Frankie's Place

The Do's and Don't's For a Safe and Happy Halloween

2011-10-26T14:49:00.001-07:00

Each year at this time, I write a little note to all those lovely kids out trick-or-treating about how to enjoy the holiday while still having common decency. As Halloween creeps upon us once again, it is important to remember certain things when we go out into our neighborhoods to trick-or-treat. We want to fully enjoy the holiday, but at the same time, we should maintain a level of respect and kindness toward others. Here now, is a list of Halloween Do's and Don'ts for your reading pleasure.

1) DO Have an Actual Halloween Costume!

How many times do we have to put up with these lazy adolescents with their attitude of entitlement. I'm sorry, but a one-dollar mask and a hoodie is just lame. Put some effort into your costume. I don't care if you're 25 years old, if you have a decent costume, I'm giving you candy. But show up at my door in a little white makeup and your "normal" clothes, claiming to be a zombie, and you get the crap candy (maybe even some raisins!).

2) DON'T Ring the Bell if the Porch Light is Off!

I guess I thought that EVERYONE knew this. It's a time-honored code: porch light is on, it's ok to go ask for candy; porch light is off, head to the next house. Why people feel the need to ring the bell after 9 PM, when the light is clearly off, is beyond me. Anyway, I just don't answer the door.

3) DO Say "Trick-or-Treat"!

When the door opens, don't just stand there with a stupid expression on your face, holding out your bag, and expect that candy will just magically appear. There's a method to this whole thing. YOU need to say, "trick-or-treat" first. That's how it works.

(Note to children who cannot speak yet: get your parent/guardian to say it for you)

4) DO Be Gracious!

OK, so not everyone loves home-made Rice Krispie Treats in the shape of a ghost (and really, who still gives HOME-MADE treats out? Are you LOOKING for a lawsuit?). You may be given some candy that you don't particularly care for. Just take it and be gracious. There's no place at Halloween for wrinkling your nose or saying. "ewww, gross" when someone has just GIVEN YOU SOMETHING FOR FREE! Be a little grateful!

5) DON'T Grab More Than Your Share!

Sometimes, rather than handing out a piece of candy to each trick-or-treater, a host will present a big bowl of candy for the little ones to take from (I NEVER do this!). If you are presented with the whole bowl, don't be a pig! Sure, take two pieces, maybe even three (especially if they're those irritating "fun size" candy bars), but don't scoop a whole bag-full into your treat bag! That's just rude! The same applies to those anti-social hosts who can't be bothered to actually answer their door, but rather just leave the basket on the porch (OK, to be fair, they may be out with their own kids). Take a fair amount and leave some for those coming after you.

5) DO Say "Thank You"!

Apparently, some of today's parents have stopped teaching their kids that the proper response when someone gives you something is to say, "Thank you." I'm not sure who these mouth-breathers are, but they need to go back to parenting school. Our society as a whole has become infected with little entitled creeps who think that the world exists just for them. Well guess what Johnny, it doesn't. When you receive a gift, you thank the person who gave it to you. It's pretty simple.

6) (Optional) DO Say "Happy Halloween"!

This isn't a must, but I have to say that I feel good when little kids wish me a Happy Halloween. It shows a certain enjoyment of the holiday and a sense of well-wishing toward others. Say it if you think of it - it's just nice.

I know it may seem that I'm being a bit curmudgeonly about this whole thing, but honestly, where have people's manners gone? If you come to my house, please be on your best behavior - I save the best candy for THOSE kids!

Happy Halloween!

EP

Toys of the 1970's and 80's: The Answers

2011-01-11T17:42:00.000-08:00

OK, for all those of you who wanted to check your answers to the 80's Toy Quiz, here they are:

1. Lite-Brite

2. Operation

3. Cabbage Patch Kids

4. My Buddy

5. Castle Greyskull (He-Man)

6. Transformers

7. Spirograph

8. Teddy Ruxpin

9. Shrinky-Dinks

10. Big Wheels

11. Care Bears

12. Micro Machines

13. My Little Pony

14. Rainbow Brite

15. Merlin

16. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

17. G.I. Joe

18. Monchichi

19. Mouse Trap

20. Mr. Microphone

21. Barbie Dream House

22. Simon

23. Slip - N - Slide

24. Robotix

25. Laser Tag

So, how'd you do?

The Fun Equation

2011-01-07T08:38:00.000-08:00

When I was in college, one of my best friends introduced me to the idea of The Fun Equation. Being both chemistry students, we often found humor in relating math and science to the 'real' world (whatever that is). The Fun Equation was a cute, funny, and fun way of looking at what makes an experience "fun".

Here's the equation in its most modern form. In order to really understand how fun is to be had, we first need to define our variables.

F is, of course, Fun. The amount of fun to be had.
M is Mess. Mess may be made by the person having fun, or be a result of the fun.
N is Noise.
Cp is the Potential for Getting Caught (but not actually getting caught - think of it as risk)
S is Sleep.
Is and Io are Injury terms. Is is Injury to Self, while Io is Injury to Others.
Dp is Damage to Property, either belonging to self or others.
Ca is Actually Getting Caught.

From the equation, we can see that Fun is compounding exponentially with respect to Mess, Noise, and the Potential for Getting Caught. Obviously, we'll want to maximize these to ensure that maximum fun is had by all. Experimental evidence for the dependance on Mess can be seen in the aftermath of any gathering (and I've had to clean up after my share). The Noise factor is usually observable during the event. The correlation with Potential for Getting Caught is only palpable if one is in attendance ("Quiet guys! The RA is coming!"). These relationships are clearly seen in the typical college party (which are arguably among the most fun).

The compound growth of Fun is offset by Sleep and Injury (both to self and others). Sleep, of course, removes us from the event (anecdotal effects of pranks perpetuated on the sleeping have been ignored). The sum of the Injury terms is squared due to the serious nature of injury. As injuries become more severe, they will naturally have more of a dampening effect on Fun. It should be noted that minor injuries do not often decrease fun to a noticable degree, and there has been some evidence that, in the moment, these can actually increase Fun, although more research is needed in this area.

From the main expression, we must subtract the effects of Damage to Property and the square of whether or not we Actually Get Caught. Severe property damage subtracts a significant amount of Fun, and Actually Getting Caught (which is squared), can actually result in a negative value for Fun. Clearly, lack of permanent damage and avoiding getting caught eliminate this term from the equation. The balance between the Potential for Getting Caught and Actually Getting Caught is still being studied, and may result in a separate relationship that may need to be considered.

This version of The Fun Equation seems to be most appropriate to younger people. I am currently working on the Grown-Up Fun Equation, and will post this when suitable and sufficient testing has been completed. Variables such as Cost, Fatigue, and Good TV, are in contention for inclusion, but I am open to suggestions from my readers. Leave your ideas in the Comments.

Toys of the 1970's and 80's: A Quiz

2010-12-30T13:41:00.001-08:00

It's hard to believe that we've already finished up the first decade of the twenty-first century. While Christmas shopping this year, I began to feel nostalgic for my salad days of the 1970's and 80's. Man, the toys we had back then were classic, weren't they? Sure, there was much less glitz and glamor, but we had some great toys. And each Christmas, or Hanukkah, or birthday brought the great anticipation of receiving that classic toy.

Here now, are 25 tag lines or descriptions of some of the best that Toys 'R' Us had to offer. Most of them are easy, but there are a few tricky ones in there to stump even the most avid 80's fan. See how many you can guess. Post your answers in the comments, and maybe I'll send a prize to the first poster who is completely correct. Answers will be posted at a later date.

The Quiz:

1. Just pop in the colored pegs and follow the patterns.

2. Don't touch the sides!

3. The only doll to come with a birth certificate.

4. Wherever I go, he goes, and I'll teach him everything I know.

5. The throne, Dad! Dad, you saved the castle!

6. More than meets the eye.

7. Change wheels, change colors...your eyes won't believe what your hands have done!

8. He talks, he tells stories, he...

9. Trace, color, and cut, then Mom pops it in the oven.

10. Roaring, spinning, WINNING!

11. Kids are coming from far and wide, to play with them side by side. Every day can be their day!

12. A miniature, midget, colossal collection. They're really small.

13. You can comb and brush her hair, and tie a ribbon to show how much you care.

14. She has the power of the rainbow to make you happy!

15. The game you could play six different ways.

16. Heroes in a half-shell!

17. A real American hero.

18. Oh, so soft and cuddly, with their thumbs in their mouths.

19. The first to capture everyone else's mouse is the winner!

20. Hey good lookin', we'll be back to pick you up later!

21. Six rooms full of furniture, and even the windows work!

22. No one beats this game, except for Johnny.

23. First you stride, then you glide, then you slide, slide, slide...and get wet.

24. Who gives you robots to command?

25. The game that moves at the speed of light.

Mobile Blogging and Thougths on the iPhone 4

2010-12-01T18:49:00.001-08:00

I've always wondered if I'd be a better (or at least a more prolific) blogger if I could blog from my phone. It's a neat idea, right? Put down your thoughts instantly as they occur to you, then publish them for all to see - awesome, right? Or is it?

As this is my first attempt at mobile blogging, I thought I'd use this entry to discuss my impressions of my new iPhone 4.

A little history:

With the exception of the Android platform, have used most of the major smart phone platforms. I started with the Palm platform (I've used Palm devices since the mid-nineties) with the Palm Treo. I continued my loyalty to Palm with the purchase of the Palm Pre about eighteen months ago. Thoroughly disgusted with the Pre (a device that DEFINITELY didn't live up to the Palm reputation or standard), I tried Blackberry. Overall, I was fairly happy with Blackberry, with my major criticisms leveled at the rather lackluster browser. As a business phone, a Blackberry is a pretty good device, but I decided that missed a touchscreen phone (every Palm device I ever owned had one). So my choices were somewhat limited. Narrowed it down to the iPhone 4, the Samsung Epic, or the Blackberry Torch. I had just come from Blackberry, so I decided to compare the Epic and the iPhone. I chose the latter.

Impressions:

The first thing that I've noticed with the iPhone - something that initially pushed me toward the Epic - is that the virtual keyboard isn't such a bad thing. I am notoriously fat-fingered with these things, so I prefer typing in landscape mode. The iPhone's larger keys, combined with some pretty stellar auto-text correcting actually help me to type faster than I ever did on the physical keyboards. Add to that the lack of moving parts (as in, slider), and I'm very happy with text entry on this device.

A second issue that I was concerned with regarding the iPhone is that of multitasking. This is something that Apple really hadn't addressed in any previous version of the iPhone. Fortunately this is no longer an issue with the fourth generation. The iPhone has a great new feature reminiscent of Blackberry's multitasking feature - you just double click the one button and a list of your five most recently used application pops up. It makes switching between apps a cinch.

As far as other features of the iPhone go, well, those are all well-documented. The camera, while not the best on the market, has some new tweaks that give it a greater apparent resolution than the advertised three megapixels. Add to that the plethora of camera and photo editing apps available, and Blackberry can't compete.

Customer Service:

One of the big issues I've been warned about regarding getting the iPhone was AT&T's lack of customer service. While attempting to port my phone number from another service provider, there was a minor glitch that prevented it from working correctly. Figuring I'd put the customer service to the test, I logged into the website and initiated a support chat ticket. I have to say that the help I received was some of the best I have ever experienced. Maybe it was because I was a new customer, but I was very happy with the whole experience.

Summing it up:

OK, so I've only had the iPhone for a week, but I'm pretty happy with it. I've learned not to gush about a new device ("OMG, I Lurrrve my iPhone! It's the best phone EVER!!!"), so I'll leave it with this: this phone seems to suit me well. It offers what I was looking for in a smart phone, and so far, I can deal with its shortcomings, and can exploit its advantages.

Oh, and I wrote this entry entirely on the iPhone, so I guess that works!

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

My P90X Journey - Part I

2010-06-20T22:57:00.001-07:00

I've been doing P90X for two weeks now. Here's some thoughts so far:

Change in Management....(sort of)

2010-02-25T08:32:00.000-08:00

If you notice that the blog seems a bit "thin" today, it's because Google ate all my pictures. I had to switch this blog to a different gmail address (a process that apparently is nearly impossible), and in so doing, I've lost all the images I had. This is a bummer, but there's not much I can do. I don't usually keep the images I use on this blog, so I suppose they're gone for good.

I should be back with another science post soon, so stay tuned.

The Quantum Physics of Santa Clause!

2009-12-18T06:48:00.000-08:00

This is just a short post that I thought was a long time in coming. It seems there are people out there who doubt the existence of Santa. I know, right? Now normally, I'd respond with something quaint about how Santa lives in your heart, and if you truly believe, then he's real, yadda, yadda, yadda. Let's face it, that might have worked on some little girl in New York, but it doesn't carry much weight with us worldly grown-ups, does it?

So I decided that, if Santa is real, then there needs to be some scientific proof of his existence. Well, any science-savvy person who knows anything about basic physics will tell you that Santa, and his Impossible Task are pure bunk! I mean, how can one man, with one sleigh, carry ALL those presents to all the good little boys and girls of the world in one night? Impossible, right?

Well, yes, if you look at it scientifically. Given that approximately 15% of the world's children are Christian (and therefor on Santa's list), that makes about 375 million kids who need presents. Even if he travels from east to west (to maximize the amount of nighttime hours), he only has 31 hours in which to make all his deliveries (this takes into account timezones). If we go with the average of 1.89 children per household (from the US Census), that leaves a little over 198 million households for Santa to visit. This means Santa must make 1,774 deliveries per second. That's pretty ambitious, even for a "right jolly old elf".

Add to that the problem of the sheer mass of presents. Even if we limit each child to one two-pound gift, Santa is carrying over 500 thousand tons. Eight reindeer can't pull that much on their best day, not to mention that the fat guy himself is perched atop the whole thing! It's pretty clear that science has proven that Santa cannot possibly exist.

Except, we forgot about quantum physics. In the early part of the 20th Century, a number of great minds (some of which, like Einstein, you've heard of) were busy discovering the nature of small particle behavior. They found that, at the sub-atomic level, particles just don't behave the way that they're supposed to. This turned the world of physics on its ear, and led to the development of modern quantum mechanical theory. Now, I'm not a physicist, and it's not my intention to explain quantum physics here. I just want to offer one rather interesting, and, I think, crucial theory in support of the existence of Santa Clause.

It's the idea of quantum superpositions. To keep it simple, Santa has mastered quantum existence. Santa is capable, just once a year, of existing in infinite quantum states simultaneously. Electrons do this all the time. In short, Santa can be everywhere at once. Now this takes a tremendous amount of energy, which is why he only does it once a year. But with polylocation, Santa only needs a powerful burst of energy for a very short time, say, approximately 10 - 15 minutes. Enough time to place presents, eat cookies, and maybe leave a note. Once his Santa-ly duties are complete, he simply returns to a singular state. What's more, this explains two very important things about Santa:

"He sees you when you're sleeping/He knows when you're awake." Of course he does - he can be everywhere at once! And he'd better know if you're awake, because:

Santa won't come to a house where children are awake. IF ONE SINGLE CHILD SHOULD HAPPEN TO OBSERVE SANTA, THEN ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF QUANTUM PHYSICS, ALL OF HIS INFINITE QUANTUM STATES WOULD COLLAPSE INTO A SINGLE STATE OF EXISTENCE, RENDERING HIM UNABLE TO PERFORM HIS DELIVERIES!!! Read that again! Kids, when it's time to go to bed on Christmas Eve, don't dick around!

So yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause, and Quantum Physics proves that not only can he exist, but that he's got some badass technology up there at the North Pole! OK, time for my long winter's nap! Merry Christmas!

Chemical Misconceptions: The Truth About Turkey...

2009-11-17T10:30:00.000-08:00

As we get closer to Thanksgiving, I am reminded of an argument I had with a friend years ago as to the contribution of turkey - more specifically, the amino acid L-Tryptophan - on our typical feelings of lethargy and sleepiness after the big Thanksgiving meal. I wrote this post way back then, and I thought I'd re-post it now (t'is the season). I would encourage all of you who read it to spread the truth. When someone blames the poor turkey for your sluggishness, stand up (stagger to your feet) and say, "It's not the turkey!". Perhaps, together, we can make the world a happier, more informed place!

The Original Post (my additions are in purple):

OK, I'm getting tired of having to explain this to people every time Thanksgiving rolls around. I'm not sure how these myths get started, or what perpetuates them, but nothing irritates me more than bad science. So I decided to post this to set the record straight.

First, the facts about L-Tryptophan. Tryptophan is an essential amino acid in your diet. That means your body can't make it by itslef - you have to eat it. One of the uses of L-Tryptophan is in the production of Serotonin, a neurotransmitter in the brain. Serotonin is partly responsible for creating a relaxed, sleepy effect. So, since meats like turkey contain L-Tryptophan, shouldn't it make you sleepy when you eat lots of turkey?

In short, no. In order to become sleepy from L-Tryptophan, it would have to be the only thing in your stomach, and that means no other proteins present (nevermind carbohydrates). Since few people actually eat pure L-Tryptophan, and since turkey meat is almost entirely protein, you can't get the serotonin spike just by eating turkey meat. In addition, the levels of Tryptophan in turkey are not much higher than the levels in other meats. So what's the real story? Why do we get all befuddled after Thanksgiving dinner?

The real reason lies in the enormous amounts of carbohydrates and other food that we eat on Thanksgiving (or any holiday where food plays a central role). The large amounts of carbs in your belly diverts blood from your brain to your digestive tract, causing you to become sleepy (why do you think that most predators rest after they eat? It's so they can effectively digest.). Your digestive system works best when there is lots of blood supply in the area to cart away nutrients. The decreased blood flow in your brain deprives the brain of glucose, which in turn makes you a bit sleepy. Add to that the effects of alcohol (a depressant), and the glucose/insulin effect, and you've got naptime! There is a psychological component to this as well. Since holidays are typically times of relaxation (unless you're a member of a big Italian family that argues a lot, *cough, cough*), and because the most relaxing time of the actual day is usually meal time, your brain is more predisposed to feeling relaxed. This feeling can persist even after the meal is over.

So, let's stop perpetuating bad science! Next time someone tells you that it's L-Tryptophan that makes you drowsy on Thanksgiving, offer this experiment. Challenge them to skip the turkey and eat only the other stuff and see if they're wide awake afterwards. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go eat.

The Magic Floating Can!

2009-11-07T16:34:00.000-08:00

Technically, this isn't a misconception, but it's an interesting tool to see how kids (and some adults) integrate observed phenomena with prior knowledge and experience to construct an explanation for the observed phenomena. Basically, it's fun to see people try to explain this one (especially if they've never seen it).

This is an activity you can do at home to amaze and confound your friends (if you are so inclined). You will need the following:

A can of regular Coke^® and a can of Diet Coke^®:

A large container that can hold water. It's nice if the container is transparent, but it's not required.

Fill the large container with water, and then place the two soda cans in the water. Then watch, as this happens:

So, what's really going on here?

The basic concepts of relative density are important here. Most people have a passable grasp of the concept of density, although they insist on saying that the Diet Coke can is "lighter" than the regular Coke can. Without splitting hairs and getting into a discussion of identical volumes and relative masses, let's just agree that the density of the regular Coke can is greater than the density of the Diet Coke can. The evidence is that the Diet Coke can is floating in the water, while the regular Coke can is sitting happily on the bottom of the tank. We might even go so far as to say that the Diet Coke can's density is less than that of water too.

So, if we understand that the Diet Coke can is less dense than the regular Coke can, the question becomes "why"? Most students will begin to think about the differences between the two beverages, and most will come to the understanding that there must be something missing from the Diet Coke can that would make it "lighter" (ugh!). Some have suggested that it's the caffeine (it's not - Diet Coke actually has more caffeine than regular Coke per 12 ounces). Others have suggested that there might be less liquid in the Diet Coke can (an air bubble), making it float. Both are good indicators that the observers have an idea of what density means.

In fact, it's not any of those things, but rather the lack of sugar in the Diet Coke can that accounts for the difference in mass (and therefor density). Regular Coke contains a whopping 40.5 grams of sugar per 12-ounce can. Diet Coke is not sweetened with sugar, but rather with aspartame (you call it NutraSweet).

Aspartame

Aspartame is roughly 200 times sweeter than sucrose, so in order to get the same level of "sweetness", you need much less of it. A 12-ounce can of Diet Coke contains only 125 milligrams of aspartame (0.125 grams), which is a big difference in mass. Since the volumes of the cans are equal, the smaller mass of the Diet Coke can makes it less dense than the regular Coke can. In fact, the density of Diet Coke is very near the density of water. The small amount of head space at the top of the can (filled with carbon dioxide gas) allows the can to float near the top. It should be noted that regular Coke cans also have this head space, but the mass of the soda, due to the sugar is more dense than water.

So, go try it out! Try other types of soda, like Mountain Dew^® and Diet Mountain Dew^®. How about Red Bull^® and other energy drinks, do they float or sink? Just remember to clean up afterward, and have a refreshing beverage.

Chemical Misconceptions - Part II

2009-10-29T08:10:00.000-07:00

In this, the second installment of my Chemical Misconceptions series, I'd like to turn to a few quick concepts that I encounter from year to year with my sophomores. I am continually surprised that many of these basic ideas are somehow missed throughout elementary and middle schools. What is more surprising (and not a little frustrating) is that many of these myths persist into adulthood. This post (along with the others in this series) is an attempt to spread a little correct information, and maybe to modify the way we describe the world around us.

The Color of Water:

Invariably, when asked to describe the color of water (or other such liquids that look like water), students will respond with the time-honored "clear". Honestly, I'm not sure of the origin of this one. I suppose that "clear" has become part of our culture as a way of describing things that have no color. It's also inaccurate.

The word "clear" is a synonym for transparent to visible light, or the ability to transmit light through a substance. Water certainly is clear - it transmits light quite well (although it does bend it slightly), but clarity is not color. The most appropriate term used to describe the color of water is "colorless", as in, having no color.

This may seem to be nit-picky and overly particular, but hey, this is science.

Heat Rises:

This expression is extremely commonplace in our culture, and also extremely wrong. We could prove this fairly easily: if heat rises, then it should be possible to take a hot pan directly off the stove and put it on top of our an unprotected hand (Note: Please, please, PLEASE do not attempt this at home - I take no responsibility for any trips to the emergency room with second degree burns on your hand). If heat rises, then a pan on top of your hand isn't going to do you any harm, because the heat would be moving upwards, away from your hand. Hopefully, you realize that this isn't the case (I hope you didn't have to prove it to yourself!).

The fact is, thermal energy, like all types of energy, flows from matter that contains a lot of it into matter that contains less of it. In the case of our hot pan, that means the heat is flowing from that pan right into your ivory-soft skin, and burning the bejeezus out of it (that's a technical term). It's not a directional thing, or, more accurately, it's an omni-directional thing. Thermal energy is radiant - it flows in all directions.

So, why then do we say that heat rises? Usually this expression is uttered in the context of keeping warm in your house. Why is it usually warmer upstairs - and let's not get into a lengthy discussion of the importance of proper home insulation. What we mean when we say "heat rises" is "hot air rises". Hot air is less dense than cold air, so the cold air will sink to the bottom of the house, pushing the warmer air upwards. This is essentially how hot air balloons work. It's not the heat that's rising, it's the warm air.

Is the Air There?

Somewhere in our lives, we have either been told or have constructed as a fact that the air isn't matter, because it cannot be seen. Those who escape this particular fallacy often get caught up in thinking that, while the air is matter, it is either the same thing as oxygen, or it is a single substance (element or compound). My personal thought on this is that it is entirely constructed belief - that is, no one told us this, we simply deduced it on our own. After all, the ancients didn't believe that the air actually existed, and when they did finally decide that it was there, they thought it was an element. Are we so much better than they were? Well, yes.

Matter is classically defined as anything that has mass and takes up space (volume). Because we cannot see the air, it isn't a stretch to think that it has no mass. Solids and liquids have mass that can be felt, but pick up a glass of air, and it feels, well, empty. Plus, proving air's mass is also not an easy thing to do, unless your name is Otto Von Guericke. Except actually, it's fairly easy to prove that air has mass, all you need is a meter stick, two balloons, some tape, and a pin.

First, blow up both balloons to be approximately the same size, and tape them to each end of the meter stick. Put identical crosses of tape on each balloon, then balance the meter stick on the end of a table (or lab bench, if you have one). You may need to move the balloons to get the meter stick to balance.

Now, carefully use the pin to poke a small hole in one balloon, right in the middle of the tape cross. Try not to pop the balloon, just make a hole so that air can escape. As the air escapes from one balloon you will see the meter stick begin to tilt upwards on that end. Where once the two balloons were balanced, the balloon that is losing air is now measurably lighter. The other balloon's mass (yeah, it has mass) is not changing. We can deduce that air has mass.

It's a bit easier to see that air does, in fact, take up space. As you blew into those balloons, they got bigger (their volumes increased). So air has both mass and volume, and is therefore matter.

Now, is the air a single element? For hundreds of years, it was thought that it was. In fact, early chemists thought that all gases were just contaminated air. The work of chemists like Antoine LaVoisier, Henry Cavendish, William Ramsay, and others has shown that in fact, the air is made of a combination of nearly twenty different gases, all mixed together in different amounts. Of course, the big three are Nitrogen (about 78.084%), Oxygen (about 20.947%) and Argon (about 0.934%) make up almost all of it. Each of these components can be physically separated from air, usually by distillation. The other components of air are present in much smaller amounts, and vary greatly with location (cities versus the country, etc.).

So there are three more ideas to share with your families around the dinner table. There are more to come, but I think that should keep you busy for a bit.

Chemical Misconceptions: Significant Figures

2009-10-06T18:30:00.000-07:00

As a high school chemistry teacher, I am continually faced with students who have, somehow, acquired science knowledge, which they take to be fact, that is just patently wrong. Each year, I attempt to dispel some of these myths with my sophomore chemistry students, wondering all the while exactly where they come up with this stuff. I'm pretty sure most of it is from inaccuracies in the movies and television programs they watch, but some of it has to come from their elementary school science teachers.

This is frustrating, but somewhat understandable. Elementary science teachers often aren't science teachers at all, but elementary teachers who teach science - an important distinction, to be sure. Perhaps they just don't know any better, and perhaps their textbooks aren't accurate either. Still, it would be nice to hear of one or two that actually get it right (note: I actually do know a few middle-school science teachers who do get it right - thank goodness!).

So, I've come up with a few of my (least) favorite misconceptions in chemistry. In reading this post, you may be tempted to point out that some of these fall into the category of physics misconceptions, and you would be correct. However, I would respond by saying that 1) I teach these topics in my sophomore (and Advanced Placement Chemistry) course, and 2) the worlds of physics and chemistry are inextricably linked. So there.

2.3 cm x 4.53 cm = 10.419 cm²

OK, so what's with the math problem? This is just a simple example of a much larger problem - the lack of understanding of significant figures. First of all, go get a calculator and check my math - I've been known to make mistakes.

If you punch the problem written above into any calculator, you should get the same answer that I got. Sadly, you would also be wrong (we're making a couple of basic assumptions, but I'll get to that in a minute). What I like to tell my students is this: your calculator lies. Well, OK, it doesn't lie, but it sure doesn't know any better. The problem with the math problem up there is that most people see it as a simple multiplication of two numbers, and that's the real problem. Those aren't numbers up there, they're measurements, and that means we need to think about accuracy.

Looking at the first measurement, 2.3 cm we have to assume that it was made with a measuring stick that had only centimeter lines (no millimeters). Why do we have to assume that, you ask? Well, imagine that you have the following measurement to make:

Clearly, you can't call this 2 cm or 3 cm, because it's somewhere in between, but how far in between? That's up to the person making the measurement. I see this as 2.3 cm, but you might just as easily say that it's really 2.4 cm or 2.2 cm. Whatever you decide, you are correct, and that means that the tenths are uncertain. Yet they are absolutely essential to the measurement - leave them out, and you're not even close to the real measurement. Now look at this measurement:

Looking closely at this one shows that, while it appears to be 4.5 cm, the end of the green object is actually just a little to the right of the line that represents 0.5 cm. It's not quite at the 0.6 line either, it's between them. So again, we have to estimate the hundredths. I see this as 4.53 cm, but you may see something a little different, and that's OK. Again, we have an uncertain digit in our measurement.

See, in the world of measurements, the last digit of every measurement is considered to be uncertain (you can call it "eye-balled" if you want). Whether you're making the measurement or an instrument is making it, that last digit had to be estimated. In addition, any measurement is only allowed one uncertain digit, because the other digits are determined by graduations in the measuring tool. An estimated digit affects your calculations, because you're just not sure that its value is what it says it is. Maybe a quick illustration will help:

Here's the calculation we're performing. Remember, these are measurements, and so carry with them uncertainty. I've drawn the estimated digits in red.
Go back to third-grade math and dredge up the memory of how we multiply out long-hand. If a digit is uncertain, like the two threes, then how can we know that their product is deifnitely a nine? We can't know that, nor can we know that the product of an uncertain three and a certain two is definitely a six. So if we keep uncertain digits in red, the first step looks like this:
Continuing our multiplication, we'll follow the uncertainty through. One assumption we'll have to make (for the sake of this limited analogy) is that, a certain 5 multiplied by an uncertain 3 is an uncertain 15, but that the product will be at least 10, so that when we carry the 1, the remaining product remains certain. If that's confusing, don't worry about it. Now things look like this:
Now we add. Adding an uncertain digit to a certain digit results in an uncertain digit (I have three apples, you have a bag that might contain two apples - do we definitely have five apples?). Here's what we get:
That's what the calculator told us we were supposed to get, right? Except, there are three red digits. Measurements are only allowed one uncertain digit, so we can't have all of those. We have to drop the 1 and the 9. That gives us:
That, quite simply, is the most accurate answer that we're allowed to have. All this is due to the uncertainty inherent in the two measurements we multiplied together.

The rule for multiplication of measurements states that your product cannot be more accurate than the least accurate measurement in the calculation. In other words, the accuracy of our answer is limited by the 2.3 cm, because it is ten times less accurate than the other measurement. We only know that measurement to the tenth of a centimeter, and those tenths are estimated. How can we possibly get an answer that is one hundred times more accurate, just because our calculator tells us so? Like I said, your calculator lies.

All right, so this post turned out to be a lot longer than I was expecting. I will address some of the other misconceptions in a later post. I think you have enough to think about.

I Just Don't Understand...

2009-09-23T17:55:00.000-07:00

OK, so I'm a bit confused by some of the opposition to the proposed health care bills. I've read what the White House has to say about it, and I've read a lot of blogs dealing with the issue. What I can't seem to figure out though, is how anyone can actually be against health care for everyone. OK, I get why the big insurance companies might be opposed to it, but your average citizen? I don't get it.

Maybe I'm being overly simple about it. See, the way I see it is, we have a moral and ethical obligation to take care of our brothers and sisters. I'm not talking religion (I'll get to that in a second), I'm simply talking about being a part of the human family, and more importantly, being part of the United States of America. How can we, as citizens of this great nation, turn our backs on those of us who need help? I can't fathom it. Are we really so selfish? It saddens me to think that there are that many people out there who think that things are really ok as they are, and who would tout "personal responsibility" like it explains every person's situation. How narrow-minded.

And those who call themselves Christians? How can they truly call themselves Christian if they reject a fundamental teaching of Christ? Admittedly, I am not Christian - I believe we should take care of one another because it is right, not because of some consequence that may or may not come after I die. But for Christians, who claim to believe so strongly in the teachings of Jesus, to simply choose to ignore the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew's gospel is confusing. I could continue to indict these "Christians In Name Only" (CINO's), but I'll save that for a later post.

Now, for the argument against government involvement and control - I don't see that either. The opponents of a government-funded (read, public) option have been spreading fear and mistrust over this part of the reform. The so-called "Death Panels" - where a committee would decide on who gets what care, or who lives and who dies - are a simple fallacy. And if you really think that insurance companies aren't already deciding who lives and who dies, then you're not really paying attention. Besides, it's my understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that Medicare is doing fairly well, and isn't that run by the government?

And then there's the problem of paying for all this reform. Who's going to foot the bill? Hey, isn't that why we have taxes? To pay for stuff that's important? I get a kick out of people who clamor for lower taxes or for the tax cuts, but then wail about how the streets in their neighborhoods are in need of repair. Face it folks, there are things that we, the citizens of this great nation need to pay for. And if you happen to be wealthy, then guess what? You need to pay more. It's part of being part of something bigger than yourself. I know (most of) you work hard for your millions - how about giving back a little? "From those to whom much has been given, much shall be required" (John F. Kennedy).

Am I being too simple about it all? Is there anyone out there who can give me a cogent, well-thought argument as to why we shouldn't do all we can to help those who need it? Any Christians who can explain why they are allowed to cherry-pick scripture for that which is convenient? Anyone?

Note: Please, please, PLEASE comment on this post, especially if you are someone who can answer some of my questions. Please, also, respond in a mature and thoughtful way. I have tried to ask the questions with which I have been struggling in a non-threatening way (although, I know that I can be sarcastic), but I mean no offense. I would hope that we can enter into a respectful (and hopefully enlightening) conversation about these issues.

If you agree with some or any of what I have written, I'd like to hear that too. But let's be respectful to those of differing opinions, OK?

Go Up The River...

2009-08-24T19:38:00.001-07:00

The village was situated on the banks of a great river. Every morning, some of the villagers would go down to the river’s edge to draw water. One morning the villagers arrived at the riverbank to find the body of a small child that had washed up on the bank. The child was dead, but there was no visible injury to the body or any indication as to how it had died.

Saddened, the villagers reasoned that the child must have come from one of the other villages further up the river. They bore the body respectfully back to their village and ceremoniously buried it.

The next day, upon arriving at the river, the villagers discovered the body of another dead child. Bewildered, they returned to their village with the body and buried it, but the very next day, another body had washed up on the river bank.

On the third day, three bodies – two women and a man – washed up on the river bank. The following day there were five bodies. The villagers were in a panic. They began to organize committees to handle the ever-increasing numbers of bodies that were washing up on the banks of the river. There was a Transportation Committee that was responsible for bringing the bodies to the burial yard; a committee of grave diggers to dig new graves; a committee that oversaw the care and safety of all the workers, and even a team of counselors to help council those deeply affected by all the deeply depressing work.

One day there was great excitement – word had come from the river’s edge that a man had washed up on the bank who was still alive! Quickly, everyone hurried to the river banks to see this man. The village leader leaned in to talk to the man.

“What has happened?” he asked. “What caused the deaths of all these people? We have nearly everyone in our village working to deal with all the bodies. What can we do to help your people?”

The sick man began to form words with his mouth, but no sound issued from his lips. The village leader leaned in even closer, so as to hear what the man was trying to tell him.

“Go up the river,” said the man.

“But we can’t,” replied the village leader, “We’ve no one left! All of us are working to deal with all the bodies.”

With his last breath, the sick man said again, “Go up the river.”

Return of Attack of the Summer Movies!

2009-08-08T08:42:00.000-07:00

Here's the second installment of my personal reviews of some of the summer's biggest hit movies. Remember, these are simply my opinions. If you disagree, please comment and let me know. But I strongly encourage you to go out and judge them for yourself. So here we go:

Terminator Salvation

As sci-fi movies go, this was not a good one. It's my experience that when you try to re-invent a successful franchise by putting in, say, actual actors, you ruin the schlock factor. I don't think there are many out there who would argue with me about Arnie's lack of acting ability (or governing ability, but that's a different post), so when you put an actor like Christian Bale in the role of John Connor, you're asking for trouble. The guy actually tries to make a decent movie with this.

Without spoiling anything (is this even possible with a Terminator movie?), this movie is more the story of John Connor and the resistance than it is of the fearsome Austrian-accented cybernetic killing machine. Granted, there are plenty of killer machines in this flick, and they are ultra cool. The special effects alone are amazing, but they can't support a paper-thin story line or underdeveloped characters. In truth, Bale is the only reason to even rent this movie (unless you're an avid sci-fi fan who just HAS to see every movie that's ever released - note: if you are one of those types, you should check out Jean-Claude Van Damme's forgettable (!) Cyborg).

While Bale holds the film together as best he can, it should be noted that Sam Worthington delivers a fairly convincing performance as Marcus, the cyborg-that-doesn't-know-he's-a-cyborg. And if you're worried that I just spoiled the movie for you, fear not. For one thing, the director McG (yeah, that's the name he's going with) has already done that, and for another thing, you pretty much figure Marcus out in the first ten minutes. Still, it's an interesting attempt at a plot twist, but it doesn't really work.

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

This movie is the sequel to the movie of the same (almost) title from 2006. We love these movies in my family, so we were very excited to see this one when it came out. The danger with most sequels however, is that they just can't deliver as well as the original. This is one of those rare exceptions that is as good, if not better than the original.

Start with an exceptional cast, playing off-beat, classic characters. Ben Stiller's slightly hapless, slightly bumbling, but good-hearted Larry Daley is the glue that holds the entire cast together. His comic delivery is at its best in this movie. I much prefer this Ben Stiller to the one in say, Dodgeball. When Ben plays it close to real, he is so much more enjoyable. Add notables (and Stiller accessories) such as Owen Wilson and Steve Coogan (a knock-out on-screen duo if ever there was one - I'd go see The Adventures of Jeddediah and Octavius if they ever made it!); Christopher Guest as Ivan the Terrible (mis-translated apparently from "Ivan the Awesome"); Hank Azarea as Kahmunra (as well as other voices in the movie); and the inimitable Robin Williams who reprises his role as Teddy Roosevelt, and you've got a great flick.

There are a number of other great, albeit brief performances in this film, but I have to say, I really enjoyed Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart. Her outfit notwithstanding (I'm now a big fan of early 1900's flight pants), she does an excellent job in bringing this notable aviatrix to the screen. I wasn't a fan of The Notebook, but I like this actress (side note: I am looking forward to seeing her in Julia and Julia this month).

The story for the original Night at the Museum was that every night, all the exhibits in the museum come to life, thanks to the magic Tablet of Akhmunra. In this installment, many of the exhibits are shipped to the Smithsonian Institute for permanent storage. Somehow (Dexter!) the Tablet ends up going with them, and helps to bring to life Kahmunra, Akhmunra's older brother (and not a nice guy). Larry Daley must travel to Washington D.C. to save his friends and return the Tablet before Something Bad Happens. I'll leave you to discover the rest for yourself. This is a fun story, but sadly, doesn't leave itself open for more installments of this wonderful series. So go see this or rent it when it comes out. And if you haven't seen the first one, don't be a dum-dum...

Imagine That

The Onion, one of my favorite publications, announed this as the Eddie Murphy film with only one Eddie. That's a pretty fair approximation of this particular vehicle. Imagine That is an attempt at a touching tale of transformation - you know the story: dad is busy; kid wants dad to pay more attention; kid does something that gets dad's attention, but for the wrong reasons; dad spends time with kid and realizes "the true meaning of life". It's an oldie, but it can still tug at your heart-strings.

Murphy delivers a toned-down performance (compared to many of his recent movies), and actually manages to come through as the dad who learns the lessons of life. There's still plenty of classic Eddie moments to keep you laughing, but mostly, it's nice to see Eddie Murphy attempting a semi-serious role. While he won't be winning any awards for his performance (it's a little thin), this was an enjoyable movie. It's definitely worth renting for a family movie night.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

If it weren't for the fairly impressive special effects, this movie would be a waste of film. As it is, it comes close to being one of the worst sequels of all time, if not one of the worst movies ever made (with the exception of Transylvania 65000). Once again capitalizing on Gen X-ers love of nostalgia and the toys of their youth, Michael Bay et al deliver a thouroughly unenjoyable film.

What made the first Transformers movie exciting was actually seeing some of our favorite toys in all their CGI glory. In truth, this movie could not have been made until now - the technology just wasn't there. But all that gets a little old, about ten minutes into the first movie. As with Terminator Salvation, you can't float a movie with spectacular special effects when it's story and acting have more holes than...well, than something with a lot of holes. A lot of big holes.

Message to Hollywood: Just because we loved these toys when we were young does not mean you should make movies about them. Please stop all plans for making a Thundercats movie. Do not consider scripts for He-Man and the Masters of the Universe (yes, I know you already made that one one in the 80's). Leave well enough alone, please, for the love of all that's holy.

Next up, I'll be reviewing Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Ice Age 3, G-Force, and G.I. Joe

Attack of the Summer Movies - Episode I

2009-07-01T13:27:00.000-07:00

Anyone who knows me is well aware of my love for the cinema. There is nothing more entertaining than sitting in a darkened room while stories of love, action, or comedy unfold on a brightly-lit sixty-foot screen in front of you. In the summer time, when the weather is uncomfortably hot outside, a cool theater can be a welcome escape from the dog days.

My movie tastes tend toward the action/adventure/sci-fi/thriller. I'm not much into drama, unless it's the right kind of drama. I can also leave the romantic comedies - the "chick flicks", if you will. They really do nothing for me, and so I usually opt to skip them (although, I have been known to see them when on a date with my lovely bride). My wife, however, does not usually go in for the shoot-em-ups, so I often find myself at the theater alone, settled in for the last showing of the night. And you know what, I like that just fine.

I also enjoy the family oriented, kids' movies. Anything animated or geared toward the younger crowd, I can enjoy. Being the father of two boys, aged nine and six, I have ample opportunity to see this genre of movie. These are usually flicks that we can enjoy as a family, and we usually anxiously await them as a family. I fear that the Sunday movie matinee with the family is sadly becoming a thing of the past, but my family still enjoys the time together, popcorn and candy in hand.

For your consideration, I have included some of my reviews of a few of the big summer blockbusters this far. Please understand that these are my opinions only. I encourage you to go out and see them for yourself. Except for Transformers, but I'll get to that.

Star Trek
OK, admittedly, I am a fan of Star Trek. I won't go so far as to call myself a true Trekkie (you'd never catch me at one of those conventions), but I really love this franchise. From the camp and comedy of the original series, to the well-written stories of the Next Generation, I am a sicker for all things Enterprise. So you can imagine my excitement when I learned (two years ago) that J.J. Abrams was at the helm of a brand new Trek project. I couldn't wait to see what his interpretations of the early years of Kirk and Spock. As talented as Abrams is, this looked to be a really good movie.

I was not disappointed. When Abrams took on the project of showing the origins of characters so well known that they are considered American icons, he had to know that there would be considerable criticism from the fan base. How do new actors portray classic characters without lampooning the original performances? What's more, what possible freedom can you exploit from a story line that has already been done to death? The challenges for Abrams must have seemed gargantuan, and yet, he managed to meet them with much success.

For starters, Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto deliver consummate performances as the aforementioned principles. Quinto, who even looks like a young Leonard Nimoy in his bowl cut and pointy ears, expertly captures Spock's duality (half human, half Vulcan) in ways that Nimoy never did. And Pine's occasional tributes to the original Captain James Tiberius Kirk in no way leave you thinking, "oh, he just did his Shatner impression". The supporting cast is also excellent, with kudos going to John Cho (Sulu) and Simon Pegg (Scotty). But it is Karl Urban's Leonard "Bones" McCoy that, in my opinion, steals the show. His performance is so on the money that it took me a few minutes to realize that it was really Karl Urban up there on the screen.

For fans of Trek, as well as for the uninitiated, Star Trek is a wonderful movie with lots of action, and a pretty substantial story line. Fans of Abrams will recognize the use of time travel (an Abrams hallmark), and will probably appreciate the film even more for it. Go see this movie.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

As the fourth installment in the wildly successful X-Men franchise, X-Men Origins: Wolverine capitalizes on those solid elements that made the previous three films so successful. An iconic comic character, retractible adamantium claws, and the very talented Hugh Jackman in the title role should have made for a true blockbuster. Unfortunately, this movie falls a little short of its potential.

Director Gavin Hood gives it a go with a markedly different type of film for him, and doesn't do such a bad job with it. Hood is probably best known for directing the film Rendition, but slightly less well known for his Oscar-winning Tsotsi in 2005. Neither previous film could have prepared him for the grand scale of the X-Men films, and yet, his attention to character development is extraordinary. Hood is able to draw a complex and varied performance from Jackman, giving Logan/Wolverine more depth than any of the previous films.

But good direction can only get you so far. When a film lacks a well-written story, even the best directors are ham-strung, and this is the case with Origins. The story doesn't really draw you in or keep you engaged for the entire run time. Supporting characters seem to simply be walking (or flying, or jumping) on and off the screen, and don't really ask for your focus. Overall, the movie left me wanting more Wolverine, and less of the schlock that seemed to be painted around him.

Still, there are several entertaining moments in the film. Wolverine's first encounter with Remy LeBeau, a.k.a. Gambit, makes for a comic lover's dream. We had been told that Gambit would be making an appearance in previous movies with no such luck, so it's nice to see him in the flesh in this one. Liev Schreiber's performance as Victor Creed, a.k.a. Sabretooth is also noteworthy, and makes this movie much more bearable.

All in all, this would make a decent rental, and true fans of Wolverine and the X-Men (of which I am one), will delight in seeing these characters brought to life on the big screen. Perhaps with the next Origins movie (I hear it's Magneto), they'll get the story right.

Angels and Demons

Ron Howard was born to direct. Not to downplay his emotionally charged performance as Richie Cunningham, or as the cute-as-a-button Opie in The Andy Griffith Show; this guy is a consummate director. It's not every man that can make Tom Hanks actually look like he's acting.

Angels and Demons is the second of novelist (and conspiracy theorist) Dan Brown's works to be brought to the screen. After the success of The DaVinci Code, it seemed natural that moviegoers wanted more of symbologist Robert Langdon. The film delivers a stand-alone (you don't need to watch DaVinci first) adventure through the streets of Rome in pursuit of the Illuminati.

As a science teacher, I enjoyed the somewhat simplistic explanations of antimatter and the "God Particle", and as a recovering Catholic, I thought the portrayal of the Church was respectful and fairly accurate. I still don't understand the uproar from those high up in the Catholic Church - I thought Ewen MacGregor's speech concerning science and religion was spot on, and left the Church looking progressive and inclusive (something the Catholics need these days).

While somewhat liberal with his facts, Brown nonetheless tells a compelling story, and Howard has you on the edge of your seat as you sweat it out with the principles in their harried quest to solve the mystery. Seeing this movie made me want to visit Rome and follow the Path of Illumination myself. I mean, I'm a smart guy, I could have been one of those Illuminati guys, right?

In my next article, I'll review Terminator Salvation, Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, Imagine That and Transformers: Rise of the Fallen.

Confessions of a Recovering Facebook Addict - Part I

2009-06-22T19:59:00.000-07:00

Facebook has taken the world by storm. These days it's not unusual to "Facebook" someone, rather than call them or even send them an email. Many people spend a majority of their time logged into their Facebook accounts, sending flair, trading bumper stickers, or just writing on their friends' walls. In all, it can be very time consuming, and many Facebook-ers have begun to exhibit addictive behaviors around their Facebook use.

I used to be a Facebook addict. I was always logged in. With the increased popularity of smart phones (like the iPhone), it's possible to be connected to your Facebook account even when you're nowhere near a computer. That was me. I have since begun walking the long road to recovery. It hasn't been easy - withdrawal from Facebook is an ugly and frightening experience. Night-sweats and shakes; uncontrolable finger cramping, and an intolerable urge to poke everyone you know are only the beginning. Afterwards comes the feelings of disconnection and loss. Wondering what your "friends" are up to, and the desire to post something witty as your status persist for weeks.

So, how can you tell if you are a Facebook addict? Here are twenty simple statements for your consideration. If you can answer 'yes' to ten or more of them, you may have a Facebook problem, and should seek professional help.

I login to Facebook to relieve feelings of stress when I'm under pressure.

Whenever I have a reason to celebrate—for example, a job promotion, birthday, or anniversary — Posting something on my wall or updating my status is one of the first things I make a point of doing.

I sometimes use Facebook to escape after a disappointment or rough day.

I sometimes feel slightly guilty about my Facebook use.

In the morning, I sometimes regret things I've said or done while on Facebook.

I've often failed to keep promises about controlling my Facebook use.

I usually Facebook after a confrontation or argument to relieve my uncomfortable feelings.

I designate a set time of the day - for instance, anytime after 8:00 in the morning - when it’s okay to Facebook.

I sometimes stay logged into Facebook for more than a few days at a time.

I pretty much avoid going places where Facebook is not acceptable or accessible.

Logging into my Facebook account is usually one of the first things I do when I come home at the end of the day.

I feel annoyed about comments on my Facebook use.

I feel guilt or shame about my Facebook use.

I use Facebook to build up my self-confidence.

Facebook use is jeopardizing my job or business.

I socialize primarily onine with people on my friend list.

I use Facebook at work or during school.

I use a variety of Facebook applications.

I am losing real friends because of my Facebook usage.

I am at risk of losing my job or failing in school because of my Facebook usage.

If you find that many of these statements apply to you, seek out a support group or counseling session and get help right away.

Tweet, Tweet, WHAT?

2009-06-15T05:49:00.000-07:00

I don't Twitter, or Tweet, or whatever you call it.

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, I used to have a Twitter account. I had it for all of three weeks. I updated a couple of times a day for the first three days, then once a day for about a week. Then I stopped. I became aware of something important: I have nothing interesting enough to say that requires me to tweet more than once a week.

You might think that this would be a humbling, if not depressing revelation. Realizing that nothing I could possibly post to Twitter was of much interest to anyone who followed me should have crushed my self-esteem. I actually had followers on Twitter (only three of which were actual people I knew, and only one was a real friend), but I couldn't imagine that my day-to-day activities were all that interesting to them. And I certainly couldn't compete with some of the posts of people I followed.

So I started to think about this new phenomenon of sharing your every move with those around you. The social networking boom of the early twenty-first century has taken the United States, and possibly the world by storm (although I can't imagine that your average 30-something Iraqui cares all that much about Facebook). Nearly everyone I know has a Facebook account, including my father (more on that in a later post), and "Facebook" has finally become a verb, as in, "I'll Facebook you about that later." Finding my place in this new world has been (and continues to be) an interesting journey. As far as Twitter goes, let me share what I've learned about myself.

First of all, like many people, I have a slight voyeuristic side. I like to know what famous people are up to, sometimes. But I am not really someone who likes the spotlight (unless I'm performing). My daily life is a somewhat private matter that I don't necessarily want people prying into. So posts about my family were definitely not an option (and wouldn't have been all that interesting anyway - "Took the kids to baseball today, ate a bad hotdog...").

I'm also not a narcissist. That's heavy, and maybe a little unfair of me to call Twitter addicts narcissists; after all I am writing a blog. The difference is, I don't really expect or care if anyone reads my blog. I do this mostly for me. I honestly think that there are a lot of people out there who think that someone actually cares about the banal and pedantic tweets with which they pollute cyberspace. This is not a blanket generalization - Twitter is an excellent way to get information out (especially if you have a large number of followers). I'm really talking about those individuals who use Twitter to tell their friends what they just had for lunch, or what they are going to be doing later that day. If you really need your friends to know something, call them.

I realize that this may come off as a bit harsh. I understand. If you're reading this (why?), and you find yourself a little upset by what I've written, then you just might be one of the people to whom I've been referring. Take a good look at your recent tweets, and ask yourself if there's anything you've tweeted in the last week that anyone should care about. If there is, then go about your business. If not, and you've been polluting cyberspace, tweet an apology and move on.

Saying Goodbye...

2009-05-25T20:20:00.001-07:00

Another school year is ending, and I think I may be in denial. It seems that the older I get, the shorter the school year seems. It feels like only yesterday that I was introducing myself to my sophomores, and handing out the AP Chemistry syllabus to my upper-classmen. The year has flown by, and it has been a challenging one.

Like most teachers, I am not saddened to see the end of the year approach. Teachers work hard throughout the year, and we look forward to the change in routine (many of us work all summer as well, but it's nice to have that change). The year was full, and challenging, and it's time for a little break. But as a high school teacher, there are certain realities that I face every May. With the end of the school year comes the graduation of the senior class.

One of the greatest rewards that comes from being a high school teacher is the opportunity to get to know my students. I find them to be very interesting people, full of promise and bright futures. I look forward to meeting the sophomores, now no longer the new students, but not yet jaded upper-classmen. I also enjoy seeing how my former students have matured and grown over the summer. At the beginning of the year I help to run a leadership retreat for seniors, and I am very fortunate to be able to share a little something more than just academics. The seniors who choose to participate in this retreat are the best and brightest that our school has to offer, and I find them to be wonderful young men and women.

Then, every May, we have to say goodbye. You would think that this would get easier over the years, but it doesn't. As teachers, we are proud of our students' achievements, and we are excited with them for their futures, whether they are off to college or to work. We realize, throgh our own experiences, that their futures are full of opportunity and wonder. And we miss them when they are gone.

So, to all you graduates, may you have the best of luck. May your wishes all come true. And don't forget your teachers, who wish you happiness and success. You will be remembered.

Back in the Saddle...

2009-05-18T20:02:00.000-07:00

I have been away from blogging for a long while. The way I figure it, I didn't have anything important to say, so why say (write) anything. I've also been stuck in the quagmire that is Facebook. I have since managed to extricate myself from that particular time-suck, and will now attempt to write in earnest.

I am currently working on my first article/post, and should have it done by the end of May. It is my intention to post fairly regularly on various topics of interest to me (it is my blog, after all). I welcome comments on any of my posts, I only ask that they be respectful. I will return any respect given.

I hope to make this blog a worthwhile endeavor.