Trivia Break: Poisoned by “Air”

I ran out of questions again, despite Jeff King's best efforts. So, here's atrivia break.

I owe my daughter an apology. She mentioned oxygen toxicity to me and, despite my years working EVA, I pooh-poohed the notion because I knew that the EVA crew breathed 100% oxygen. Yeah, well I was wrong.

Oh, not that crewmembers don’t breathe 100% oxygen – they do – but, because they are using lower than atmospheric levels of oxygen, it’s not an issue.

Oxygen toxicity is something that happens when oxygen levels exceed the normal partial pressure of oxygen in ambient air. In other words, if the total air pressure is high (but percentage of oxygen remains the same) you can get it OR if you breathe air that has a higher than normal percentage of oxygen. This is a big deal for divers (which is where my daughter got her correct information) and hyperbaric chambers (like those used to treat the bends after a diving accident, but hyperbaric treatments can also be used for certain types of wounds and burns, embolisms and carbon monoxide poisoning), where any of the three main types of poisoning can occur, including effects on the central nervous system (high pressure only), pulmonary and ocular oxygen poisoning.

Here are some things to note. Regular people, breathing ambient air (or air at higher elevations) don’t have to worry about these conditions because oxygen in air (0.21 bar) has a “partial pressure” below the toxic level (0.3 bar) - so you can’t get oxygen poisoning from hyperventilating.

At ambient pressures (regular pressure, not in a tank or underwater), you can’t get central nervous system oxygen toxicity because you actually have to have a partial pressure greater than an atmospheric (so, even at 100% oxygen, there wouldn’t be enough), but you can do damage to lungs and eyes and this has happened for people on chronic oxygen levels (greater than 50%) and neonatal units with premature newborns.

It seems to be counterintuitive that breathing too much (or two high a partial pressure) of oxygen can ruin your lungs, but there you go.

Just goes to show, you can get too much of a good thing.

(For those of you whose eyes rolled back into your head during this, there’s a much better description in the link I provided – gotta love Wikipedia. Or you can just leave whistling and hope for something less technical next time.)

Read more...

Happy Birthday, Kiddo!

Today, my oldest turns fifteen. Since I have no questions at the moment, I thought I'd shout out how proud of her I am, how much she means to me and how grateful I am to have had her in my life for the last fifteen years.

And to offer, as advice, that having any child on August 30 in Houston just goes to show how stupid I am. (Twice, since my son was born September 3).

Love ya, kiddo!

Read more...

Jeff King: What's Your Favorite Sport?

Jeff King asked: do you like sports? If so what is your fav?

If you're asking about watching sports, I don't have one. I don't watch sports, although I used to watch football with my father and I used to watch things like ice skating or gymnastic competitions. I managed to marry two husbands in a row that didn't watch sports and I took advantage of their lack of preoccupation by not watching football any more. I stopped watching the only sports I really enjoyed watching because they were judged so subjectively that it began to bother me. It seemed to be more about the judges preconceptions then what really happened on the ice rink or the balance beam. It shouldn't, in my opinion, be any more than what happens during the event.

However, I don't like playing any of those sports. In fact, the more I enjoy a sport, the less I want to watch a competition. Back when my knees weren't effectively shot, I used to enjoy playing volleyball a great deal (which may even be part of why my knees are completely crappy now. I did a lot of diving for balls with no or low quality kneepads). I do like to swim, but I don't like too much sun or chlorine.

However, the "sport" I've enjoyed most frequently and that I've gotten the most strengthening and joy out of are easily martial arts. Now I know you can't tell by looking at me, but I have a knack for it and I've dabbled in judo, tai kwon do, aikido, hapkido and karate. They each have strengths and I'd like to go back and do more when I get more time and money - since my husband and some of my kids would likely enjoy that as well.

By the way, although I don't watch martial arts competition, I do like movies with good martial arts choreography.

Read more...

Jeff King: Dream Job

Jeff King asked: if you could pick your dream job, what would it be?

Paid novelist.

There are the practical reasons. I can hang around at home with my kids and choose my own hours (which works because I'm a serious night owl). Vacation and time off are at my own discretion.

But the real reason is that I would get to paid to do what I'm going to do anyway: tell stories. It's what I've always wanted to do and always will. It's what I make many sacrifices to slice out time to do now, because I need to write. Of course, if I was paid, I'd have to spend more time promoting books and worrying about the market and suchnot, which isn't my bailiwick. And I might lose that absolute autonomy I have now of writing what I want and (and only that) instead of what might sell better.

But it's what I'd like to do profession-wise more than anything.

Read more...

For Jeff King: What's for Dinner?

Jeff King asked: what is your favorite dinner recipe?

Lasagne. Hands down. I love it, especially how my husband makes it.

Thing is, of course, I don't have the recipe, because my husband is the one doing it and neither of us are recipe users, so, if you were hoping to get one, you're out of luck.

I know he makes a wonderful sauce with crushed tomatoes, tomato sauce, garlic, Italian spices, pepperoni, green and black olives, baby portabella mushrooms and a bit of red wine and some sausage (no sage). Sometimes he'll add some ground beef. He would probably put onions in but I don't like them. The meat is cooked and then tossed in with everything else then steeped, usually for four or more hours. A good sauce makes a good lasagne.

Then, he puts it all together with mozerella, parmesan, and cheddar cheese (yes cheddar) and cottage cheese (rather than ricotta). Sharp cheddar has strong flavor and adds kick. Lee grates a lot of cheese and, last time, added some smoked cheddar and Gouda that gave it a nice flavor. Layering in a standard way.

Then, he bakes it until it's all bubbly and the top has a lovely browned look. Makes bunches of delicious nummyness. (By the way, that's a picture of "a" lasagne, but not Lee's - tonight he made a wonderful spaghetti and meatball).

Yum.

Read more...

Jeff King: Tell Us About Your Novels

Jeff King asked: how many novels have you written, and would you mind posting up some of the synopsis with genre and word count...

I have complete a draft of at least three novels.

The first one I wrote was called An Unknowing Vow and it was a Regency romance intended to follow the style of the incomparable Georgette Heyer. It only ran about 60K words and involved what all romances involve. Naturally, it had cats, a friend who was hilarious (for our hero) and seven aunts pushing our hero into marriage. It also had an evil doer, a ridiculous "standard Barbara Cartland" hero and an idiot heroine to go with it as a contrast to my main characters. It was a learning experience and did a great deal to help me work on characters and dialog. The plot, however, stunk and it's in desperate need of a rewrite. I know what I want to do, but it hasn't been a priority.

The first novel I feel I've "finished" is The Curse of the Jenri, which was based, loosely, on a short story I got published in the now defunct PLOT magazine, "Code of the Jenri." This novel, which is a true sword and sorcery fantasy novel, involves a loose organization of women and their mates, the Jenri, who cannot have male children, have ties to their founder hundreds of years before, have a rigid code of ethics. They also have a mystique where I combine aspects of Amazons, ninjas and Native Americans because, hey, I'm like that. I wanted to turn the tide on the hackneyed damsel-in-distress concept and challenge many of those old stereotypes. And I wanted it to be funny. I think I succeeded at least in that. It's ~130,000 words.

The last novel I finished (which still needs polishing) is Beast Within, a combination science fiction/fantasy combining elements of both, but also a castaway theme, except there's a great bunch of them. Again, I like to play with societal stereotypes and mores and address not just prejudice but the fear of prejudice and how the fear of being viewed as a monster can make you one. It's about 93,000 words.

I have perhaps another ten or so novels in various states of completion, at least have a dozen or so with more than ten chapters. I have a screenplay that I completed that could also use a revamp (or trash heap), some plays based on original fairy tales I've written, some fairy stories I've written and a large number of short stories.

So, there you have it.

Read more...

Shakespeare: Draping Tips

Shakespeare asked: How does one tie a sari?

Well, I've never tied a sari, so this one could have been a stumper, but for two things. First, my wonderful readers, who provided a quick answer:

Courtesy of The Mother: As a connoisseur and owner of many saris (I spent many years dressing in rectangles, since I never knew what size I would actually be), I found "Saris: An Illustrated Guide to the Indian Art of Draping" incredibly useful. It contains many, many styles of draping anything 5 to 9 yards long. Lots of gorgeous photos. One caveat: real women use safety pins, judiciously. You can get the book here: http://www.devi.net/buy.html#Barjons

Secondly, I have the internet. And I found this cool site (Exotic India)where you can take a look at a great deal of gorgeous saris (for reasonable to OMG prices), accessories and also links for (a) how to tie a sari and (b) links for patterns for different blouses. Fun stuff.

Read more...

For Aron: So, How Was College?

Aron Sora asked: Do you have any funny/interesting stories from your college days?

I do. Remembering them, of course, is easier said than done and, in my experience, what I remember fondly or as an amusing anecdote rarely translates well when I try to tell them.

There are some stories about my limited number of men/boy relationships, but I can't imagine they would be of the least interest to anyone. I have a few conversations I had regarding religion, gay rights, a few other philosophical things, but they would sound more pointed than I'd like if I related them, more like a lecture. And then there were just some weird ones.

But I guess the ones that would matter most to someone going to college would be the ones having to with grades and my lessons learned.

Like the time I missed a final in one of my early Electrical Engineering classes. My freshman year wasn't particularly challenging and, as a result, I developed some pretty bad habits, like skipping a lot of classes, particularly if I had a "buddy" in it. I did the homework (ALWAYS do the homework) and took the tests, but it was an early class and I'm not an early person. I rarely went. Which is how I missed the probable repeated reminders that the final exam was not at the time scheduled for it's class time but as a unified exam (all segments taking it at the same time) - just like it said in the syllabus. This can still work out, of course, if the unified exam takes place at a later date than the scheduled time, but, in this case, it came four days before. So, there I am, studying for a test, calling up my buddy to ask about a review question. Why do you want to know, he asks me. For the final, I tell him. Didn't you already take it? It never occurred to him to make sure I knew the right time. After all, it was in the syllabus.

Word to the wise, physics (and likely other sciences) can be pretty reasonable if you miss a final or a test or, well, most anything. In my experience, they can be pretty laid back and cool. I've seen people who slept through the final one semester, show up, in bathrobes and bunny slippers, the next semester to take the test and turn the I into a real grade. But, in the Engineering College, at least at my university, it didn't work that way. Oh, they sympathized, they really did. But I got a big fat zero on my final test. My first C in a class, in my entire life, and I loved it with all my heart because it wasn't the F I expected.

Here's the weird part. This professor, who I clearly didn't see often ('cause I skipped his class a LOT), whose final I missed and then bitched about (to no avail), he sees me walking to class. More than that, he hailed me like I was a favorite student and asked me what I was taking that semester. Then, when I told him, he told me I'd had no problem with any of those classes; they were easy for someone like me. Weird.

Then there was my FORTRAN class, which was painfully easy. Computers and I understand each other. We're both quite adept at straight line logic and speak algebra, so it was just a matter of knowing the right terminology to go with the compiler. The class was 2.5 hours Tuesdays and Thursdays and the work was simple. The teacher would put the assignment on the board and then spend 2.5 hours explaining all the tools we'd need to do the work. 'Cept they were readily available in the book, too. I'd write down the assignment, write the program (usually a dozen or so lines - quite simple), debug it. All in all, it would take me maybe 20 minutes. I didn't see any point in sticking around a class to learn what I'd already done, so I'd get up and leave, go down to the (surprise!) empty computer room (personal computers were not ubiquitous then) and input my program, run it, print it and leave. I never got less than a 96 on my homework. I got the second highest grade on the midterm and I know I aced the final (though I never saw the score). I got a B in the course. Clearly, he graded on attendance and that seemed desperately unfair. Clearly, I got it. Oh well. Flit would have likely been torqued at me too if she'd been teaching it.

Ah, and then there was my other class on Electrical Engineering. Tough class, tough subject and the teacher was notorious. I knew several students that deliberately took it as an underclassman because they expected to fail it a couple of times. Although nominally an exceptional test taker, there was something about that class, that subject that switched my brain off at test time. I did all the homework, answered well in class. Studied the subject until I knew my diagrams and review problems like the back of my hand. But, then, I'd walk into the test and, apparently, leave my brain at the door. Here's the test, with problems just like on the review questions, except they switched the direction of one diode and I'd realize I had no idea how to do it. Oh, I knew it after I left, because I'd pick up my brain on the way out and it would tell me all the things I got wrong and why. I never worked harder for a C in my life, though I managed it. I'm lucky. I know there are people who have this happen to them on every test. At least, for me, it was only one class.

I hate electrical engineering to this day.

One last word of advice. Never take classical physics and quantum physics in the same semester, since you have to unlearn one to learn the other. Just sayin'.

Read more...

For Aron: Overly TED?

Aron Sora asked: I quote TED lectures a lot, could that annoy my readers?

Aron, I have no idea. I had to look up TED (and hope I got the right reference for that) and I think the short answer is that I don't see why you couldn't write about whatever moves you.

If you are very interested/fascinated in TED talks and materials, by all means, write about them. It's your blog.

But, as I know you are, if you are interested in touching and influencing your readers, you might want to make sure that whatever you pull from this source, or in fact, any others, are fully explained and the gist that matters to you incorporated in your own articles.

I know I'm rarely tempted to go to the source material with a link unless what's written about that source is compelling to me. I think, if you present what you learned and how it applies to your subject, how it makes you think or feel, what it means to you, to your readers, they won't care where you get your insight or your thought impetus. The idea, in my opinion, is to stimulate their thinking and, if you can't do it with your posts, it's unlikely they'll be going to your source material anyway.

In my opinion.

Read more...

Aron Sora: Parents Sending Kids to School

Aron Sora asked: I'm going to college soon, what are my parents going through? What are they feeling right now?

I would like to preface my response here with a reminder that I am not omniscient. If I'd given the impression that I knew everything in the past, let me correct that right here and now. I don't.

With that said, short answer: I don't know.

I could speculate a hundred different possibilities, many contradictory (that might even both be true) and still miss the mix of emotions your parents are going through. For example, I expect they're very proud, trepiditious about your success probably more for your own sake than anything else, relieved you have a path, sad that you're going, pleased to have some time to themselves, the list is endless. Depending on your parents, your number of siblings, the circumstance involved with your going to college, the mix of emotions changes and, even if I knew, the state is unlikely to be static.

Here's an idea. Ask them.

They may be reluctant to tell you, preferring to focus on you and your plans, your state of mind. Or they might be all too ready to tell you. But, take the time to find out. Good or bad, weak or strong, with errors or flawlessly, these people were pivotal in helping you become what you are becoming, teaching you values via example you won't even realize you learned for years to come.

People are flawed, even those we idealize, but most parents have tried their best to do the right thing. There are few professions that involve more selflessness or more dedication. More love. It's imperfect and there are no procedures or methodologies that provide a blueprint. It's the most frustrating, wonderful, frightening, time consuming, rewarding, thankless job of all time.

Take the time to ask them. You may not know it, but the fact that it matters to you what they're going through is almost certainly an indication that they did a hell of a job.

Just sayin'.

(P.S. Yes, that's me with my son Alex when he was an infant.)

Read more...

Trivia Break: Space Firsts Answered

Wow, I'm glad The Mother answered my post yesterday. I sincerely didn't know about the fruit flies and would have been a liar. I HATE that. Kudos to the Mother. I'm also learning that ancient history gets answers, technology and science and stuff, not so much.

Alright, here are some answers for you.

What was the first animal in space?
My bad. It was really fruit flies, sent up by the US in a couple of V2 rockets (courtesy of Von Braun and his transplanted team) in White Sands in 1947. The fruitflies were successfully recovered (for those of you rife with fruitfly awareness). But the US beat the Russians with more than insects, sending up a Rhesus monkey, Albert II, in a suborbital flight past the "Kármán line" into space (100 km altitude) in 1949 on another V2. The original Albert's mission only made it to 63 km altitude and Albert suffocated in flight, but Albert II didn't fair much better even though he was a true spacefarer. Although the flight was successful, the parachute failed to open and he died on impact.
What happened to the first animal to orbit the earth?
Poor Laika of Sputnik 2 in 1957. This dog was the first animal to orbit the earth and was sent up by the Soviets. Unfortunately, the probe was not designed to be recoverable, so the Soviets had sent up a poison dog food portion to euthenize her long before reentry (some five months after launch). Unfortunately, she only lived five or so hours after launch because the thermal control system didn't work as planned as she was desperately overheated (the cabin was at 40 degrees C [104 degrees F]) and stressed.

Who was the first man in space? The Mother nailed with with Yuri Gagarin who was the first person in space on Vostok 1 (1961) and the first person to orbit. The US tended to discount this flight (as much as they could) because Yuri (and several cosmonauts that followed him) didn't land with the craft but ejected and landed via parachute. The thinking was that the landing was too rough for people to survive. A month later, Alan Shepherd followed him into space in a suborbital flight and the US wouldn't orbit anyone until John Glenn in February 1962 (after the Soviets had pulled it off two more times).

Who was the first man to orbit the earth? And, yes, got both distinctions on his first flight.

Who was the first woman in space? Sally Ride was the first US woman in space, but the Russians sent up Valentine Tereshkova on Vostok 6 in 1963, some twenty years before Sally Ride flew on the Space Shuttle (STS-7). The Soviets/Russians didn't fly another woman themselves until 1982 when they sent Svetlana Savistkaya up on Soyuz T-7 (who also performed the first spacewalk by a woman in 1984).

Who performed the first EVA in space? The first EVA (as defined by being in suit exposed to space), was also a Soviet achievement by Alexei Leonov on Voshkod 2 in 1965. They used an inflatable airlock and Leonov never technically left it (which meant that, as a first, it has been challenged). In fact, Leonov had quite a few problems including going out the wrong way so he couldn't turn around to get back in. The suit wouldn't bend and he had to release a dangerous amount of his own pressure to bend over. He managed to get back in, but the whole excursion, which lasted only 12 minutes, dangerously overheated him. EVA (spacewalk) ain't easy, folks. Ed White performed a spacewalk later that year on Gemini 4 (22 minutes) and had difficulties closing the hatch but they managed it.
Who were the first people to orbit the moon? The crew of the Apollo 8 orbited the moon over Christmas in 1968, with the crew of Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and William Anders.
Who was in the command module when Armstrong and Aldrin first walked on the moon? Michael Collins.
Who was/were the first people killed in space? This is a tricky one. Technically, very few have died in the actual unequivocal confines of space. Most have been lost during reentry and, in the case of Challenger, during launch. The first person to die during a spaceflight was Vladimir Komorov who died when Soyuz 1 tore to pieces during reentry in 1967. However, you don't tear up until you've hit atmosphere. The only people to die in space are the crew of Soyuz 11, Vladislav Volkov, Georgi Dobrovolski and Viktor Patsayev, who were killed when a valve was jolted open when the service module was jettisoned prior to reentry. The crew tried to close the valve manually, but it was under a seat and took longer to close than it took to depressurize the cabin. No one knew what had happened until the capsule was opened on the ground. This happened in 1971. The Russians/Soviets have not lost anyone in space or a spaceflight since this incident.

Tomorrow, back to my questions.

Read more...

Trivia Break: Space Firsts

Bad day=trivia break. It's just a little easier for me than trying to do justice to the excellent questions I get. In the interest of space, since I know a few space enthusiasts read this, here are some "manned" or "pre-manned" space firsts.

So, using my new method, I ask you first and tomorrow, I expand on the answers I might get today.

Ready? (My preference on these is to get animal/astronaut(s), flight, year on these answers but I'll settle for anything ya got.)

What was the first animal in space?
What happened to the first animal to orbit the earth?
Who was the first man in space?
Who was the first man to orbit the earth?
Who was the first woman in space?
Who performed the first EVA in space?
Who were the first people to orbit the moon?
Who was in the command module when Armstrong and Aldrin first walked on the moon?
Who was/were the first people killed in space?

That ought to keep you busy.

Read more...

For Jeff King: Manuscript Editors

Jeff King asked: Do you know any good editors or anyone who you would recommend to edit a manuscript, someone you would trust...

If we're talking professionals, I have to say, in a word, no. However, just because I don't know of one personally doesn't mean there aren't reputable manuscript editors out there. The thing is, they are very expensive, hundreds even thousands of dollars, according to this page on Editors and Preditors. The link also provides a good description of what editors do (and don't do), the best impetus to use one, what to look for and what to look out for when it comes to hiring one. I'd read it thoroughly before looking for an editor. The page has some editor links at the bottom, including this one for the Editorial Freelancers Association - which would likely be a good place to start. There are also a set of links for alternatives, including how to choose writer's groups and the like. I would definitely read this whole page. There are also some links to publishing and writer's forums on this page of AgentQuery.

That same page offers some suggestions of alternatives before you go to an editor and, if possible, I'd recommend trying those first.

A friend who can read your manuscript critically and respects you enough to tell the truth. Seriously, if you can find a friend like this, it's excellent. Of course, finding a friend who likes the same sorts of fiction you're writing or can give you useful feedback may be challenging. Many people who love fiction (particularly genre fiction) may get too caught up in the writing to provide meaningful feedback (and some people can get caught up in bad writing as easily as good writing). Optimally, someone who has some experience writing or a serious student of literature is best. Perhaps if you know someone who reviews books for a blog it might be a good place to start, or an English professor at a local college or, ideally, a published author you might know.

Writer's group, critique group, on-line forum. In my experience, this can be hit or miss, because it can run the gamut from a congratulation circle (where everyone gushes over everyone else's work no matter how good or bad) to a group completely obsessed with being published (rather than writing good stuff) to elitest club where published work is almost beneath their haughty noses as they try to write something so meaningful no one understands it. BUT, if you can find a group of honest people who genuinely like to read and will look over your work with an open mind but a critical eye, it could do wonders.

Getting good honest critical feedback is, I think, crucial for an aspiring writer and no small feat.

Good luck.

Read more...

For Jeff King: Literary Agents

Jeff King asked: Does getting a literary agent help with the odds of getting published? And would you recommend getting/using one?

Again, as I've mentioned before, I have not been published (and don't have an agent at the moment), but I feel comfortable in saying, yes. Why?

First, having an agent opens up markets that are not available to the unagented writer. Publishers that accept unagented submissions are flooded with (no offense) a great deal of garbage. Because of this, several publishers don't even look at a submission unless it comes from an agent. Why?

Because most agents are nearly as selective as publishers (and are also looking for salable clients and work), an agented manuscript is effectively "screened." When a publisher receives a manuscript from an agent, he should be confident that the caliber of the submission will be a few steps above the bulk of the slush pile. Additionally, especially if he's worked with the agent before, he should have some expectation that the work he's been forwarded is appropriate for his publishing imprint and market. So, not only is the publisher more likely to look at the manuscript, he is also more likely to expect something and might, perhaps, give it a more thorough or open reception.

The agent also brings her contacts and expertise into play by only sending accepted manuscripts to markets he think are a good fit, reducing wear and tear and increasing the chances of making a sale. In my experience, an agent is a little more likely to work with a prospective writer with promise to fine-tune their work or at give a little feedback if they reject it (though certainly not always).

But, aside from increasing the chances of making a sale, they also bring expertise in making sure you get the best sale possible, best terms, best options for you. Truth is, being even an exceptional writer doesn't make you an expert in the publishing business and, having someone knowledgeable in your corner can make a difference.

But it costs you in terms of some of your profit and it's yet another hurdle on your way. There are ways of "becoming your own literary agent," but, if you're confident you have a publishable work, an agent can definitely increase your chances of getting published.

As for where to find them, I can't improve on Richard Perkins' article here . He's giving precisely the sort of advice and links I would give you.

One word of caution (and you'll find them in links to reputable agent sites). Do not use any agent that charges you up front. Time after time, prospective writers find out, to their sorrow, that it's all a scam. A good agent will get the payoff when you do, by making sure you get a sale.

Read more...

For Shakespeare: All You Need Is Love?

Shakespeare asked: Does the world need LOVE most of all, or is it something else?

In short, yes, but only if we expand love to encompass all its meanings.

What I mean is, romantic love is wonderful, but it's just a small subset of the kind of loves out there. I think romantic love is a good thing, given that I always equate "real"romantic love with the kind of complete acceptance of another's failings and at least some willingness to endure self-sacrifice for the other's happiness. In fact, a driving need for the other's happiness is one of the key elements of romantic love. Just the capacity for putting someone else's needs before one's own makes someone a better person, in my opinion.

But there are other kinds of love. Like the love for your children, the kind that makes you think about the future and drives you to make sacrifices to ensure their future. This kind of love can end up translating to benefits for the environment, long term financial strategies that look beyond personal profit here and now and putting a strong emphasis on education - all things I think make the world a better place.

There's the love for your friends and extended family that reminds you that things you do to yourself have repercussions on the people around you. That kind of thinking can increase one's understanding of responsibility and appreciation for the affects of your actions on others. That kind of thinking has an effect on behavior, often salutary, so I think that's a good thing.

There's also a love of oneself. I'm not talking about the kind of selfish preoccupation that allows one to put one's own interests ahead of any and all other considerations, but a self-respect that allows one to stand up for one's own happiness when it is being sacrificed by all others and serves as an example to children and other friends. This is the kind of hard-won love that allows battered women to escape with their children from abusive relationships or drives people to educate themselves to accomplish more despite the sacrifices those efforts entail. People who respect themselves have, in my opinion, less of a drive to control or treat others with contempt.

And that self-respect leads to what I think is the last one, a respect and reverence for all humanity. In my opinion, it is insecurity that drives people to find reasons to hate others, to come up with excuses to think less of them, to find reasons to subjugate them. I'm not saying it's the only reason, but I think it's a big one. Whatever the cause, though, I think it's all but impossible to do heinous things to others, be callous to the planet we live on, get sucked in with manipulations of hatred and fear if we have a healthy love for humanity.

At least, that's what I think.

Read more...

For Shakespeare: Going On Vacation

Shakespeare asked: If you could take a vacation anywhere (with your kids, or not), where would it be?

I'm not sure it's so much where it would be as it would be "how" it would be. I'd like to take a vacation where the last thing I need to worry about is how much I'm spending. I end up watching everything so closely (and still always overspend) that I rarely enjoy them.

However, if we assume money wasn't an issue. With my kids, I'd be looking at ways to enjoy myself without feeling harried or stressed. Perhaps a Disney cruise with my kids, where I could let them enjoy age appropriate activities if I needed some time alone or we could all frolic on their beach together or do some things together. My kids adore the beach but Galveston is frankly disgusting. I love my children but I'd like time where I'm not "on duty" and I also prefer a venue where I don't feel under pressure to do something.

Oddly enough, I might choose a cruise as well for just the Lee and I vacation. Again, so I wouldn't feel obligated to do anything. In my life, I feel I'm juggling the details of day to day life nearly every moment of every day. I'd like someone else to do so so I could relax.

I'm not limited to a cruise, though. Anywhere I can get a minimum set of amenities (like food and a place to sleep and plumbing) without having to tromp or go on rides or hit every tourist activity within X number of miles or hit each show... that's what I like. Whether a week in Hawaii or by a lake somewhere, makes no never mind to me.

Someday, of course, I'll probably take vacations that suit the husband or the kids--Disneyland, Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Europe--but, for me, some relaxation sans itinerary is really what suits me best.

Read more...

For Shakespeare: Why Is Publishing So Hard?

Shakespeare asked: Why is publishing one's writing so difficult (i.e. impossible), and what is the best way to improve the publishing industry?

Again, this is not an area where I'm an expert. I know a couple and they might wander in to put in their two cents, but, since you asked me, I'll give you mine.

There are several problems that make it hard for people to get their writing published and, the first problem, and, in my opinion, the worst problem is that most of the people who want to get something published have no business getting published. That probably sounds harsh, but it's a huge factor in how hard it is for quality first-time literature to be published and, ignoring that, doesn't do us any good. The bottom line, many more people think they have something that's worth publishing than actually do.

It is very hard to be objective about one's own work and many people can't do so effectively. Some think personal recollections will appeal to the masses (unlikely, but find out with a blog, why don't you), think they've got a "brand new" idea (which if they'd done their research, they'd see had been done to best or done definitively), think a spellchecker is all the editing necessary (Heaven help us!) or have no real understanding of how their work really comes across. What they write is so personal, so compelling to themselves that they are completely blind to all the things that are wrong with it. Some join writer's groups and that's certainly an advantage over working in a cave for objective opinions, but even they can become so focused on filling out the checklist (No "saidisms"-check) that they're still clueless about what makes a story compelling and successful or what makes a nonfiction book readable or accessible to the general public.

The truth is that a substantial proportion of the work offered to publishers and fielded to agents is pure dreck. It's not called a slush pile for nothing. Sometimes, there may be moments of brilliance, but their buried in so much clumsy dialog and painful description, that an editor, swamped with a pile of incredible proportions of stuff that is likely mostly garbage, is unlikely to sift through the nonsense to see if there's anything worth saving.

The problem for would-be authors who have reviewed and crafted their work, who have painfully excised favorite passages because they just didn't fit, who something original or thoughtful to say is that, unless they are incredibly lucky, they're in the pile with the dreck and, with expectations painfully low, it's hard for it to shine from the muck. The editor expects it to be garbage and it better impress early on or he'll never see it. Add to that the notion that even a fantastic writer can be a terrible marketer, and editors will often see little gems that might be snapped up if they had been sent to an editor that favors that sort of thing.

But it's more than having good writing - it has to be marketable. The editor is in business to sell books. The golden opus of perfection isn't going to make him a red cent if no one wants to read it. They aren't out to do beginning writers a favor; they are out to sell books and they don't want any manuscript, no matter how well it has been crafted, unless they think it will appeal to a market sufficiently to recoup losses. Lack of reknown for a new author makes this a bad bet under the best of circumstances.

And part of the problem also lies with the reading public. While books can appeal to a number of people for a number of different reasons, the truth is there is always a market for certain types of dreck under certain "genres" - romance is particularly prone. Additionally, people often gravitate to something that titillates rather than something with substance (i.e. Paris Hilton's tell-all biography vs. the magnificently written memoirs of a nameless Concentration camp prisoner.) And, of course, people can be fickle. Two books with similar stories or concepts and quality writing, but one will tickle the public's fancy and the other will languish. Some readers can fall in love with characters in a novel and ignore plot holes. Another segment of the reading populace will relish the detailed plotting and shrug at the cardboard characters. Perfection is rare, but finding the right combination is a real art. Predicting what will work and what won't probably gives many a publisher gray hair. But it's more than the quality of the writing.

What can be done to improve this situation? I'm not sure.

Can't change the public - I know people have tried, but we can spread the word on quality work we've encountered. We can try not to be part of the problem.

Can't change the editors here - if they are looking at unpublished authors, they're going to be slogging through the slush and their expectations aren't high.

But we can make sure our work is as good as we can make it. We can read it out loud to ourselves and be ruthless with things that stutter. We can have trusted friends or, even better, people we don't know in the target reading audience look it over critically and tell us what works and what doesn't. We can accept that sending garbage in desperation over and over won't buy us anything and just makes it that much harder for good stuff to get seen. We can resolve to be part of the good stuff. We can do our research to send it to the best possible editors for our work. We can look for agents that know the market better than we do. We can be patient. In fact, we have to be.

It isn't easy. I've never done it myself. But I believe I can do it. I hope I'm part of the good stuff, that I've done my homework, that I've written something that appeals. I'll do my best to learn and improve until it is if it's not.

One thing I'd LOVE to be adopted by the publishing business: A checklist rejection letter that would, by checking boxes, help a would-be author figure out what killed that particular offer.

A list that included grammar/syntax/spelling errors, or dull language, or clumsy wording or has potential but needs polishing, etc. All of these things can really make an author look at the aspects he or she hadn't realized were lacking. Or perhaps move on to something he or she is better suited to do. Or just self-publish.

Read more...

For the Mother: Gibbous Moon

The Mother said: Kids were asking what the heck a "gibbous" moon is when Wired said that it would make the meteor shower hard to see tonight. Since you have the moon phases on RS, I figured you're the person to ask.

I'm certain a person to ask. Fortunately for me, it's not difficult. A gibbous moon is one between a half moon and a full moon (as opposed to a crescent moon which is between a half moon and a new moon). It can be waxing, when the moon is on it's way to full, and it can be waning when it's on it's way to a half moon.

How much light a gibbous moon gives off has a great deal to do with how close it is to a full moon. If it's close to full, it will be bright, nearly as bright as a full moon. If close to the half moon, it could be just a bit more than half that.

Of course, you probably know that the same side of the moon faces the surface of the earth at all times (although the other side isn't always dark; it just faces away from us). And the phase of the moon has to do with where the light hits the moon with relation to where the moon is to us.

A new moon happens when the moon is between us and the sun (so that the sun is light up it's far side). A full moon is where we're between the moon and the sun.

Read more...

Trivia Break: Royal Answers

I now have a bunch of questions. Thanks for those of you who wanted my own trivia breaks to STOP. Or just wanted to know something. :)

Once again, my knowledgeable commenters came through. Boris Legradic and The Mother both provided many great answers and, again, I'll just add tidbits as I see fit.

Who was the first "Anglo-Saxon" king, who founded the dynasty that the Norman over threw in 1066? The first Anglo-Saxon to rule over a unified England was king Æthelstan, in 927, but the unification was lost several times after. I was actually looking for the first "Anglo-Saxon" king, Alfred the Great, who was Æthelstan's grandfather, I believe, but the question was ambiguous enough I can accept your answer.

Bonus: The last Anglo-Saxon William defeated the English king Harold Godwinson at the battle of Hastings, 1066. Although there were some murmurs of irregularities following the rapid coronation of Harold after the death of Edward the Confessor, he was elected properly by the Witengamot. Technically, Harold Godwinson was brother-in-law to Edward the Confessor (so not technically in the line), though he'd been elected and fought the Danes to keep the throne, which was likely how William beat him. He was tuckered (and one of only two kings of England slain in battle). William's connection was also through marriage (his great-aunt had been married to Edward the Confessor's mother so they were cousins). However, Edgar the Aethling was proclaimed king though never crowned. William carried all. Ironically, William's son (Henry I)married the granddaughter of one of the Anglo-Saxon queens so the Normans carried the same line forward.

William the Conqueror took over England, and married Maud of Flanders. What was unusual about their marriage compared to other royal marriages? William the Conquerer wasn't the nicest of guys and it is rumored that he assaulted poor Matilda, forcing her to marry him. Not that that was unusual in those days. What was weird was that they married without the Pope's consent--apparently they were too closely related, but since the Pope was always issuing bulls that allowed cousins to marry, he must have had a craw up his rear about this particular relationship. Although it was somewhat challenging to marry without the Pope's bull, there are quite a few examples. But I worded this ambiguously so the fault is mine. What has always struck me about this relationship (which was reputedly tempestuous) is that William the Conqueror appears to have been completely faithful to his wife, something that was almost unheard of then or after (see Charles II, for example). Not only faithful himself, he enforced faithfulness (to their spouses) among his soldiers. Perhaps, this was a side effect of being illegitimate himself for his father had no legitimate heir and William managed to win the title Duke of Normandy (which is a feet of its own). Maud was the shortest of all England's queens (at 4'2") while William was unusually tall (5'10").

Which English King was beheaded? Charles I was beheaded after the English Civil War, when the English finally decided that kings were bad. It didn't last long though, because the Puritan theocracy Cromwell imposed wasn't any fun, either, and they eventually put Charles's son (also Charles) in as king, in what everyone now calls the Restoration. (Interestingly, the Anglican church made him a saint, as a martyr for the Anglican succession. Pity they didn't bother to look at his record as a king, which is what got him into trouble to begin with).

Which English king was deposed by his French wife (in the name of her son), supported by her lover? Ah, no one got this one. Edward II (famed as the son of Edward Longshanks in Braveheart) married Isabella of France (princess) who was sent back to France in 1325 to negotiate terms with France. The terms weren't particularly thrilling for England, so he sent his son (13) to France. Big mistake. Isabella, with her new lover, Roger Mortimer, gathered troops and, in the name of her son, Isabella and Mortimer came back and overthrew Edward II. Edward is generally believed to have been murdered shortly thereafter (after abdicating power) and there is at least one account of a particularly gruesome end. Edward II is reputed to be one of two likely homosexual kings (the other being Richard I), but the evidence that he was is spurious. Ivan the Terrible was not easy to live with. What did he do to earn the "the Terrible" moniker? Ivan the Terrible wasn't the nicest guy, but my understanding is that the nickname is a mistranslation of the Russian, which actually means something like awesome or powerful (incidentally, a traditional use of the English word "terrible," too.) You are right that "terrible" in this case was intended to express might rather than horror; however, he, in my opinion, qualifies as both. For one thing, he managed to burn through EIGHT spouses (that's two more than Henry VIII), several of them reputed to be poisoned (or killed by violent means) by either his enemies or himself. That's not counting the numbers tortured and killed by Ivan in retaliation. It was during his reign that laws restricting movement for peasants (setting the groundwork for serfdom) were laid. He was involved in devasting wars (Moscow was burned during his realm) and famine and the plague were both side effects. Ivan had something of a special police for torturing and murdering the enemies of the Tsar, the Oprichnik. He burned and pillaged his own prosperous city of Novgorod. He beat his daughter-in-law (reputedly causing a miscarriage) and slew his own son. He was also accused of trying to rape Boris Gudonov's wife. Really, terrible seems a rather tame moniker after all that.

How did Catherine the Great (of Russia) inherit the throne? Catherine the Great, as did so many women of power, slept her way into the job. She married Peter, the soon to be Czar, who was rumored to be homosexual and was at least very, very weak. When Peter took power, Catherine wrested it away from him in the name of the couple's son, and sent him into a lavish exile at one of their palaces, where he mysteriously died. She was rumored to have had many affairs, mostly with men who could boost her standing (military, wealthy), and bore at least a couple of illegitimate kids, easily concealed in those days by the enormous skirts women wore. She was, however, a pretty smart cookie who is credited with modernizing Russia.

In what year did the Catholic Spanish rulers finally defeat the remainder of the Moors that had owned all to part of the Iberian peninsula since 711? Which rulers pulled it off? Isabella and Ferdinand finally ended the Muslim occupation of Spain in the 15th century. They started the Spanish Inquisition to ferret out any last heretics in their midst--which is technically a misnomer, because one can only be a heretic if one is of the religion that is deciding what a heretic is, but that little detail didn't matter to the Spanish Inquisition. Neither, apparently, did innocence. It was also intended to weed out Jews and Protestants who were cast out or killed.
How many King Louis ruled France the old monarchy was finally eradicated? Which numbered Louis never reigned? (And, no, don't count Louis Napoleon). The Louis question is a trick--while there was titularly a Louis 17th, since his father was beheaded during the Revolution, he died (rumored to be suspiciously) shortly thereafter and did not actually ever reign. When the monarchy was temporarily restored (the French never learn), a cousin took the name Louis 18th. So 17, the last being Louis 18th. There was a Louis-Phillipe after that (famous for gutting the fabulous Versailles staircase to make room for more downstairs gaming rooms). I'd forgotten about Louis-Phillipe, thanks. You hit it on the head.

What country do the Bourbons still nominally rule today? Luxembourg. And there's still a Bourbon on the throne in Spain (incidentally, the Swiss accidentally invaded Luxembourg last year when they got "lost" during a training exercise. We had a grand laugh about that one). I did not know about Luxembourg, but did know about Spain. The Luxumbourg tie-in is fairly recent and I missed it. Aron got this as well.

Nicely done. And tomorrow, on with the questions.

Read more...

Trivia Break: Royal Oddities

OK, I still haven't gotten any new questions (hint hint) so we're keeping with the questions and answers.

If you study European kings as I do, particularly English kings (though I've studied French and Spanish and Russian - more to come). In that frame, of mind, here are some odd tidbit questions.

Who was the first "Anglo-Saxon" king, who founded the dynasty that the Norman over threw in 1066?

William the Conqueror took over England, and married Maud of Flanders. What was unusual about their marriage compared to other royal marriages?

Which English King was beheaded?

Which English king was deposed by his French wife (in the name of her son), supported by her lover?

Ivan the Terrible was not easy to live with. What did he do to earn the "the Terrible" moniker?

How did Catherine the Great (of Russia) inherit the throne?

In what year did the Catholic Spanish rulers finally defeat the remainder of the Moors that had owned all to part of the Iberian peninsula since 711? Which rulers pulled it off?

How many King Louis ruled France the old monarchy was finally eradicated? Which numbered Louis never reigned? (And, no, don't count Louis Napoleon).

What country do the Bourbons still nominally rule today?

Oh, that aught to do.

Read more...

Trivia Break: Deadly Tropical Cyclones

OK, no one made an attempt on this one. Remember, folks, I'm happy to answer your questions if you're interested. But, this time, I'll answer mine.

What were the two worst (in terms of number of death) tropical cyclones (typhoon, cyclone or hurricane) in recorded world history?

The worst ever, in terms of loss of life, is the 1970 Bhola Cyclone with a minimum of 300,000 deaths and as many as 1 million. Cyclones that strike on low lying areas with a high population density (and minimal escape opportunities) are by far the most deadly. Flooding is very deadly.

The forty foot storm surge in the 1839 Indian Cyclone also killed close to 300,000 people. In fact, because of the geography involved and the population density, the cyclones of the Northern Indian Ocean are the most deadly.

These two tropical cyclones are the only two tropical cyclones listed among the top ten deadliest natural disasters.

But of course, most of us in the United States are most concerned with Western Pacific typhoons and, most famously, the Atlantic hurricanes.

With regards to Atlantic hurricanes, what was the deadliest hurricane season in recorded history?

So, what were you thinking? Katrina? Camille? The 1900 Galveston Hurricane? Nope! The worst Atlantic hurricane in terms of loss of life was the Great Hurricane of 1780, which killed 27,500 people (and has more casualties alone than any other decade of hurricane activity). In the midst of the American Revolution and the French and British fleets roaming the Carribean, the deadliest year (in fact, month) in Atlantic hurricane history occurred, three hurricanes that killed more than a thousand apiece all hit in the month of October 1780, something that's never been repeated in any other season.

In the past 100 years, name the five deadliest Atlantic hurricanes. So, was all that unfair? Alright, let's focus on the past 100 years. Surely we can name these. Well, I can ('cause it's a hobby of mine). In order of most deadly:

Hurricane Mitch - one of the strongest hurricanes and the strongest in the 1998 season, it hit Central America and parked itself on those mountains for several days, dropping as much as 75 inches over mountains and streams. In addition to the ills of flooding from storm surge, the deluge overflowed rivers and caused massive mudslides. 11,000 were killed and 11,000 more left missing by the end of 1998.

Hurricane Fifi - Flooding, swollen rivers, and devastation to the fishing fleets caused hardship and death in 1974, and destroyed vital crops (bananas) in Honduras and Mexico. Toll is estimated to be between 3,000-10,000, but is generally accepted to be about 8,000.

1930 Dominican Republic hurricane - This tightly wound Category Four swept across the island of Hispaniola, leaving a trail of devastation, costing about 8,000 lives. The remnants wandered over Haiti, Cuba and Florida, but Hispaniola took the brunt.

Hurricane Flora - In 1963, this little beauty cut a vicious swathe across the Carribbean, including Haiti, Cuba, Barbados, the Dominican Republic... 7,000 lost their lives.

Okeechobee Hurricane - In 1928, a murderous hurricane that, again, cut a swath through the Carribbean and then flooded an area of a hundred square miles by breaching the dike around Lake Okeechobee, killing 2500. The total death toll was over 4000.

Surprised at what you didn't see? Like maybe...

Galveston Hurricane of 1900 - Ranking third of all time in the Atlantic. This devastating storm all but swept the booming city of Galveston off the map. Actually known about ahead of time, most citizens pooh-poohed the notion of leaving and paid a horrible price as a result. Some argue that this storm is why Houston became the center of urban success 'round these parts and Galveston dropped in stature. That hurricane killed 6-12 thousands, but happened more than a hundred years ago, so it doesn't count. Fortunately, evacuations were mostly successful when Ike hit Galveston dead on last year.

Hurricane Katrina ranked 27th.

Read more...

Trivia Break: Tropical Cyclones

So, today I'm asking you some trivia questions and, tomorrow, I'll give you the answers (assuming the Mother or someone else) doesn't do it first. And I'll keep this up until someone gives me some more questions. :)


What were the two worst (in terms of number of death) tropical cyclonse (typhoon, cyclone or hurricane) in recorded world history?

With regards to Atlantic hurricanes, what was the deadliest hurricane season in recorded history?

In the past 100 years, name the five deadliest Atlantic hurricanes.

Have fun.

Read more...

Trivia Break: Henry VIII and the Implications

The Mother did a fantastic job of answering my questions. I'm going to include her answers here and just expand if I happen to have any additional tidbits. She didn't get a damn things wrong.

Us docs currently believe that Henry, a well-known philander all his life, had syphilis. His first children with the first two wives were fairly healthy, followed by numerous stillbirths and miscarriages, classic for syphilis. I tend to agree and I'm not even a doctor.

1st wife: Catherine of Aragon, his brother's widow (whom he married to maintain the Spanish ties and dowry), which is what he used to divorce her years later when she failed to give him the required son. 24 years later, as a matter of fact and, while all records call Catherine of Aragon a devoted wife, the same cannot be said of her husband. Catherine was also daughter to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain who were rather vehemently Catholic (starting the Spanish Inquisition). She had one child, a daughter, Mary, who later became queen (the last unabashedly Catholic monarch in England).

Anne Boleyn, who also failed to produce son, discarded with a frame up job, convicted of witchcraft and incest (with her brother). Much is made of Anne Boleyn largely because she used Henry's obsession with her to force him to throw his wife over. He'd already had an affair with her sister (which produced a bastard boy) and Anne did not want the same treatment apparently. Elizabeth was born shortly after Henry's hurried divorce and remarriage. A son was later born stillborn which many historians consider her Anne Boleyn's death sentence.

An interesting note. At a time when royal houses intermarried frequently and in-breeding was the order of the day (see the Spanish royal house), King Henry marrying so many of his own countrywomen was quite unusual. In fact, other than Anne Hyde's marriage to the ill-fated James II, no other British monarch or heir presumptive has married and English bride until the current Prince of Wales married Diana Spencer (although George VI married a Scottish bride at a time he did not expect to get the throne so there was an additional British Queen).

Jane Seymour, who did manage to produce the required son, but died of the dreaded puerperal fever after a very difficult labor. (Edward was sickly all his life and probably had congenital syphilis). The only wife to produce a son and the only wife to leave the marriage via death by natural causes.

Anne of Cleeves, not apparently a beauty, who Henry married without meeting her. She wasn't up to snuff and he divorced her as soon as his lawyers could figure out how to make it work (incidentally, Cromwell lost his head over this whole incident). The dislike was reputedly mutual.

Catherine Howard, who was convicted of adultery shortly thereafter. She probably really did it, which says something about her intellect. She was also a cousin to Anne Boleyn (who was almost undoubtedly innocent of the charges). Catherine Howard was also nineteen to Henry's forty-nine and it wasn't as though he set a good example.

Catherine Parr, a maternal figure who attempted to mend fences between Henry and his two daughters. She also took custody of Elizabeth after Henry died. Catherine Parr had already buried two husbands when she married Henry and married Jane Seymour's brother Thomas after Henry VIII kicked off.

As for his legacy: The protestant conversion of England was the biggie. He did it entirely because he wanted rid of Catherine of Aragon, and then he figured out that it could be a real source of wealth, as he shut down monasteries and confiscated their wealth. The impetus for the break with Rome was his lust for Anne Boleyn, but his ego took extraordinarily well to leading his own church. The callous treatment of Catherine of Aragon hardly endeared him to his former in-laws, Spain's ruling couple. And, the ever money-hungry Henry undoubtedly envied the considerable gold Spain made on their overseas conquests.
Failing to produce a protestant male heir who could live long enough to reproduce, though, left England in a religious war for the next twenty years. The strife with Spain might have eased with Mary's marriage to her cousin, Phillip II of Spain, but the internal strife increased. Finally, Elizabeth took the throne and cooled everything off by attempting to be reasonable about the whole religion thing. She also was a major patron of the English pirates who were exploring the new world, largely to prevent Catholic Spain from controlling yet another continent. This is probably the biggest lasting impact of Henry's syphilis on America--without it, we'd all be speaking French and Spanish. Although Phillip II wooed Elizabeth as well, there was a lot of bitterness toward the "bastard" Elizabeth and the protestant/Catholic chasm made it possible for her to sanction the piracy The Mother mentions (which made the pirates richer and the Crown as well). The different religious factions who were treated contemptuously also became the ones most likely to move on to colonies. Those experience from Quakers and the like not only meant our ties were largely to Protestant Europe, but also laid the groundwork for one of the founding Principles of the United States: Freedom of Religion.

Read more...

Trivia Break: Asking You a Question

Alright, I should write a blog, but my sister's in town and I'm falling behind. Expect blog posts to be spotty.

Instead of a trivia bit, I'll ask a trivia question. Tomorrow, I'll tell you the answer.

What were the six wives of Henry VIII of England?

And why do his marriages play into the settlement of North America?

Have fun.

(Actually, this might be a lot more fun than the way I did previous trivia breaks)

Read more...

Trivia Break: Nepalese Royal Massacre

Photo from http://www.theodora.com/wfb/photos/nepal/nepal_photos_6.html

I'm out of questions, so in to trivia...

On June 1, someone, ostensibly the Crown Prince Dipendra, open fired on a gathering of his own relatives, killing ten people and injuring five more. Among the dead were his father, King Bipendra, and his mother, Queen Aiswarya, and, eventually, himself.

His father, King Bipendra, was well-educated and well-traveled, an individual who took some interest in the condition of the people in his homeland. However, he resisted efforts to become a democracy from his ascension to the throne in 1972 until 1990, when he bowed to pressure and agreed to change the government to a constitutional monarchy. That didn't quiet all the unrest from the Maoist party, but it was no longer at a crisis level.

Among those slain, in addition to his parents, were both Dipendra's siblings, two of his uncles (on by marriage), two of his aunts and one of his father's cousins. Dipendra also managed to wound two aunts (including one by marriage), his sister's husband, another of his father's cousins and his own cousin, Prince Paras, who became the new Crown Prince.

According to eyewitnesses, Dipendra went to his room, then returned an hour later with two automatic weapons and open fired on his family before turning the gun on himself. He lived three days longer, technically king, before succumbing to his wounds.

By what many consider a suspicious coincidence, King Bipendra's brother, Gyanendra was not there and his son and wife (who were present) were spared the slaughter (though they were injured). And, yes, despite the investigations, there are still some who think that's mighty peculiar.

Gyanendra was not popular in Nepal and his son was even less so. Gyanendra tried to go back to an absolute monarchy and fought a losing battle with his own country for several years. But, eventually, the monarchy was abolished in 2008 and Nepal became a democratic republic, the youngest in the world...at the moment.

Read more...

For Jeff King: A Spot of Tarot

Jeff King said: you can just give me a tarot reading if you prefer

Generally, when if comes tarot readings, I will do a simple three card spread. Past, present and future.

Past - King of Coins (reversed) - there are several definitions available for this and I can't quite tell which one it is. I'm checking the other cards before I pick an option. OK, this seems to be either a history where you were misused by a cheat, someone who abused trust (presumably regarding money) or you were dealing with an illness or a physical affliction. Based on the cards that follow, whatever you've dealt with in the past has left you either financially challenged or emotionally strained. Or both.

Present - Coins II (reversed) - This helps some. In the reversed position, this card talks about changing occupations and financial strain, perhaps a period of unemployment or tough times.

Future - Swords IX - Unfortunately, this card, the only one not reversed, is not a happy card. It's a card that calls for patience in the midst of misfortune, worries, suffering, guilt, or, even if the actual trials are over, it may be challenging to get over past misfortunes.

I hate when I pull unhappy cards, but I have to tell you what they say. Them's the rules.

However, I'm going to pull some more cards and hope they can give me some good news or provide some clarification, the former being better.

Cups III (reversed) - This card talks about parting, situations beyond your control, laziness, addiction. If I were to interpret this card in this reading, I would assume that someone in your life is dealing with either addiction or some other condition that is making him (or her) be destructive to himself and those around him. And that you may not be able to save him.

III The Empress (reversed) - more of the same - family discord, vacillation, dissipation, jealousy and divorce.

Alright, it's not getting better. Here's what I have to say. First, there's my disclaimer. This is a hobby and I'm not a pro. Secondly, you should never take a reading from someone you've never even met too seriously. And lastly, if your past doesn't mesh with this past, you can assume that isn't your future. I hope it's not. I hope I tied into someone else or I'm just completely off tonight and your life is much better than the cards I pulled.

Read more...

For Jeff: Special relativity?

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

Jeff King asked: So my question is this can you explain Einstein's special relativity in a way that us mere mortals can understand… because I fail to see how light could pass you at 186,000 mi/sec if you are traveling at 186,000 mi/sec yourself… but yet Einstein's special relativity states “The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.” Meaning light or your perception is not changed upon your perspective or you relationship to it. Basically regular theory of relativity…

Whew. Give me something easy. Special relativity.

OK, here's the thing (i.e., the disclaimer). This disclaimer is I'm not a theoretical physicist and not qualified to provide an in-depth explanation of anything quantum-wise. Just the layman's version. And that means it might not be perfect.

You asked about the immutability of the speed of light. Well, here's how I understand it.

The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – Light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant) in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the state of motion of the light source.

Now, in your question is a statement that seems to contradict the theory, that light would pass you if you were going the speed of light (and, of course, it would if it was going any direction other than the one you were going). The key elements of this are that light always goes the same speed whether it is emitted from a "stationary" source or a moving source. That does not mean that it would necessarily appear to be the same speed relative to someone else's travel.

What does that mean? That means light does not act like mass. A bullet, if you shoot it from plane going faster than the speed of sound, will go faster than a bullet from a stationary target. The muzzle velocity is "added" (more or less) to the velocity of the muzzle for a final speed that's more than either. But, relative to the speed of the plane, the bullet is going the same speed as the stationary bullet. These are items of mass and are governed by general relativity.

Now, for most of us, we're going slowly enough that a bullet hitting you at 800 m/s and a bullet hitting you at 1143 m/s doesn't sound different (though they impart different energies), but the damage potential is different. Now, if the plane is going close to the speed of light, the bullet can't go faster than the speed of light, according to the theory.

Light is special. It always goes the same speed. If you are going just short of the speed of light and turn on the headlights, the light will be going 186,000 mi/s even if you're going 185,000 mi/s. Why? I've got this quote that might help.

God runs electromagnetics by wave theory on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and the Devil runs them by quantum theory on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday.
-- Sir William Bragg

Does it? Well that's because it doesn't make sense, not for people working in the macroscopic world. Photons aren't really matter and they aren't really energy. They're both and we don't have a real handle on what that means - just models and theories. We know how light behaves under certain circumstances and how it behaves in other circumstances. We have models that predict that behavior quite well, but not a model that predicts all its behavior. But it doesn't behave like regular things.

Now, when it comes to the speed of light and us regular folks going mundane speeds, the fact that the speed of light is always the same doesn't really mean much. But it means energy evaluation of light is different than it is for matter. Kinetic energy is often the determinant of energy for matter, but all light goes the same speed, yet it has different levels of energy that ends up indicated by wavelength.

Now, you mentioned space time impacts and more - I couldn't fit all that in a blog, but I'm also not sure I'm telling you anything useful. We have a large number of theories to try to explain the way quantum particles, photons, neutrinos, etc. behave. And some of them (or more) could be right. Some of the side effects of special relativity like E=mc2 and time dilation have been demonstrated - but I don't think we truly know why. We've seen things behave counter-intuitively and much of quantum physics is all about finding tools to predict this behavior as much as possible (Heisenberg uncertainty principle notwithstanding). But, when it comes to why and what the real implications are of that behavior, what particles we haven't discerned yet and what that means, how all of this ties with other things we can't explain out there like apparent dark matter and the like, we're just speculating. In a very systematic and educated way, but we're just scratching the surface.

I suspect that, two hundred years from now, we'll probably look back on our understanding of today and feel much like we feel when we look at hygienists and biologists from two hundred years before now.

Want the two cent explanation: light ain't matter and doesn't act like it is...much. Until we understand why, we probably can't go faster.

Read more...

Baby Break: Cellphone

Yeah, yeah, I know I have a few more questions in the queue (but, of course, I’ll always take more), but I have a scene to rewrite tonight on the novel and that has to take precedence over blogging, while it’s still fresh in me brain.

So, instead I’m going to share some cuteness regarding my tiniest monster child.

My daughter, Roxy, is nearly 17 months old. Aside from being cute as a button (if not more so), Roxy is also a determined little busy bee as well as a get-into-everything child. She’s a climber a likes nothing more than to climb into my easy chair (where I work on my computer) and crawl over all the stuff-covered surfaces around it, including my mobile desk top, the printer stand, the filing cabinet. She managed to figure out how to get the remotes in the gameroom (kept in a wall-mounted stand about adult head height). She’d happily bring them to us once she’d gotten them.

Lee has given up picking her up to let her watch video games he’s playing since she immediately wants to explore his full-sized desk top which is a veritable treasure trove of things babies should never play with. Now his headache is keeping her from wandering under his desk and playing with his power cords. Who knew, his power strip has lights and a handy button!

She brings me a brush from the bathroom so I can brush her silky hair and her shoes from wherever so I can put them on her feet (she loves dressing up). However, if she can’t find shoes that fit her, she’ll bring her brother’s shoes, my shoes, even her father’s work boots. She’s very industrious.

Anyway, the story. This weekend, Roxy managed to find Lee’s cell phone (Blackberry) while he was napping. I know this because she also managed to call the house phone and, when I answered it, sure enough it was Roxy giggling on the other end. I went to find her (she is free to roam from the gameroom, through the hallway to our bedroom, which is where I’m usually on the computer) and, sure enough, she had daddy’s phone.

I didn’t know, of course, that that wasn’t the first call she’d made. I dragged myself into work this morning, somewhat depressed, certainly tired, and a little stressed. There were three messages. Two of them were from Roxy using her daddy’s cellphone.

Oddly enough, that made my day.

Read more...

For Aron: Using Celestial Resources

Aron asked: Could, if we really wanted to, collect the hydrogen and helium and us it as fuel? Saturn could become a important fuel station in interstellar spaceflight. Because of the gravity, the fuel would be hard to get. Something I don't get, why are the rings in on a plane, why doesn't Saturn have a shell of debris?

In theory, we could eventually, use the gases on the gas giants for fuel, once we get travel out that far into the solar system reliable and economic. Using an oxygen/hydrogen combustion system, the trip to Saturn is unlikely to be worth what one could gather.

If, however, we manage to make a workable fusion engine, gathering hydrogen might make sense, but I'm not sure, with that gravity well (and Saturn's speedy spinning), taking it from the planet itself will be efficient. However, Saturn has ice (presumably) in the rings and moons that likely have methane and or other hydrogen materials. Converting methane to hydrogen would likely be easier than trying to extract actual hydrogen from the planet itself.

As for the rings (and several of the gas giants have them, though none are as impressive as the Saturn rings), no one's entirely certain how they came to be. Presumably, they are debris from broken up moons or objects that get sucked in by Saturn's gravitational pull, but I'm not sure anyone's sure. It does seem clear that some of the many moons of Saturn help keep the rings in place. They are 250,000 km in diameter but less than a kilometer in thickness. That's quite an unusual feature.

Read more...