's freedom to fix their own car. People are idiots anyway, so why should they be able to fix their car? </sarcasm> Anyway, there are plans to allow these systems to transmit your speed and emissions info to roadside sensors, to take away the normal hard work of actually getting caught speeding by your local cops.
OK, so I admit that there are a lot of people that just should not be driving over (or even at) the speed limit. But there are a fair number of us that are capable. I propose that ability-based speed limits be implemented. My IL driver's license, like all others, has a little magnetic strip on the back. I think that outside the DMV should be a track, and when licenses are renewed, a mandatory "speed-test" should be performed. If a driver can drive fast and stop safely on this custom course, they are granted an ability-based "extension" to the speed limit. This would ideally involve the driver's own car (that passes "tech" like at drag races, of course), like the class-M test where the driver brings his/her own motorcycle. Anyway, OBD II cars with a transmitter could also have a little slot wherein the driver's license is inserted. If an extended speed limit is detected on that driver's license and the car is rated to handle those speeds, then it starts broadcasting a signal that police can pick up on. Maybe their radar detector automatically will adjust for the legal offset, so they don't have to compensate for anything.
Of course, there are problems. As soon as someone has an accident that's directly caused by excessive speed, they lose their extended privilege for maybe 5-10 years (as well as any other existing legal recourses). Also, there will be a problem of people using the wrong license just to gain that extra speed. Well, driving without a license is already illegal (kinda like killing people with guns is - but they keep making more laws to try to stop that too, don't they? Sorry, another digression). Besides, a competent law enforcement officer should be able to tell if someone is driving outside of their abilities, and could stop them to verify the legitimacy of their permit. I'm sure there are other glaring holes in my plan, but I think it's doable. It'd sure be more popular than the other option: Making it harder to get a license so idiots are kept completely off the road, thus allowing speed limits to be raised anyway. That would also reduce accidents, but I like the technology-based thing better. :)
Why would netscape and X do this?
10:39pm up 4 days, 2:20, 10 users, load average: 0.08, 0.04, 0.04 92 processes: 90 sleeping, 2 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped CPU states: 3.5% user, 2.6% system, 0.0% nice, 93.7% idle Mem: 193040K av, 188824K used, 4216K free, 24428K shrd, 3936K buff Swap: 513928K av, 176056K used, 337872K free 16576K cached PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT LIB %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND 11545 sauer 0 0 273M 128M 6368 S 0 0.0 67.9 9:25 netscape 916 root 19 0 35760 28M 1332 S 0 1.7 15.3 427:21 XProbably because netscape's stupid and X maps 32MB of video RAM into its process space. I wondered why my dual Celeron 556, 192MB RAM machine would seem slow... Now I know. "Netscape - bringing a little bit of insanity to the masses." If only there were a browser that was netscape and didn't suck. :( update - 3/27/00
7221 root 10 0 313M 186M 1792 R 0 40.2 99.0 32:42 Xcool, X has gown to 313 MB of memory. It's still growing (317) as I write this. I guess it'll crash pretty soon, when I run out of the 192MB RAM and 366MB swap I've set up on this machine. Darn, that's weird... (331, 335, aah!).
Tonight I was looking at a new carton of Orange Juice that I picked up at my local Schnucks (a grocery store). It's one of the 1 gallon varieties. Well, I looked at the expiration date, and noticed that it says "Dec. 02, 1999". Today's November 3, 1999. That means it should be OK for a little over a month since it's a "sell by" date, not an expiration date. That got me thinking. I realized that when I buy OJ in 1/2 gal. cartons, the sell-by date is usually within a couple of weeks. What could the justification be for this? I wonder if it's that Orange Juice expires faster when in small quantities. That would imply that if I bought a 5-gallon bucket full of OJ, it should last for about 22 weeks, assuming the window of available selling time doubles for every 1/2 gallon added. That seems a bit unbelievable, even if you go on the assumption that the time it takes for the OJ to go "bad" decreases as you empty the bucket out. I think what's really happening is that the manufacturer is just arbitrarily making up dates to go along with the amount of juice in the container. This is marginally disconcerting, but not disconcerting enough to keep me from going back out in the kitchen and having another glass of juice. I like orange juice - esp. when it has pulp in it. People that don't like pulp in their juice might as well be drinking some random "orange flavored drink" and taking a vitamin C tablet. Personally, if I want to drink some orange, I want some gin-u-wine pieces o' orange in there. Maybe it's because I'm too damned lazy to eat a real orange, or maybe it's something more subtle. It's probably the lazy thing.
Danny Sauer, 1999