History looks back on itself and subdivides into neat categories based on common attributes of the time. The Bronze Age, The Dark Ages, The Industrial Revolution. Some have proposed the name of the current age we are in as the Computer Era or the Information Age. However, I take a more simplistic approach. We live in the Period of Pong. To explain this, let me go over what Pong is, how Pong has influenced the development of computers, and how all real computer games are merely a variation of Pong.
Pong was invented in 1972, not by Atari, but by Magnavox. Atari ripped off the idea and mass marketed it as one of the first arcade games. It is sometimes described as a tennis game, but looking at the antiquated graphics of the early 70s, it merely has two bars that alternate hitting a square ball. At the time it was a technological breakthrough and the arcade games were making more money than anything previous. A home version came out in 1975 and the world has not looked back. Pong is such a simple game that any programmer could make their own version in about a day and my Mom swears that she is certain the keepers of the Mainframe at the university were just playing Pong most of the day. In its simplest terms, Pong is a game where each player uses a limited motion object (the paddle) to project a faster, more tactile object (the ball) at an opposing player.
But we know that computers were invented before Pong. Long before Pong in some cases. Herman Hollerith had a mechanical computer that was employed for the mundane task of counting the census. Alan Turing postulated the framework for a programmable computer and his concepts were used to crack the Axis codes in World War II. Unfortunately, after the war, they found no use for the computer and destroyed them. ENIAC was born shortly thereafter. Over the next 25 years, computers progressed at a snails pace. Transistors were introduced and then microchips, but by 1970 there wasn’t any real talk of computers being ubiquitous. And why would they? The average person didn’t need to count the census or break German codes. We put a man on the moon with the sliderule. The scientific calculator hadn’t been invented.
Then Pong came. All of the sudden there was a need for computers in every arcade, convenience store, school, and home. This was something people could relate to. This was a task that people needed a computer for. A tennis court is too big to have in your bedroom, and besides, it is really tiring to play tennis all day long. But Pong demanded that the computer equipment become available to the masses. Both the personal computer and the game console were born. The late 70s and 80s saw an explosion of games: Space Invaders, Pac Man, Galaga, Centipede. When properly analyzed, they all come back to the tried and true concept of Pong: one object makes another object go towards an opponent.
As people whetted their appetite with Pong, they wanted more. Computing power increased to meet the demand. The Atari 2600 was a 1 MHz machine. Nintendo a 2 MHz machine. The Sega Genesis an 8 MHz machine. The Nintendo 64 a 96 MHz machine, and the Playstation 3 a 3.2 GHz machine. Home computers followed the same exponential growth. From the lowly 8086 to the Pentium 4, computing power increased and the chance to play ever better versions of Pong increased. It is to the point now, where the best computers are specifically designed for gamers, in other words Pong Players.
In recent years, computers have become ubiquitous. Laptops, GPS, smartphones are all computers. So does the idea that Computers were Invented to Play Pong still hold true? Isn’t there some other higher purpose? The quick answer is OF COURSE! This can be seen from the most popular game of all time. Angry Birds. In two years it has been downloaded more than 500 million times. To give you an idea of how much that is, the computer operating system that is installed on the most computers is Windows XP. It is on 500 million. And every computer needs an operating system. And is Angry Birds some revolutionary game? No, simply an object (the slingshot) projecting another object (the bird) at an opponent (the pigs and their buildings). The exact same formula that started the computer revolution in 1972.
Now some may say that there are other types of games. Shoot-em-up. Same outline as Pong. Mario Bros. Same outline as Pong. Driving/Flight simulators. Same outline as Pong. All of these computer games can trace their lineage back to Pong. Sure they may substitute a gun, turtle or car for the paddle or ball. Even the most advanced game system, the Xbox Kinect which has a full motion camera so that you don’t even have a controller comes packaged with Pong (its called Rally Ball). Of course, if you want to buy the Sports pack, you get Table Tennis (Pong), Soccer (Pong with Feet), and Beach Volleyball (Pong with all parts of your body).
There is one genre of games that do not fit the Pong category. These are puzzle games. Solitaire, Sudoku, Mahjong, Chess. But lets be honest with ourselves, the only reason you are playing these on the computer is because your too lazy to deal a deck of cards.
In conclusion, computers would never have reached their full potential without Pong. It was the game that started the computer revolution. The dawn of the Information Age.
Oh, what’s that? ... No, that can’t be right. Are you telling me the first computer game was SpaceWar! It came out in 1961. Forget everything I just wrote, we are living in the World of SpaceWar.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Death of the Cannon
In 2009, I built myself a cannon. You can read about it here, here, and here. Over the last three years, it has brought much joy to people. It was used at a family reunion, to celebrate holidays, and just for fun in the backyard with friends. The cannon was first shot off on January 1, 2010. It had its final shot on December 31, 2012. Three years of black powder goodness.
I was down at my brother's place, and we had decided to make some potato guns to entertain the kids. We used some PVC left over from construction of his house and the remainder of my other cannon that I had never finished. After about 30 minutes of work we had a 3" shooter and a 2" shooter. Later that afternoon, we took the kids (age 5 to 13) out to fire off some spuds.
THWUMPF! That is the sound of igniting hairspray as the best of Idaho's soil goes sailing through the air, landing 200 yards away. THWUMPF! THWUMPF! THWUMPF!
One bottle of hairspray and a 5 lb sack of potatoes is a lot of fun. The kids were practically beating each other up for a turn to press the trigger.
On New Year's Eve we planned a big night of exploding goodness. It started with a trip to the grocery store, oranges would fit, along with another sack of potatoes. To stay with the vegetable theme, for the cannon I selected a large onion, a grapefruit, and something from the lettuce family.
Then it rained that afternoon. By evening it was still drizzly. We decided to do it anyway, blowing stuff up at night to celebrate the new year is a time honored tradition in America that a little precipitation is not going to get in the way of.
So, we started with some stuffed animals. The cannon performed beautifully as usual and the kids were pleased to ring in the New Year. Then the rain started more, things were getting wet and icy (it had snowed earlier in the day). So, I decided one more shot, the lettcue thing. I loaded up 6 tablespoons of blackpowder, stuffed in the wadding, and then the lettuce. It fit snugly, but not quite as snug as the stuffed animals do.
In conjunction, my brother and I decided to light off the spud guns at the same time. Did you know that the explosion in a spud gun is bright enough to cause the gun to glow? It is a great sight at night (although slightly ennerving at first when you realize that this is about 3/16" to 1/4" of white plastic that is glowing momentarily). Everything was loaded up, and I lit the fuse on the cannon.
10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ... KA-BOOOOOM!
The sound reverberated off of the hills and sounded only slighly quieter but much deeper than a shotgun blast. The blast had knocked the cannon backwards and it skidded along the ground until it hit the deck. It was pouring down rain now, so I left the cannon out until the next morning and just grabbed my explosion tool box.
The next morning when I went out to retrieve the cannon, I found this:
That final blast had literally blown the end off of the cannon. It wasn't that there was too large of a charge, I had put up to 8 tablespoons of powder in it before. But in retrospection, there were three possible contributing factors.
1) The angle at which the cannon was aimed. Since I am using this for enjoyment of friends and family, I like to have a nice arcing shot (more like a mortar than howitzer), I I usually set up the cannon at a 60-70 degree angle. This allows the ground to be used as a backstop and absorb much of the recoil. Since the cannon was seen skidding across the ground after the shot, it is entirely possible that I had a shallower angle, which would mean that the recoil forces could send the cannon flying backwards.
2) The cold weather might have made the material brittle. I had set up the cannon earlier in the afternoon, so by the time we were shooting it, it was probably at 20- 30 degrees. The break was a clean circumferential break, it didn't shatter, so that is telling me that the force of the combustion chamber acting backwards caused the break. If the combustion chamber couldn't contain the pressure, then I would expect the whole thing to blow up, or at least have evidence of shattering the PVC shell. There was no evidence that this happened.
3) The lettuce probably had way more friction than a teddy bear. Plush stuffed animals with their cotton/nylon fur glide out of the tube. Lettuce leaves tend to grip the sides and only move on brute force. I know this from ramming stuffed animals down the tube. Once I get them moving, as long as I apply pressure, they continue to move (i.e. I just have to overcome starting friction). When putting the lettuce in, there was comparatively less force required, but each push only moved it down the barrel a little ways.
Of course, it may have been the deck that arrested the movement which ultimately caused the cannon to fail. But, that is life. On to my next adventure.
I was down at my brother's place, and we had decided to make some potato guns to entertain the kids. We used some PVC left over from construction of his house and the remainder of my other cannon that I had never finished. After about 30 minutes of work we had a 3" shooter and a 2" shooter. Later that afternoon, we took the kids (age 5 to 13) out to fire off some spuds.
THWUMPF! That is the sound of igniting hairspray as the best of Idaho's soil goes sailing through the air, landing 200 yards away. THWUMPF! THWUMPF! THWUMPF!
One bottle of hairspray and a 5 lb sack of potatoes is a lot of fun. The kids were practically beating each other up for a turn to press the trigger.
On New Year's Eve we planned a big night of exploding goodness. It started with a trip to the grocery store, oranges would fit, along with another sack of potatoes. To stay with the vegetable theme, for the cannon I selected a large onion, a grapefruit, and something from the lettuce family.
Then it rained that afternoon. By evening it was still drizzly. We decided to do it anyway, blowing stuff up at night to celebrate the new year is a time honored tradition in America that a little precipitation is not going to get in the way of.
So, we started with some stuffed animals. The cannon performed beautifully as usual and the kids were pleased to ring in the New Year. Then the rain started more, things were getting wet and icy (it had snowed earlier in the day). So, I decided one more shot, the lettcue thing. I loaded up 6 tablespoons of blackpowder, stuffed in the wadding, and then the lettuce. It fit snugly, but not quite as snug as the stuffed animals do.
In conjunction, my brother and I decided to light off the spud guns at the same time. Did you know that the explosion in a spud gun is bright enough to cause the gun to glow? It is a great sight at night (although slightly ennerving at first when you realize that this is about 3/16" to 1/4" of white plastic that is glowing momentarily). Everything was loaded up, and I lit the fuse on the cannon.
10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ... KA-BOOOOOM!
The sound reverberated off of the hills and sounded only slighly quieter but much deeper than a shotgun blast. The blast had knocked the cannon backwards and it skidded along the ground until it hit the deck. It was pouring down rain now, so I left the cannon out until the next morning and just grabbed my explosion tool box.
The next morning when I went out to retrieve the cannon, I found this:
That final blast had literally blown the end off of the cannon. It wasn't that there was too large of a charge, I had put up to 8 tablespoons of powder in it before. But in retrospection, there were three possible contributing factors.
1) The angle at which the cannon was aimed. Since I am using this for enjoyment of friends and family, I like to have a nice arcing shot (more like a mortar than howitzer), I I usually set up the cannon at a 60-70 degree angle. This allows the ground to be used as a backstop and absorb much of the recoil. Since the cannon was seen skidding across the ground after the shot, it is entirely possible that I had a shallower angle, which would mean that the recoil forces could send the cannon flying backwards.
2) The cold weather might have made the material brittle. I had set up the cannon earlier in the afternoon, so by the time we were shooting it, it was probably at 20- 30 degrees. The break was a clean circumferential break, it didn't shatter, so that is telling me that the force of the combustion chamber acting backwards caused the break. If the combustion chamber couldn't contain the pressure, then I would expect the whole thing to blow up, or at least have evidence of shattering the PVC shell. There was no evidence that this happened.
3) The lettuce probably had way more friction than a teddy bear. Plush stuffed animals with their cotton/nylon fur glide out of the tube. Lettuce leaves tend to grip the sides and only move on brute force. I know this from ramming stuffed animals down the tube. Once I get them moving, as long as I apply pressure, they continue to move (i.e. I just have to overcome starting friction). When putting the lettuce in, there was comparatively less force required, but each push only moved it down the barrel a little ways.
Of course, it may have been the deck that arrested the movement which ultimately caused the cannon to fail. But, that is life. On to my next adventure.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
GUN "Almost" FACTS 101: High Capacity Magazines
There is a series of videos from the organization "Protest Easy Guns" titled Gun Facts 101 that can be found on YouTube. Comments are not allowed so originally I had the idea of fisking them with my own video. Alas, that takes way too much time. So I just will do a line by line analysis of the "Almost Facts" (in italics) that are presented. This one is on High Capacity Magazines.
A high capacity magazine is filled with bullets.
Not to start off by being a English grammar junkie, be “A high capacity magazine may be filled with cartridges” would be a more accurate statement. A bullet and a cartridge are not the same thing. A cartridge is a combination of shell, primer, gunpowder, and bullet. Only the bullet comes out the muzzle of the gun (if you have more than the bullet coming out the front end of the gun, then you have some bigger problems to worry about). If you loaded a magazine with bullets, you would have a great paperweight. If you want to look at it from a weapon standpoint it would be a blunt force object, although, there are many cheaper, more available, and more effective alternatives (i.e. rocks). So, if you want a high capacity magazine to be effective, then you need to fill it with cartridges. Also, when you buy a high capacity magazine, there won’t be any cartridges in it. You have to buy those separately. I know, I know, I am nitpicking here, but if your organization is suppose to “educate” people then you open yourself up to nitpicking when you are wrong.
And the number of bullets can be anywhere from say well six is considered rather standard
Actually, there is no such thing as a universal standard. Some handguns have a standard magazine capacity (assuming that a standard magazine fits completely – or nearly completely – into the grip) of 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17. Its all a function of the cartridge size, grip width, and grip length. For the most popular sizes of handgun (.380, 9 mm, .40, .45) very few can be purchased with a OEM 6 round capacity or less magazine. For rifles and shotguns it gets even more complicated.
Tubular magazines may hold only two or three rounds, but that is usually because there is a plug taking up the extra space. Why the plug? Because many state laws limit the amount of ammunition loaded into a firearm while hunting. I don’t hunt, so any firearm I own currently or in the future would have such ridiculousness removed so that I can have the maximum designed capacity or greater. Anything less just means I need to reload more when I go to the range. Standard tubular magazines can fit as many cartridges as will fit along the length of the barrel. For a .22 Short, this could be upwards of 20 rounds is an off the shell rifle.
For detachable magazines, the options are nearly limitless (and the standard magazine that is purchased with a firearm is likewise nearly limitless). For instance, the standard image one has of the Tommy Gun is probably with a 50 or 75 round drum magazine.
and that’s basically around the capacity that hunters use.
No, not really. That’s what SOME hunter’s use because they are limited by state laws. And in a lot of cases, hunter's only need one round (particularly if you hunt with a muzzle loader). In some places (or with some calibers), there are no such limits. For instance, there are crazy people who hunt hogs or bears or other wildlife with handguns that have capacities of more than 6 rounds. This is far more sporting than using a rifle at 300 yards, but in this case “more sporting” to me also means more insane. Our primate hunting instincts and skills long since were discarded on our evolutionary journey to the top of the food chain. In any case, hunters use magazines with less than six rounds because A) they only plan on taking 1 shot or B) state law limits them to less than six rounds. The firearm still works the same way with 7-30 rounds in it.
High capacity is considered generally anything above six rounds of bullets as you see in this picture here, in the magazine.
Um, actually, the only time that high capacity magazine was defined in federal legislation (1994 Assault Weapons Ban) the cutoff was set at 10 rounds. More than 10 rounds was considered “high” capacity. New York has now defined it as 7 rounds. But other states have defined it as 15 rounds or 20 rounds, so even the various governments who believe in high capacity magazine limits haven't come to a consensus as to how many that is.
The capacity can go up to 20 rounds, 30 rounds, 40.
I know, isn’t it great! And then if you have a belt-fed weapon it has the same effect of having a 100, 200, 500, 1000 or more round magazine. So, if great hunters only use 1 shot per trip, why have 20, 30, or 40 round magazines? Because everyone who shoots is not a great hunter, or even a hunter period. As mentioned before, “high” capacity magazines allow me to reload less at the range.
This is an example of a magazine in an assault pistol.
you generally will see what folks call banana clips sometimes they’ll use that expression.
Well, if we are talking about third world nations, former eastern bloc countries, communist countries, or terrorists then yes. The “banana clip” (it is really a magazine, not a clip) is a unique feature of the AK-47 and its 7.62 x 39mm derivatives because…..
Because as the number of bullets increase, the magazine kind of comes around in a curved shape.
Actually, it has nothing to do with the number of cartridges (not bullets). It has to do with the geometry of the cartridge. Most cartridges are straight walled (i.e. the shell is cylindrical). The 7.62x39mm round is tapered (i.e. the shell is conical). The 5.56 round used in the M-16 is straight walled. Sometimes, on their magazines, there will be a slight angle. This angle serves no function in regards to the ammunition, although it may aid when using the magazine as a grip. Personally, I think the designers were just jealous with the total coolness of the AK-47 and wanted to pretend that their weapon was just as cool. Its not. Face it, for all of its backwardness, some good things came out of the Soviet Union. They are primarily limited to the AK-47 and Anna Kournikova. (The Mosin-Nagant was developed in Tsarist Russian so it doesn’t count).
There are also round magazines that can hold even greater than 50 rounds.
These are properly called drum magazines. Having cartridges stacked up in a magazine has practical limits to the amount you can put in. A drum uses a spiral or circular spring to put 50, 75, 100, or 150 rounds in a fairly compact package. For more than this, you basically have to go the belt-fed route.
And the reason that these are so dangerous is that as the Long Island Railroad Shooter showed,
No, the Long Island Railroad Shooter was dangerous, irrespective of whether he had a gun in his hand or a Molotov cocktail or a pipe bomb (of course then he wouldn’t be called a shooter, but a bomber or an arsonist – either way, he is still a murderer).
when you put a high capacity magazine in a gun you can just keep firing.
…Until your cartridges run out, in which case you need to reload.
It makes it much more difficult for Law Enforcement to take the person down
What makes it difficult for shooters bent on mass murder to be taken down by law enforcement is not the “high” capacity magazine of the shooter, its that the law enforcement personnel are not there when the shooting starts (and usually not there for several minutes after the shooting starts). Gun Free Zones make it more difficult to take a shooter down.
and we end with tragically many more victims when high capacity magazines are used.
Depending on how you define “high” capacity. Using the AWB definition of 10 rounds as the cutoff most mass shootings were accomplished with low capacity magazines. Even when a weapon was used that had a "high capacity" magazine (such as Aurora, Newtown, or Virginia Tech), the shooter also used another weapon which did not have a "high capacity" magazine. In most of these mass shootings, the perpetrator had several (in some cases dozens) of magazines and did frequent reloads to the point that even though a "high capacity" magazine may have been used, it was reloaded before being fully expended. In other words, a low capacity magazine could have been substituted just as easily.
So when the Assault Weapons Ban expired in the United States in ’04, the ban on high capacity magazines also expired.
Of course, the ban didn’t actually ban the magazines. It just banned the manufacture of new magazines. All of the old magazines were still legal to own, sell, and use.
So it’s only in a few localities where that ban exists.
Massachusetts and New York have been known recently as the keepers of Liberty. Oh wait, I was thinking about the beginning of the country. Recently, Massachusetts and New York have been the epitome of the nanny state. Unsuprisingly, comparing crime in areas that have the ban and don't have the ban has shown that it has done nothing to decrease crime or mass shootings.
So in most of the United States it is now legal to purchase high capacity magazines.
It’s also legal to purchase “high” capacity gasoline vehicles. You don’t even need a driver’s license to go fill up two five gallon gas cans. Flour is sold in 50 lb bags to every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Matches are given away like candy. Bleach and Ammonia can be found in most every grocery store in the US and aren’t even in locked cabinets (in most cases there isn’t even a foil seal on them).
And this is good, because a criminal justice system that is focused on the object rather than the person will provide little justice and breed more criminals.
A high capacity magazine is filled with bullets.
Not to start off by being a English grammar junkie, be “A high capacity magazine may be filled with cartridges” would be a more accurate statement. A bullet and a cartridge are not the same thing. A cartridge is a combination of shell, primer, gunpowder, and bullet. Only the bullet comes out the muzzle of the gun (if you have more than the bullet coming out the front end of the gun, then you have some bigger problems to worry about). If you loaded a magazine with bullets, you would have a great paperweight. If you want to look at it from a weapon standpoint it would be a blunt force object, although, there are many cheaper, more available, and more effective alternatives (i.e. rocks). So, if you want a high capacity magazine to be effective, then you need to fill it with cartridges. Also, when you buy a high capacity magazine, there won’t be any cartridges in it. You have to buy those separately. I know, I know, I am nitpicking here, but if your organization is suppose to “educate” people then you open yourself up to nitpicking when you are wrong.
And the number of bullets can be anywhere from say well six is considered rather standard
Actually, there is no such thing as a universal standard. Some handguns have a standard magazine capacity (assuming that a standard magazine fits completely – or nearly completely – into the grip) of 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17. Its all a function of the cartridge size, grip width, and grip length. For the most popular sizes of handgun (.380, 9 mm, .40, .45) very few can be purchased with a OEM 6 round capacity or less magazine. For rifles and shotguns it gets even more complicated.
Tubular magazines may hold only two or three rounds, but that is usually because there is a plug taking up the extra space. Why the plug? Because many state laws limit the amount of ammunition loaded into a firearm while hunting. I don’t hunt, so any firearm I own currently or in the future would have such ridiculousness removed so that I can have the maximum designed capacity or greater. Anything less just means I need to reload more when I go to the range. Standard tubular magazines can fit as many cartridges as will fit along the length of the barrel. For a .22 Short, this could be upwards of 20 rounds is an off the shell rifle.
For detachable magazines, the options are nearly limitless (and the standard magazine that is purchased with a firearm is likewise nearly limitless). For instance, the standard image one has of the Tommy Gun is probably with a 50 or 75 round drum magazine.
and that’s basically around the capacity that hunters use.
No, not really. That’s what SOME hunter’s use because they are limited by state laws. And in a lot of cases, hunter's only need one round (particularly if you hunt with a muzzle loader). In some places (or with some calibers), there are no such limits. For instance, there are crazy people who hunt hogs or bears or other wildlife with handguns that have capacities of more than 6 rounds. This is far more sporting than using a rifle at 300 yards, but in this case “more sporting” to me also means more insane. Our primate hunting instincts and skills long since were discarded on our evolutionary journey to the top of the food chain. In any case, hunters use magazines with less than six rounds because A) they only plan on taking 1 shot or B) state law limits them to less than six rounds. The firearm still works the same way with 7-30 rounds in it.
High capacity is considered generally anything above six rounds of bullets as you see in this picture here, in the magazine.
Um, actually, the only time that high capacity magazine was defined in federal legislation (1994 Assault Weapons Ban) the cutoff was set at 10 rounds. More than 10 rounds was considered “high” capacity. New York has now defined it as 7 rounds. But other states have defined it as 15 rounds or 20 rounds, so even the various governments who believe in high capacity magazine limits haven't come to a consensus as to how many that is.
The capacity can go up to 20 rounds, 30 rounds, 40.
I know, isn’t it great! And then if you have a belt-fed weapon it has the same effect of having a 100, 200, 500, 1000 or more round magazine. So, if great hunters only use 1 shot per trip, why have 20, 30, or 40 round magazines? Because everyone who shoots is not a great hunter, or even a hunter period. As mentioned before, “high” capacity magazines allow me to reload less at the range.
This is an example of a magazine in an assault pistol.
And this is an example of a cute cuddly sidearm. See its pink!
An assault rifle generally has a magazine that hangs down
Unless it comes out the side, or the top, or contained within the pistol grip, or is belt fed like I mentioned above. All of these configurations have their advantages and disadvantages. All of them have varying capacities.
and ones that we have seen in photos from the Iraq war we see a lot of soldiers with them
That is because soldiers shoot their guns a lot in combat (just like I shoot my guns a lot at the range – except that I am not trying to kill anyone and no one is shooting back). So it would make no sense to reload after six rounds. These photos are not limited to the Iraq War. Any war since the beginning of the 20th Century has featured “high” capacity magazines (they have also featured a lot of “low” capacity magazines).you generally will see what folks call banana clips sometimes they’ll use that expression.
Well, if we are talking about third world nations, former eastern bloc countries, communist countries, or terrorists then yes. The “banana clip” (it is really a magazine, not a clip) is a unique feature of the AK-47 and its 7.62 x 39mm derivatives because…..
Because as the number of bullets increase, the magazine kind of comes around in a curved shape.
Actually, it has nothing to do with the number of cartridges (not bullets). It has to do with the geometry of the cartridge. Most cartridges are straight walled (i.e. the shell is cylindrical). The 7.62x39mm round is tapered (i.e. the shell is conical). The 5.56 round used in the M-16 is straight walled. Sometimes, on their magazines, there will be a slight angle. This angle serves no function in regards to the ammunition, although it may aid when using the magazine as a grip. Personally, I think the designers were just jealous with the total coolness of the AK-47 and wanted to pretend that their weapon was just as cool. Its not. Face it, for all of its backwardness, some good things came out of the Soviet Union. They are primarily limited to the AK-47 and Anna Kournikova. (The Mosin-Nagant was developed in Tsarist Russian so it doesn’t count).
There are also round magazines that can hold even greater than 50 rounds.
These are properly called drum magazines. Having cartridges stacked up in a magazine has practical limits to the amount you can put in. A drum uses a spiral or circular spring to put 50, 75, 100, or 150 rounds in a fairly compact package. For more than this, you basically have to go the belt-fed route.
And the reason that these are so dangerous is that as the Long Island Railroad Shooter showed,
No, the Long Island Railroad Shooter was dangerous, irrespective of whether he had a gun in his hand or a Molotov cocktail or a pipe bomb (of course then he wouldn’t be called a shooter, but a bomber or an arsonist – either way, he is still a murderer).
when you put a high capacity magazine in a gun you can just keep firing.
…Until your cartridges run out, in which case you need to reload.
It makes it much more difficult for Law Enforcement to take the person down
What makes it difficult for shooters bent on mass murder to be taken down by law enforcement is not the “high” capacity magazine of the shooter, its that the law enforcement personnel are not there when the shooting starts (and usually not there for several minutes after the shooting starts). Gun Free Zones make it more difficult to take a shooter down.
and we end with tragically many more victims when high capacity magazines are used.
Depending on how you define “high” capacity. Using the AWB definition of 10 rounds as the cutoff most mass shootings were accomplished with low capacity magazines. Even when a weapon was used that had a "high capacity" magazine (such as Aurora, Newtown, or Virginia Tech), the shooter also used another weapon which did not have a "high capacity" magazine. In most of these mass shootings, the perpetrator had several (in some cases dozens) of magazines and did frequent reloads to the point that even though a "high capacity" magazine may have been used, it was reloaded before being fully expended. In other words, a low capacity magazine could have been substituted just as easily.
So when the Assault Weapons Ban expired in the United States in ’04, the ban on high capacity magazines also expired.
Of course, the ban didn’t actually ban the magazines. It just banned the manufacture of new magazines. All of the old magazines were still legal to own, sell, and use.
So it’s only in a few localities where that ban exists.
Massachusetts and New York have been known recently as the keepers of Liberty. Oh wait, I was thinking about the beginning of the country. Recently, Massachusetts and New York have been the epitome of the nanny state. Unsuprisingly, comparing crime in areas that have the ban and don't have the ban has shown that it has done nothing to decrease crime or mass shootings.
So in most of the United States it is now legal to purchase high capacity magazines.
It’s also legal to purchase “high” capacity gasoline vehicles. You don’t even need a driver’s license to go fill up two five gallon gas cans. Flour is sold in 50 lb bags to every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Matches are given away like candy. Bleach and Ammonia can be found in most every grocery store in the US and aren’t even in locked cabinets (in most cases there isn’t even a foil seal on them).
And this is good, because a criminal justice system that is focused on the object rather than the person will provide little justice and breed more criminals.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Hollywood is a Dump!
Not all of Hollywood mind you (I haven't been to most of it), just the Hollywood Boulevard. The place made famous by having stars of the stars in the sidewalk. I was in LA for a business trip and some friends and I went up to Hollywood.
Coming out of the Hollywood and Highland Metro station, we immediately saw the stars on the walk of fame. The first corner had a Frederick's of Hollywood, so there really is a place, not just randomly named stores in malls across America. It went downhill from there.
Walking East, we were met with following 6 types of businesses:
1) Lingerie shops, none of which looked as classy as Frederick's
2) Smoke shops (and I should include Marijuana Clinics in this as well - I was told by the worker that it was legal and he could get me a doctor's referal if needed)
3) Tattoo parlors (sometimes as part of a lingerie shop or smoke shop or both)
4) Mom & Pop restaurants (we never went in one of these, but they might be good)
5) Tour companies to take you around and see the homes of the stars
6) Scientology shops/temples/recruit centers, I don't know what you would call them, but when the front window is covered with 1000 copies of the same L. Ron Hubbard book it has something to do with Scientology
The further East we went, the seedier it looked. By Hollywood and Vine, we turned back on the other side of the street. Same stuff. There are three things on Hollywood Blvd that don't look like dumps. The TCL Chinese Theater (with all of the concrete handprints), across from this the El Capitan Theater (owned by Disney - they were getting ready for the premiere of The Great and Powerful Oz that night) and the semi shopping mall/strip mall next to these.
Everything else looks like you wouldn't want to be there after dark. Except for the stars, they do look pretty cool.
Coming out of the Hollywood and Highland Metro station, we immediately saw the stars on the walk of fame. The first corner had a Frederick's of Hollywood, so there really is a place, not just randomly named stores in malls across America. It went downhill from there.
Walking East, we were met with following 6 types of businesses:
1) Lingerie shops, none of which looked as classy as Frederick's
2) Smoke shops (and I should include Marijuana Clinics in this as well - I was told by the worker that it was legal and he could get me a doctor's referal if needed)
3) Tattoo parlors (sometimes as part of a lingerie shop or smoke shop or both)
4) Mom & Pop restaurants (we never went in one of these, but they might be good)
5) Tour companies to take you around and see the homes of the stars
6) Scientology shops/temples/recruit centers, I don't know what you would call them, but when the front window is covered with 1000 copies of the same L. Ron Hubbard book it has something to do with Scientology
The further East we went, the seedier it looked. By Hollywood and Vine, we turned back on the other side of the street. Same stuff. There are three things on Hollywood Blvd that don't look like dumps. The TCL Chinese Theater (with all of the concrete handprints), across from this the El Capitan Theater (owned by Disney - they were getting ready for the premiere of The Great and Powerful Oz that night) and the semi shopping mall/strip mall next to these.
Everything else looks like you wouldn't want to be there after dark. Except for the stars, they do look pretty cool.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Security Theater: Our Asinine Gun Laws
People who don't deal with the ins and outs of federal regulations on a daily basis really don't know how ridiculous some of the are. Recognize, federal regulations are written by bureaucrats (who may not have any idea about the subject they are writing regulations on), commented on by the public (who may not have any idea about the subject they are writing regulations on), to implement federal law passed by Congress (who may not have any idea about the subject they are writing regulations on), and enforced by various law enforcement agencies (who also may not have any idea about the subject). Unfortunately, these regulations are enforced against people who are intimately familiar with the subject that is being regulated.
Firearms are a subject that many people not familiar with firearms say have few regulations. The regulations for firearms are located in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations. So lets go through a few of those.
First off, what is a firearm? The regulations define 4 things which are firearms and 1 which is not. 1) any weapon which will expel a projectile by explosive force. 2) the frame or receiver of #1. 3) a muffler or silencer. 4) a destructive device. And the item which is not is 1) antique firearm - any firearm manufactured in or before 1898 or replica of such firearm not designed to take centerfire or rimfire ammunition.
So what are the ramifications of this. Well, lets use the Mosin-Nagant as an example. This rifle has been manufactured since 1891. So by the definitions above, those made from 1891 to 1898 are not firearms. Those made since 1899 are firearms. Even though they all fire the exact same ammunition and in most cases their parts are interchangeable. So the same gun is a firearm but also not a firearm. The implication of this ridiculous designation is that a Mosin-Nagant built before 1898 is not subject to the sale and possession restrictions of the regulations. So, prohibited persons (criminals, mentally ill, etc.) could buy a pre-1898 Mosin-Nagant and not break any law. Also, anyone could have a pre-1898 Mosin-Nagant shipped to their door - no background check, no waiting period, no nothing. But if it was made in 1899 all of the rules apply.
Next, a frame or a receiver is also a firearm. When transporting firearms on aircraft they have to be declared and in a locked case. And the case cannot be opened (even by the TSA) except in the presence of the owner. A frame or a receiver is a single part. It is the part that all of the other parts attach to. By itself, a frame or receiver is incapable of firing a projectile (no firing pin, no barrel, etc.). The BATFE has further ruled that a receiver/frame has to be more than 80% complete to be a receiver/frame (and therefore a firearm). An AK-47 80% receiver can look like a flat sheet of metal with some holes in it. So, I can put 100 of these in my checked baggage and not declare them. Furthermore, I can buy 100 of them and have them shipped to my house (so could a prohibited person) since they are not a firearm, just sheet metal with holes in it. But, if I make just one bend in the flat piece of sheet metal, it is now a firearm and when I go to the airport, I have to have it in a locked case and declare it. If the TSA opens up my bag with flat sheet metal, they are within their rights to do that. If however, they open up my bag with declared bent metal without me present, they have broken the law. Likewise, the same receiver can come pre-bent, just without the holes. Once I drill the first hole it is a firearm.
Next, a sound suppressor or muffler (popularly called a silencer) is also a firearm. So, if I am transporting the silencer on an airplane, I also have to declare it as a firearm (even though I may not have a firearm that it connects to) and have it in a separate locked case (that the TSA can't open outside of my presence).
I have been using the example of transporting firearms on airplanes. Except that falls under the TSA jurisdiction and they are under 49 CFR Subtitle B Chapter XII. Unfortunately, they don't define the term "firearm" so, that 1891 Mosin-Nagant (which according to the BATFE is not a firearm) may have to be declared as a firearm at the airport; and that sound suppressor (which according to the BATFE is a firearm) may not have to be declared. It's a little hazy as to what is what in the world of federal regulations, especially when you have to jump from one agency to another.
Let's look at another area. Importation and manufacture. Here are three rifles. One of them is illegal.
If you guessed the middle one, then you would be wrong. That one is perfectly legal. The top one is the original configuration (minus the magazine) with all Russian parts. And, I lied. The bottom is also the exact same as the top one. However, if I put the American made 30-round magazine shown in the middle on to the other configuration, it would be illegal. If I switched out the 30-round magazine in the middle with the factory provided 10 round magazine, the middle one would be illegal. Regulations require imported rifles to remain in their imported condition, or have a minimum number of US parts installed. Any less than the minimum parts and you have an illegal configuration (which I believe is a felony).
What is most hilarious about this, is there are several internal components which count and you wouldn't be able to tell without disassembling the rifle - except that many of these parts usually don't have a "made in the USA" stamp. So, the only way to show compliance would be to save your receipt - unlike the tax code, there is no time limit so you would need to save these receipts forever. But if you happen to be a closet machinist and manufactured your own parts (which is perfectly legal), you really have no proof that they are USA made parts (unless you video documented the manufacturing process). Talk about a regulatory burden.
One of the types of Federal Firearms License is a Curio & Relic License, or a collectors license. It allows holders to purchase firearms for their private collection that meet certain criteria (mainly being more than 50 years old). They still shoot modern ammunition and some people even use them as their daily carry guns. The process involves a background check by the FBI. Purchases can be made from other FFLs by mail shipped directly to your home. Firearms not on the C&R list, though, cannot be shipped to your home, they must go through a retail FFL. So, let's say I want to buy two guns from Southern Ohio Gun Company. Both in 9mm Makarov. One is a C&R, the other isn't. For the C&R gun, I give them my FFL license number and they ship the gun directly to me. For the other, I have to find an FFL near my home (in my state) to do the transfer. SOG sends the firearm to the FFL, and then I go to the FFL. Do I show them my FFL? No, since this isn't a C&R gun, that won't work. They have to fill out the 4473 and call in to the NICS to do a background check (even though I just got the other gun in the mail the same day). Unless, I happen to have my concealed carry license, in which case they fill out the paperwork, but don't need to call it in (at least in my state, other states are different). Oh yeah, and I probably had to pay them extra for the gun. So in a nutshell, one gun is 51 years old and is shipped right to my door. Another is 49 years old and I have to pay more and involve another company including filling out paperwork. The guns are functionally identical. Makes perfect sense, if you work in the government.
Finally, let me look at another issue. You can have a firearm registered as a short-barrelled rifle if the barrel length is less than 16 inches. So, hypothetically, let's assume you have two of the same rifle, one with a barrel of 16 inches, and one with a barrel of 15.9 inches which is registered with the BATFE. The short barreled rifle is registered by the serial number which is on the receiver, not the barrel. Both operate the exact same (they are both semi-automatic). One day after shooting, you happen to be cleaning both of them and inadvertently assemble the shorter barrel on the non-registered receiver. You have committed a felony. Even though you still own the exact same weapons as before. But don't worry, you're only going to get caught if you tell someone, so quickly you disassemble them and reassemble them correctly.
People like to think that regulations help us and keep us safe. They couldn't be further from the truth. In many cases the regulations are impotent or unenforceable. In others, they are contradictory across departments. Most of them have little semblance of protection. I have only talked about four examples out of thousands. These four do nothing to keep us safer. Would we be better off without these regulations? Absolutely! But no politician wants to go on record as repealing our gun laws. Even if they are stupid and do nothing to help us. The saddest part about all this, like calling the IRS for tax advice, my analysis above could be wrong. I may have said something was legal when it really wasn't, and vice versa.
So the next time someone says guns aren't regulated, laugh in their face. And don't be ashamed if you spray some spit while doing it.
Firearms are a subject that many people not familiar with firearms say have few regulations. The regulations for firearms are located in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations. So lets go through a few of those.
First off, what is a firearm? The regulations define 4 things which are firearms and 1 which is not. 1) any weapon which will expel a projectile by explosive force. 2) the frame or receiver of #1. 3) a muffler or silencer. 4) a destructive device. And the item which is not is 1) antique firearm - any firearm manufactured in or before 1898 or replica of such firearm not designed to take centerfire or rimfire ammunition.
So what are the ramifications of this. Well, lets use the Mosin-Nagant as an example. This rifle has been manufactured since 1891. So by the definitions above, those made from 1891 to 1898 are not firearms. Those made since 1899 are firearms. Even though they all fire the exact same ammunition and in most cases their parts are interchangeable. So the same gun is a firearm but also not a firearm. The implication of this ridiculous designation is that a Mosin-Nagant built before 1898 is not subject to the sale and possession restrictions of the regulations. So, prohibited persons (criminals, mentally ill, etc.) could buy a pre-1898 Mosin-Nagant and not break any law. Also, anyone could have a pre-1898 Mosin-Nagant shipped to their door - no background check, no waiting period, no nothing. But if it was made in 1899 all of the rules apply.
Next, a frame or a receiver is also a firearm. When transporting firearms on aircraft they have to be declared and in a locked case. And the case cannot be opened (even by the TSA) except in the presence of the owner. A frame or a receiver is a single part. It is the part that all of the other parts attach to. By itself, a frame or receiver is incapable of firing a projectile (no firing pin, no barrel, etc.). The BATFE has further ruled that a receiver/frame has to be more than 80% complete to be a receiver/frame (and therefore a firearm). An AK-47 80% receiver can look like a flat sheet of metal with some holes in it. So, I can put 100 of these in my checked baggage and not declare them. Furthermore, I can buy 100 of them and have them shipped to my house (so could a prohibited person) since they are not a firearm, just sheet metal with holes in it. But, if I make just one bend in the flat piece of sheet metal, it is now a firearm and when I go to the airport, I have to have it in a locked case and declare it. If the TSA opens up my bag with flat sheet metal, they are within their rights to do that. If however, they open up my bag with declared bent metal without me present, they have broken the law. Likewise, the same receiver can come pre-bent, just without the holes. Once I drill the first hole it is a firearm.
Next, a sound suppressor or muffler (popularly called a silencer) is also a firearm. So, if I am transporting the silencer on an airplane, I also have to declare it as a firearm (even though I may not have a firearm that it connects to) and have it in a separate locked case (that the TSA can't open outside of my presence).
I have been using the example of transporting firearms on airplanes. Except that falls under the TSA jurisdiction and they are under 49 CFR Subtitle B Chapter XII. Unfortunately, they don't define the term "firearm" so, that 1891 Mosin-Nagant (which according to the BATFE is not a firearm) may have to be declared as a firearm at the airport; and that sound suppressor (which according to the BATFE is a firearm) may not have to be declared. It's a little hazy as to what is what in the world of federal regulations, especially when you have to jump from one agency to another.
Let's look at another area. Importation and manufacture. Here are three rifles. One of them is illegal.
If you guessed the middle one, then you would be wrong. That one is perfectly legal. The top one is the original configuration (minus the magazine) with all Russian parts. And, I lied. The bottom is also the exact same as the top one. However, if I put the American made 30-round magazine shown in the middle on to the other configuration, it would be illegal. If I switched out the 30-round magazine in the middle with the factory provided 10 round magazine, the middle one would be illegal. Regulations require imported rifles to remain in their imported condition, or have a minimum number of US parts installed. Any less than the minimum parts and you have an illegal configuration (which I believe is a felony).
What is most hilarious about this, is there are several internal components which count and you wouldn't be able to tell without disassembling the rifle - except that many of these parts usually don't have a "made in the USA" stamp. So, the only way to show compliance would be to save your receipt - unlike the tax code, there is no time limit so you would need to save these receipts forever. But if you happen to be a closet machinist and manufactured your own parts (which is perfectly legal), you really have no proof that they are USA made parts (unless you video documented the manufacturing process). Talk about a regulatory burden.
One of the types of Federal Firearms License is a Curio & Relic License, or a collectors license. It allows holders to purchase firearms for their private collection that meet certain criteria (mainly being more than 50 years old). They still shoot modern ammunition and some people even use them as their daily carry guns. The process involves a background check by the FBI. Purchases can be made from other FFLs by mail shipped directly to your home. Firearms not on the C&R list, though, cannot be shipped to your home, they must go through a retail FFL. So, let's say I want to buy two guns from Southern Ohio Gun Company. Both in 9mm Makarov. One is a C&R, the other isn't. For the C&R gun, I give them my FFL license number and they ship the gun directly to me. For the other, I have to find an FFL near my home (in my state) to do the transfer. SOG sends the firearm to the FFL, and then I go to the FFL. Do I show them my FFL? No, since this isn't a C&R gun, that won't work. They have to fill out the 4473 and call in to the NICS to do a background check (even though I just got the other gun in the mail the same day). Unless, I happen to have my concealed carry license, in which case they fill out the paperwork, but don't need to call it in (at least in my state, other states are different). Oh yeah, and I probably had to pay them extra for the gun. So in a nutshell, one gun is 51 years old and is shipped right to my door. Another is 49 years old and I have to pay more and involve another company including filling out paperwork. The guns are functionally identical. Makes perfect sense, if you work in the government.
Finally, let me look at another issue. You can have a firearm registered as a short-barrelled rifle if the barrel length is less than 16 inches. So, hypothetically, let's assume you have two of the same rifle, one with a barrel of 16 inches, and one with a barrel of 15.9 inches which is registered with the BATFE. The short barreled rifle is registered by the serial number which is on the receiver, not the barrel. Both operate the exact same (they are both semi-automatic). One day after shooting, you happen to be cleaning both of them and inadvertently assemble the shorter barrel on the non-registered receiver. You have committed a felony. Even though you still own the exact same weapons as before. But don't worry, you're only going to get caught if you tell someone, so quickly you disassemble them and reassemble them correctly.
People like to think that regulations help us and keep us safe. They couldn't be further from the truth. In many cases the regulations are impotent or unenforceable. In others, they are contradictory across departments. Most of them have little semblance of protection. I have only talked about four examples out of thousands. These four do nothing to keep us safer. Would we be better off without these regulations? Absolutely! But no politician wants to go on record as repealing our gun laws. Even if they are stupid and do nothing to help us. The saddest part about all this, like calling the IRS for tax advice, my analysis above could be wrong. I may have said something was legal when it really wasn't, and vice versa.
So the next time someone says guns aren't regulated, laugh in their face. And don't be ashamed if you spray some spit while doing it.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Let's Pay Teachers What They are Worth (exactly what we are paying them now)
The most popular post that I have by far is about mothers not being worth $100,000. It probably made some people mad, but my wife and mother still talk to me. So today, I am going to tackle another shibboleth. Teachers, specifically public school teachers. I attended school in 4 different districts growing up. If there was one universal theme that I remember from all of them, it is that teachers weren't paid enough. They even went on strike one day, for the children.
I have several friends who are teachers. If there is one universal theme that can be had from them it is that teachers aren't paid enough. So, I feel safe in saying that for the last 30-50 years, teachers don't think they are paid enough. I say that is a big fat pile of steaming cow dung. Before you tar and feather me, hear me out first. One piece of glurge you may have received in you inbox is this diatribe:
Someone was having a little fun and tried their hand at sarcasm. Of course in their zeal to make teaching look like a simple business where they are getting shafted by averaging $50K a year while giving services worth $105K made me laugh. Whoever wrote this failed any business classes they took. If you are going to do a teacher=business comparison, you have to go the whole way. So to start with I put the above numbers into a spreadsheet:
No, funny math, I agree that their calculations are correct. For the total revenue. Except that I thought I would adjust it a bit. First off, I am not a scrooge, so I'll pay them for a full 8 hours (there are lots of full time jobs that don't pay for the casual overtime you put in so I'm not shorting teachers any more than society is shorting other non-hourly workers). I am also going to pay them for 20 extra days in the year, so 200 days total work days.
Now the per kid charge I have to disagree with. Since the author uses babysitting as the yardstick, I'll do the same. Most babysitters (and day cares) have a first child charge, and then it is discounted for each additional child. Now normally they do this by family, but in this case, people are not individually choosing the teacher, the state is. So I'll assume that the state gets billed $5 for the first child and $2 for each additional child.
So, my analysis looks a little different, but close enough for a starting point:
If you are satisfied with that, then pat yourself on the back and keep believing that the average public school teacher is worth $100,000. Except remember, we are comparing this to a business, so the teacher is a revenue source, none of the expenses have been added in. The building space can be looked at similar to office building prices (especially since you have use of the library, cafeteria, and playground). School supplies are needed for each student including textbooks, computers, library books, etc. There are support staff that handle all of the office stuff and janitors who clean up. Administrators are needed (because everyone needs a boss). Teachers do get a sweet deal in benefits, thanks to the unions negotiations. So, here is what I think is reasonable (if you disagree, give me some information of why you do, and I'll change the numbers around):
Uh-oh. $34,400 is a lot less than the $50,000 average. But even then, these numbers aren't realistic. According to the Census Bureau, there are roughly 55 million K-12 students and only 3 million K-8 teachers. To be conservative, lets ignore the high school teachers. That is only 19 students per teacher, not 30. If we assumed another 1 million high school teachers than we drop down to 14 students per teacher (coincidentally, I had several classes that had this few students and a couple with even less). So, to be realistic, I'll cut the number of students to 20.
Teachers that I know also put in more than 8 hours a day, so I'll assume an average of 9. Plus I'll assume they work an average of 220 days a year. I'll keep the $5/$2 split for kids, except that we have one more expense to add in if we are going to stay with the babysitting motif. Day cares have a minimum number of staff required for the number of kids - somewhere around 1:7. So, in each classroom, a fine needs to be assessed, per student, per day for the overage.
So, just from a babysitting perspective, each teacher should be paying $40K for the privilege to babysit. But as the author pointed out, your kids get an education too! Well, hopefully, in too many cases you don't. So look at it as a teacher has to be providing at least $90K worth of information/training/mentoring in their job in order to be paid an average of $50K. If not you are a drag on society. $90K is a lot of information (particularly in this digital age).
But don't get on your high horse just yet. Check out some publicly traded companies revenue and divide that by the number of employees and you will find that many of them average $150-300K of revenue per employee (and their employees are not making more than teachers on average). That's a lot more than the above hypothetical teacher is bringing in.
So, teachers get paid what they are worth, sort of. Most of them operating under union contracts get paid by seniority regardless of how well they teach. Private school teachers, on average, get paid less and have less benefits than public school teachers, but you don't hear them complaining. My wife and I home school our kids. As part of it, the school district has the come for half a day once a week to meet state progress requirements. The kids don't get assignments or tests from this half a day, it is just fun learning art, music, PE, and science. Talking with the teachers, they love the job. It has all the positives of being a teacher - seeing kids grow and develop, teaching what they like, involved parents; with none of the negatives - grading papers, teaching to a test, parents that don't care.
If you are a teacher and are not getting paid what you think you are worth, did you not realize this before getting into teaching? Like I said, this complaint has been going on for more than 30 years. The US has put a value on teaching our kids at $50K per year average. If you want to make more than that, practice putting a ball through a net or hitting it with a stick. Society values those people who do it best at around $750K per year (just be aware that if you are only almost the best at those skills, society only values it at around $6K per year, so maybe teaching isn't so bad after all). You're all adults now. Live with your decision, or change your circumstances. Just stop the whining about how unfair it is.
I have several friends who are teachers. If there is one universal theme that can be had from them it is that teachers aren't paid enough. So, I feel safe in saying that for the last 30-50 years, teachers don't think they are paid enough. I say that is a big fat pile of steaming cow dung. Before you tar and feather me, hear me out first. One piece of glurge you may have received in you inbox is this diatribe:
Teachers’ hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or 10 months a year. It’s time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do – babysit. We can get that for less than minimum wage.
That’s right. Let’s give them $3 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan– that equals 6 1/2 hours).
Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day…maybe 30? So that’s $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day.
However, remember they only work 180 days a year. I am not going to pay them for any vacations.
LET’S SEE…That’s $585 X 180= $105,300 per year. (Hold on. My calculator needs new batteries.)
What about those special education teachers and the ones with master’s degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year.
Wait a minute — there’s something wrong here. There sure is.
The average teacher’s salary (nationwide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student– a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!)
WHAT A DEAL!
Someone was having a little fun and tried their hand at sarcasm. Of course in their zeal to make teaching look like a simple business where they are getting shafted by averaging $50K a year while giving services worth $105K made me laugh. Whoever wrote this failed any business classes they took. If you are going to do a teacher=business comparison, you have to go the whole way. So to start with I put the above numbers into a spreadsheet:
| Students | 30 |
| 1st Student (per hour rate) | $3.00 |
| Additional Students (per hour rate) | $3.00 |
| Hourly Rate | $90.00 |
| Hours worked per day | 6.5 |
| Billed amount per day | $585.00 |
| Days per year | 180 |
| Total Classroom Revenue | $105,300.00 |
No, funny math, I agree that their calculations are correct. For the total revenue. Except that I thought I would adjust it a bit. First off, I am not a scrooge, so I'll pay them for a full 8 hours (there are lots of full time jobs that don't pay for the casual overtime you put in so I'm not shorting teachers any more than society is shorting other non-hourly workers). I am also going to pay them for 20 extra days in the year, so 200 days total work days.
Now the per kid charge I have to disagree with. Since the author uses babysitting as the yardstick, I'll do the same. Most babysitters (and day cares) have a first child charge, and then it is discounted for each additional child. Now normally they do this by family, but in this case, people are not individually choosing the teacher, the state is. So I'll assume that the state gets billed $5 for the first child and $2 for each additional child.
So, my analysis looks a little different, but close enough for a starting point:
| Reputo | ||
| Students | 30 | 30 |
| 1st Student (per hour rate) | 3 | $5.00 |
| Additional Students (per hour rate) | 3 | $2.00 |
| Hourly Rate | $90.00 | $63.00 |
| Hours worked per day | 6.5 | 8 |
| Billed amount per day | $585.00 | $504.00 |
| Days per year | 180 | 200 |
| Total Classroom Revenue | $105,300.00 | $100,800.00 |
If you are satisfied with that, then pat yourself on the back and keep believing that the average public school teacher is worth $100,000. Except remember, we are comparing this to a business, so the teacher is a revenue source, none of the expenses have been added in. The building space can be looked at similar to office building prices (especially since you have use of the library, cafeteria, and playground). School supplies are needed for each student including textbooks, computers, library books, etc. There are support staff that handle all of the office stuff and janitors who clean up. Administrators are needed (because everyone needs a boss). Teachers do get a sweet deal in benefits, thanks to the unions negotiations. So, here is what I think is reasonable (if you disagree, give me some information of why you do, and I'll change the numbers around):
| Reputo | ||
| Building Rental per month (includes heating, cooling, plumbing, maintenance, grounds keeping, use of library, cafeteria, and gym facilities) | $0.00 | $2,000.00 |
| School Supplies per student per month (paper, pencils, computers, curriculum, testing, library books, PE equipment, etc.) | $0.00 | $200.00 |
| Support Staff (1@ $40,000 per 4 teachers) | $0.00 | $10,000.00 |
| Administrator (1 @ $100,000 per 20 teachers) | $0.00 | $5,000.00 |
| Benefits (Pension, health insurance, employer portion SS/Medicare, etc.) | $0.00 | $25,000.00 |
| Total Expenses | $0.00 | $66,400.00 |
| Salary of Teacher | $105,300.00 | $34,400.00 |
Uh-oh. $34,400 is a lot less than the $50,000 average. But even then, these numbers aren't realistic. According to the Census Bureau, there are roughly 55 million K-12 students and only 3 million K-8 teachers. To be conservative, lets ignore the high school teachers. That is only 19 students per teacher, not 30. If we assumed another 1 million high school teachers than we drop down to 14 students per teacher (coincidentally, I had several classes that had this few students and a couple with even less). So, to be realistic, I'll cut the number of students to 20.
Teachers that I know also put in more than 8 hours a day, so I'll assume an average of 9. Plus I'll assume they work an average of 220 days a year. I'll keep the $5/$2 split for kids, except that we have one more expense to add in if we are going to stay with the babysitting motif. Day cares have a minimum number of staff required for the number of kids - somewhere around 1:7. So, in each classroom, a fine needs to be assessed, per student, per day for the overage.
| Reputo | Realistic | ||
| Students | 30 | 30 | 20 |
| 1st Student (per hour rate) | 3 | $5.00 | $5.00 |
| Additional Students (per hour rate) | 3 | $2.00 | $2.00 |
| Hourly Rate | $90.00 | $63.00 | $43.00 |
| Hours worked per day | 6.5 | 8 | 9 |
| Billed amount per day | $585.00 | $504.00 | $387.00 |
| Days per year | 180 | 200 | 220 |
| Total Classroom Revenue | $105,300.00 | $100,800.00 | $85,140.00 |
| Building Rental per month (includes heating, cooling, plumbing, maintenance, grounds keeping, use of library, cafeteria, and gym facilities) | $0.00 | $2,000.00 | $2,000.00 |
| School Supplies per student per month (paper, pencils, computers, curriculum, testing, library books, PE equipment, etc.) | $0.00 | $200.00 | $200.00 |
| Support Staff (1@ $40,000 per 4 teachers) | $0.00 | $10,000.00 | $10,000.00 |
| Administrator (1 @ $100,000 per 20 teachers) | $0.00 | $5,000.00 | $5,000.00 |
| Benefits (Pension, health insurance, employer portion SS/Medicare, etc.) | $0.00 | $25,000.00 | $25,000.00 |
| Total Expenses | $0.00 | $66,400.00 | $66,400.00 |
| Salary of Teacher | $105,300.00 | $34,400.00 | $18,740.00 |
| Fine for violating 1 adult per 7 children ($25/person/day) | $58,500.00 | ||
| Actual Salary of Teacher | -$39,760.00 |
So, just from a babysitting perspective, each teacher should be paying $40K for the privilege to babysit. But as the author pointed out, your kids get an education too! Well, hopefully, in too many cases you don't. So look at it as a teacher has to be providing at least $90K worth of information/training/mentoring in their job in order to be paid an average of $50K. If not you are a drag on society. $90K is a lot of information (particularly in this digital age).
But don't get on your high horse just yet. Check out some publicly traded companies revenue and divide that by the number of employees and you will find that many of them average $150-300K of revenue per employee (and their employees are not making more than teachers on average). That's a lot more than the above hypothetical teacher is bringing in.
So, teachers get paid what they are worth, sort of. Most of them operating under union contracts get paid by seniority regardless of how well they teach. Private school teachers, on average, get paid less and have less benefits than public school teachers, but you don't hear them complaining. My wife and I home school our kids. As part of it, the school district has the come for half a day once a week to meet state progress requirements. The kids don't get assignments or tests from this half a day, it is just fun learning art, music, PE, and science. Talking with the teachers, they love the job. It has all the positives of being a teacher - seeing kids grow and develop, teaching what they like, involved parents; with none of the negatives - grading papers, teaching to a test, parents that don't care.
If you are a teacher and are not getting paid what you think you are worth, did you not realize this before getting into teaching? Like I said, this complaint has been going on for more than 30 years. The US has put a value on teaching our kids at $50K per year average. If you want to make more than that, practice putting a ball through a net or hitting it with a stick. Society values those people who do it best at around $750K per year (just be aware that if you are only almost the best at those skills, society only values it at around $6K per year, so maybe teaching isn't so bad after all). You're all adults now. Live with your decision, or change your circumstances. Just stop the whining about how unfair it is.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Making Bread
I like to make bread. I wouldn't say I am very good at it, I just follow the recipe. Fresh bread from the oven is addicting. I have been known to wolf down half a loaf smothered in honey. And there are very few breads I have come across that I don't like.
Currently, I am trying to grow a good sour dough starter. A week ago, it was just flour and water with a pinch of sugar. It smells nice, so I'll use part of it this evening to make some sour dough English muffins. But from everything I have read, it takes several weeks for a sour dough starter to get really good. And you have to feed it every other day, which means I need to make something at least once a week. Guess the kids will like that!
I also like flatbreads. I haven't been very successful getting pita to have the pocket on the inside, but even just pieces of it taste good with hummus. When my family lived in New York we couldn't find good tortillas (they all tasted like cardboard), so for Christmas (or Mother's Day) I bought a tortilla press. That made some good tortillas.
I have used a bread machine, but I really don't like the output from them. For a while, we would use the bread machine just to mix the dough. But, it can only mix one loaf. So our bread machine has sat in our cabinet for a couple of years, untouched. Perhaps its time to get rid of it...
Currently, I am trying to grow a good sour dough starter. A week ago, it was just flour and water with a pinch of sugar. It smells nice, so I'll use part of it this evening to make some sour dough English muffins. But from everything I have read, it takes several weeks for a sour dough starter to get really good. And you have to feed it every other day, which means I need to make something at least once a week. Guess the kids will like that!
I also like flatbreads. I haven't been very successful getting pita to have the pocket on the inside, but even just pieces of it taste good with hummus. When my family lived in New York we couldn't find good tortillas (they all tasted like cardboard), so for Christmas (or Mother's Day) I bought a tortilla press. That made some good tortillas.
I have used a bread machine, but I really don't like the output from them. For a while, we would use the bread machine just to mix the dough. But, it can only mix one loaf. So our bread machine has sat in our cabinet for a couple of years, untouched. Perhaps its time to get rid of it...
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Soda Ban Unintended Consequences
So one of the unintended consequences of the Soda Ban in New York City is that you can't get a 2 Liter bottle of regular coke with your pizza. Apparently a 2 Liter bottle of Diet Coke is OK though. Also, no more pitchers of root beer at birthday parties - because you know it is too tempting for some little kid to just down the whole thing. However, if you go to your local grocery store, you can by 2-liter bottles of Coke (and Mountain Dew) until they run out and order more. Just don't buy them from Dominoes. It is times like these that I am glad I don't live in New York City and wonder why 8 million people still do. But then again, they elected Bloomberg, so they got what they wanted.
I looked at the regulation a little more and found out something. First off, the regulation specifically defines a "sugary drink" as meeting these 4 criteria:
1) Non-alcoholic (so if you are worried about not getting your giant margarita in a 20 oz glass, don't its perfectly legal - unless its a virgin margarita!)
2) Sweetened by manufacturer or establishment with a caloric sweetener (hence the reason Diet Coke is kosher, but regular Coke is not - to say nothing of Mexican Coke which uses real sugar and probably would cause the entire city of New York to go into diabetic shock)
3) More than 25 calories per 8 oz serving
4) Does not contain more than 50% milk or milk substitute
I deal with government regulation on a daily basis. This one is a beauty. There are some obvious work arounds here. So let me use the USDA Nutrition database for some examples of what is legal and illegal. Since a "sugary drink" has to meet all four criteria, as long as we don't meet one criteria, then we're good to go.
Criteria 4 is the first hit. If I have a glass of milk, it can be as big as I want it (because it is more than 50% milk). So, milk is legal. In all of its varieties. Milk, Chocolate Milk, Strawberry Milk, etc. Do you understand that. Milk has 130 calories per serving. Skim milk has 90 calories per serving. Both of them have 50 calories from sugars per 8 oz serving. And since they are more than 50% milk, criteria 4 is not met, therefore, I can order a 2 Liter bottle of milk from Pizza Hut or McDonald's and they can sell it to me without fear of being fined.
Which means Chocolate milk is also legal. Because it is more than 50% milk (unless you use a whole crap ton of Hershey's syrup, in which case, just drink the syrup). So chocolate milk with 200 calories per serving (100 of them from sugar, 50 calories from added sugar) is also legitimate. But a 16.1 oz bottle of Mountain Dew is worth a fine.
Now Eggnog is a bit of a quandry. If it is alcoholic, then it is legal (Criteria 1). If it is the non-alcoholic kind, though, we might have issues. In a typical recipe I have seen, you have a pint of milk, a 1/3 cup of sugar, 4 eggs, and a cup of heavy cream. Now if we can count the heavy cream as milk, then we are safe. If however it doesn't count as milk, then we are going to be cutting it close. A pint is two cups, one cup of cream means 4 eggs and 1/3 cup of sugar have to be less than 1 cup. Maybe if they are small eggs. I'm going to err on the side of caution and say non-alcoholic eggnog is illegal to sell in greater than 16 oz cups. We can call this the Virgin Margharita Loophole. From a health standpoint, the non-alcoholic beverage has to be better for you, yet the city has chosen to leave the alcoholic beverage legal.
Fruit Juice is also OK. And Vegetable Juice. I looked through the nutrition database and obviously numbers vary, but every single fruit or vegetable juice I could find had more than 25 calories (usually a lot more) per 8 oz serving. But since the manufacturer is not adding the sugar (Criteria 2), they are perfectly legal.
Lemon juice in particular, is OK. But Lemonade is NOT! Because they have to add sugar. So, lemon juice with 54 calories per 8 oz serving = good, but lemonade with 106 calories per 8 oz serving = bad. But Chocolate milk at 200 calories per 8 oz serving = good. (Don't ask me what geniuses figured this out.)
Most soft drinks (that aren't diet) have around 100 calories per 8 oz serving. Less than what normal milk has and about the same as Fruit juice. But they are banned from being served in a size greater than 16 oz.
Now with any amount of regulation, people will find ways around it. So let me share mine.
1) Drink more milk. It is ridiculous that the pizza company can't deliver a 2 liter bottle of Coke, but they can send over a gallon jug of chocolate milk.
2) Add alcohol to everything. This could revolutionize the industry, although I admit some combinations might not be appetizing. In college, one of my dorm mates wanted to have a Root Beer - Beer mix. This was after he had already had a few beers. He said it didn't taste that good, and he was inebriated - imagine if you try this sober!
3) Sell components. Have a packet of Coke syrup to be added to a 2 Liter bottle of carbonated water.
4) Stock up on those miny sugar packets and sell unsweetened (not even artificial sweetener) drinks. People will quickly catch on to how many packets are needed for a pitcher. It is ridiculous that you can't sell the customer a 2 liter bottle of coke, but if they have a cup of coffee and like it REALLY sweet, they are allowed to add as many packets of sugar as the establishment stocks.
5) When people order a self serve drink cup, give them two. One for ice and one for the drink. Then they have their full 16 oz of drink and can pour it over the ice as needed.
6) Move out of New York City. Come on, 300 million people in this country don't live in New York City, and yet we get along fine with our lives. Some of us don't even drink sugary drinks that often.
Except Eggnog. I love Eggnog!
I looked at the regulation a little more and found out something. First off, the regulation specifically defines a "sugary drink" as meeting these 4 criteria:
1) Non-alcoholic (so if you are worried about not getting your giant margarita in a 20 oz glass, don't its perfectly legal - unless its a virgin margarita!)
2) Sweetened by manufacturer or establishment with a caloric sweetener (hence the reason Diet Coke is kosher, but regular Coke is not - to say nothing of Mexican Coke which uses real sugar and probably would cause the entire city of New York to go into diabetic shock)
3) More than 25 calories per 8 oz serving
4) Does not contain more than 50% milk or milk substitute
I deal with government regulation on a daily basis. This one is a beauty. There are some obvious work arounds here. So let me use the USDA Nutrition database for some examples of what is legal and illegal. Since a "sugary drink" has to meet all four criteria, as long as we don't meet one criteria, then we're good to go.
Criteria 4 is the first hit. If I have a glass of milk, it can be as big as I want it (because it is more than 50% milk). So, milk is legal. In all of its varieties. Milk, Chocolate Milk, Strawberry Milk, etc. Do you understand that. Milk has 130 calories per serving. Skim milk has 90 calories per serving. Both of them have 50 calories from sugars per 8 oz serving. And since they are more than 50% milk, criteria 4 is not met, therefore, I can order a 2 Liter bottle of milk from Pizza Hut or McDonald's and they can sell it to me without fear of being fined.
Which means Chocolate milk is also legal. Because it is more than 50% milk (unless you use a whole crap ton of Hershey's syrup, in which case, just drink the syrup). So chocolate milk with 200 calories per serving (100 of them from sugar, 50 calories from added sugar) is also legitimate. But a 16.1 oz bottle of Mountain Dew is worth a fine.
Now Eggnog is a bit of a quandry. If it is alcoholic, then it is legal (Criteria 1). If it is the non-alcoholic kind, though, we might have issues. In a typical recipe I have seen, you have a pint of milk, a 1/3 cup of sugar, 4 eggs, and a cup of heavy cream. Now if we can count the heavy cream as milk, then we are safe. If however it doesn't count as milk, then we are going to be cutting it close. A pint is two cups, one cup of cream means 4 eggs and 1/3 cup of sugar have to be less than 1 cup. Maybe if they are small eggs. I'm going to err on the side of caution and say non-alcoholic eggnog is illegal to sell in greater than 16 oz cups. We can call this the Virgin Margharita Loophole. From a health standpoint, the non-alcoholic beverage has to be better for you, yet the city has chosen to leave the alcoholic beverage legal.
Fruit Juice is also OK. And Vegetable Juice. I looked through the nutrition database and obviously numbers vary, but every single fruit or vegetable juice I could find had more than 25 calories (usually a lot more) per 8 oz serving. But since the manufacturer is not adding the sugar (Criteria 2), they are perfectly legal.
Lemon juice in particular, is OK. But Lemonade is NOT! Because they have to add sugar. So, lemon juice with 54 calories per 8 oz serving = good, but lemonade with 106 calories per 8 oz serving = bad. But Chocolate milk at 200 calories per 8 oz serving = good. (Don't ask me what geniuses figured this out.)
Most soft drinks (that aren't diet) have around 100 calories per 8 oz serving. Less than what normal milk has and about the same as Fruit juice. But they are banned from being served in a size greater than 16 oz.
Now with any amount of regulation, people will find ways around it. So let me share mine.
1) Drink more milk. It is ridiculous that the pizza company can't deliver a 2 liter bottle of Coke, but they can send over a gallon jug of chocolate milk.
2) Add alcohol to everything. This could revolutionize the industry, although I admit some combinations might not be appetizing. In college, one of my dorm mates wanted to have a Root Beer - Beer mix. This was after he had already had a few beers. He said it didn't taste that good, and he was inebriated - imagine if you try this sober!
3) Sell components. Have a packet of Coke syrup to be added to a 2 Liter bottle of carbonated water.
4) Stock up on those miny sugar packets and sell unsweetened (not even artificial sweetener) drinks. People will quickly catch on to how many packets are needed for a pitcher. It is ridiculous that you can't sell the customer a 2 liter bottle of coke, but if they have a cup of coffee and like it REALLY sweet, they are allowed to add as many packets of sugar as the establishment stocks.
5) When people order a self serve drink cup, give them two. One for ice and one for the drink. Then they have their full 16 oz of drink and can pour it over the ice as needed.
6) Move out of New York City. Come on, 300 million people in this country don't live in New York City, and yet we get along fine with our lives. Some of us don't even drink sugary drinks that often.
Except Eggnog. I love Eggnog!
Monday, February 25, 2013
2 Shillings and 6 Pence
I have been collecting coins since I
was a child. A previous job had me travel to England regularly and
while filling up my passport with stamps of her Majesty, I began my
collection of British coins. Since that time, British coins are one
of my favorites to collect. Understanding British coinage is
important to making sense of the great English literature.
Unfortunately, they don’t tell you this in high school. Today I am
going to use the novel A Christmas Carol to explain the monetary
amounts.
First we need to understand a little
about British coinage. Let’s begin with the pound sterling, the
official name of the British monetary system. This has its roots all
the way back to Charlemagne who minted small silver pennys that had
240 to a pound, which has its basis in old Roman coinage. In later centuries in England, these were called
sterlings. The fineness of silver was 92.5% which didn’t wear as
much as pure silver, so 92.5% silver came to be known as sterling
silver and that usage extends to today. The symbol, a fancy L with a
line through it, comes from the zodiac sign of Libra, the balance or
scales.
The major subdivisions of the pound
prior to 1971 are the shilling, of which there are 20 in one pound;
and the penny or pence of which there are 12 in one shilling, for a
total of 240 pence in one pound. The symbols for these two coins, s
and d, come from the Roman coins solidus and denarius. So, we can
see that this system of coinage has its origins long before the
English language.
If we wanted to stop here, we would be
missing out on a number of important coins in the British history.
For instance, two farthings equaled a halfpenny and were minted from
the 1300s all the way up to 1960. This was probably one of the most
common coins for everyday life in the middle ages.
The crown first appeared in the 16th
century and was a coin worth 5 shillings, or a quarter pound. There
was also a half crown which was worth 2 shillings and six pence. But
to confuse things, in 1990, the crown was remonetized at 5 pounds.
So, if you want to know how much a crown is worth, you better be sure
what year of coin you are talking about.
The guinea was a gold coin first minted
in the 17th century that originally was worth one pound or
20 shillings. However gold price fluctuations made its value as high
as 30 shillings. In 1816 its value was fixed at 21 shillings. While
no coin currently bears this name, it is used colloquially for one
pound, although the exact amount 21 shillings is still used in horse
racing and livestock trade.
There’s more.
The florin was equal to two shillings.
The tanner was equal to six pence.
The groat was equal to four pence.
In 1971, all of this changed. The major
denomination, the pound sterling was retained and now divided into
100 new pence. The government was hoping that people would use the
term "new pence" to distinguish it from the old pence, but people don’t
always do what the government wants, and called the new denomination
by its symbol, "p". So pence is an old penny, and p is a new penny,
although some people still call the new penny, pence.
On to A Christmas Carol. This story
was written in 1843 so I have used online calculators and historical
British inflation rates to determine what these values would be in
2013 US dollars.
Bob Crachet is poor, how poor? He makes
15 shillings a week - $135 or $7020/yr, less than a minimum wage job
today.
How punitive were the laws in England?
A Tailor was fined 5 shillings for being drunk - $45, less than the
$300 you’ll pay today for a public intoxication charge.
Fezziwig spent a few pounds on the
Christmas Party - $900. Since the party was in his shop, there was no
need to rent a hall, the band was probably employees or
friends, so the $900 was spent on food for the 50 or so guests.
Pretty comparable to today.
Scrooge’s nephew hoped that his good
will towards his uncle would inspire Scrooge to leave Bob 50 pounds - $9000. This gives us an
idea of Scrooge's wealth. His nephew talks about this amount as if it
is a paltry sum of Scrooges wealth. Assuming it is just 0.1%, he and
Marley amassed a fortune of $9 million dollars, in a two person shop.
Impressive.
Mrs Crachet's ribbons cost sixpence -
$4.50 This is also comparable to going down to the mall to buy a
hairbow today.
Peter Crachet was going to make 5
shillings and six pence each week - $49.50 Far below minimum wage,
although coincidentally, my first job was as a lifeguard at Boy Scout
Camp, and I got paid, $49.50 per week. Of course they also provided room and board, but maybe Peter was getting that as part of the deal too!
Did the ghosts really change Scrooge’s
generosity? Scrooge offers a boy half a crown for coming back in 5
minutes - $22.50. Have you ever tipped the pizza man $20. This
isn’t even comparable. This is tipping the guy who took your phone
order $20, because the boy was just a messenger. In the movie adaptations, he gives the actual delivery man a nice tip as well. Scrooge was
definitely a changed man.
As you can see, knowing a little about
foreign currency can help you bring out details in a story that
millions in our country read every year, unawares. I have enjoyed
coin collecting over the years, and even more so, I have enjoyed the
tidbits of trivia it has given me.
Friday, February 22, 2013
How Many Computer Operating Systems are in Your Home?
I often point out to my kids how lucky they are. I didn't have a computer in my home until I was about 8 years old, an Apple IIc. My Dad would bring the portable computer from work home on occasion and we were able to play a Centipede like game. But that thing was as big as a suitcase. The Apple IIc was sleek, it had a 10" monitor (although some of my friends had a monitor up to 13") and we could play games like Oregon Trail and Loderunner. Oh yeah, and we could keep track of our allowance and write school reports. It was awesome!
Fast forward to today. I have probably gone through a dozen computers in my life. Currently (considering computers, laptops, and tablets) there are 6 working computers in my home all far more powerful than that Apple IIc was. Can you imagine telling Isaac Asimov in 1960 that 50 years from then, multiple computers in homes would be common? He would laugh at you as if you were talking poppycock (I had a book about the using the slide rule that he wrote where he specifically states that there would never be computers in people's homes and that was one of the reasons to learn to use the slide rule).
Currently, three of my machines run Windows 7, one runs Windows XP, one runs Android Ice Cream Sandwich, and one runs Android Honeycomb. Four different operating systems. But I have had more there was one time for about 6 months that I had 6 different operating systems in my home. That can get confusing as to where everything is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)