Can a real life car do a “hot wheels” loop the loop?
The answer is yes. Encouraged by the mathematics, a stunt man pulls it off.
But wait, there’s more!
It's black Friday today, and I was somehow reminded of Ron Popeil, of Chop-o-Matic fame, inventor of many well-known household products. He has sold more than a billion dollars worth of rotisseries. I noticed that many of Popeil's infomercials are available on YouTube, including this one featuring his food dehydrator: Popeil, who was quite successful as an inventor, was equally impressive as a marketer. He explains his approach to inventing and marketing here. Tonight it occurred to me that even though I saw Popeil's commercials decades ago, I remembered much of Popeil's shtick. I especially remember the audiences applauding on cue. It was somehow effective even though I knew that these people had been paid to applaud on cue. What I didn't know was how the audience members were paid, and it was not with money, as you'll read here. As you can read in the same article, Popeil is now getting ready to market what he characterizes as his final invention, a deep fryer.
Photography of ordinary things
What is the shortest route from one side of a cantelope to the other?
[Photo taken by my daughter, JuJu Vieth]
The Afghanistan speech that President Obama should give
Tom Dispatch writes the Afghanistan speech that President Obama should, but won't, give. Here are three excerpts:
We have no partner in Afghanistan. The control of the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai hardly extends beyond the embattled capital of Kabul. He himself has just been returned to office in a presidential election in which voting fraud on an almost unimaginably large scale was the order of the day.
. . . I have decided to send no more troops to Afghanistan. Beyond that, I believe it is in the national interest of the American people that this war, like the Iraq War, be drawn down. Over time, our troops and resources will be brought home in an orderly fashion, while we ensure that we provide adequate security for the men and women of our Armed Forces. Ours will be an administration that will stand or fall, as of today, on this essential position: that we ended, rather than extended, two wars.
But we must not be scared. America will not -- of this, as your president, I am convinced -- be a safer nation if it spends many hundreds of billions of dollars over many years, essentially bankrupting itself and exhausting its military on what looks increasingly like an unwinnable war. This is not the way to safety, but to national penury -- and I am unwilling to preside over an America heading in that direction.
Hunger and Hypocrisy
Peter Singer offered this challenge in the Oct/Nov issue of Free Inquiry (not available on-line):
Imagine that you are walking through a park past a shallow ornamental pond, and you notice that a child has fallen into that pond and seems to be in danger of drowning. You look around for the parents or the babysitter, but there is no one in sight. What should you do? Obviously, you should rush into the pond and save the life of the child. But wait a minute--you are wearing your most expensive shoes, and you don't have time to kick them off. They will be ruined if you go into the pond with them on. Do your shoes make a difference in your decision? Everyone agrees that they don't. You can't let a pair of shoes mean more than a child's life. So how about giving just the cost of an expensive pair of shoes to an organization that is saving lives in developing countries? I don't think it is any different than saving the child in the shallow pond. Yes, it is different psychologically but not morally. Distance doesn't make someone's life less valuable.Singer's implicit assumption is that your dollars are fungible. When you spend a dollar on a luxury, it is dollar that you could have spent to save the life of a dying child. In other words, dollars don't come pre-categorized such that some dollars can only be spent on luxuries. You cannot escape this logic. Therefore, If Jesus (or whatever God you might believe in) were watching, you closely, and you knew it, you couldn't possibly pay $300 for a pair of shoes when perfectly adequate $100 shoes were also available and when you knew (as you always do know) that the other $200 could be used to save the lives of innocent children. I get frustrated with those who think that the commandment "Do not kill" is not being violated by those who spend excessive money on fancy clothes, cars or houses (or buy any luxury) in the same world where children are dying every day and those deaths are preventable. That said, I don't think that "Do not kill" is a workable rule. It rings nicely to simple ears because it is phrased uncategorically, but we really need a new rule that recognizes that we are not exactly a nation of murderers when we buy a steady stream of unnecessary luxuries (especially at Christmas time), but it's something like that when we completely unhinge our consciences from our wallets, which so many of us in sanctimonious American do almost every day. I don't really know how to articulate such a rule, but I do want to take this moment to recognize this undeniable fact as part of my "Life is Real" campaign: Every day, most of us in American choose to buy things with dollars that could be used for saving the lives of real children. That's the way things are down here on planet Earth, and going around claiming that "Do not kill" only means don't shoot or stab innocent people doesn't change things one bit.