Month: November 2007

’tis the season to be greedy

Members of my immediate family start asking around this time of year about what kinds of things I’d like for Christmas presents this year.

This strikes me as a good way to break the week-long bout of blogstipation I’ve been having. Here, then, is what I want for Christmas, Xmas, Hannukah, Kwanzaa, Cephalopodmas, or whatever gift-giving winter holiday you prefer (each category is sorted roughly in order of desire at the moment):

Ridiculously Expensive Stuff

Which I only list on the off-chance that someone wins the lottery or happens to find an amazing bargain on “e-bay®” or something.

Relatively Expensive Books

Other kinda-expensive-but-maybe-you-can-find-it-at-reasonable-price stuff

Relatively Cheap Stuff (but still spiffy)

I know there was more, but my brain seems to have gone on break right now…

Superman is Homeless!

Two weeks of midterms, and now it’s finally Thanksgiving Break week.

In honor of this celebration of my second most favorite deadly sin, I was going to do a food post, but I’ll save that for later.

Instead, I want to share a shocking and surprising fact that I’ve discovered: People are Stupid.

Actually, that’s not true, it’s really more like “People are Lazy, and Thinking is Work”, but “people are stupid” is easier to say.

Today’s illustration of this principle includes a visit to the former town of “Metropolis, Nevada” (link goes to Google Maps image, centered in front of the hotel. Should pop up in a new window.).

Composite image of the ruins of the Metropolis Hotel

Yes, evidently a bunch of developers from New York thought it’d be a great idea to build a big city in the barren deserts of Northeastern Nevada. This is where the “stupid” comes in.

Check out that map, zoom out and look around. What do you see? Yes, that’s right: sand, sagebrush, and dead grass.

There’s something downright appalling about the way people in the Western United States (where I’ve lived, in various places, for the last couple of decades) romanticize living in the middle of a desert, while at the same time trying desperately to pretend that they’re NOT living in a desert.

Here’s the story of Metropolis, as I understand it, in short form: Bunch of New York developers decide to build a big city for Mormon settlers. In order to pretend they’re not living in a desert, they figure they’ll just dam a spot on the small river to the northeast somewhere so that can stop enough water to keep themselves running.

Now, plunking down in the middle of the desert and pretending there’s nothing odd about building a large water-demanding city in it is a time-honored tradition of the American West, so why didn’t it work here?

Apparently, it’s because somewhere in the Lovelock, Nevada area a bunch of people said “Hey! We were here using that river’s water to pretend we’re not living in a desert first, so you can’t take it away from us by damming the river up there! So there!”. And the courts agreed.

You might think the teachers at the local school would be educated enough to know that “desert” means “lack of water”. I went over to ask about this, but…:

The ruins that once was the Metropolis, NV high school.

I guess school’s out for the moment. I wonder what their sports mascot was. “The Metropolis Dustbunnies?”

I was reminded of all of this by a recent story that was going around about some developer who thinks it’d be a great idea to build a 100,000,000 gallon-per-year water park in Mesa, Arizona. Which, for those unfamiliar with the area, is a desert just like Metropolis, only substantially hotter.

He’s not the first one though. Palmdale, California – out on the edge of the ‘Los Angeles area’ of California, appears to have the aptly-named DryTown Water Park. Palmdale is in the area of the Mojave desert. I have no idea how much water it uses up. I’m certain there are numerous others in the Los Angeles area alone.

It’s something to think about if you find yourself wondering why the Los Angeles area continually induces the shunting of water from other parts of the country to itself, like a cancerous tumor inducing blood-vessels to form in order to feed its own growth.

It’s probably obvious that I’m tired of living in deserts…

This blog does not exist

I say that because in order to exist I must have used my computer to type it in, but George Berkeley “proved” that material things don’t exist. No pictures either this post, because after all my camera doesn’t exist, either.

Okay, the fact that I’ve got a whole cluster of time-sucking school stuff last week and this week to deal with is also a factor in keeping the posts here sparse at the moment. Berkeley just happens to be one of them.

Berkeley was what I would call a “philosophical” Empiricist (whereas I would describe myself as a “practical” empiricist – hence the “Applied” in this blog’s “Applied Empirical Naturalism” subtitle. Put simply, empiricism means that knowledge comes from observation via the senses. I’m a practical kind of guy, and I don’t think this in any way invalidates the use of the intellect to infer additional (testable) knowledge from one’s observations beyond what is directly observed. Berkeley, on the other hand, is a solipsist: he claims that nothing exists unless it is perceived – or is a perceiver.

His argument is a little hard to follow. As best I can tell, he’s starting with a Descartes-like observation that the only thing we ever actually experience are sensory perceptions. In other words, we can experience and know about the sensation of “heat”, but this sensation is just an idea in our minds. Even if there were something “behind” the sensation of heat that was causing it, we could not know anything about it directly, since we only ever experience the sensation.

In a way that is still not entirely clear to me, Berkeley then seems to take the leap from Descartes-style “the only thing I can be certain of existing from my direct observations are ideas, and my mind which contains them” to “since there is no direct empirical basis for claiming the existence of anything else, matter cannot be said to exist”.

Berkeley then goes on to claim that since only minds and ideas exist, and since there are some ideas that seem to be imposed on him (like if he sticks the idea of a red-hot-poker up the idea of his left nostril, he will have the idea of excruciating pain whether he wants to or not), that therefore there must be some other mind from which these ideas come. From this, he makes the leap to claiming that there must be an “infinite” mind which contains all these other ideas, by which he means God™.

This also gives him a convenient explanation for things existing when nobody’s looking at them. See, God is always looking at everything, so nothing that exists is ever not being perceived.

Personally, I’m finding myself wondering if his argument also leaves open the possibility of an animistic reality instead. He claims that everything we experience (including “sensible things”, i.e. things we see, feel, smell, etc.) is just an idea, and an idea existing without a mind is absurd. Instead of postulating the existence of an “infinite” mind, though, wouldn’t the notion that anything that exists actually does, itself, have a mind (or “spirit” if you prefer) also satisfactorily explain how things can continue to exist even when nobody is observing them? Berkeley makes the claim that inanimate objects don’t have minds…but he gives no justification for this claim. I mean, he admits that he can’t directly observe other people’s minds (or the “infinite” mind either) and therefore can’t prove that anyone but him exists, but he never claims that other people don’t exist. So why couldn’t the continued existence of the fork that I ate dinner with be due to the fork’s own mind?

That “thump” you may have imagined hearing was probably Berkeley turning over in his grave. Berkeley was, after all, a Bishop, going through this whole philosophical exercise out of hatred of “skeptics” and “atheists”, and it amuses me to imagine how appalled he’d be to have his arguments used to support something that he probably felt only “heathens” and “savages” would consider…

Yeah, I know, not much of a post, but I’m a bit overloaded at the moment. Nonetheless, more to follow this week over the next few days, at least.

“Does beer and ice cream make gas?”

I get some odd Google searches hitting this site. Once in a while, however, I see one asking a question of vital importance and great usefulness to the general public. Today’s brief topic is this query: “Does beer and ice cream make gas?”.

I’m assuming the searcher did not mean gasoline. Biodiesel is all well and good, but who the heck would waste perfectly good beer and ice cream on such a thing? No, I assume the searcher wanted to know if eating these two fine foods together would expose one to the risk of increased flatulence.

Sad to say, the answer is most likely “yes”.

Flatulence gas (from humans, at least) is made up mostly of carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas[1], and for some people (but apparently not all!) methane. It’s worth noting that none of these components have any odor. All of the offensive smell comes from comparatively tiny amounts of sulfur-containing chemicals – most notably plain old Hydrogen Sulfide, and maybe a few molecules of indole-type compounds such as skatole which can make the origin of the stench obvious.

These main gases come from two sources – swallowed gases (air and carbonated beverages) and microbial fermentation. Obviously this is one place beer comes in – the carbonation adds to the amount of gas entering the digestive tract. Secondly, the beer probably contains some amount of remaining malt which some intestinal bacteria, like the yeast that made the beer in the first place, can break down and eat, possibly generating more carbon dioxide in the process. Beer also has small amounts of sulfur compounds in it which give it some of its flavors. It’s possible that some of this sulfur can end up as smelly by-products of microbial action as well.

I tend to assume that problems one might have with ice cream are mainly related to the lactose from the cream. Lactose is actually a combination of two kinds of “simple” sugar molecules linked together in pairs – glucose and galactose. Many unfortunate human beings are cursed with a lack of production of lactase, which is an enzyme that breaks lactose into its two simple sugars which can be easily absorbed and digested. Many bacteria which can live in the human intestine, on the other hand, make their own lactase. If the human eating the ice cream doesn’t make their own lactase so as to absorb and use up the simple sugars, it all gets down to the intestines where the intestinal bacteria can turn it into a major feast. Many bacteria generate a lot of carbon dioxide when eating these sugars, too, and this adds to the gases that build up in the intestine. This is similar to the issue with beans[2] and similarly ‘indigestible’ substances which can appear in food[3] – humans don’t use them up, so the bacteria get it all and make a huge amount of gas in the process of eating it.

Milk also has at least some sulfur in it[4], like just about any protein-containing food, but I’m not sure if it’s enough to add to the smell problem.

So, yes, beer and ice cream probably do make gas.

Incidentally, it seems as though methane production in humans only happens in some people. Methane is only produced by certain kinds of archaea, and not all humans have them growing in their intestines along with the regular bacteria. Don’t quote me on this, but I would tend to suspect that this would actually reduce the amount of gas that actually results in the end. Methanogens actually make the methane out of the other two major flatulence gases: carbon dioxide and hydrogen. I haven’t looked up the biochemistry, but I suspect the other byproduct is water. Since the pressure of a particular bubble of gas (and therefore its volume when your container is stretchable, like an intestine) is dependent on the number of actual molecules of any kind of gas in it, if you have methanogenic archaea in your intestines they should be taking a molecule of carbon dioxide plus more than one molecule of hydrogen gas, and producing just one molecule of methane out of it (plus some liquid water), so where you once had three or more molecules of gas you end up with just one. I’m sure somebody somewhere has done some kind of study on this, maybe I’ll go dig for it at some point. While I’m at it, perhaps I should look at patenting the use of archaeal “natural flora” as a probiotic?…

The picture at the head of this post, incidentally, came from this blog post of odd signs – apparently this one’s from an advertisement for some kind of backache treatment. Still, I couldn’t pass up putting it here…

[1] Furne JK, Levitt MD: “Factors influencing frequency of flatus emission by healthy subjects.” Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 1996; 41:8; pp 1631-1635
[2] Rockland LB, Gardiner BL, Pieczarka D: “Stimulation of Gas Production and Growth of Clostridium perfringens Type A (No. 3624) by Legumes.” Journal of Food Science; 1996; 34 (5); pp 411–414.
[3] Cummings JH, Macfarlane GT, Englyst HN: “Prebiotic digestion and fermentation” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition; 2001; 73(2); pp 415-420
[4] Ramsdell GA, Whittier GO: “Composition of Casein in Milk” Journal of Biological Chemistry; 1944; 154; pp 413-419

More Search Amusements. (p.s. I Ain’t Dead Yet.)

A bit longer of a delay between posts than I’d like, but here you go:

+ =?????

I am often amused (and regularly baffled) by the kinds of search queries that lead people to this blog.

I wrote a sloppy little script to parse the server’s access logs and figure out who’s searching for what, where. Since I added the ability to recognize Google Image Searches, it’s gotten even stranger.

I do get a lot of perfectly understandable hits – people looking for information about “heat-fixing slides”, expired jello, and looking for pictures of lactic-acid bacteria or whatnot. Some of them are pretty interesting questions…but first, some oddities.

At the top of my current wierd-o-meter: “carbonated leprechaun”…what??? What’s funnier is that this was a Google Image search – someone doesn’t just want information ABOUT carbonation of leprechauns, they want pictures. Now I can’t stop imagining a mash-up of “Darkman” and Leprechaun. Thanks a lot, whoever you are…”I needs me gold! ARGH! SUNLIGHT! [bubblebubblebubble…]”

Another recent one was just a search for the phrase “new england sucks”. As another Image search. Somebody not only doesn’t like New England, but they want pictures of “new england sucks”?…

Less risible but still kind of funny are searches influenced by unfamiliarity with the English language. I have no idea what the search for pictures related to “useful of DNA” was hoping to find. (Uses of DNA? How to “use” [work with] DNA? Diagrams of genetic processes?). I also see a number of searches just based on the name of the blog – people looking for information about furnishing “big rooms”. I have no idea what the search for “name of thing in room” was expected to turn up. This one’s another language issue, but even taking that into account I’m still baffled about this one. I wouldn’t expect google.de to return any useful information for “Sache im Zimmer” (the original search was actually from a Spanish-speaking area, but No Entiendo Espanol, so I’ll use a German analogy instead.)

Or from Sweden: “Aerobic Oxygen fraud”. Somebody’s figured out that we don’t actually need to breathe and that it’s all a ploy by the Oxygen Lobby to enslave us, I guess.

Maybe just because “chemicals” get mentioned here from time to time, I get the occasional hit from someone looking for illegal drug information (either technical or just news of drug busts or whatever). Note to “HILLBILLY METH” searcher: Hillbillies do moonshine. Meth comes from Rednecks. Jeez, doesn’t everyone have to do a semester of Rural Population Stereotype Taxonomy in college anymore?

There are some more relevant and interesting questions that show up here, too.

Oreo CookieI guess someone in southern California used an interesting analogy in their microbiology class, because I recently got a couple of searches from there looking for why the cell membrane is not like an Oreo® cookie. The answer: There’s no “creme” filling. No seriously – the membrane is two layers of the same kind of molecule stuck together. The phrase you’re looking for is “Phospholipid bilayer”. In a way, the molecules are a lot like detergents – they’ve got one end that “likes” water, and a long tail at the other end that doesn’t (much as oil doesn’t). Since the cell is surrounded by and full of water, you end up with one layer with all its hydrophilic ends touching the water outside the cell, and the other layer with its hydrophilic ends on the inside of the membrane touching the water inside the cell, and the hydrophobic ends of both layers all tangled up together in the middle – without anything between them. See? Not like an oreo cookie at all. Aside from this, cell membranes are also squishier and not chocolate flavored most of the time.

I’ll deal with “does beer and ice cream make gas” in another post later…