NASAdude

I read this article this weekend and wanted to share it.

It's pretty simple. Since marriage is a partnership in life, why not just make it a legal partnership right from the beginning?

What business does the government have regulating marriage? ... Colin A.P. Jones, an American attorney and professor at a Japanese law school, offers a "free market solution." Writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, he argues for the need to break up the "government monopoly" on marriage. Instead of one set of marriage laws that apply to everyone, he proposes using the model of corporation law. Marriage would become the formation of a corporate partnership.

"Couples entering into marriage," Mr. Jones says, "should be able to use a partnership agreement that is tailored to their own circumstances and aspirations, one that reflects the values and expectations that they themselves attach to marriage."

He further proposes establishing larger "marital corporations" consisting of like-minded couples who could set the terms for marriage according to their own beliefs. "A Catholic marital corporation would forbid its members from divorcing. Progressive marital corporations would allow gay marriage. Islamic or Mormon fundamentalist marital corporations could allow polygamy."

Mr. Jones does acknowledge the government interest in regulating marriage. Not all arrangements—such as incestuous ones—would be legal. Children's interests would be protected. Divorce would be a matter of dissolving the corporation. Those with strict anti-divorce clauses would exact a strong penalty.

"Exclusivity and the use of choice to define one's identity are at the core of modern consumer society," Mr. Jones concludes. "Extending this to marriage is only logical."
-- Source

It's a simple solution to what has blown up into far too complex of an issue. Right?

Posted by NASAdude at 01:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's simple folks. Do not taunt the elderly. They may look decrepit and helpless, but if you push them, they might just push back.

This little old lady may seem like no match for a suit in an expensive car, but you'd be wrong.

Watch the video to see what happens...

This was found on boreme.com. The video shown above is edited to shorten it, make the file size smaller, and get rid of the evil dependency on Microsoft's WMV codecs. Unfortunately, no information was given to indicate the original source of the video.

All I have to say is treat your elderly with courtesy and kindness. If you don't, you just might end up regretting it!

Posted by NASAdude at 08:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think this fellow was trying to get an entry in the annual Darwin Awards.

I was trying to think of a caption for the photo...
- things *not* to do inside your new car
- fun with science
- a practical-joker's guide to mayhem
- ???

Here's the story:

A man from Sheridan is facing explosives charges after he accidentally blew up his own car with a gas-filled balloon he was taking to a Super Bowl party.
...
they were taking a balloon to a Super Bowl party -- a balloon filled with acetylene, a very explosive gas used in welding -- so they could blow up the balloon while celebrating.

However, on the drive, the balloon rolled across the back seat, possibly causing static electricity, and igniting the gas, causing it to explode.
--
Source

Some comments:
1) I hope he doesn't get jail time. His own repair/insurance and medical bills are punishment enough. Transporting acetylene isn't a big deal; it's a common gas used everywhere. (I wouldn't have a problem with a fine for *improper* handling while transporting it.)
2) I'm wondering how it could have exploded. I suspect he thought he'd go for a "bigger bang" and put a mixture of acetylene and oxygen in the balloon, which is easy to do since most torch rigs have a tank of each. Yes, it makes a bigger bang, but it's much more unstable. If the balloon only had acetylene in it, there would have been minimal risk.
3) There isn't any danger in doing this experiment... when it's done properly. This type of experiment is done all the time in "chemistry/physics 101" college classes. The problem this guy had was that it happened inside a small space. It's just like a firecracker. You can set one off (a small one!) in the palm of your hand without getting hurt. But if you make a fist around that firecracker, you're in for a world of hurt. The car cabin was too small, like a closed fist. With the windows open, it likely wouldn't have been a big deal. (Not that I'll be testing that in *my* car; I'd like my upholstry to remain un-singed.)

Posted by NASAdude at 11:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Square bubbles, square cars, square people, square planets, square bunnies/kittens/cats/mice, square veggies... all things square!

That's what can be found at the "make things square" Photoshop contest on worth1000.com.

Do you have a favorite?

Posted by NASAdude at 03:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A few months ago I reviewed the P-Mate product, which is designed to allow women to urinate while standing.

I came across another product for the same purpose. The Travel Mate (pictured above) offers a lot of the same benefits but is more reusable (plastic rather than paper) and it has a wide variety of accessories available.

Now some of you might be thinking, "I don't need no stinking P/Travel-Mate! I can pee standing up just like every other mammal!" Ok, maybe that's not exactly your thought, but the point is valid. There's no reason both men and women can't pee standing up. No muss, no fuss.

"What I discover is that, if the male organ is like an automatic camera (just point and shoot), the female organ is rather more like an SLR. You have to get all the bits in the right place to get it right. Or, as Denise puts it on Restrooms.org: 'It's like learning how to whistle. You have to learn how to position your lips for the best results."
-- Source

Here is a really helpful guide on how to pee standing up for women who are unfamiliar with the skill. I use the word skill deliberately; it may take some practice to attain accuracy, but isn't it worth the effort?

“To me standing is as natural as sitting is to the majority of women. My mother told me when I was young that women in the old days out west would stand to pee, especially at night instead of sitting on a wooden seat in a cold outhouse. ... I am quite interested in helping women who are really interested in learning to pee while standing. But I have found over the years that while many women want to pee while standing, they don’t want to go through the practice. The first thing is to decide that you will never sit again. Even when you are feeling lazy. You have to practice hundreds of times to get real good at it. I suggest wearing a skirt or dress for the first several weeks until you get the hang of aiming.”
-- Source

It's certainly better than the She-Inal. And as the practice of upright urination becomes less stigmatized and more popular, we might see a return of the Sanistand female urinals used in the 50s. I'd expect them to use a more modern design that uses a lot less water, though; by appearances, the urinals use just as much water as a regular toilet. It's not just about water conservation, though; it's about convenience and sanitation.

In all fairness, there are those out there who think that everyone should sit to pee. A popular site is Mothers Against Peeing Standing Up (MAPSU). Of course, their emphasis is largely biased against men peeing upright.

The empire of oppression is brought to its knees as women stand up for their right to urinate... standing up! I challenge and encourage all of my women friends (those that I have left after previous challenges) to give it a try for a week and report back. We all must make sacrifices for science. You might just find out that you prefer it!

Here are many, many links on this subject. Hopefully this completes the topic for a long while and there won't be an Episode 3 any time soon.

Products
P-Mate commercial site
EZ2P (another P-Mate design)
Shenis (shaped like a penis, of course)
The Whizzy

Guides and reviews
All About My... guide to peeing upright
Pee-Zee review (similar product to P-Mate)
Guides for men and women on how to pee standing up
A review of HOW TO PEE STANDING UP: Tips for Hip Chicks
a forum on this topic

Posted by NASAdude at 05:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I came across this literary piece about providence and wasn't sure what to think. I'll let you be the judge. Just be sure to share your thoughts, ask your own questions, and tell us why you're right and everyone else is wrong. ;)

You cannot understand history without understanding Divine Providence. The whole of history can be looked at from a Biblical philosophy, because there is an overall purpose that unifies all the specific events of history. From a humanistic standpoint, there is no purpose in history and hence no unifying theme that ties the events of history together. Many modern educators deny the Providential view of history and would have us believe that their promotion of one of several "secular" views of history is simply the recounting of brute facts. ...

* * *

During the Revolutionary War, God performed many miracles on behalf of the American army, for God desired to see America win its struggle for freedom, become a nation, and fulfill its divine purposes.

Congress sought legal redress to be reconciled with England for fourteen months even after the war had begun. It was not until December 1775, when King George rejected the colonists' petitions and declared them all rebels and enemies, that they realized their lives, liberty, and property were no longer protected by the English government. Why the king and Parliament would treat the petitions of their own colonies in such a stupid way is incomprehensible. It can only be compared to the hardening of Pharaoh's heart so that God's purposes might be fulfilled.

During the Civil War, the Confederate Army's phenomenal success in almost every major battle induced Abraham Lincoln to seek God for the reasons why. He called for a Day of Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer throughout the North on April 30, 1863. Interestingly, within two days, one of the most crucial Providential events of the entire war occurred: General Stonewall Jackson, who had never lost a battle, was Providentially removed from the scene. Shortly after this, on May 10, 1863, Jackson died. Had God not removed him, the outcome of the war may have been different. God had removed the stigma of slavery from this nation, and Providence now turned to a new objective: to preserve the union of the United States as one whole people.
...
* * *

A secular society lacks faith in God's Providence, and consequently men find fewer natural resources. The secular or socialist has a limited-resource mentality and views the world as a pie (there is only so much) that needs to be cut up so that everyone can have a piece. In contrast, the Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth.

While many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large, with plenty of resources to accommodate all the people He knew would come into existence. All the 5 billion people on the earth could live in the state of Texas in single-family homes with front and back yards and be fed by production in the rest of the United States.

The goal of America's Providential History is to equip Christians to be able to introduce Biblical principles into the public affairs of America, and every nation in the world, and in so doing bring Godly change throughout the world. As we learn to operate nations on Biblical principles, we will be bringing liberty to the nations of the world and hence fulfilling part of God's plan.
--
Source

Yeah, that was a bit long, even after I shortened it. If you want to read it in detail, open the link provided.

Questions to consider:

• The article implies that it's wrong to view history from a purely humanistic/secular/"brute-facts" standpoint. (I'm not sure what the difference is between facts and brute-facts.) Do you agree? Why or why not?
  
• How do you think people of a non- Judeo-Christian background would view the idea of Divine Providence?
  
• Does the proclamation of Divine Providence add fuel to the fire by giving "evidence" that Christianity is right and therefore other religions are not true/accurate?
  
• Do Biblical principles belong in public affairs of America and every other country as this article states, or is religion solely between an individual and their god? Where do you draw the line if you don't take a definite side?
  
• The author of a related article claims that the earth can easily support 100 billion humans. What are your thoughts on unlimited population growth? Is unlimited growth a wacko idea, or realistic?
  
• Is it right to apply a specific view/belief/faith onto the events/people/facts in history to support a religious viewpoint? Isn't that simply a variant of the idea of history being written by the conquerors? Isn't it similar to how a a paranoid schizophrenic views the world? Believing that your goldfish is plotting to kill you doesn't make it true, no matter what "evidence" you claim. Finding evidence of Divine Providence in your nation's history doesn't prove that God exists. I wonder when religion will be recognized and treated as the mental illness that it is.

That might be a bit extreme, but if that's what it takes to get a discussion going, I'm fine with that. So what do you think about all this? What are your own questions on this topic?

Posted by NASAdude at 11:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The world has gone spoony.
Yes, they're Spoony with a capital S and that rhymes with... oh, nevermind.

I don't want to hear about how wonderfully romantic your Valentine's Day date was, Spoony McSpoon-Spoon!

Main Entry: spoony
1 : SILLY, FOOLISH; especially : unduly sentimental
2 : being sentimentally in love.

Posted by NASAdude at 09:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I wanted to make this blog a little more interactive. A few days ago I posted a video clip from Ford. It seemed to be pretty popular. This time, I'd like to try a game that I found a long time ago.

You remember it... well, you do if you're as old as me. I remember playing it on an Atari 2600 game console. It was one of my first video games. It's Asteroids, of course. Here's a fairly accurate rendition of it as a Flash program.

Keep reading to play the game...

Use your left and right cursor keys to rotate your craft. Up fires your thrusters. Space fires your weapons.
Click on "Play game" with your mouse to begin.

Back in the day on the Atari 2600 far too much time was spent on this game. I could roll/flip the score back to zero. Once it was done twice in one sitting. That was a *long* game.

What was your first game console, and what was your first favorite game?

Posted by NASAdude at 09:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Is it just me, or does this sound a lot like Psycho? Norman Bates stuffed his mother using his taxidermy skills; these fine folks used other methods.

A woman whose mummified body was dressed in a white gown and placed in front of a television for two and a half years died from heart disease.

Hamilton County Coroner Dr. O'dell Owens said Tuesday he will rule that her death was the result of cardiovascular disease.

Officials never suspected abuse or foul play after finding Johannas Pope, 61, in her Madisonville home Jan. 4.

Pope told her caretaker, Kathy Painter, she didn't want to be buried because she believed she would come back to life.

Officials knew Pope had been dead for a while. Some police wore oxygen masks in the house because of the odor. Almost a week after the remains were found, Owens pegged her death as Aug. 29, 2003.

Painter left Pope's body in a chair in an air-conditioned room on the second floor of their Davies Place home.

Investigators learned that Painter took care of Pope's body - trying to preserve it.

Owens said Painter put on gloves and removed the maggots from Pope's body daily.

He said she used bug spray when they became too numerous to remove by hand. Investigators found 17 cans of bug spray in the house, he said.

"She really took care of (the body)," Owens said.

Painter even bought Pope new clothes just before officials discovered her body.

"She bought new clothes because she thought this was the time period she was coming back," Owens said.

Family members kept a window air conditioner running to keep Pope's body cool until about two months ago, when it broke, Owens said. Heating vents were covered during winter.
--Source

Posted by NASAdude at 11:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Technology is an amazing thing. Once a need is recognized, an invention can be developed to fill the niche.

If you (or your neighbors) have outdoor or indoor/outdoor cats, you're probably familiar with the paw-prints on the hood/windshield/roof. If you're really unlucky, the cat might have walked through mud before being on your car. Or worse, the animal might have had poor traction and scratched the car's finish.

Keep reading to see the video...

Ford has come out with a car that has pro-active technology to deter cats from getting onto your car repeatedly. Watch the video to see a demonstration of how it works. It's fairly self-explanatory.

Maybe Ford could adapt the technology to deter theft as well.

Posted by NASAdude at 05:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)