Q: This came up in conversation earlier, but was never resolved to my satisfaction...so I leave it to you, DougO, to confirm or bust this myth: does swallowed chewing gum really stay in your stomach for years?
A: The crux of the matter is that chewing gum doesn't digest - it's made of a natural or synthetic latex, originally from tree sap, but later replaced by cheaper polymers. So swallowing it does it no harm except maybe to ruin the flavor. I leave that flavor to your imagination.
But, no, it has no special properties that would make it cling to your insides. It hangs out about as long as pennies, buttons or crayons do in your system - about two days. Then it makes it's way out with an even newer, less appealing flavor.
Incidentally, the story I was told as a small child about gum was weirder. I was told never to go to bed with gum in my mouth or it would end up in my hair. Actually, that's pretty straightforward. But what I thought they meant was that it would absorb magically into my body and I would start oozing chewing gum out of my hair follicles, like through one of those Play-Doh squeezers. I was terrified. It was only much later in life that I realized what they were talking about. Needless to say, I've been pretty shy of gum ever since.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Hot chicks posing as Fat Guys
Q: Me and several of my dullard coworkers were pondering a simple question which arrived from an irrelevant conversation. And that question was are there any hot chicks in the entire world posing as Fat Guys on the internet? We all know many many fat guys pose as hot chicks but I'm betting the opposite never happens. And if it does, at all, how many do you think there are? And please, show your math.
A: Aw , jeez. Math. OK, here's my best shot.
The Why
The odds against such a thing happening are, admittedly, very long. If you are a "hot chick", i.e. a woman of marriageable age who turns heads and doesn't have to worry about being alone on a Saturday, there are few incentives for pretending that you are not so. Odds are that you have spent a great deal of time, money and energy to become so, and pretending that you were not would be a waste of that investment. However, it is conceivable that you would be in a situation where it would be a hindrance to have it known that you are "hot", female, and possibly even unattached. The prime example would be when you have decided to become involved in internet gaming.
I have no real idea how many attractive women have, say, an account on World of Warcraft, but I imagine the numbers to be low, given the random sample of people I know to be MMO gamers. They tend to be male, and in a range between sullen, hormonal high-school geek to middle-aged, paunchy Star Wars fan. This is a broad generalization, but,... c'mon. You know I'm not stretching much here. There is nothing per se to prevent an athletic, stunningly beautiful coed from joining the Horde. I just can't imagine it happens that often.
That said, there probably are a few. Why then would they advertise themselves as a fat guy (I picture glasses with green stains around the nose braces and Chee-to stains on his shirt) in such an environment? The same reason one prefers not to wear swim trunks made of bacon when swimming near piranhas. Leveling and managing inventory is difficult enough without having to constantly answer chat windows asking what you are wearing. You're not likely to get hit on by hunky millionaires or statuesque lifeguards online. You'll get Comic Store guy 99 times out of 100. I'm just sayin'.
The Math (such as it is)
The total world population, as of the 2007 census, is roughly 6.68 billion people. Of those people, the the number in the top three most populous countries - China, India, and the USA - are 1.33 billion, 1.15 billion, and 303.8 million, respectively. But internet use breaks down differently. In the entire world, there are roughly 1.02 billion internet users, with the national breakdowns for the before-mentioned countries on the order of 208 million for the US (2/3 of the population), 162 million for all of China, and only 60 million for India (must... restrain... cheap stereotypical jab...). Considering that the entire European union has 247 million users, and Japan has only 87 million (the same percentage as the US), we're still looking at the heavy end of internet use in these few countries - 764 million out of 1.02 billion, or roughly 75%.
Given 208 million internet users in the US, I'm going to make a conservative (and unsupported) guess that there are at least 5 hot chicks in the US pretending to be fat guys.
SO:
For every US citizen online, one might guess that there are:
- 1.18 Europeans
- .78 Chinese
- .42 Japanese, and
- .29 Indians
This gets trickier, because internet use skews heavily male in the US and Europe (say 60%), and more so in Asia (let's say 75%). Factor in that only a small percentage of the internet users anywhere are MMO players and that drops the chances of any hot/fat woman outside of the most industrialized countries of the West to less that 1/4 of a woman! (Unless, of course they all are pretending, to avoid being crushed by paternalistic social forces,... but this is even more wild speculation).
Drumroll, please...
So, the question was "how many hot chicks in the world are posing as fat guys on the internet?" Based on nothing more than population statistics and my own fevered conjecture:
7.
No, 8.
A: Aw , jeez. Math. OK, here's my best shot.
The Why
The odds against such a thing happening are, admittedly, very long. If you are a "hot chick", i.e. a woman of marriageable age who turns heads and doesn't have to worry about being alone on a Saturday, there are few incentives for pretending that you are not so. Odds are that you have spent a great deal of time, money and energy to become so, and pretending that you were not would be a waste of that investment. However, it is conceivable that you would be in a situation where it would be a hindrance to have it known that you are "hot", female, and possibly even unattached. The prime example would be when you have decided to become involved in internet gaming.
I have no real idea how many attractive women have, say, an account on World of Warcraft, but I imagine the numbers to be low, given the random sample of people I know to be MMO gamers. They tend to be male, and in a range between sullen, hormonal high-school geek to middle-aged, paunchy Star Wars fan. This is a broad generalization, but,... c'mon. You know I'm not stretching much here. There is nothing per se to prevent an athletic, stunningly beautiful coed from joining the Horde. I just can't imagine it happens that often.
That said, there probably are a few. Why then would they advertise themselves as a fat guy (I picture glasses with green stains around the nose braces and Chee-to stains on his shirt) in such an environment? The same reason one prefers not to wear swim trunks made of bacon when swimming near piranhas. Leveling and managing inventory is difficult enough without having to constantly answer chat windows asking what you are wearing. You're not likely to get hit on by hunky millionaires or statuesque lifeguards online. You'll get Comic Store guy 99 times out of 100. I'm just sayin'.
The Math (such as it is)
The total world population, as of the 2007 census, is roughly 6.68 billion people. Of those people, the the number in the top three most populous countries - China, India, and the USA - are 1.33 billion, 1.15 billion, and 303.8 million, respectively. But internet use breaks down differently. In the entire world, there are roughly 1.02 billion internet users, with the national breakdowns for the before-mentioned countries on the order of 208 million for the US (2/3 of the population), 162 million for all of China, and only 60 million for India (must... restrain... cheap stereotypical jab...). Considering that the entire European union has 247 million users, and Japan has only 87 million (the same percentage as the US), we're still looking at the heavy end of internet use in these few countries - 764 million out of 1.02 billion, or roughly 75%.
Given 208 million internet users in the US, I'm going to make a conservative (and unsupported) guess that there are at least 5 hot chicks in the US pretending to be fat guys.
SO:
For every US citizen online, one might guess that there are:
- 1.18 Europeans
- .78 Chinese
- .42 Japanese, and
- .29 Indians
This gets trickier, because internet use skews heavily male in the US and Europe (say 60%), and more so in Asia (let's say 75%). Factor in that only a small percentage of the internet users anywhere are MMO players and that drops the chances of any hot/fat woman outside of the most industrialized countries of the West to less that 1/4 of a woman! (Unless, of course they all are pretending, to avoid being crushed by paternalistic social forces,... but this is even more wild speculation).
Drumroll, please...
So, the question was "how many hot chicks in the world are posing as fat guys on the internet?" Based on nothing more than population statistics and my own fevered conjecture:
7.
No, 8.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Conspiracy Theory
Q: Dear DougO, what really happened in Roswell in 1947?
A: What, you don't believe your own government?
To recap the story, aliens supposedly crash-landed in the desert outside of Roswell, New Mexico, and the chunks of their flying saucer as well as their icky, unearthly bodies were recovered and secreted away by the US Air Force. Subsequent clumsy lies about it later from military officials, coupled with a stubborn reluctance to release the facts to the public, fueled belief in this version of events. The government has since released what documents they still had on the event (crappy as they are), but speculation still rolls on, if at a somewhat less than fever pitch. Oddly enough, some UFO nuts denounce the whole thing as a hoax, feeling that other UFO nuts who keep pressing the issue are making them look bad. The government shrugs its shoulders irritably and the Aliens seem to be unaware of the controversy altogether.
Seeing as how there are many, many websites that chew endlessly over the facts and implications of the Roswell crash, I feel comfortable operating in my usual mode - glib personal opinion. Here are my thoughts:
Were there aliens in the crash? Geez, I sure hope so. Speaking as an inhabitant of The Future, in a time where we have Star Trek communicators that can talk to anyone, anywhere, we have potatoes that grow plastic, and scientists have built an interface that lets monkeys control a computer with their brain waves, I have to ask, "Where are my flying cars?"
Aliens could build flying cars, I bet. And they could make them with good gas mileage. Considering the nearest planets that could conceivably support life are something like 100,000 light years away, their rides must be not only fast but sip fuel. Take that, Japanese car makers! Oh - and I want my own personal robot companion. Yes, I know that it will eventually turn against the human race and try to destroy us, but that may not be in my lifetime.
Assuming that the aliens aren't all dead (some say they've been caught wandering around in these blurry videos), I have have a long shopping list of future stuff I'd like to see. And I'd be willing to trade nice Earth stuff for it, too - hot dogs, native flora, glass beads, chia pets, old Kansas 8-track tapes, my brother's BMW,... I'm in a bargaining mood. But the reality may be that we need protection. Did I mention monkeys were taking over computers with mind control? Best deal with the problems of our day before spending all of our chits on getting my Corolla in the air.
A: What, you don't believe your own government?
To recap the story, aliens supposedly crash-landed in the desert outside of Roswell, New Mexico, and the chunks of their flying saucer as well as their icky, unearthly bodies were recovered and secreted away by the US Air Force. Subsequent clumsy lies about it later from military officials, coupled with a stubborn reluctance to release the facts to the public, fueled belief in this version of events. The government has since released what documents they still had on the event (crappy as they are), but speculation still rolls on, if at a somewhat less than fever pitch. Oddly enough, some UFO nuts denounce the whole thing as a hoax, feeling that other UFO nuts who keep pressing the issue are making them look bad. The government shrugs its shoulders irritably and the Aliens seem to be unaware of the controversy altogether.
Seeing as how there are many, many websites that chew endlessly over the facts and implications of the Roswell crash, I feel comfortable operating in my usual mode - glib personal opinion. Here are my thoughts:
Were there aliens in the crash? Geez, I sure hope so. Speaking as an inhabitant of The Future, in a time where we have Star Trek communicators that can talk to anyone, anywhere, we have potatoes that grow plastic, and scientists have built an interface that lets monkeys control a computer with their brain waves, I have to ask, "Where are my flying cars?"
Aliens could build flying cars, I bet. And they could make them with good gas mileage. Considering the nearest planets that could conceivably support life are something like 100,000 light years away, their rides must be not only fast but sip fuel. Take that, Japanese car makers! Oh - and I want my own personal robot companion. Yes, I know that it will eventually turn against the human race and try to destroy us, but that may not be in my lifetime.
Assuming that the aliens aren't all dead (some say they've been caught wandering around in these blurry videos), I have have a long shopping list of future stuff I'd like to see. And I'd be willing to trade nice Earth stuff for it, too - hot dogs, native flora, glass beads, chia pets, old Kansas 8-track tapes, my brother's BMW,... I'm in a bargaining mood. But the reality may be that we need protection. Did I mention monkeys were taking over computers with mind control? Best deal with the problems of our day before spending all of our chits on getting my Corolla in the air.
Asking Jeeves
Q: What, oh what, ever happened to Ask Jeeves?
A: An excellent question, and one that has haunted my thoughts many a dark night. One could do a Google search on this, of course, but the fact is that those who would have the power and the will to "disappear" a beloved character like Jeeves would also have the wherewithal to hide their trail.
MY guess is that Jeeves has gone into hiding, possibly with Subcommander Marcos, possibly with Alf, and is finding recipes and dispensing wisdom covertly under some other alias. Probably "AskMcDuggin", or some such name.
A: An excellent question, and one that has haunted my thoughts many a dark night. One could do a Google search on this, of course, but the fact is that those who would have the power and the will to "disappear" a beloved character like Jeeves would also have the wherewithal to hide their trail.
MY guess is that Jeeves has gone into hiding, possibly with Subcommander Marcos, possibly with Alf, and is finding recipes and dispensing wisdom covertly under some other alias. Probably "AskMcDuggin", or some such name.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Why?
So, my 5 year old is fond of asking "Why?" to just about everything I say. Please clean your room..."Why?" he responds. Please eat your salad..."Why?" he asks. Please don't let Mommy back in the house..."Why?", OK...just kidding there. But it has gotten a bit annoying. Finally I said "Stop saying why and just do it!" to which he responded "Why?"
Then I remembered that "Why?" is probably the best question of all time and that I should encourage that kind of thinking in this man cub. But there is actually an even better question than "why?" and that is the question I pose to you DougO..."Why ask why?"
A: Why ask why? Because it gives you time to think of your next move while Mom and Dad fumble for an answer. Kids are sharp.
Addendum: My readership has expressed shock and dismay at the simplicity and brevity of my answer to this question, so, in a rare case of pandering to/responding positively to the public, I've decided to pad it out a bit more.
To be honest, the question of "why" is so broad a topic that it begs a short answer just to keep those exasperating philosophy grad students (future waiters of America) from having the time to grab hold of it and write theses on the subject. Knowing that this is a possibility, I will risk it and say that "why" is second only to "what" in popularity when people are curious about anything. "What" is absolutely the easiest question - "What is an aardvark?" "What are the current standings in the NCAA tournament?" "What do naked women look like?"- and is what the internet was made for. All it takes is a keyboard and mild interest, and BAM! Question answered.
"Why" is a different animal altogether. Discounting for the moment that "why" is, in fact, usually the very delaying tactic I describe in my first response (learned early and used constantly up through one's teens), asking "why" implies that you want to know more than just what the facts are, you also want to know why they should be that way. Rare indeed is the person who really wants to know why they can't have the car tonight, or why Democrats and Republicans can't get along. "Why" raises the specter of involvement, that the knowledge you receive could lead to action on your part, even if that action is to accept that the circumstance is beyond your control.
In the case of a 5-year-old, I have noticed that my own son takes the answers to his important why questions as a blueprint for immediate action.
Stephen: Why can't we go to the party now? (Thinking of ice cream and cake)
Me: We need to get a birthday present first.
My wife: I bet she would like an Iris. We have some growing in the back yard.
Stephen: ! (Patters off to back door, unremarked by myself or my wife)
My wife: ... where did Stephen go?
Me: (Sprint to back yard and relieve Stephen of large shovel, even now arcing downward towards My Wife's Iris bed)
Then I remembered that "Why?" is probably the best question of all time and that I should encourage that kind of thinking in this man cub. But there is actually an even better question than "why?" and that is the question I pose to you DougO..."Why ask why?"
A: Why ask why? Because it gives you time to think of your next move while Mom and Dad fumble for an answer. Kids are sharp.
Addendum: My readership has expressed shock and dismay at the simplicity and brevity of my answer to this question, so, in a rare case of pandering to/responding positively to the public, I've decided to pad it out a bit more.
To be honest, the question of "why" is so broad a topic that it begs a short answer just to keep those exasperating philosophy grad students (future waiters of America) from having the time to grab hold of it and write theses on the subject. Knowing that this is a possibility, I will risk it and say that "why" is second only to "what" in popularity when people are curious about anything. "What" is absolutely the easiest question - "What is an aardvark?" "What are the current standings in the NCAA tournament?" "What do naked women look like?"- and is what the internet was made for. All it takes is a keyboard and mild interest, and BAM! Question answered.
"Why" is a different animal altogether. Discounting for the moment that "why" is, in fact, usually the very delaying tactic I describe in my first response (learned early and used constantly up through one's teens), asking "why" implies that you want to know more than just what the facts are, you also want to know why they should be that way. Rare indeed is the person who really wants to know why they can't have the car tonight, or why Democrats and Republicans can't get along. "Why" raises the specter of involvement, that the knowledge you receive could lead to action on your part, even if that action is to accept that the circumstance is beyond your control.
In the case of a 5-year-old, I have noticed that my own son takes the answers to his important why questions as a blueprint for immediate action.
Stephen: Why can't we go to the party now? (Thinking of ice cream and cake)
Me: We need to get a birthday present first.
My wife: I bet she would like an Iris. We have some growing in the back yard.
Stephen: ! (Patters off to back door, unremarked by myself or my wife)
My wife: ... where did Stephen go?
Me: (Sprint to back yard and relieve Stephen of large shovel, even now arcing downward towards My Wife's Iris bed)
Empty promises, part 2
Q: As a listener of music, I've noticed that you can never raise your volume knob on any stereo past about two-thirds without severe drop in sound quality. Any higher, and the music sounds like a whoopee cushion symphony. Why do manufacturers allow a volume knob to go so loud, when it can't really handle it? This applies to car stereos as well as home stereos and headphones. It's almost like they want me to bust the speakers so I have to buy new ones.
A: Well, yes. No one would be happier than the sound boutiques if you blew out your speakers on a regular basis. But, still, it's a matter of the illusion of plenty. Every volume knob goes to ten (or 1200, or whatever insane numbers they put in the displays now), whether doing so is a good idea or not. Would you buy a stereo setup that went to five? You would feel like you had been robbed.
The other answer, of course, is that running volume knobs up to astronomical heights costs no more than having them set to some safer level for the manufacturer, so why not? I'm stunned that no one has started actually putting a "self-destruct" setting on them. What American could pass that up?
A: Well, yes. No one would be happier than the sound boutiques if you blew out your speakers on a regular basis. But, still, it's a matter of the illusion of plenty. Every volume knob goes to ten (or 1200, or whatever insane numbers they put in the displays now), whether doing so is a good idea or not. Would you buy a stereo setup that went to five? You would feel like you had been robbed.
The other answer, of course, is that running volume knobs up to astronomical heights costs no more than having them set to some safer level for the manufacturer, so why not? I'm stunned that no one has started actually putting a "self-destruct" setting on them. What American could pass that up?
Empty promises
Q: I have two questions along the same vein, but I'll split it up. Part One: My Honda Civic's speedometer reads a theoretical maximum speed of 130 mph. Knowing that my car starts to shimmy violently after 70, I've never tested this limit. Even if I did, I'd be crazy to try (not to mention way past lawful limits). So why does every car list a speed you can't reach?
A: Why do people buy mountain bikes when they don't even intend to hop over a curb? Why do tiny little women buy enormous SUVs? Why do suburbanites in the South buy 4-wheel-drive vehicles?
It's because Americans figure that if a little is good, a lot is much better. This is why you can't buy regular Tylenol anymore, just Extra-Strength! In a few years, if you want an Aspirin, the only kind of pain killer you'll be able to find is what they give to crash victims with compound fractures.
This principle applies to things that really aren't as robust, too, as long as they seem to be. Don't you feel cool looking at your speedometer and thinking, "I could go 130mph. I just don't want to." Vrooom. How would you feel if the speedometer stopped at 65? Not much like a Ferrari driver, I'll bet. I get a thrill just seeing how many kilometers per hour I can get my little sub-compact to burn up. It's not any faster, but seems faster.
A: Why do people buy mountain bikes when they don't even intend to hop over a curb? Why do tiny little women buy enormous SUVs? Why do suburbanites in the South buy 4-wheel-drive vehicles?
It's because Americans figure that if a little is good, a lot is much better. This is why you can't buy regular Tylenol anymore, just Extra-Strength! In a few years, if you want an Aspirin, the only kind of pain killer you'll be able to find is what they give to crash victims with compound fractures.
This principle applies to things that really aren't as robust, too, as long as they seem to be. Don't you feel cool looking at your speedometer and thinking, "I could go 130mph. I just don't want to." Vrooom. How would you feel if the speedometer stopped at 65? Not much like a Ferrari driver, I'll bet. I get a thrill just seeing how many kilometers per hour I can get my little sub-compact to burn up. It's not any faster, but seems faster.
Cheese...Green? Yellow? Orange? Blue?
Cheese is a wonderful thing. I love it on everything and by itself. But one thing does bother me...why is it not always white? I know milk is white...or whiteish, and I know that cheese is made with milk, and I know that curd is white. So why, oh why do folks mess with it to make it green, yellow, orange, blue, etc...?
A: This is actually a combination of at least two questions, chiefly, "What makes cheeses funny colors?" and, "Why would anyone do that to cheese?"
The first answer is easy enough. Blue and green cheeses are colored by the mold cultures grown in them. Otherwise, cheeses inhabit a fairly narrow range of color from white to a golden cream. Bright, screaming orange cheeses have orange dye added to them.
As for why people would dicker about with the color of cheeses, there is a good amount of legend and debate. For example: Cheddar cheese (known as "Tasty cheese" in Australia, I love that) has often been colored orange in the UK and almost always in the US. I had heard that the reason for the color was that, during either WWI or WWII, the Germans had attempted to poison Allied food supplies. The US began dyeing their cheeses orange to show that they were safe to eat. Afterwards, people got used to the "good" cheese being orange, and it was perpetuated by the marketers of cheese, like Kraft.
This theory has holes in it. For instance, the Germans wouldn't have to be geniuses to figure this out. If they were serious about killing the Allies with dairy products, the Axis would definitely have started dyeing the poisoned cheeses also. This would have sparked a "rainbow cheese" war, in which the final color for cheddar would be whatever it was when the Germans decided to give up and go back to bombing us instead. I'm betting such an arms race would have left cheddar lavender or screaming pink. Moreover, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that this is true.
A more likely reason for orange cheddar (though possibly not true either) is that cheddar and other more orange-y cheeses occur naturally during spring and summer months, when cows can tuck in to carrots and other veggies with a high beta-carotene content. Beta-carotene colors the cheese, and the happy cows produce more buttery milk, which makes the cheeses more tasty. Marketers realized that people looked for the orange cheeses, expecting that warmer-month cheeses were better, so all cheeses were dosed with carrot juice (later, synthetic dyes) to make them more appealing. The hole in this theory is that the beta-carotene should also make orange milk, which, as far as I know, it doesn't. But maybe the milk is being dyed back to white. Dizzying, isn't it?
A: This is actually a combination of at least two questions, chiefly, "What makes cheeses funny colors?" and, "Why would anyone do that to cheese?"
The first answer is easy enough. Blue and green cheeses are colored by the mold cultures grown in them. Otherwise, cheeses inhabit a fairly narrow range of color from white to a golden cream. Bright, screaming orange cheeses have orange dye added to them.
As for why people would dicker about with the color of cheeses, there is a good amount of legend and debate. For example: Cheddar cheese (known as "Tasty cheese" in Australia, I love that) has often been colored orange in the UK and almost always in the US. I had heard that the reason for the color was that, during either WWI or WWII, the Germans had attempted to poison Allied food supplies. The US began dyeing their cheeses orange to show that they were safe to eat. Afterwards, people got used to the "good" cheese being orange, and it was perpetuated by the marketers of cheese, like Kraft.
This theory has holes in it. For instance, the Germans wouldn't have to be geniuses to figure this out. If they were serious about killing the Allies with dairy products, the Axis would definitely have started dyeing the poisoned cheeses also. This would have sparked a "rainbow cheese" war, in which the final color for cheddar would be whatever it was when the Germans decided to give up and go back to bombing us instead. I'm betting such an arms race would have left cheddar lavender or screaming pink. Moreover, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that this is true.
A more likely reason for orange cheddar (though possibly not true either) is that cheddar and other more orange-y cheeses occur naturally during spring and summer months, when cows can tuck in to carrots and other veggies with a high beta-carotene content. Beta-carotene colors the cheese, and the happy cows produce more buttery milk, which makes the cheeses more tasty. Marketers realized that people looked for the orange cheeses, expecting that warmer-month cheeses were better, so all cheeses were dosed with carrot juice (later, synthetic dyes) to make them more appealing. The hole in this theory is that the beta-carotene should also make orange milk, which, as far as I know, it doesn't. But maybe the milk is being dyed back to white. Dizzying, isn't it?
Friday, May 9, 2008
Why does it hurt when i pee?
just wondering
A: It's impossible to say without knowing the techniques you are employing. While peeing may seem straightforward to most people, the subtleties may escape the uncoordinated, tentative, or inebriated. I would advise checking the manual for your equipment.
Incidentally, in rare cases urinary dysfunction can be caused by small fish invading the urethra. Note this report from the Internet Journal of Urology. While this particular case occurred in a suburban home while cleaning a fish tank, most reported cases of fish wriggling their way into one's urethra (ngyah. I can't believe I wrote that) are the work of the Brazilian Candiru, or "vampire fish". These fish, more feared by locals than piranhas, lie in wait in streams and rivers, then attack open sores to feed on blood, or in other cases follow the streams of urine from skinny-dipping humans. You fill in the blanks. If you think you might be afflicted by the Candiru, you have two options - costly surgery which "involves inserting the Xagua plant and the Buitach apple up the urethra", or, if that type of surgery is too expensive, amputation.
Hope this helps.
A: It's impossible to say without knowing the techniques you are employing. While peeing may seem straightforward to most people, the subtleties may escape the uncoordinated, tentative, or inebriated. I would advise checking the manual for your equipment.
Incidentally, in rare cases urinary dysfunction can be caused by small fish invading the urethra. Note this report from the Internet Journal of Urology. While this particular case occurred in a suburban home while cleaning a fish tank, most reported cases of fish wriggling their way into one's urethra (ngyah. I can't believe I wrote that) are the work of the Brazilian Candiru, or "vampire fish". These fish, more feared by locals than piranhas, lie in wait in streams and rivers, then attack open sores to feed on blood, or in other cases follow the streams of urine from skinny-dipping humans. You fill in the blanks. If you think you might be afflicted by the Candiru, you have two options - costly surgery which "involves inserting the Xagua plant and the Buitach apple up the urethra", or, if that type of surgery is too expensive, amputation.
Hope this helps.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Pocket Dictionary?
Q: Would you ever actually buy one of those pocket dictionaries?
A: Do you mean, "Would you ever own one?" or "Would you ever pay for one?" I'd happily let someone buy one for me. But I don't really see a use for one. Why do you want a dictionary in the first place? Dictionaries are used for two things:
1. looking up spellings for words that you don't know, and
2. looking to see if naughty words are in it.
Pocket dictionaries are duds for both purposes, because they include a bare minimum of words to save space, and naughty words are the first to go when trimming out content. Worse yet, in the rare case you do find a word that you don't know, the definitions are brutally short, like "bodkin (bod' kin) n. a stiletto", and of, course, "stiletto" isn't included in your dictionary.
P.S. You may ask, "What about pocket foreign language dictionaries?" Same problems. I carried one of these while I was studying in Mexico. Being outdoors a lot, I decided that I needed a pocket knife, so I went to a local mom and pop hardware store to get one. Looking in the book, the word for "pocket knife" was "cortaplumas". I was given no other options, so I asked the nice old woman at the counter if she had a "cortaplumas" for sale. She ran to the back of the store and got her husband. When I asked him the same question, they both shuffled backwards to the rear door and stood there, hugging each other in terror, saying nothing. It may have been that I was a foot taller than everyone in that village, and had long hair and a motorcycle jacket. Or it may have been that I had said, in Spanish, "can I buy a bloody machete with a skull in the hilt?" Having only the one option in the book, I was left to grin ingratiatingly and shrug - probably communicating to them that I could kill them any time I wanted to with my big shiny teeth, and how was this going to go down?
A: Do you mean, "Would you ever own one?" or "Would you ever pay for one?" I'd happily let someone buy one for me. But I don't really see a use for one. Why do you want a dictionary in the first place? Dictionaries are used for two things:
1. looking up spellings for words that you don't know, and
2. looking to see if naughty words are in it.
Pocket dictionaries are duds for both purposes, because they include a bare minimum of words to save space, and naughty words are the first to go when trimming out content. Worse yet, in the rare case you do find a word that you don't know, the definitions are brutally short, like "bodkin (bod' kin) n. a stiletto", and of, course, "stiletto" isn't included in your dictionary.
P.S. You may ask, "What about pocket foreign language dictionaries?" Same problems. I carried one of these while I was studying in Mexico. Being outdoors a lot, I decided that I needed a pocket knife, so I went to a local mom and pop hardware store to get one. Looking in the book, the word for "pocket knife" was "cortaplumas". I was given no other options, so I asked the nice old woman at the counter if she had a "cortaplumas" for sale. She ran to the back of the store and got her husband. When I asked him the same question, they both shuffled backwards to the rear door and stood there, hugging each other in terror, saying nothing. It may have been that I was a foot taller than everyone in that village, and had long hair and a motorcycle jacket. Or it may have been that I had said, in Spanish, "can I buy a bloody machete with a skull in the hilt?" Having only the one option in the book, I was left to grin ingratiatingly and shrug - probably communicating to them that I could kill them any time I wanted to with my big shiny teeth, and how was this going to go down?
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
The forgotten triumph of the 80s?
I was re-tying my shoes for about the 5th time today--very annoying--when a question occured to me:
Q: Why did Velcro shoes go out of style? They're so much easier!!
A: Ya got me. I used to love boat shoes, too, and they went way out of style.
All I can really do is observe that velcro's appeal fades over time. Ever look at the velcro from your toddler's shoes? Once they've pounded around in them for a few months, the "clingy" part gets so full of string, grass clippings, dog hair and shmutz that it flaps uselessly off the top of the shoe like a dried slice of ham. I imagine that, inevitably, the same thing happened to adult shoes and people got sick of pulling the springy lint out of them.
Q: Why did Velcro shoes go out of style? They're so much easier!!
A: Ya got me. I used to love boat shoes, too, and they went way out of style.
All I can really do is observe that velcro's appeal fades over time. Ever look at the velcro from your toddler's shoes? Once they've pounded around in them for a few months, the "clingy" part gets so full of string, grass clippings, dog hair and shmutz that it flaps uselessly off the top of the shoe like a dried slice of ham. I imagine that, inevitably, the same thing happened to adult shoes and people got sick of pulling the springy lint out of them.
Ideas in the shower
Dear DougO
Q: Why is it that a lot of people get some of their best ideas whilst in the shower?
A: It's hard to say for sure without knowing who these people are, and what kind of ideas they are having. But, speaking generally, there are a number of possibilities.
1. Maybe a hot shower gets the blood flowing to your brain faster.
2. Maybe the absence of other distractions allows ideas you've had in the back of your mind to come to the front.
3. Maybe the ideas seem better because you're already happy (bubblebubblewhooshbubble).
4. Maybe your ideas are about soap or nudity.
My experience is often a combination of these factors, adding to them the fact that you are in a place where you cannot possibly write these ideas down, and so ideas come with more ease than when you could actually make use of them.
Q: Why is it that a lot of people get some of their best ideas whilst in the shower?
A: It's hard to say for sure without knowing who these people are, and what kind of ideas they are having. But, speaking generally, there are a number of possibilities.
1. Maybe a hot shower gets the blood flowing to your brain faster.
2. Maybe the absence of other distractions allows ideas you've had in the back of your mind to come to the front.
3. Maybe the ideas seem better because you're already happy (bubblebubblewhooshbubble).
4. Maybe your ideas are about soap or nudity.
My experience is often a combination of these factors, adding to them the fact that you are in a place where you cannot possibly write these ideas down, and so ideas come with more ease than when you could actually make use of them.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Worms
Q: I include 'worms' as a subset of the larger category of 'bugs.' Others disagree. What's the proper classification scheme? Are Worms bugs?
A: Donovan points out that worms are "annelids", but that doesn't cover the question, I think, since the term "bug" is more a value judgment than a true category. "Germ" is another of those imprecise terms that is used frequently when we are young, but doesn't correspond well to true taxonomy. A "bug", as referred to by children (who use it most often), usually means "any creepy thing I can catch and scare little girls with". Worms fit very comfortably in that group, along with beetles, spiders, and roly-polies (aka "pill bugs" and "wood lice").
Therefore, if it:
1. is small
2. is alive
3. is squishy, or chitinous and many-legged (but not four-legged)
4. would make your sister scream if she found it on her arm or in her sandwich
5. is best left out of doors
...then I'd say it's a bug.
A: Donovan points out that worms are "annelids", but that doesn't cover the question, I think, since the term "bug" is more a value judgment than a true category. "Germ" is another of those imprecise terms that is used frequently when we are young, but doesn't correspond well to true taxonomy. A "bug", as referred to by children (who use it most often), usually means "any creepy thing I can catch and scare little girls with". Worms fit very comfortably in that group, along with beetles, spiders, and roly-polies (aka "pill bugs" and "wood lice").
Therefore, if it:
1. is small
2. is alive
3. is squishy, or chitinous and many-legged (but not four-legged)
4. would make your sister scream if she found it on her arm or in her sandwich
5. is best left out of doors
...then I'd say it's a bug.
Irresistible Force vs. Immovable Object
Q: Doug, if a cat always lands on its feet, and buttered bread always lands buttered-side down, what would happen if you tied buttered bread on top of a cat?
A: Science has disproved the "buttered-side down" hypothesis. Sad, but true. This still leaves the question of cats landing on their feet in all cases (assuming a live cat, of course), which has probably never been definitively tested because of the influence of animal rights groups. Therefore, a cat equipped with a buttered toast backpack is as likely to land on its feet as any other cat. A more interesting question might be, "What would happen if you strapped buttered toast to a cat's feet and threw the whole oily mess into the air?"
A: Science has disproved the "buttered-side down" hypothesis. Sad, but true. This still leaves the question of cats landing on their feet in all cases (assuming a live cat, of course), which has probably never been definitively tested because of the influence of animal rights groups. Therefore, a cat equipped with a buttered toast backpack is as likely to land on its feet as any other cat. A more interesting question might be, "What would happen if you strapped buttered toast to a cat's feet and threw the whole oily mess into the air?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)