Driving by Feel

Maybe this isn't true where you live, but it seems to me that a lot of drivers around here in Washington State pick their speed by feel.

Let me explain.

There's a road here that's two lanes (one in each direction) but with occasional passing lanes. It needs to be a four lane road but that's another subject.

People will drive less than the speed limit on the two-lane parts and then, when another lane opens up such as a passing lane, they'll speed up making it harder for you to pass them. My only thought is, now they feel more comfortable with an extra lane. When the road goes back to only two lanes, they slow down again. Apparently they don't know how to use cruise control, either.

Or, even during the best weather, the Washington State DOT lowers the speed limit on Snoqualmie Pass

by 5 mph (65 versus 70). (There's "variable speed limits" on Snoqualmie Pass. The lowest I've seen is 35 mph on a very snowy night.) So, when the speed limit is 65, I'll slow down by 5 mph (from 75 to 70). And people I passed going 75 mph will start passing me at 70 mph. Because they aren't paying attention to the speed limit. They are driving by feel.

(I used to think they lowered the speed limit on Snoqualmie Pass because the road was narrow and windy. But they widened and straightened a long section and the speed limit is still 65 on that part.)

Now I follow the speed limit (at least) if conditions permit. This means I have to be aware of the speed limit. But I think a lot of drivers (at least around here) drive by feel. They'll be perfectly happy doing 45 mph in a 50 mph zone blissfully unaware of the line of cars behind them.

And this is in a way dangerous because it may cause someone to pass unsafely. I know it makes me see red mist. I always try to pass legally and safely. But not everyone does. I wrote about how driving too slow is dangerous here.

Driving by feel might be a common occurrence in the U.S. The Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology (part of the Federal Highway Administration) did a study and found that, despite the speed limit, people drive as fast or slow as they want to.

Do you have people who drive by feel where you live? Do they annoy you as much as they annoy me? Let me know in the comments below.

Horsepower

 I like cars and I like fast cars.

The first fast car I owned was a 1985 Ford Mustang GT. That car had a 5.0 V8 engine that made (wait for it) 210 horsepower. It's 0-60 time was 6.4 seconds. It's the first car I went over 100 mph in.

By comparison, the 2025 Honda Odyssey minivan has 280 horsepower and goes 0-60 in the same 6.4 seconds. It's a lot heavier than my Mustang was.

I've always wanted more horsepower in my cars. But what is too much horsepower?

I am still browsing cars on the internet, looking at ones with manual transmissions. I was very much tempted by this car, except I thought the price was outrageous (and the dealership only came down $1,000 off that price). So I kept looking. Then I came across this car and I thought the price was really high for a used 2019 Mustang GT. But I looked at the further and it turns out it's a Roush stage 3 aftermarket upgrade of a Mustang GT and has 710 horsepower and 610 pound-feet of torque. And that actually scares me. 

My Corvette had 505 horsepower and that car scared me. I never floored the gas except when I was pointed straight and had nothing in front of me. I did get it up to 155 mph on the racetrack consistently because the track had a half-mile-long front straight and I would floor the gas. 

A Mustang with 710 hp just scares me. I think I would put it in the ditch. Or run into something. You'd never floor the gas. And I mean never.

Do you like high-horsepower cars? How much horsepower do you think is too much? Let me know in the comments below.

Does One "Fire" Arrows?

Recently I watched the Lord of the Rings movies all in one weekend (extended editions of course; it pretty much took all weekend). And something occurred to me for the first time after having watched the movies several times.

In the battle at Helms Deep, Aragon tells the elves to "prepare to fire" their arrows. And the orcs laying siege to Minas Tirith, when the the 6,000 Rohirrim ride toward the orcs, the head orc tells the archers to "fire at will."

And I thought "fire" is a weird term for shooting arrows. Mostly "fire" is reserved for things involving gun powder (or its modern equivalents). 

Then I wondered what would be the proper term. So I googled it. And the command to get ready to shoot arrows should be "nock" or "draw" as in nock an arrow or draw the string back. And the command to shoot arrows would be "loose arrows" or "release arrows."

It's been a long time since I read The Lord of the Rings books so I don't know if this is a mistake Tolkien made or the filmmakers made. My opinion is it's probably not Tolkien. Besides, in the books, there weren't elves at Helms Deep.

I do think that the worst parts of the LOTR movies is when they strayed from Tolkien. That's why I suspect this was an error by the screenwriters: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson. 

The one scene I can't stand is in The Two Towers when Legolas and Gimli are counting how many orcs they kill and Legolas, being one short, shoots the orc Gimli is sitting on, saying he was twitching. And Gimli says "That's because my axe was in his nervous system!" I really don't think in the society of Middle Earth, they knew anatomy that well. (That scene may only be in the extended editions.) The whole counting of how many orcs killed isn't in the books, I'm pretty sure. Here is that scene.

The above photo is being used under Section 107 of the Copyright Act: fair usage.

Eyeglasses

My eyes have always been a source of frustration for me. In 2006 I got LASIK and it was wonderful for a couple of years until I developed kerataconus (read all about it here). And since then, I've had to wear eyeglasses again.

Currently I have three pair of eyeglasses. My regular glasses that are progressive bifocals, my prescription sunglasses for driving and being outdoors (like, I go outdoors a lot), and my "computer glasses" that block blue light.

Prescription sunglasses are a luxury, I'll admit. But I need my regular glasses, obviously. And the computer glasses also became a necessity. 

I was having migraines. Not often, maybe once or twice a month. So I saw a neurologist (had to drive 70 miles to see him). He prescribed some medicine to take when I feel a migraine coming on. But we both noted that migraines tended to be worse on days when I spend time on the computer. So he suggested getting blue-blocker glasses. I went to my eye doctor for a routine checkup and he and wrote a prescription for blue-blocker glasses, based on my computer monitor being two feet from my eyes. Since I didn't plan to wear the blue blockers outside my house, I found the cheapest frames I could. 

Since I got the blue blockers, I haven't had migraines except recently after my wisdom teeth were pulled a week and a half ago. Some days I forget to put the blue-blockers on and I get headaches, but not migraines. Perhaps it takes a few days of no blue blockers to give me migraines. I try to set them on my keyboard so I won't forget to put them on. 

Unfortunately, my insurance only pays for the regular glasses, and then not much and not often. So getting three pair of eyeglasses was expensive. But so worth it.

Do you need eyeglasses? If so, do you have more than one pair? Let me know in the comments below. 

Paddington Bear

I have now watched all three of the Paddington Bear live-action movies and I enjoyed each one and without hesitation recommend them. 

The Paddington Bear movies are based on a children's book series written by Micheal Bond that has 29 books published from 1958 to 2018. So sixty years. The last book has published posthumously.

So, you might be saying, if the movies are based on a children's book series, wouldn't the films be for children. Yes, the movies are aimed at children But Paddington is such a refreshing, guileless, polite character, it is fun for adults too. 

In the first movie, Paddington moves from Peru (there's bears in Peru? Google AI says "Peru is home to the Andean bear, also known as the spectacled bear.") to London to find the explorer that found him in Peru. Instead, he is found by the Brown family in Paddington Station and they adopt him. They name him "Paddington" because his bear name is too hard for humans to pronounce. While in Peru, Paddington developed a love of orange marmalade. And pretty much everywhere he goes, he sings the praises of orange marmalade. It's gently funny. No one is made fun of or put down. 

The second movie is the best of the three. If you only want to watch one Paddington movie, make it Paddington 2. But you'll want to watch Paddington so you understand the background. Paddington 2 even got a call out in The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent movie starring Nicolas Cage. 

The third movie, Paddington in Peru, is enjoyable. But with a director change and a recasting of Mrs. Brown, seemed to have lost some of its charm. It's still a good movie and worth watching. And you'll laugh. Some of it is implausible, but that's okay.

Watch the Paddington movies. You won't regret it. And apparently, there will be a fourth one.

The above photo is being used under Section 107 of the Copyright Act: fair usage.

Top Secret

The passing of Val Kilmer on April 1st made me sad as he was an amazing actor. Compare and contrast his performances in Top Gun and The Doors (he basically was Jim Morrison). 

His death also reminded me of his first movie, the under-appreciated, 1984 comedy, Top Secret. 

Top Secret was the movie made by Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, and Jerry Zucker after they created the hilarious Airplane movie. (The trio had nothing to do with Airplane II.) In it, American rock star Nick Rivers, played by Kilmer, goes to communist East Germany to do a concert. Interestingly, East Germany is a lot like Nazi Germany (I understand that it was like that in real life, too). Rivers becomes involved in an espionage plot and, with the help of the French Underground (yes, it's silly), escapes and helps defeat the Nazis' evil plans. Or the Commies' evil plans. Whatever. 

The movie is made in the joke-a-minute style of Airplane but stands out on its own. For some reason the marketing behind the movie wasn't very good (a cow in boots was the central image of its promotion) and it kind of bombed at the box office. It spoofs spy movies and war movies and The Blue Lagoon. Yes, really.

According to Google, you can watch Top Secret at Pluto TV for free (probably with ads) or YouTube, Apple TV, Amazon Prime, Google Play Movie, and Fandango at Home all for less than $4. You should watch it.

The above photo is being used under Section 107 of the Copyright Act: fair usage.

Car Opinions

I like cars. I read about them and, on this blog, I write about them.

I have some opinions about cars. Some of this is based on feelings, some based on facts. I'll leave it up to you to decide.

1) Top Tier gasoline is better. AAA did a study on this and it shows that Top Tier gas is better for your car engine. Top Tier gas tends to cost more. 

2) Unless your car requires it, there is no need to use premium gasoline. Regular Top Tier gas is good enough for most cars. Premium is more expensive; sometimes a lot more. You can do more for your car by using Top Tier regular then off-brand premium.

3) The best Top Tier gas is Shell. I base this on that Car and Driver used to exclusively use it for their testing. Plus there's a sticker on the gas cap of my car saying it recommends Shell V-Power which is its premium gas. The next best Top Tier gas is Chevron. I have no basis for this other than their claims.

4) Car and Driver is the best car magazine ever. Although the quality of the writing has diminished a bit in recent years, it's still worth reading. The magazine was amazing when Csaba Csere was the Editor-in-Chief.

5) Michelin Tires are the best. Goodyear are the worst. Two of my cars came with Goodyear OEM (original equipment) tires. They lost air quickly and wore out very fast. I got 11,000 miles on a sedan and 5,000 miles on my Corvette. When I replaced them with Michelin tires, I got more miles and they didn't lose air as fast. The Corvette had more grip in the corners, too. There's lots of tire brands I haven't tried, yet. I used to put Continentals on a sedan I owned and they worked fine. I have no opinion on Firestone, Hankook, and lots of other tire brands.

6) German cars are better engineered than American cars. And Audis are better than BMWs. I have no experience with Porsche or Mercedes. Although my wife's VW GTI had some weird engineering.

7) The best place to buy tires and wheels is Tire Rack. They are often cheaper than your local tire shop and they have a vast selection. If you buy wheels and tires combination, they will mount and balance them for free. The only issue I've ever had with Tire Rack is when I wanted to look up the details of wheels I bought from them ten years after, they no longer had the order information.

8) Blizzaks are the best winter/snow tires in my experience. According to Car and Driver, the Nokian Hakkapelitta is the best winter/snow tire but good luck finding them in your size. And, yes, if you live where it snows, put on winter tires.

9) Studded tires are evil. They damage roads and give no better traction in most situations and worse traction in dry or wet conditions. 

10) Electric cars aren't quite ready for prime time. They need to develop batteries that aren't affected by cold or hot. And hold more energy. And recharge faster. 

11) And of course: more horsepower is better.

Do you have any car opinions or disagree with mine? Let me know in the comments below.

Book of Mormon

This last weekend I went to Spokane to see Book of Mormon in the theater there. I've wanted to see this musical since I first heard about it ages ago. It premiered on Broadway in 2011 so that's probably been a while. 

This is the fourth Broadway musical I've seen. I saw Miss Saigon in Portland (and hated it; someone needed to warn me it was an opera). I saw The Producers (which was hilarious) on Broadway. And I saw Young Frankenstein in its "out-off-town tryout" run in Seattle. It was pretty good but the first act needed to be shorter.

I grew up in Southeast Idaho, an area with a great deal of Mormons. I remember hearing that the small town I lived in was 80 - 90 percent Mormon (I understand Mormons don't like that word "Mormon" any more and prefer to be called "LDS" which stands for "Latter-Day Saints" as the official name for the church is "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints"). Over many attempts to recruit me into their religion, I learned a lot about their... interesting theology. 

The Book of Mormon follows two Mormon missionaries from their training in Utah to a small village in Uganda. There the locals suffer with AIDS and there's a warlord going around killing people and mutilating female genitals. Yes, this is a musical comedy.

There are some quick vignettes explaining Mormon theology as necessary background to the story. 

And, yes, the musical is funny. The two main characters are an over-confident missionary and his "companion" for the two-year mission, a guy who over-compensates for his lack of confidence. The main female character is an Ugandan villager named Nabulungi. The over-compensating missionary keeps calling her by the wrong name such as "Neutrogena" and "Ozempic." While trying to convert the villagers, the over-compensating missionary starts to embellish the Book of Mormon to make it more interesting. This leads to a funny scene where the villagers put on a play about Joesph Smith for a Mormon leader and, of course, it is all wrong.

I couldn't complain about the musical much. The villagers did tend to drop F-bombs a lot. Even the songs were fun, though. I enjoyed it a lot and am glad I saw it.

If you're interested or care, you can learn more here (from the Mormon perspective). The Mormons claim that Jesus Christ came to North America after he was resurrected. They also say that a lost tribe of Israel somehow made it to North America. This is all told about in their "third testament" of The Book of Mormon.

The above photo is being used under Section 107 of the Copyright Act: fair usage.

(I don't have a "Broadway Musical" label so I used "Movies and Television.")

Politics and Philosophy in Fiction

Federation President

I was watching Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country a while back and I remembered something that has always bothered me. And, no, it's not the lavender Klingon blood. I'm sure they did that to avoid an "R" rating.

I generally like Star Trek VI as it's one of the better Star Trek movies. And, it's way better than Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. But then again, so is a root canal.

In Star Trek VI, the President of the Federation (played by Kirkwood Smith) is giving a speech. And in that speech he says, "Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean that we must do that thing." Which has nothing to do with the plot, story, or theme of the movie. It was, apparently just inserted by the filmmakers to make a political or philosophical point. According to the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), the movie had five writers: Leonard Nimoy, Lawrence Konner, and Mark Rosenthal for "story" and Nicholas Meyer (who also directed) and Denny Martin Flinn for the screenplay. Which one of them inserted that gratuitous line, I don't know.

In Jurassic Park, for example, Dr. Ian Malcolm (played by Jeff Goldblum) says "[Y]our scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

Which is a similar sentiment to what the Federation President said. But that was part of the theme of Jurassic Park. The movie was a cautionary tale about mucking around with science. Star Trek VI is not.

Now, when I write, sometimes (okay, maybe a lot), my politics and philosophy seep into the story. But I try not to make it gratuitous. At least make it part of the plot.

Have you noticed gratuitous politics inserted in movies or books? Let me know in the comments below.

The above photo is being used under Section 107 of the Copyright Act: fair usage.

The Curse

Mario Andretti

This last Memorial Day weekend I watched the Indianapolis 500 race. This has been my favorite car race since I was a kid. I try to watch it every year (although some years, something-usually family-interferes). 

In 1969 when I was 8years old I heard that Mario Andretti had won the Indy 500. I'm pretty sure I didn't watch it because, according to Wikipedia, it was only shown as highlights on ABC Wide World of Sports (the show that gave us the phrase "the agony of defeat"). I decided to go with a winner and decided that Mario Andretti was my favorite Indy 500 driver. Spoiler alert: Mario never won another Indy 500.

The race wasn't shown as its own program until 1971 according to Wikipedia and even then it was tape delayed to be shown in prime time and was edited to fit the time slot. They also would put in little featurettes about drivers or cars or whatever. It got worse every year. I just wanted to see the race.

In 1986, the Indy 500 was first shown live "flag to flag" (green to checkered) and it's been that way ever since which I liked a whole lot better than the edited, tape-delayed shows.

So, here I was rooting for Mario Andretti to win the Indianapolis 500 every year he raced. And he never won another Indy 500. His son, Michael, never won an Indy 500 (he's been more successful as a team owner), and his grandson Marco who is still driving has yet to win an Indy 500. This last race he crashed very early, I believe on the third lap!

But every year Mario raced, it seemed something would go wrong. Usually that meant someone would run into him or spin out in front of him or something would break on the car. It became known as the "Andretti Curse." There's even a Wikipedia page about it. My wife and I would sit down to watch the race and say "Who's going to spin out in front of Mario this year?"

Don't get me wrong, Mario was a great driver. He won Grand Prix and IndyCar championships. He retired in 1994. He even got to drive an Indy 500 with his son, Michael. 

But he seemed cursed and also seems to have passed the curse down to his progeny. 

These days I'm rooting for Pato O'Ward, a Mexican with an Irish name. But I still, in my heart, hope an Andretti can win at Indy.

Blog Post Views versus Age of Post

 I'm such a nerd.

I was looking at my blog post views and I noticed that the older the post, the more views it has. The views seem to accumulate as the post ages. So, being a nerd, I charted that in Excel. Here's the results for 20 weeks:

As you can see, it rises sharply then levels out eventually. I don't know why this happens. I don't promote the blog post after the first week, so I'm not sure where all these blog views are coming from. And I wonder if they are legitimate. Or if it's something like the Referrer Scam. (That referrer scam post has over a million views, but it is almost 12 years old.) 

I guess I won't worry about it. But it is strange.

The "Doctor Killer"

1978 Porsche 911 Turbo

Speaking of cars with turbos. 

There was one car in the 1970s that got a reputation as the "doctor killer" because doctors (who could afford them) would buy the car and then wreak them. 

It was 1974 and Porsche brought to market the 911 Turbo. 

The 911 was an old design even in 1974. The engine was in the back behind the rear wheels. It has an air-cooled flat (also called boxer) 6-cylinder engine with a turbocharger added. That gave it 261 horsepower which for 1974 was impressive (the Corvette had 210 hp). But it has a flaw. As Car and Driver put it:

[T]urbo lag as long as a coffee break. Mash the throttle at 3000 rpm, and the boost gauge plays dead until the tach reaches 4000. Then you enjoy a chiropractic neck adjustment until the wham peters out at 6000 rpm.

So why did it kill doctors? First of all, it cost $34,150 MSRP. That's $171,260 in today's dollars. So it wasn't exactly available to the average car driver. You needed the income of, say, a doctor.

The unskilled or unexperienced driver would go into a corner slow and upon exit mash the gas pedal. And here comes that turbo lag (the time it takes the turbo to spool up and start adding boost). Then, with the front wheels still steering through the corner (or pointing any direction other than straight), the engine would hit 4,000 rpm, the turbo boost would kick in causing the rear tires to break loose and, with the engine hanging out the back like a pendulum, make the car oversteer harshly. The driver would lose control and slide, often into a tree or rock or barrier or some other solid object. It's a small car, no airbags in those days (people didn't tend to wear seatbelts, either) and so it would kill its driver.

Now days, the Porsche 911 Turbo (which costs $200,000 plus), makes 572 horsepower (or, if you pay more, 640) has all wheel drive and electronic nannies to keep you on the road. It doesn't even have a manual transmission option.

But for a while there, the 911 Turbo had a bad reputation for killing its well-off drivers. 

 

The First U.S. Production Car with a Turbo

Google has started putting suggested stories below the search bar. I generally ignore them as click-bait, but one caught my eye. It was about the first American production car with a turbocharger. (For a short description of what a turbocharger is and how it works, scroll to the end of this.)

I thought maybe a Buick Grand National or the Ford Mustang SVO. Both of those cars were from the 1980s.

But no, it was a lot earlier than either of those vehicles. According to this article, it was an Oldsmobile made in 1962. Called the "Jetfire Turbo Rocket V8," it had a 215 cubic inch (3.5 liter) V8, which is small by today's standards. Unfortunately, it required a "Turbo Rocket Fluid," which was a mix of water and methanol, injected into the pistons to keep the gasoline from detonating early under turbo pressures. This can cause engine knocking which can damage your engine.

Despite all this, it only made 215 horsepower and 300 ft-pound of torque. Perhaps because the V8 was so small. These days, strapping a turbo onto a V8 should get you 400 horsepower, at least.

I'm wondering what the second production car to have a turbocharger was. A quick Google search indicates that it might be the Porsche 911 Turbo introduced in 1974, twelve years after the Jetfire.

Does this surprise you like it did me? I had no idea the first turbocharger was that long ago. Let me know in the comments below.

Does Everyone Need Algebra?

The jibe is that very few people ever use algebra in their lives. And I'm sure it's true. In Washington State, to graduate high school you need three math credits. And one of those credits is with Algebra I or something called "Integrated Math I." No idea what that is. And most college degrees require some algebra. 

According to the State of Washington, Integrated Math 1 is "a first-year high school math course, typically taken in 9th grade, which provides a foundation in linear equations, inequalities, functions, graphs, and systems of equations." So not algebra, but there is some usefulness there.

I'm seriously wondering if we need to teach algebra to most high school and college kids.

Believe me, I'm all for math. Everyone needs to know the basics.  You likely get all of that by 8th grade. The only reason to study algebra, in my opinion, is so that you can study calculus. And you study calculus because God speaks calculus. Algebra kind of simulates the world. Calculus comes a lot closer. (Differential equations comes even closer.) If you want to be an engineer or scientist, you're going to have to learn math.

I also wonder how many kids drop out of high school or college because of math requirements?

Maybe we should put kids in high school on two tracks: vocational and college bound. We desperately need more kids learning trades and not everyone needs to go to college. In the college-bound track, they learn algebra. In the trades track, they learn the math they need to succeed.

What do you think? Is algebra needed for most people? Let me know in the comments below.

How Old is "Old"?

Old Faithful Inn

I was recently watching the charming movie Fisherman's Friends on Amazon Prime (it's free with limited ads if you have Prime and is worth watching) and in the movie there's a tiny traffic jam when a BMW from London can't get past a local driving a small Citroën. The local says that street designers in "the 17th century" hadn't planned on cars the size of the BMW.

That got me thinking that the town where the movie is set and was filmed, Port Isaac, Cornwall, in the UK must be a very old town. At least the 17th century old.

And that reminded me of something that happened to me as a teenager when I lived in Southeast Idaho in the late 1970s. My father had a business gentlemen come visit for some reason. He was from Ireland and because he was staying over the weekend, we took him to Yellowstone National Park which was about 135 miles away.

Side note: my family went to Yellowstone Park at least once a year because it was so close; a little more than a two-hour drive away. So I was very familiar with the park.

The gentleman and I went into Old Faithful Inn (of course we went to see Old Faithful) and he asked me how old was the building. I didn't know so I suggested asking a park ranger. The ranger said it was built in 1904. And I said "That's old" and the man from Ireland said with a chuckle "That's not old."

But I grew up in Southeast Idaho where "old" buildings were about 50 years old. So to my perspective, 1904 was old. But this man was from Ireland where the local church might be 500 years old. Or the streets designed in the 1600s. 

Those of us living in the Western US, which was only settled in the 1800s, have a totally different outlook on what is old than Europeans do. 

What do you think is old? Does where you live skew your ideas of "old"? Let me know in the comments below.

I Really Like Finding Nemo

The other day I was flipping channels and I found Finding Nemo. And I stopped and watched it even though it was about half-way through and I could watch it without commercials and in 4K UHD on Disney+.

And I realized that I really like that movie. In my list of 100 favorite movies, I put it at 30. It's since been demoted to 31 due to Oppenheimer being added to the list at #26. 

Why do I put what is essentially a kids' animated movie from 2003 so high on my list of favorites? Because the computer animation is beautiful and makes you think you're underwater. It's simultaneously funny and touching. The turtles are hilarious (especially Squirt) as are the seagulls but for different reasons. And some jokes are for adults only, including a reference to The Shining. 

Like most of Pixar's early films, the writing and story telling are amazing. Marlin is the nervous and over-protective father who finds his courage. Nemo is the son who learns his father really loves him. And Dori finds friendship and accomplishment.

Sometimes when I'm bored, I'll turn on Finding Nemo on Disney+ just to enjoy it again.

If you haven't seen it (avoiding it as a "kids' movie"?), I strongly recommend you do. It's available for streaming on Disney+. Or it's on cable occasionally. Check it out and find Finding Nemo. You won't be disappointed.

The above photo is being used under Section 107 of the Copyright Act: fair usage.

Manual Transmissions are Going Away

There are times I miss having a manual transmission in one of my cars. I'm at the age where I don't want a stick shift in my daily driver, but it would be fun to have a sporty car with a manual transmission for weekends. I haven't had that since I sold my Corvette years ago. 

When you're rowing your own gears, you're more involved in the vehicle. And it's more challenging to pick the right gear for coming out of a corner, for example. It's fun.

A while back I wrote about the disappearance of manual transmissions. But it's worse than I thought.

On a recent weekend I browsed the internet for used cars. My criteria were they be sporty and have a manual transmission. And I learned something: manual transmissions are rare. Almost every car I looked at has an automatic transmission. I was looking at used Mustangs, Camaros, and C7 Corvettes mostly. I did find one Bullitt Mustang with a manual but they wanted a lot for it (not that I was going to buy it). And some old BMWs (they didn't even have cup holders). I did happen across a 2016 Camaro SS with a manual transmission. I seriously thought about buying it. It being 70 miles away helped me not purchase it. But that was a unique car, it seems.

So I did a little research. According to this article, only 2.4% of new cars are sold with a manual transmission as of 2020. Even high-end sports cars such as Lamborghini and Ferrari don't have manuals even as an option. And the latest iteration of the Corvette, the C8, isn't available with a manual.

According to this article, only 18% of Americans can drive a stick shift. That amazes me.

Of course, with electric cars, there's no transmission at all. Toyota has made an EV with a fake manual. But that's more of a novelty than a real manual transmission.

Maybe I'd better buy a car with a manual transmission while I still can.

Anora

Last weekend I watched three movies: The Hunt for Red October, The Untouchables, and Anora, which was quite a contrast to the other two movies. The Hunt for Red October is #30 on my top 100 movies and The Untouchables is #56. So obviously, I like them. Then I decided to watch Anora.

SPOILER ALERT: I'm going to give away some of the plot of Anora.

Anora won the Best Picture Oscar so I was curious to see it. Having watched it, I'm not sure why it won although there were some fine performances by the actors.

The story is about a Russian oligarch's son marrying a stripper/prostitute (Anora) and his parents' reaction to that. 

There is a lot of yelling and screaming and F-bombs. According to the Internet Movie Database, there are 479 F-words. In a 139 minutes movie, that's 3.44 F-words per minute. There is also a lot of graphic nudity and a little violence but nothing gory. 

I didn't get it. Why did this movie win Best Picture? The acting was good but the story was just shallow: boy meets stripper, boy marries stripper, parents freak out. The one interesting thing was the cocky way the son acted before his parents arrived from Russia and then how he became timid and meek with his mother (who was obviously in charge of the marriage).

Have you seen Anora? What did you think? Did you enjoy it? Let me know in the comments below.

The above photo is being used under Section 107 of the Copyright Act: fair usage.

Found an Error

Ten years ago (about), I published Treasure of the Black Hole, a science fiction adventure/detective story. 

Not to give too much of the plot away, but it does involve a black hole at one point. In describing an object in orbit around the black hole, I called the point in orbit farthest from the singularity the apoastron. "Astron" means star (like in astronomy). My thinking was a black hole is a star, or it used to be.

But according to this Wikipedia page,  the proper term is apomelasma or apobothron or aponigricon. I probably would have gone with -melasma because it's Greek for "black." Or -bothron because it's Greek for "hole."

Now is this an error that most readers will spot? Probably not. But it does bother me. A little.

And this brings me to doing research for writing. My philosophy is that unless you lived it, you can't do too much research. But what you can (and shouldn't do) is show off in your writing how much research you did. Even if you think something is really cool, don't add it to the story unless it's relative to the plot. 

But as of now, I'm wishing I had done a little more research on Treasure of the Black Hole.

Have you found an error in your work that you didn't discover until it didn't really matter anymore? Let me know in the comments below.

Cup Holders in Cars

Did you know that cup holders in cars was at one time controversial?

When I was a kid, the only "cup holder" in a car was the lid of the glove compartment that had two shallow, circular indentations on the inside of the door. I always assumed they were for putting drinks there when the car wasn't in motion.

But cup holders, at least in American cars, didn't really start until the 1980s when Chrysler introduced the minivan and put cup holders in it. Suddenly, everyone wanted cupholders.

But the European manufactures held back. They said their cars were for driving, not drinking. But Americans A) had much slower speed limits than the Europeans (especially the Germans) because of the National Maximum Speed Limit of 55/65 mph and B) wanted the convenience. 

Also, Americans drive for longer times and farther distances than Europeans. Still, the European manufactures resisted. I recently saw a 2001 BMW Z3 for sale. Judging by the pictures in the ad, it didn't have cupholders.

I can't remember which was the first car I owned with cupholders designed in the interior. It was probably in the early '90s. Every car I've owned since then, including my Corvette, had cupholders. And two of those cars were German. So, at least for the American market, Europeans relented and designed in cupholders. 

However, one company held off putting in cupholders: Bugatti. Now Bugattis aren't daily drivers. They cost over $1 million and are capable of speeds over 200 mph.

But now Bugatti has decided to put a cupholder in at least one of its cars. It's in the door, not the center console, but it's there as an option. 

Me, I use my cupholders all the time. I would have second thoughts about buying a car without them (unless it was one of my dream cars).

What do you think? Do you need cupholders in your car or are you happy without them? Let me know in the comments below.

Public-Owned Cars

Think about your car(s). It's probably your biggest expense after your house. Or if you don't have a house, your biggest expense. With car payments, maintenance, insurance (which has gone up a lot lately), gas (don't get me started), it's expensive to keep a car.

But what does your car do most of the day? It sits. You drive it to work in the morning, it sits until you go home. You get home, and it sits until you drive to work the next day. Oh, sure, you might take it somewhere like to the grocery store or to visit someone, but still it sits a lot.

I was writing this novel (that has been overtaken by events) where AI pretty much runs everything, at least in the U.S., and there are robots that help humans do a lot of things. It was a benevolent AI, at least it appeared to be so.

One of the concepts I had in the novel was that very few people owned cars. And those that did were the rich. Everyone else used public cars that were very cheap. Cheaper than owning a car. (Public transportation such as buses and light rail were free.) The cars were 100% electric and autonomous. Like Uber, you used as app on your phone to hail one, or the AI could learn your habits and have one waiting for you when you leave for work and when you go home.

(Not too long ago I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson talk about this very idea but that was after I started writing the novel.)

After a day, the cars would be washed inside and out. If someone tried to vandalize one (or used it for a bathroom), it would take them to the police station for the robots cops to deal with (there were still a few human police officers).

There would be no need for huge parking lots around stores as the cars would drop people off and then pick them up after shopping. Those parking lots could be turned into grassy areas or even parks.

There are, however, lots of privacy problems with this concept. And what if someone hacked into your public car and drove it off a bridge? Plus, I would hate this. I like driving and I like driving fast cars.

I kind of imagined them white inside and out and pod-like. If you wanted to spend more money, you could have a nicer one. And if you have enough money, you could own a nice car. I also had the very rich own "antiques" that were not autonomous and were limited to 80 km/h (~50 mph) on public roads.

Here's a short, funny video about this concept.

What do you think of my concept (or deGrasse Tyson's concept)? Would you be willing to give up your cars for a publicly owned pod? Let me know in the comments below.

I Don't Watch Old Movies Anymore

I realized recently that I don't watch old movies anymore. And I blame the demise of DVD.com.

Back when I used DVD.com (formerly Netflix before streaming) to watch movies, I would put new releases at the top of my queue, but new releases didn't come all the time. In order to justify what I was paying for DVD.com, I would watch three movies every two weeks. And there wasn't always a new release. So I backfilled with older movies. 

For example, I went through a period where I watched a lot of Japanese director Akira Kurosawa's movies, including Seven Samurai. One of his movies, Stray Dog, was set shortly after World War II in Tokyo so I used it as research for my novel Hammer of Thor. I watched Throne of Blood (based on Macbeth) and Rashōmon and others. I highly recommend Rashōmon. It has a unique concept that has been stolen a lot (including a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode).

I went through an Alfred Hitchcock phase where I watched every movie I could find directed by Hitchcock, including his pre-Hollywood stuff. It was interesting watching him hone his craft. I also watched his Hollywood movies. Rear Window and Lifeboat are my favorites. 

But since DVD.com went away, I struggle to watch just new movies, forget old movies. I'll sometimes get a hankering to watch some old movie, so I'll Google it to see where I can stream it, but there's almost always a cost (such as $5.99), and then I just say, "Nah." I did watch Stalag 17 recently because it was on a PBS station. It's a good movie about a World War II prison camp. Yes, Hogan's Heroes is loosely based on it.

The last DVD I watched from DVD.com was Fast X.

Since DVD.com went away in September 2023, I have watched 36 new releases, mostly streaming and a couple in the theater (such as Oppenheimer). The latest was Gladiator II on Paramount+ last weekend.

Do you watch old movies? How do you find them? Let me know in the comments below.

New College Football Alignment Idea

One major problem with Pac-12 teams joining the Big10 is the travel. The Big10 now pretty much covers the northern part of the continental United States plus Los Angeles. Rutgers is in New Jersey but they year they will be traveling to Seattle to play the University of Washington Huskies in football. Conversely, the Huskies will be traveling across the nation to play Maryland at home. And last year, teams that had to travel more than two time zones to play tended to lose.

So I've been toying with the idea of just having regional conferences that all have between 10 and 15 teams. Well, someone did that. It wouldn't totally reconstitute the Pac-12, but it's close. The one problem I see is some of those divisions such as the "Mountains + Southwest" wouldn't have any major media markets in it (there is Denver but that's not very big compared to Los Angeles). So that conference would likely have problems getting large media payments. And media money is what drives college football now (unfortunately). 

That's what killed the Pac-12. When USC and UCLA announced they were going to the Big10 (for more money), it deprived the Pac-12 of its biggest media market: Los Angeles. So the networks weren't willing to pay as much for the media rights. It got so bad that AppleTV was bidding for the Pac-12 media rights.

But I have an idea for that, too. How about NCAA Div I FBS football negotiates media rights like the NFL: all at once for all conferences. "You want LA, you also have to take Boise." That could solve that problem.

So then all we'd need to fix is NIL and the transfer portal.

What do you think? Good idea or not? Let me know in the comments below.

Electronic Notepad

 I bought one of those electronic notepads a while back and tried it out. They had a free-return policy if I didn't like it. 

When doing freelance writing, I was tired of searching through my hand-written notes to find something. The notebook was supposed to turn my writing into text that was searchable. I thought that would be great.

I did like a lot about it. The feel of it was just like writing on paper. I could store my notes as a PDF on my computer and not have them in my physical files which I then clean out occasionally.

But the problem was, it couldn't read my writing. To paraphrase Gandalf, "There are few who can." Sometimes I have trouble reading my writing. Here's an example of me trying to write neatly:

So you can see they the electronic notebook had issues.

So I sent it back for a refund.

Have you tried any electronic devices to make your writing easier? Let me know how it worked in the comments below.

Beautiful Cars

Lamborghini Countach

I was admiring a very expensive car and I called it, in my mind, "beautiful." 

And then I got to thinking. Why do I (and other people) call these mechanical devices "beautiful"?

We call paintings and books and sculptures and other man-made things beautiful. So why not cars? Just because they are also functional, doesn't lessen their beauty. If you Google "beautiful car" you get a lot of images, some that are more beautiful than others.

As. the saying goes "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." There are probably people who would never find a car beautiful. I remember a long time ago I was with my parents in Monterey, California, and there was a white Lamborghini Countach parked on the street. And my mother said, "What an ugly car." But I found it beautiful. But my opinion might have been swayed by knowing it had a V12 engine that sat behind the driver. 

And, in general, what is this penchant humans have for finding inanimate things beautiful: mountains, lakes, trees. Or animals. If someone pointed out a beautiful horse to me, I'd have to take their word for it. But a pretty cat, I'm all about that (since our family got a cat seven years ago). 

Why do you think humans call so many diverse things "beautiful"? Let me know in the comments below.

Wolves and Humans

I sometimes think about the relationship of humans and wolves throughout the ages. For example, why are there sayings about wolves:

• Keep the wolf from the door
• A wolf in sheep's clothing
• Throw you to the wolves

 Those are the ones I could think of. There may be more. There's also the "Big Bad Wolf" in the Little Red Riding Hood story. The wolf and the three little pigs, also. 

At some time in the distant pass, humans and wolves started living and working together. And modern dogs are descendants of those wolves. But a lot of wolves stayed feral. And still are.

I think that in Europe, especially in the middle ages, wolves hunted humans and humans were ill equipped to handle them. Especially wolves in packs. And that's why we have sayings such as "Keep the wolf from the door." You didn't want to step out of your hovel and be attacked by wolves. Although it probably happened.

I read an article about a couple living off the grid in Alaska. They run into wolves. The article said they are "braving encounters with wolves." So the wolves must make them nervous, at the least.

Wolf attacks on humans have happened as recently as September 2024.

Do you think wolves hunted (and hunt) humans? Or am I wrong. Let me know in the comments below.

Northern Lights

 I can't believe I never blogged about this and it's been eight months.

I've always wanted to see the aurora borealis (also known as the northern lights). And I thought to do so I'd have to go to Alaska (most likely) or at least somewhere far north of where I live.

On May 10, 2024, there was a solar storm and the borealis was visible where I live! It was overhead. I was amazed. Here are some pictures I took that night:

The camera on my iPhone showed a lot more color than my eyes did.

The interesting thing is, now I don't care. I've seen the northern lights and when they say they will be visible again, I don't want to put in the effort to see them. For example, on October 10th, the borealis was visible as far south as Texas. I didn't bother to go see them. (There's sure been a lot of solar activity lately.)

There's a man who lives in the same town I do, and he goes out and photographs the northern lights all the time. I see his pictures on Facebook. And that is, now, good enough for me.

Have you seen the northern lights? Did you enjoy it? Let me know in the comments below.

Red Mist and Marbles

In the past (not recently, however), I have driven on a race track. 

In racing circles (and perhaps other groups) there is a term called "red mist."

Red mist is when you get angry or frustrated and make bad decisions because of it.  This doesn't only happen on race tracks. It can happen in all sorts of situations. A lot of them involve driving. It's not road rage, just more frustration. 

For example, I was behind a guy at a stoplight. The light turned green. The car in front of him turned right. Interminable seconds later he put on his right turn signal and slowly turned the corner. And I got frustrated and nearly floored the gas in my car (I was trying to make the tires squeal but with all wheel drive that's nearly impossible) and went across the intersection. Red mist.

Another racing term is "marbles." Once you get off the racing line (the path around the track that is fastest), you get into an area where there are "marbles." Not literal marbles, but pieces of tire and maybe some gravel and you lose your grip on the track surface. That's why they are called "marbles."

Once on the track I got red mist (I don't remember why) and ended up in the marbles. I don't remember how. I just remember saying later "red mist and marbles don't mix." I didn't crash, but I did have to work to get my car back under control. It was a scary moment.

So, my friends, try to avoid red mist and anything that will make it worse, like the marbles on the track. Or ice on a road. Or anything that will make a lousy situation much worse.

Have you experienced red mist? Were you driving or doing something else. Let me know in the comments below.

SiriusXM and Regional Songs?

I've come to the conclusion that some popular songs were regional hits but were rarely if ever heard outside those regions.

Why? Let me explain. 

I have SiriusXM satellite radio in my car. When the idea of satellite radio was first put forward, I thought one would be crazy to pay for radio when there's free radio over the air. Then I bought a car that came with a year-long free trial. By the end of that year, I was hooked. For one thing, no commercials on the music channels (just a lot of promos touting that). And also, for trips, you don't have to search for good radio stations. You just have to listen to the satellite radio. It does have drawbacks beside the cost. It doesn't go through foliage well so leafy trees can block the signal. And mountains do too. It doesn't work very well when I travel down the Columbia River Gorge toward Portland to see my grandson. But other than that, it's great.

Since getting SiriusXM (used to be two companies called "Sirius" and "XM" but they merged in the hope of surviving), I've heard a few songs I've never heard before. For example, Angry Eyes by Loggins and Messina. And something called Jeans On by David Dundas (whom I'd never heard of). Also Jessica by the Allman Brothers (I'd obviously heard of the Allman Brothers, just not that song). And Lovely Day by Bill Withers. And finally Ariel by Dean Friedman. Never heard of the song or the artist. And the song sucks.

It might be that I stopped listening to Top 40 in about 1977 and switched to what the radio biz called "Album Oriented Rock" or AOR. 

But still, I'm wondering if those songs never made it to the Pacific Northwest where I've lived most of my life (except for when I lived in California when I was in the Army). Another interesting fact is I never heard Free Bird by Lynyrd Skynyrd until I was in the Army.

Have you heard of those songs? Were they hits where you live? Or are they as unfamiliar to you as they are to me? Let me know in the comments below.

We Aren't a Quarter of a Century into the 21st Century

Happy New Year!

This year a lot of people are going to start saying we're a quarter of a century into the 21st century.

That's not correct. We won't be a quarter of a century into this century until 2026.

Why?

Because there was no year zero. We went from 1 BC (BCE) to 1 AD (CE).

So the first century was 1 to 101.

The second century was 101 to 201.

The third century was 201 to 301.

And so on until the 21st century will be 2001 to 2101.

So 25 years into the 21st century will be 2026.

I know it's not fun. But it's the truth. But man, a quarter of a century next year already. That amazes me.

Huskies' Bowl Game and Season Wrap Up

The University of Washington's 2024 season is over. And, it wasn't a great one. New head coach Jedd Fisch had a near impossible task of making the Huskies a winning team after all but two starters left and he had to rebuild the program.

The Huskies last game was the Sun Bowl on December 31st against the Louisville Cardinals who had an 8-4 record versus the Huskies' 6-6. 

When our true-freshman quarterback threw an interception that was ran in for a touchdown on his second pass attempt, I thought the game was over. But the Huskies came back and fought hard. Their final drive started on the 3-yard line and they put it in for a touchdown in the final seconds of the game. A PAT would have tied the game but Coach Fisch wanted to go for two to win it. But not getting the two points would lose the game. And, of course, we missed the two-point conversion. And the Huskies lost the game 35-34.

Back around 2008 when the Huskies weren't doing very well (worse than this year, even), I came up with my criteria for a "good season." They were:

• Win at least 8 regular season games
• Beat Washington State
• Beat Oregon
• Go to a bowl and win it

And they managed exactly none of those.  Their regular season record this year was 6-6. They lost to WSU and Oregon. And they went to the Sun Bowl and lost.

So, I guess there's always next year. With that season, Fisch probably won't be hired away like Kalen DeBoer was. That'll help build continuity in the system. If we can hang on to our coaches, that would help too. Next year we'll have a sophomore quarterback who this season showed some real talent. So, we'll have to see. Their first game is on August 30th against Colorado State at home.