If you counted 2010 Olympic medals by how many medals were given out rather than by how many events were won, what would the standings look like?

- Allen

March 15th, 2010

As requested, here is the medal count, using this algorithm:

  1. actual medals handed out (e.g. 5 for curling, 4 for 4-man bobsled, etc.)
  2. there were 2 team events where winning teams had different numbers of participants.  In these cases, I used the least number of medals given to any of the gold/silver/bronze winning teams
  3. for “Points”, I used 3 points for gold, 2 points for silver and 1 point for bronze.  Because, face it: Gold is better than Silver.

What was your favourite Winter Olympics 2010 moment?

- Kate

March 14th, 2010

There were many great moments:

  • the giant electric bear in the opening ceremonies; as a person whose first ever paying job was doing theatre lighting, I must say that the opening ceremony lighting was fantastic.
  • being in the crowd downtown one evening.
  • the crowd singing “Oh Canada!” so well so many times.  It really is the best anthem of all.
  • when Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir won the ice dancing pairs gold medal; that lift with Tessa kneeling on Scott’s back was amazing.
  • when Joannie Rochette won the women’s figure skating bronze medal.  Actually, watching her short program was the best part of this part.
  • the best of all was, after all, the men’s hockey game.  After all, just winning that one means we won the winter Olympics, right?  For the record, I believe that when you’re counting who won the most medals, you should count actual medals.  So pairs figure skating counts as two medals, 4-man bobsled counts as 4 medals, etc.  Under my modified (but most logical) system, Canada kicked ass on everyone.

Still, there was one even better moment.  It was when I received this graph, which explains so much about Canada:

What do you think is the secret to a happy marriage?

- Karen

March 13th, 2010

Ah, the key to a happy marriage… I’ll give you a couple of options to choose from.  One of them is true.

  1. the key to a happy marriage is for the male to realize that it is impossible to understand the female, while simultaneously realizing that things just go smoother if he just does what he’s told.  The validity of this possible answer is supported by businesses, for example:
  2. the key to a happy marriage is most dependent (statistically) on birth order.  A first born should never marry a first born; the very best is for a first born female to marry a last born male whose older siblings are all female.  Would I lie to you about this?  No, because it’s a scientific study and you cannot argue with science!  The uptight firstborn needs somebody to show them how to relax and enjoy life.  Meanwhile, that same overachieving female will dote upon the male, who has been brought up being doted upon.  Do the research if you don’t believe me.
  3. the key to a happy marriage is lots and lots of money to enable acquisition of lots of distractions.
  4. the key to a happy marriage is for the male to have a workshop to which to escape from time to time.  If he can come back with useful items he’s built, so much the better as it justifies the time away.
  5. the key to a happy marriage is to make it through the rough times without killing one another.  As the Brits said during WWII: “Keep calm and carry on.”
  6. the key to a happy marriage was best described by Winston Churchill (who wasn’t talking about marriage when he said it): “A man does what he must – in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures – and that is the basis of all human morality.
  7. the key to a happy marriage is age.  Men mature quite late (in their late twenties or early thirties), while women mature much earlier.  I can’t remember the exact timing without some research, but I recall that women are designed to have babies in their late teens or early twenties (physically).  So you really need a bit of an age difference.
  8. this answer is similar to the previous point, but very slightly different.  A good marriage depends on both parties actually being ready to get married (which is quite different than them thinking that they’re ready to get married, but I digress).  As it turns out, statistics from matchmaking services indicate that when two people are both ready to get married, they will have a successful union regardless of how well they actually know each other.  This may (or may not) partially explain why arranged marriages have a higher success rate than you might expect.
  9. just kidding about that last Churchill quote… actually, the key to a happy marriage is best described by a different Winston Churchill quote: “Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference.”  In essence, you can choose to be happy or you can choose to be unhappy and discontent.  Your reaction to events is a choice you can (and must) make.  This is not only the key to a happy marriage, but to a happy life in general.
  10. I had you going there, didn’t I?  The real relevant Churchill quote is actually: “Never, never, never give up.”
  11. you will notice that I have not mentioned “love”.  That’s because statistically, arranged marriages are slightly more successful than marriages based on love (if such a thing really exists).  Cynics believe that a good marriage is more of a business relationship; or as it was put to me once long ago: “women give sex for friendship, men give friendship for sex.”  Something to think about.
  12. the key to a happy marriage is for the male to very occasionally come up with irrefutable logic showing that he is correct while simultaneously making the female happy.  This has only happened to me once in my lifetime, and was one of the most euphoric moments of my brief existence thus far:
  • me: <gives an opinion involving a matter of taste>
  • her: <gives a contractory opinion>
  • me: “You’re wrong.  I’m right.  I have better taste than you.” <– this is a potentially fatal statement.
  • her: “You do not!!!!!” <– moving quietly towards the knife block in the kitchen.
  • me:  ”Yes I do.  After all, I married you… but you married me.”
  • Game, Set, Match.

There you go.  Though each of these possible answers at least tangentially touch on the truth, one of them is the exact full truth.  Let the discussions begin.

What do you think of having your own website? Is it everything you dreamed it would be?

- Allen Pike

March 8th, 2010

Very nice, indeed.  A forum in which to pontificate (which is illegal in certain States; making it even more satisfying).

I just hope people find it, because I have a LOT of answers saved up!

What was the most interesting thing you saw on your cruise through the Panama Canal?

- Kate

July 18th, 2009

Four things I really remember:

  1. when, in the airport in Vancouver, my father’s pants fell down.  Ask me about that one some time!
  2. the locks themselves. It’s pretty cool being on a ship that is only a couple of feet from the side of the locks. And although I am totally aware of how the locks work, it’s an experience actually being on a ship and seeing it happen.
  3. tankers full of goods from China in the Panama Canal.  Lots of them.
  4. an unexpected explosion in the distance — they are making the canal deeper and wider but I was expecting only dredging, not the use of dynamite to do so!

BUT — the most interesting thing that I heard was when my 82 year old father told me a never-before-told story.  He had been through the canal 6 times (3 each way) while in the Canadian Navy.  On each trip, they spent a couple of weeks in Magdalena Bay (which is on the Pacific coast of Mexico.  One day, him and another fellow took a boat from the the HMCS Ontario and went to shore.  Once there, they stripped naked and ran down the beach.

Never heard that one before, and I must confess that I can’t quite picture him as a 22-year-old.

It was as disturbing as the day a child figures out that his or her parents must have had sex at least once… or more than once if the child has siblings.

OG-

In the same vein as the answer you framed above:

IF this were a slightly different world, and it would be possible to acheive either of these goals, which would be your best solution for providing equal opportunities to affordable healthcare for all. Specifically in America.

A) A fully funded gov’t. program where everyone has the same coverage, and everything is administered/ overseen by the gov’t.

OR

B) Abolish the entire insurance industry, so everyone could pay as they go.

Please discuss, as I’m very interested in your take on it.

-J

- HBS

July 14th, 2009

I am biased in this question, since I live in Canada. Let me tell you my story… which I’m afraid certain Republicans won’t like.

In late October 2008, I went to the doctor and he ordered a complete physical — lots of blood work, stool samples, the whole enchilada. A week later I went back for the results (now early November) and he went through them. Everything was fine, except my TSH levels were <0.01. This meant that my pituitary gland basically wasn’t making any TSH (a hormone). The doctor said that I needed to go to a specialist and asked me if I wanted him to contact one for me; he did say that it would probably take 4-5 weeks but since I probably had this condition a year or two, likely I could wait that long.

The next EVENING, after dinner, I get a call from the specialist. She says that she’s completely booked, but if I come in at 9:30 she will squeeze me in before her regular day started. So I went in for my appointment. Total time to see the specialist: under 2 days.

She looks at the chart and says: okay, so the way this works is your Pituitary gland makes TSH to tell your Thyroid to produce some hormones (T4 and T3, mostly). So if the Pituitary gland is making zero TSH, what’s happening is it’s essentially taking its foot “off the accelerator” and your Thyroid should slow down. Mostly likely, what’s happening is that your Thyroid is making a whole bunch of T4 without instruction from the Pituitary gland. Of course, it may also be that your Pituitary gland is out of whack, but that’s even more rare. Therefore, she ordered more tests (for T4 and T3) and told me to come back in 3 days (it might have been 2 days).

I went to the government funded clinic. There was no wait. No wait as in I didn’t even sit down. Fifteen minutes after my appointment with the specialist ended, my blood test was complete.

Two days later, I see the specialist again. She says “okay, it’s clear that you have hyperthyroidism, which is an overactive thyroid. I need to see just how overactive it is, so I need to send you to a hospital to take a thyroid test. What you need to do is not eat <list of foods> for 3 days once the hospital calls you. They’re pretty busy, so it might take 4 weeks or so. Do you want me to phone around and see who’s available first, or do you have a preference in hospitals?”. I chose for her to phone.

Two days later, I get a call from the hospital asking me if I can come in the next day. I say “sure”, but asked if there was any food or drink I need to avoid first (in the past, I’ve done tests where you can’t do things like drink anything for 24 hours first or whatever). They say “oh, yeah, we thought the doctor told you this already. It turned out I had to wait another day or two because that very night I just happened to have had sushi for dinner (the seaweed is high in iodine). Not their fault…

Anyway, 5 or 6 days after meeting the specialist I went in to drink some radioactive iodine at the appointed time and to then get scanned. I got to the hospital an hour early (and paid for 3 hours of parking at $3 per hour). I go to the front desk of the Nuclear Medicine department and they say: “Oh, you’re early. Come on in.”. Total wait time is, uh, negative one hour.

I’m out of there within half an hour or so. But I’ve paid for 3 hours of parking. I’m beginning to see how the medical system in Canada is funded. They get you to buy more hours of parking than you need. I drop off $10 with the ladies auxiliary in spite of this.

The doctor sees me a day or two later. We decide to try to slow down my thyroid using Tapazol, which is the European solution to the problem. Every week or so for the 6 or 8 weeks, I see the specialist and have a blood test. EVERY SINGLE APPOINTMENT has a wait under 15 minutes and EVERY SINGLE visit to the biomedical lab for the blood test has NO WAIT AT ALL. Well, there was one where I waited 5 minutes. But all the others were zero wait.

Twice, I get phone calls the day after my blood work, from the doctor herself, at home at about 9:30 pm for an adjustment to my medication.

The Tapazol isn’t working fast enough for her and my thyroid is actually producing MORE T4 than ever. Apparently I have a bionic thyroid, immune to the poison of Tapazol.

Think of Tapazol as being like chemotherapy… and what’s the American alternative to chemo? Right: radiation. So she decides I have to have a dose of radiation. A high enough dose that for 3 days I shouldn’t be near anybody. She sets up an appointment again with the hospital for me to have this mega dose of radioactive iodine.

I’ve had no waits so far, and decide to “test the system”. Besides, there was an article in one of the National Geographics that I wanted to read (it was about that Afghanistan girl with the incredible eyes – at my last visit I had seen this picture that referred to an even earlier National Geographic article about that girl: this article was apparently a follow up to see what had happened to her. Anyway, this time I go to the hospital well over an hour early because (a) so far I had had NO WAITING and (b) I wanted to read that article.

Just as I find the National Geographic I was looking for… I get called in. Total wait time: under 5 minutes.

You get the picture yet? No waits. No cost. A doctor phoning me at home. I could go on (and will if you like)… but how about this: It’s now March 7th and my latest blood test shows that my thyroid is STILL not slowing down very much. And I’m about to go on a 2 week cruise through the Panama Canal. So the doctor orders another blood test and simultaneously sets up an appointment for a second does of radioactive iodine at the hospital for March 10th (which just happens to be my birthday).

I have an appointment on the 9th first, though, to see how well my thyroid is absorbing iodine. This is important to do ahead of time because they need to know how much radioactive iodine to give me so that enough is absorbed by my thyroid (thereby damaging it, which will slow down it’s T4 production).

On the 10th, the specialist at the hospital says it would seem that it has to be a huge dose because there’s really not much uptake. But the note from my “normal specialist” says to wait for a call from her before proceeding. Within about 5 minutes, while they are preparing my super strong dose to kill my super duper thyroid off, the phone rings: it’s my doctor. The latest measurements say my T4 levels are now normal. The hospital specialist says “Ha! I knew I had the correct does the first time.”. I leave the hospital.

Again: no cost (other than parking). No waiting. A successful conclusion. About 3 calls at home from my doctor to modify my medication levels, my doctor calling the hospital to cancel the second dosage, going with the European method first because I’m not a fan of radiation.

Okay, then how about this: for one of my appointments, the specialist CAME TO HER OFFICE ON HER DAY OFF so that everything could be completed before my Panama cruise.

So, you see, I don’t think I can answer this question in an unbiased fashion. Our medical system may not be perfect, and for sure there are mistakes that happen. But in my personal experience it seems to work just fine. If they want to raise my taxes a bit more so that the medical system doesn’t suffer and so that the doctors and nurses (all of whom have treated me with good humor and appropriate respect for the past 53 years) are not underpaid, I’m okay with that.

But my biased answer is: A.

Oldguy, 30 years in, do you think that the sanctions on Iran are ever going to result in a government acceptable to the global community?

- Phlale

July 13th, 2009

ROFL

No. The “global community” can agree on almost nothing, let alone what an “acceptable government” is. Ya got yer communists, yer democracies and yer dictatorships. Heck, some countries still don’t think universal health care is a good thing!

Personally, I think humans are just a step in evolution and that evolution is about to change from purely biological entities to cyborgs. But that just may be me…

Ahh..this opens up a good question (for pure fun): So are the Cylons in Battlestar Galactica (the new series, not the old) human? Meaning, what exactly makes us human vs a machine that is capable of thought and independent action based on circumstance and situation?

Invisible_demon interjected: Oldguy, do you think there will ever be a man fast enough to outrun a cheetah?

- disinfor

July 6th, 2009

Here is my response to Disinfor… (yes, I write songs in my spare time; specialization is for insects). The numbering has to do with measures so I can coordinate the words and the music.

Oh, and as for the cheetah question: Yes. Because we’ll kill off all the living cheetahs and dead ones can’t run.

Dust to Rust

03 Dark as night,
04 so smooth, so right,
05 Thoughts drifting by,
06 of you and I
07 Neural junctions, random functions,
08 Currents in a human sea.
09 Like Hamlet said, baby
10 “To be or not to be”

11 12 13 14 (music)

15 I know you can
16 you feel it too
17 these phases that we
18 have all been through
19 The start of it all, do you recall
20 when your mind began?
21 Like Hamlet said, baby
22 “What a piece of work is a man”

23 24 25 26 (music)

chorus
27 28 Someone please tell me why I feel this way.
29 30 It’s programmed emotion, that’s the logical way.
31 32 Tell me, tell me please – do the androids play?
33 34 Just like you and me; two of them kissed today.

35 So, when I get older
36 (and fade away like a soldier),
37 having transferred my soul
38 to metal grey and cold
39 where am I then? Am I
40 Am I dead or alive?
41 Like Hamlet said, baby
42 “All that lives must die”

43 44 45 46 (music)

47 My electric clone
48 might fool even me
49 but what feeds a soul…
50 blood? or electricity?
51 currents flowi’, where it goi’?
52 our unique identity
53 Like Hamlet said, baby
54 “(Passing) through nature to eternity”

55 56 57 58 (music)

chorus
59 60 With mechanical devotion, who do androids pray to?
61 62 Here’s another question: what do androids pray for?
63 64 With mechanical devotion, do they pray all hours?
65 66 God rewards his most pious faithful followers

67 We’re really not so different;
68 (actually we’re the same).
69 An unplanned silicon challenge
70 to the evolution game
71 Transfer my soul, where do I go?
72 Both human and machine.
73 Like Hamlet said, baby,
74 “To sleep, perchance to dream.”

75 76 77 78 (music)

79 Dust to dust
80 and rust to rust
81 Programmed love
82 and human lust
83 I can see our futures
84 our futures, they are entwined
85 Like Hamlet said, “Thus bad begins…
86 and worse remains behind.”

87 88 89 89 (music)

chorus
90 91 Someone please tell me why I feel this way.
92 93 It’s programmed emotion, that’s the logical way.
94 95 With mechanical devotion, who do androids pray to?
96 97 Here’s another question: what do androids pray for?
98 99 With mechanical devotion, do they pray all hours?
100 101 God rewards his most pious faithful followers…

What do you think about GenPets.com, Geneticaly engineered pets, should they be legal, why/why not. Please justify your answer taking ethics, morals, and religion into consideration.

- vajeans

July 5th, 2009

Great Question!

I do note with interest that in another forum topic, vajeans comments that he’s zoophobic. Therefore he thinks maybe fish or ants are the best pets. Having just removed a 25-year-old retaining wall that was riddled with ants, I’m not much of an ant fan… but I presume vajeans was talking about an ant farm, which keeps them safely behind glass just like fish in an aquarium.

And all of the above reminds me of a true story about when Kate was very, very young. She asked her mother if she would be allowed to have a pet. Her mother asked “what kind of pet do you want?” Kate’s answer was: “One that doesn’t go to the bathroom.”

So there you have it: vajeans and Kate have one important criterion for petdom that they share: the pet should not go to the bathroom (or, if it does, it should be trained to use a toilet (including wiping and flushing)). I must say that I concur… Kate eventually got a dog which used our entire back yard has his personal latrine; we didn’t get to use it. Except that twice I year I would go out there with a weed-whacker to keep the weeds at least somewhat short. Do you know what’s even worse than hitting a slug with a weed-whacker? You’ve probably guessed: dog excrement. I often just threw my weed-whacking clothing away at the end of the session. Of course, it also got on my face and in my hair, so I would be forced to use the Canadian Cold water from a garden hose to clean myself.

Some people believe that the reason I’ve still got lots of hair despite being well over 50 has to do with the potent fertilization qualities of dog excrement, dispersed in a fine mist via a good weed-whacker…

Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that somebody will be able to genetically engineer a dog that doesn’t eat just about anything and thereby produces excrement of widely varying composition.

BUT IF THEY DID: I’d be all over it. Imagine a dog that had a few genes from a Kangaroo Rat. The Kangaroo Rat has evolved special kidneys that extract most of the water from their urine and special nasal cavities that extract water from their breath. As a result, they produce only a few drops of (very concentrated) urine per day and their feces is highly concentrated hard pellets.

AND: if they could have them collect those hard pellets and drop them in a toilet (where those few drops of urine would also be dropped), you might have the makings of a good pet.

Morality… Ethics… Religion… here’s the thing about that: the person generally considered to be the “Father of Genetics” is Gregor Mendel. He was German, and it would be all too easy to suggest that Hitler and Company came by their interest in “Aryan genetic superiority” honestly by virtue of genetics being something that Germans seem to have a gene for. So I won’t. But I WILL point out that Gregor attended the Augustine Abby of St. Thomas in Brno starting in 1843. Here’s a link to the abby: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Thomas%27s_Abbey,_Brno Anyway, see the connection? The theory of genetics came out of a religious institution in the first place! It was a religious group that let the genie out of the bottle! So I suppose we can blame them for all the bad things that come from playing around with genes and chromosomes ever since.

Okay, seriously, here are my opinions on the matter of genetically engineered pets in point form:

- we have lots of dog breeds because people genetically select dogs and breed pairs with similar characteristics to strengthen that characteristic. That’s genetic modification. We do the same with cats, horses, cattle, etc. Is that evil? It is in that we don’t seem to let those dogs just naturally fall in love: they’re paired off like in an arranged marriage (which apparently have a higher probability of success than a marriage of the heart… but I digress).

- therefore: genetically engineering animals “the natural way” seems to be well accepted by society and has been for a very long time, even before Monks in the Abby started playing with peas to see how genetics might really work.

- HOWEVER: manipulating genes and chromosomes at that atomic level is kind of dangerous. Sure, I’d like a dog that could speak and understand, used the toilet and didn’t smell bad. If it glowed in the dark as well, that would be kind of cool. But there might be some unintended side-effects of humans playing with genes at that level. Perhaps dogs would hatch a play to take over our world (much like Dogbert… who you must admit is highly intelligent…)

There is a particularly good site where discussions of the ethics and morality of genetic manipulation take place. I refer you to: http://emonk.org

Personally, I think humans are just a step in evolution and that evolution is about to change from purely biological entities to cyborgs. But that just may be me…

You forgot the second half of that line old guy.
An idea’s death is to be forgotten or sent to commitee.

I’m in the middle of this’discussion’ on geneticaly engineered food and they are making the claim that genetic engineering has not increased food production. I don’t know a whole lot on the subject since my knowledge caim from my father and his folks never used it but is there any truth to this claim. It seems to me that it is just conspiracy theoretic garbage but I’d like to have some actual sources to back me up.

- olstar18

June 28th, 2009

Genetically modified food is an interesting topic. Do you remember the Star Trek episode “The Trouble with Tribbles”? In that episode, some tribbles get on board a space station where the Federation is storing a bunch of Quadro-Triticale to help some starving planet. In the episode, it is mentioned by Spock that Quadro-Triticale is an improvement over regular Triticale wheat, which was developed by a Canadian scientist named Dr. Zillinsky in the 20th century.

What does this have to do with anything? Well…

1) It’s true: Triticale (a combination of Rye and Wheat) was created in Mexico by a Canadian scientist named Dr. Zillinsky. I went to university with his daughter (Sue) and she will be visiting my family later this summer. Cool, eh?

2) the evil Klingons had further modified the Quadro-Triticale so that it contained a fatal virus! Making this the first TV example I know of involving the dangers of genetically modified food.

Here’s the Wikipedia article on genetically modified food:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food

The danger of GM crops is that companies are able to do all the evil things companies do to give themselves an advantage and wipe out the competition, such as:

a) getting a patent on the DNA of the plant. Give me a break on this one! They’re patenting certain forms of life!!!!!

b) they can create crops that have barren seeds. No longer can farmers save part of their crop as seeds for the next year (their “seed crop”). Instead, they have to buy new seeds from the company every year!

c) mistakes can happen. Read the Wikipedia article for an example of a genetic error that killed 37 people in the USA.

There is little proof that GM foods are more productive, although it would seem to make sense that they should be — for example, having Corn that has built-in pesticides (yum, yum — it’s right in the grain; hard to wipe off by washing for example). There are examples of GM foods that are modified to contain vaccines for people to improve health (great idea it would seem, but then there’s the fact that bacteria modify themselves even more quickly — making many formerly effective antibiotics ineffective).

Conspiracy theories? All I’ll say is that any time money is involved, people’s morals are one of the first things that get lost. Can use say tainted Chinese milk? Believe me when I say that if people in the USA could get away with it, they’d do it too.

That is my initial position. If you like, I’ll do some research on this because it has been an area of interested ever since “The Trouble with Tribbles” episode…