Thank You, Vivitar

A warm and heartfelt THANK YOU to Vivitar Corporation, the maker of the Vivitar digital camera.

Well over a year ago, I purchased a model 5MP-Q93 Vivicam with 5.1 megapixels at my then-local Wal-Mart.

It was a good camera, took good pictures (and I took a LOT of pictures) and served well.  I took it on vacation and took LOTS of pictures there, too.

Then without warning, and well after the one-year warranty had expired, the thing stopped working.  It would turn on, but not take pictures.  Looking at the LCD display on the back, it was dark.

Despite the thing being out of warranty, I called Vivitar at their toll-free number and asked them how much it would cost to fix it.  They said they'd actually have to examine it in order to give an estimate.  Frankly, although it's not what I wanted to hear it makes perfect sense.

I sent the camera to them along with a note about what happened and what I'd been doing when it stopped working (taking pictures, of course.)

So imagine my surprise when I got the mail.  There was a box from Vivitar.  Inside the box was a new (for me anyway) camera.  It is a model 6300 ViviCam.  It was refurbished, but that's not the point.  The point is that I'm thrilled the Vivitar did this.

Under the terms of the warranty, if it HAD malfunctioned within the warranty period, I would have been entitled to having it fixed, or a refurbished camera sent.

As it was out of warranty, however, my option would have been to pay for them to fix it, or pay for a replacement.

Instead, they sent me a new camera ... free of charge.

Thank you, Vivitar.  Thank you VERY much.

I purchased my original Vivitar camera due to their reputation and quality.  And although I'm sure there are some people out there who had really bad experiences with Vivitar, I am not one of them.  As far as I'm concerned, based on my experience, they've earned their good reputation.

If in the future I need to purchase a new digital camera, I can safely say it'll be a Vivitar.

Thank you again.

I Must've Missed Something...

(Entry edited at 17:31hrs to remove names of ACI manager and offending ACI.)

Well.  First, kudos to AOL.  Yes, I did just say that.  As you may know by now, I used to be a Community Leader (a HOST) on AOL before I got removed for daring to speak my mind.  I dared to say that removing the HOSTs would result in lawlessness in the Community and that it would be a watershed event in the end of Communities on AOL.  History has proved me right on both counts.

The ACI at the time lied when she said I could re-apply in six month's time.  I say she lied because 1) once you're removed as a HOST, you're done, and 2) she KNEW the HOST program was going away.  And our "working relationship" was supposed to be defined (in the words of an ACI manager) by "trust" and "mutual understanding."  Trust her when she lied?  Um...I missed something.

But, I digress.  Kudos to them for finally putting more emotions in the "feeling" section.  I went with "confused" this time because, frankly, I'm really really confused.  Seriously confused, in fact. 

But now we need to take a step back.  Bill Keller of the NYT said in December 2007: "…we are agnostic as to where a story may lead; we do not go into a story with an agenda or a preconceived notion. We do not manipulate or hide facts to advance an agenda. We strive to preserve our independence from political and economic interests, including our own advertisers. We do not work in the service of a party, or an industry, or even a country. When there are competing views of a situation, we aim to reflect them as clearly and fairly as we can."

OK.  That's a direct quote.  They don't go into a story with an agenda or preconceived notion.  Got it.  You don't manipulate or hide facts to advance an agenda.  Got that, too.  You strive to preserve your independence from poltical and economic interests.  I got all that claptrap.  And my favourite line, which they continue to disprove in their biased reporting: They aim to reflect competing views as cleary and as fairly as they can.  (Yes, I did nearly choke on that last.)  One question, Mr. Keller:  Do you take me for being as completely stupid as my ACI took me to be? 

Now we come to what John Fund, an Op-Ed writer for the Wall Street Journal Online wrote when talking about BHO's numerous gaffes.  "That hardly disqualifies Mr. Obama from being president. But you can bet that if Hillary Clinton had done the same thing it would have been the focus of much more attention, especially after her Bosnia sniper-fire fib. That's because gaffes are often blown up or downplayed based on whether or not they further a story line the media has attached to a politician."  (emphasis added)  As Rush Limbaugh would say "STOP THE PRESSES!!!"  (The entire article is here:  http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121210923476431299.html )

I need to repeat that "...gaffes are often blown up or downplayed based on whether or not they further a story line the media has attached to a politician."  Um...Mr. Fund?  According to Mr. Keller of the NYT, the media doesn't do that.

Here we have two different writers, writing for two different publications.  We have the liberal NYT (as demonstrated by that study I referenced in an earlier posting) and then we have the somewhat more mainstream WSJ Online. 

Mr. Fund is telling us that gaffes get blown up or downplayed "...based on whether or not they further a story line the media has attached to a politician."  Mr. Keller says they don't do that. 

So which is it?  This isn't wave-particle duality here, this is a straight forward question.  Does the media in fact ramp-up or downplay certain parts of a story? 

And if so, why do they hide it?  Or try to hide it?  Oh, how I'm reminded of that Cox and Forkum cartoon from 2006:

Oh.  One more thing.  Another cartoon from Cox and Forkum:

"I'm right and YOU'RE WRONG!

How many times have you heard that?  "Well, I'm right and you're wrong."  OR, "I don't need to change, I'm perfect." 

I love a good debate.  Now, take a step back and note that word I used.  Debate, not arguement. 

I consider myself at least somewhat versed in the issues.  I'm not an expert, nor do I claim to be.  Somewhat versed (informed.) 

Care to debate?  GREAT!  Let's keep it civil.  Because in keeping it civil you show that you acknowledge that the person has beliefs different than yours and that you're willing to listen to them.  And perhaps ... just perhaps, each of the participants might learn something.

But then we come to people on both sides of the political divide.  Those that are "perfect" (in their own words!) and who are always right (again, in their own words.)  "Global Warming?  It's manmade.  Entirely." 

"But what about the fact that four other planets besides the Earth are also warming?" 

 "PROPAGANDA!!" 

 "But it's..." 

"NO, It's not true.  Global Warming is entirely manmade." 

"Is it just barely possible that it might not be entirely manmade?"

"No.  Global Warming is entirely manmade."  (If you can't tell, I've already had this arguement.  Sadly, it did turn into one.  (Like I said in an earlier post, I'm not perfect either.))

Yes, there are people like that out there. 

Folks, I'm 41 years old and I've done some seriously stupid stuff in my years.  Seriously.  I'm not perfect, I never have been.  And, I never will be.

Is it possible that I'm wrong?  Oh, yes.  I've been wrong before and I will be again.  I neither doubt nor deny that. 

But too many folks on both sides of the issues are stating that they are right, cannot be wrong, and that to disagree with them is "...a crime." (Seriously.  There are people out there who are trying to make it a criminal offense to disagree with the view that Global Warming is entirely manmade.)

But at this point, we need to take a step back.  Scientists have been wrong before.  The prevailing view used to be that Meteor Crater in Arizona had been caused by an eruption of steam, perhaps caused by volcanism which is common in that area.

It wasn't until Eugene Shoemaker proved Daniel Barringer's earlier hypothesis that the cause was known to be an impact event.  Dr. Shoemaker proved the 1903 hypothesis of impact in 1960.  That's 57 years.

The earliest pilots had been told that if they hit the sound barrier, they'd be killed.  Then-Lt. "Chuck" Yeager broke the "barrier" in 1947. 

We'd always thought that invisibility was impossible.  Two years ago, it was done.  That's right, at Imperial College in London, they caused an electron to become invisible.  Granted, it was just an electron but the implications are profound.

We've always thought that quantum computers were impossible.  Enter Orion.  It's in the lab, and to be fair its best calculation to date is 3 x 5 = 15, but it is a working quantum computer.  And it did that calculation across five electrons.

Get the point?  Scientists have been wrong before.  It's the good ones that admit it.

Why then, can't people on both sides of the political divide admit that maybe, just maybe, they too might be wrong? 

It used to be that if you disagreed with the great thinkers of earlier eras that you were wrong.  Disagree with Aristotle?  You're wrong!  Disagree with Ptolemy?  You're due to be burned at the stake.  Heretic.

With the problems currently facing us, we don't need such outmoded and (dare I say it) archaic thinking.  You could even call it "Dark Age" thinking. 

We need answers.  We don't need politics. 

WARNING!!! WARMING!! WARNING!! WARMING!!

Did you catch the title?  WARNING and then WarMing.  WARNING WARMING

Yes, another planet is warming...this time it's ... GASP ... JUPITER!!

OH NO!!!  STOP ALL THE CARS ON JUPITER!  Wait...there aren't any.

You mean Jupiter is warming now?

Yup.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html

Mr. Gore, hellooooooo?

No cars on Jupiter, folks.  No cars on poor little Mercury, Venus, Mars OR Jupiter.  And yet ALL of those planets are warming.  This, again, is according to NASA and the folks at JPL.

Do you STILL think that global warming on Earth is ONLY a man-made problem?

Perhaps I'm not the one out of touch...

The Politics of Physics?!?

Yes, the politics of physics.  ::sighs::

This summer, the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) will be turned on.  I've written about it before, but I do need to make a correction (yes, even I make misteaks(see?))

In an earlier posting, I wrote that the LHC should be powerful enough to discover a Higgs Bozon.  I also wrote that ST (String Theory) was the theory that predicted the Higgs. 

I was incorrect.  That's what happens when you're half asleep. :)  The theory that predicts the Higgs Bozon is the Standard Model of Particles and Forces.  And to my readers (and those who pointed it out) I do apologize.

But that's not what I'm writing about ... I'm writing about the people who are trying to get the LHC shut down (permanently) because it COULD create a strangelet. 

A strangelet is a hypothetical particle which COULD (in theory) convert 'normal' matter to 'strange' matter.  Those trying to shut the LHC down are stating that the danger to the Earth is far too grave to allow the accelerator to be turned on. 

But let's look at this objectively.  First, is it POSSIBLE that the LHC COULD create one?  The answer is yes.  It is theoretically possible.

Second, is it possible that the strangelet would last long enough (be stable enough) to convert normal matter into strange matter?  That answer is also yes.  But it's not very likely. 

Why?  Because if they do exist, they're only going to be a few femtometers across (a femtometer is a quadrillionth of a meter)  That's really REALLY small.  Second, although they're theororized to be composed of a roughly equal number of  up, down, and strange quarks, they're not going to be very stable.  The weak nuclear force will see to that, since it is what should govern the interactions at this scale.

As a strangelet grows more stable, it will grow in size by converting normal matter.  Once a strangelet reaches a macroscopic size (a size that you can see with the naked eye) then it would be capable of converting the Earth to strange matter.  (This is the 'ice-nine' hypothesis.)

The question, however, remains.  Is it possible?  Yes.  It's just not very likely.

First, nobody is exactly sure that these particles even exist. 

Second, there is a particle which has already been found that has strange properties.  It's called a Lambda Particle.  It also is composed of an up, down, and strange quark, but it ALWAYS loses its strangeness due to the weak nuclear force.

Third, in order to become stable, the strangelet would have to last for a matter of minutes.  It's THEORIZED that it will last no longer than 10(-43) seconds.  In plain English, it should last 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds.  That's not very long.

But those trying to shut the LHC down permanently are ignoring this inconvenient fact.  Shame on them.  Shame.

Yes, it is POSSIBLE that the LHC could create a strangelet.

No, it's not very likely.  Even if it did, it almost certainly wouldn't last long enough to begin converting matter.

Lastly, the Lambda Particle has already been found.  It too has strange properties.  However, due to the weak nuclear force, it doesn't last long enough to do any harm.

I've had quite enough of politics.  I really have.  Leave politics to the lying, back-stabbing politicians.  It has no place in science.

Pollution Tax - Not just a Conspiracy Theory

I think I've written before that I'm not a conspiracy theorist.  God knows there are enough of them running around.  There are conspiracy theories covering everything from sunspots to hairloss.  Seriously.

But this isn't one of them.  As I've said before (and at the beginning of this entry) I'm NOT a conspiracy theorist.  But when I was writing security articles (about computer and national security) I got called one for saying that the US would soon have a "global warming tax."  Well...it's coming.  (If you're eating or drinking something, put it down.  This'll make you snort.)  http://www.nbc11.com/news/16349069/detail.html

Of course, the same people that said that I was a conspiracy theorist for saying this about the US also said I was one when I stated that the UN wanted such a tax ... globally.  Again, if you're eating or drinking something, please set it down.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/17/climatechange.carbonemissions

I'm now going to quote from the last article (the link I just posted):  "The IPCC, which won this year's Nobel peace prize jointly with Al Gore, will confirm it is 90% sure that recent global warming is down to human activity, "

This is from 2007, so they missed what I wrote about earlier, the 31,000 scientists who debunk the manmade global warming hysteria.  To be fair to them, they didn't exactly MISS it, because the disclosure of the names of those scientists hadn't happened yet.  But, they KNEW that those scientists existed and CHOSE NOT TO ASK FOR THEIR INPUT.  They also forgot one key fact:  At the upper levels of the atmosphere (where the atmosphere meets space) all of the climate models break down ... badly.  The simple truth is that we have no concrete idea of what goes on up there.  Throw clouds into the mix (they run some of their scenarios without clouds) and the situation gets more and more complicated. 

Do you remember back in the '70's when the hysteria was about global COOLING?  Well...sit back.  Exhibit #1

And now exhibit #2:

(The picture can be found here:  http://www.azfreeenterpriseclub.org/serendipity/uploads/Global-Cooling.jpeg  It's from Newsweek (aka Snoozeweek) in 1975.)

The simple truth is that since our climate models break down, we don't know exactly what's going to happen in the future. 

But we DO know that the Earth is now warming.  As I've written before, this is partially due to increased output from the sun in that Venus, Mars, and poor little Mercury are also warming.  (However, I'm not sure we should count Mercury for the simple reason that it's so CLOSE to the sun that if the sun burps, poor little Mercury fries.)

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Oh...and I'm now down to #3 on the Google list. But to still be there is an honour.  I know that this is being read and I am honoured and humbled.  As I wrote the other day, it is somewhat frightening to know that this is being read. 

From the bottom of my heart, I thank you.

Deja Vu, Anyone?

Well.  The BIG headline of the day (aside from Mr. Kennedy's brain tumour) is this:  http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90Q8K880&show_article=1

Talk about Deja Vu.  If you remember, on Friday 2-MAY-08 (nineteen days ago), I wrote:  "And making the oil industry answer to Congressional hearings?  I've not forgotten that they have ALREADY had their hearings in the past over the price of petrol.  We've already been down this road, HRC.  It didn't do any good because the politicians (that's you, by the way) and the oil industry decided it shouldn't.  Now here we are again.  Same problem." (emphasis added)

Yes, just like I wrote, the politicians, trying to make you believe that they care about you, have started their dog-and-pony show and their "hearings," trying to make the oil execs explain their profits.

Yes, I wrote about that too.  And yes, the oil execs also should be explaining things.  Too bad the politicians have their hands up each others rectums and don't know the right questions to ask.  The politicians also have some explaining to do.

If you remember, sixteen years ago Bill Clinton talked about hydrogen fuel cells.  That was in 1992, folks.  He did the same in 1996 while trying to keep the presidency.  Then, Shrub (George Bush) talked about hydrogen fuel cells EIGHT years ago while trying to win the office.  FOUR years ago, he did the same thing.

And, as I also wrote before NOT.  ONE.  DAMN.  THING.  GOT.  DONE.  Yes, the politicians also have a great deal of explaining to do.  Too bad they're too busy trying to make you believe that they care about you.  They don't.  And the energy they're putting into this farce should be better spent trying to wean this country off of oil.

As I wrote before:  Just imagine what we could do with all the money we're using now to buy petrol.  Just imagine the money we'd have to solve problems right here at home.  Drilling in ANWR doesn't solve the problem, it just postpones it.  Drilling off the coast of the US doesn't solve the problem, it just postpones it.  We need to get off of oil, and IT CAN BE DONE.  But ONLY if the politicians actually get off their fat asses and DO something.  We don't need more dog-and-pony shows, we need YOU to get involved and to TELL THE OIL LOBBYISTS that you're serious this time.  Of course, (sadly) I'll probably die before you do.  Some bottom-line company is making a tonne of money right now.  And, you're letting them. 

And now a few words about Sen. Kennedy's tumour.  I was shocked, dismayed, and saddened when I read this.  To be frank, I don't like Mr. Kennedy's poltics or his stance on a great many issues.  Frankly, I think he's too liberal.  BUT, he is also a human being.  And he is now facing an almost certainly terminal illness.  I can only imagine the things that are going through his mind right now.

I can only imagine the things that are going through his family's mind as well.  To know that somebody you love is facing a hard and terminal illness is not easy.  I know ... I've been there.  My ex-wife's mother died while we were still married and though she wasn't my mother, I cried a great deal ... grieved a great deal.  As is his family.

Whatever your politics, whatever your beliefs, I ask you set those aside and pray for Mr. Kennedy and his family.  The road ahead of them is not an easy one.  Take a second (please!) to think about them...send some positive energy their way.  They'll need it.  Also, take a moment to let somebody that's close to you ... and that you love, let them know that you do love them.  Mr. Kennedy is 76 years old, but that's still too young to die.  My heart aches for him and his family.  As the profile on one of my other screen names says "Tell those you love that you DO love them.  You may never get another chance." 

I did get a shock the other day.  I got an email telling me that my screenname is now #2 on Google if you look it up.  I was floored.  While I get very few replies in my mailbox about this journal, and nobody has yet replied to an entry, Somebody, somewhere, is reading it.  For that, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.  It's humbling (and frightening) to know that this journal is actually being read.