Amalgamated Content

All I Want For Christmas is a Super-Intelligent Public Transit System - Part 1

2010-02-14T13:48:00.005-06:00

I was having a friendly debate with another commenter over at Chicagoist, in an article lamenting the latest round of RTA cuts. Upon floating some rough ideas for how Chicago's transit system (or, indeed, any city's transit system) could be made to operate more dynamically, I was rebuked by a solid wall of skepticism.

I think my biggest problem--and my problem with most technology--is that I simply don't see the benefit outweighing the expense of implementation coupled with ongoing maintenance. I honestly believe that a simple, fixed route bus system runs about as efficiently as it is possible for a bus system to run.

Could it be? That nearly the simplest possible approach to a bus system one can imagine happens to be the most efficient? I find that to be highly unlikely. Many problem domains don't favor simple approaches. Said another way: the universe is complex; deal with it. Take one example from the field of computer science: sorting numbers. Specifically, how can we efficiently store a collection of numbers that will allow us to quickly search the collection to see if a certain number is already there? One very simple approach is to store the numbers in a sequence, then put that sequence in order using bubble sort, then perform a binary search on the now-sorted collection.

The approach to sorting described above works fine when you're only sorting and searching through a few different numbers. But once you start dealing with thousands, millions, or billions of them, the performance breaks down badly. A more complicated approach to sorting involves using a specialized construct known as a red-black tree. A red-black tree is much, much more difficult to create and work with than the simple approach (believe me, I had to suffer through it in college). But it's also much faster, and handles searching through even very large collections of numbers with acceptable performance.

In many ways, the number sorting example is analogous to comparing a fixed route bus system against the one I will present in this post. Just as with the simple number sorting example, the simple bus system (fixed-route) works OK when the system is small. Suppose that the entire city of Chicago consisted of two high rise condo buildings, one grocery store, and two large office buildings. Every person lives in one of the high rises, works from 9:00AM-5:00PM in one of the offices, and goes grocery shopping every day from 6:00PM-6:30PM. This kind of city is the perfect candidate for a dumb fixed route system! You can set up bus routes that go back and forth between each high rise, and the grocery store and offices. Even if you create "express" routes between each of these buildings (a pretty sweet deal for everyone), that's only ten total routes. You can probably even eliminate some of these if, for example, two of the buildings are close together, or a building is in between two other buildings (the bus can just stop at the building in the middle), etc. And, because everyone is on the same schedule, you only need to run each of the routes at one point during the day (for example, the "high rise to office" routes only need to run a little bit before 9:00AM every day). Cheap, effective, and simple.

But what happens when the people in the high rises start to work different hours from each other? Or start wanting to go grocery shopping early in the morning, before work? Or (gasp), the city starts to grow and a developer builds a whole bunch of townhouses that are scattered around all the existing buildings? In other words, what if our simplistic, imaginary Chicago started to look more like the real thing? You either need to start adding more routes (more buses, drivers, and money), or having existing routes make additional stops (slower commute times, lower frequency of trips), or both.

Fortunately for us, in the real Chicago, the streets are laid out in a nice gridlike fashion with perpendicular "major" streets roughly a half mile apart in all directions. This general layout admittedly lends itself pretty well to a fixed-route system, at least as well as any particular layout could. But regardless of the street layout, and ignoring the fact that many people still need to make trips that don't align to these routes very well, the fixed-route system still breaks down in the face of dynamic human behavior. That's just the price we pay for being free-willed, living beings instead of cold, calculating robots. Just to give a non-comprehensive sample of some pesky human-caused problems that spring to mind...

Many people don't follow the same schedule every day. They might go into work early, leave late, or attend to errands/appointments in a completely different location before heading to work.

Certain neighborhoods start to become "hot" and lots of people suddenly want to live, dine, or get drunk there. It takes months or years for this sort of information to filter through the bureaucracy before changes to routes are implemented to meet the changed transit need - if ever. By the time the schedules/routes do change, the hot place might have moved somewhere else (coincidentally, I always keep up with these things; I rode my vintage bike to the hot spots way back before anyone else even knew about them).

Some people work in different locations some or all days, possibly at different hours. People are moving in to, and out of, the city every day, for a myriad of reasons (excitement over taking advantage of a large urban transit system, followed by the inevitable letdown upon seeing that system in action, being chief among them, I'm sure).

People might choose different modes of transit to get to their final destination depending on the season, time of day, their mood, and the alignment of the stars. They might bike in the summer, and in the winter take a bus during rush hour, or drive if it's a weird (i.e. non-rush hour) time.

One fine day, a whole bunch of people from all over might be interested in attending the same air show/Hungarian festival/llama parade.

Even if the CTA waved a magical wand (in a union-approved fashion, obviously), read every single rider's mind one evening, figured out their itineraries for the next day, and completely re-organized all their fixed routes to optimally[1] accommodate the day's transit needs given their stock of buses and drivers, it still wouldn't be that useful. The next day, everything would change again!

at this time, please open your favorite media player and start some overly dramatic/cheesy music What are we to do? Is there no hope? Are we stuck with this naive, frustrating, and inefficient way of using our buses? In a word: no! Stay tuned for our next installment; if you want to work ahead, I'd suggest watching some X-Files reruns.

[1] "Optimally" is surprisingly difficult to define in cases like these, and often boils down to what exactly you want to optimize. You can't have it all. For example, you can either minimize the average length of every rider's trip, or minimize the amount of time every rider has to wait before the bus arrives, but not both. For more details than you could ever want to know, as usual, see Wikipedia.

Homegrown Wisconsin/Simply Wisconsin CSA Weeks 15-21

2009-11-25T17:08:00.006-06:00

Week 15: September 23, 2009

Tatsoi, red peppers, radishes, tomatoes, red cippolini onion, eggplant, potatoes, carrots, sweet corn, celery

The tatsoi was new to me, but tasted great raw. The carrots tended to be stubby but flavorful. At this point I started donating all my potatoes to my coworker Anand (there will be many more to come).

Week 16: September 30, 2009

Broccoli, red and green peppers, potatoes, green cabbage, parsley, radishes, pears, carrots, red/heirloom/roma tomatoes, two dozen eggs

The eggs continue to impress, and parsley goes well with them. Heirloom tomatoes are weird but kinda tasty nonetheless.

Week 17: October 7, 2009

Butternut squash, kale, leeks, carrots, red bell/lipstick peppers, potatoes, heirloom tomato, green pepper, pears, kale, mizuna, two dozen eggs

The greens were good but a surprise (haven't got that many in a while, but it was no challenge to finish them all). I ended up cooking the squash with a pot roast - probably wasn't the best way to prepare it but it turned out OK.

This was a Jeff-style omelet served over this week's green's and a curry chicken tender from Trader Joe's. What you can't see is the pool of coconut milk underneath everything. Mmmmmmm.

Week 18: October 14, 2009

Carrots, red cippolini onions, acorn squash, butternut squash, tomato, green peppers, jalapeno peppers, sweet pepper, leeks, mustard greens, cilantro, sweet potatoes, apple cider jelly, two dozen eggs

Phew, what a box! Saving the jelly for later, when I figure out something to do with it. With eggs, peppers, and onions it became sort of an omelet week, which isn't a bad thing. The mustard greens were OK as salad, not quite my favorite.

Week 19: October 21, 2009

Pie pumpkins, beets, Connel red/Cortland apples, candy onions, brussels sprouts, carrots, sweet potatoes, radishes, red cabbage

The first apples, and they're great. I gave the pumpkins to my mom since I had little interest in them. Brussels sprouts are in a tie for first place as my favorite vegetable so this week was all good.

Week 20: October 28, 2009

Lettuce, potatoes, carrots, Delicata squash, unknown greens (something like cabbage), apples, onions, parsnips, celeriac, two dozen eggs

This was the last week. =( The newsletter wasn't available, so I couldn't tell what the green cabbage-like thing was. It was pretty good in salad though. Also, I wasn't sure what to do with the celeriac so unfortunately it ended up going bad. The squash is yet-to-be-consumed but I have a feeling it will end up being quite tasty, knowing the person who will be helping me prepare it.

This marks the end of my summer Wisconsin CSA. In the end, it was well worth the money. However, as in my previous experience, it was a bit much for one man to consume, particularly in those weeks with lots of greens or unusual items.

Now I'm signed up for a meat CSA through Liberty Family Farm in Michigan. I'll post some updates as that progresses. So far, it's great. More to come on that.

Homegrown Wisconsin/Simply Wisconsin CSA Weeks 9-14

2009-09-20T17:16:00.004-05:00

Week 9: August 12, 2009

Tomatoes, green peppers, watermelon, carrots, green beans, eggplant, sage, white onions, celery, rhubarb

Normally I'm not a fan of tomatoes, but these were good. Cut them up and grill in a skillet. The watermelon was yellow, which I've never seen before. With some apprehension I bit in, only to discover it tastes exactly like red watermelon. As usual I failed to do anything with the rhubarb so I froze it.

Week 10: August 19, 2009

Red tomatoes, heirloom tomatoes, bell and cubanelle peppers, carrots, green beans, raspberries, rhubarb, white onions, chard, sweet corn, two dozen eggs

A nice variety of peppers for omelets. The berries are consistently tasty. Green beans aren't really paleo but I ate them anyway (steam), as well as some of the corn (boiled). Again froze the rhubarb.

Week 11: August 26, 2009

Red tomatoes, green peppers, watermelon, basil, parsley, banana peppers, jalapeno peppers, heirloom tomatoes, red onions, sweet corn, raspberries

More good peppers and soft, crisp lettuce. The heirloom tomato was pretty tasty and juicy.

Week 12: September 2, 2009

Red tomatoes, green bell pepper, anaheim peppers, red onions, sweet corn, muskmelon (cantaloupe), lettuce, cucumber, turnip greens, two dozen eggs

The cantaloupe had a bad spot in the middle but was otherwise great. Another nice variety of peppers for omelets. The eggs are, as usual, fantastic, with golden omega-3 rich yolks.

Week 13: September 9, 2009

Tomatoes, red and green bell peppers, heirloom tomatoes, yellow onions, two of: lettuce, arugula, chard, kale, collards, or frisee

No picture because I didn't actually get this one! Oddly enough, I was in Wisconsin this week for a trail building volunteering event with the Ice Age Trail Alliance. The person who was supposed to pick it up for my, in my absence, wasn't able to. So it was donated to a local food bank. I'm sure somebody ended up eating and enjoying it.

Week 14: September 16, 2009

Orange tomatoes, green Italian fryer pepper, garlic chives, yellow onions, a very large cauliflower, kale, lettuce, potatoes, celery, pablano pepper, two dozen eggs

What a massive cauliflower! Everything has been great from this box.

Sometime during the past month they changed the name from Homegrown Wisconsin to Simply Wisconsin. Regardless of the name, sadly, the season is almost over. But the good news is they have a winter share too, which I might sign up for, and I also found out about a meat CSA from a different farm that will deliver locally grown beef, pork, chicken, and lamb from November through March. I'll definitely be signing up for that one.

Homegrown Wisconsin CSA Weeks 5-8

2009-08-11T21:38:00.005-05:00

Week 5: July 15, 2009

Bunched beets, leafy hardy green, kale, red cabbage, zucchini, mini onions, dill, cucumbers, blackberries

The cabbage was excellent. Getting killed by so much dill though. Berries were succulent.

Week 6: July 22, 2009

Spring onions, celery, Swiss chard, broccoli, cucumbers, zucchini, mixed beans, common thyme?, two dozen eggs

Eggs were awesome as always. No trouble polishing off everything this week, except the herb...

Week 7: July 29, 2009

Portabella mushrooms, chives, red new potatoes, carrots, onions, lettuce, fresh garlic, fennel

Everything was good except the potatoes and fennel. Got this one just before going on vacation so I brought it all with me. My family could use everything on the trip except for the fennel, the stalk of which tastes like black licorice.

Week 8: August 5, 2009

Portabella mushrooms, chives, white new potatoes, carrots, onions, mixed beans, zucchini, fennel, cucumbers

I was still out of town for this one so again Jen was kind enough to pick it up for me. Most of it was gone by the time I got home so no picture this week. I still enjoyed the onions, zucchini, and a couple potatoes in a stir fry.

I'm picking up another one tomorrow, so no more time to waste not cooking, eating, or doing dishes!

Homegrown Wisconsin CSA Weeks 3 and 4

2009-07-08T23:01:00.006-05:00

More delicious and nutritious veggies and berries over the past couple weeks. I'll just skip right to the pictures.

Week 3: July 1, 2009

Little gem romaine, green cabbage, collard greens, garlic scrapes, turnips, green zucchini, snow or sugar snap peas, mini onions, unknown herb

That list is from the newsletter but not everything is necessary in the picture. That's because I was out of town for the 4th of July weekend and had my roommate's girlfriend pick up the box in my absence. In return I encouraged them to eat whatever they wanted from it, which I presume they did. But there was still a good amount left when I got home on Sunday night.

Another funny thing... I really wasn't kidding about the "surprise factor." As you can see and I'm embarrassed to admit, I couldn't even identify the herb at the time! In the newsletter they only tell you it will be either X, Y, or Z (the exact item is a mystery to everyone until you open the box). No matter, whatever it was I chopped it up and sprinkled over almost every dish and it worked. Googling around now I'm 90% sure it was parsley.

After a late Monday night of orchestra rehearsal and drinking polish beer, nothing quite hits the spot like tuna in olive oil and frozen blueberries over a pile of greens. The sudden and unexpected disappearance of our can opener almost prevented this meal. Fortunately, it turns out that with a little effort you can open cans with a Santoku knife (thanks again, Google!)

Another "Everything in the box" stir fry, this time cooked in delicious and nutritious coconut oil. And to think... some poor souls believe it's meant to be wasted in their hair!

Week 4: July 8, 2009

Lettuce, some other type of lettuce, kohlrabi, hardy green, kale, garlic scrapes, zucchini, snap peas, mini onions, cucumbers, unknown herb, blackberries, and another 2 dozen eggs

I crept heroically through the 7:30 PM Eisenhower traffic jam to make it to the pick up site on time this week. As you can see, totally worth the effort. Where to even begin? With no time to think... I just started eating.

When a man is forced to test the limits of how many pounds of greens a human can consume in a single meal, that man requires two plates for dinner. A nice side effect of this - even if I somehow had the desire to eat something bad like a candy bar or some oatmeal afterward, it would be futile to attempt since the first bite would quickly run into an impenetrable wall of chlorophyll just south of the pharynx.

Homegrown Wisconsin CSA Weeks 1 and 2

2009-06-24T22:55:00.001-05:00

I signed up for the Homegrown Wisconsin CSA program this year. For anyone who doesn't know what that is, Wikipedia and Localharvest do a nice job of explaining it. Basically, you pay money to a nearby farm, or set of farms in this case, and receive a bunch of fresh, healthy, local produce every week. The cost is about on par with buying veggies at the grocery store, but the quality is much higher, it's a lot fresher, and the farmers get a bigger cut. I'm fortunate that one of the pick up sites for this particular program is just down my street, so there is simply no excuse for me not to do this.

One of the most interesting, and occasionally frustrating, things about doing a CSA is the surprise factor. To put it succinctly: you never know what you're gonna get. Nature isn't a mechanical contraption spitting plants out of the ground according to finely tuned inputs and schedules. On the contrary, the quantity, quality, and distribution of the farm's output follows a probabilistic model. Growing is a stochastic process where a million incalculable factors (most notably weather) influence the final result. You generally know which produce will be ready for harvest within a certain window, but the exact yields for a particular week aren't known until hours before pickup.

The biggest surprise for me came a couple years ago, when I received an entire basket (think laundry basket) full of tomatoes sometime in July. I'm not much of a fan of tomatoes to begin with, but this would be a bit much for anyone to eat before they spoiled, which unfortunately did happen to many. So my goal this time is to make sure everything gets eaten, or given away, never wasted. To that end I'll be documenting each week's pickup and holding myself accountable for its full consumption and enjoyment. Nobody will legitimately be able to accuse me of not eating my veggies between now and October!

Week 1: June 17, 2009

Rhubarb, green garlic, white button mushrooms, asparagus, common mint, strawberries, spinach, and a ton of lettuce

The asparagus was excellent (a lot better than the usual from TJ's) and the strawberries were very tasty. The biggest problem was the rhubarb; I'm not much of a baker so I didn't know what to do with it except eat it like celery. Unfortunately I had to throw some out since it went bad in the fridge (I didn't know it needs to be stored in a wet cloth, then cut up and frozen if not used).

Week 2: June 24, 2009

White button mushrooms, spinach, green garlic, peas, strawberries, rhubarb, spinach, common mint, zucchini, more lettuce, and two dozen eggs from chickens eating their natural omnivorous diet (including insects and worms)

Here I present my "A little bit of everything in the box plus a few stray frozen shrimp" stir fry

So far so good; I have no issues downing a metric ton of lettuce per week. But seriously, if you have any ideas for rhubarb that aren't rhubarb pie, then please get in touch with me.

Media Distortions and the Lastest Big Diet Study

2009-02-26T23:18:00.000-06:00

You may have seen the buzz around the latest diet study, just published today in the New England Journal of Medicine. The New York Times' article about it is quite representative of the coverage this study is getting.

For people who are trying to lose weight, it does not matter if they are counting carbohydrates, protein or fat. All that matters is that they are counting something.

Reading this with my morning coffee threw me into a bit of a panic, given it flies so completely in the face of my personal opinions and experiences. What if my weight loss has all been a lie? Did I really take the blue pill after all?

Then I read the actual NEJM study article. Existential crisis averted. It turns out the study itself has some major flaws, serious enough that the conclusion (which the media picked up on) doesn't even really follow. Let's examine it in detail (below here, quoted sections are directly from the study).

First, it wasn't even designed to address the question of whether caloric restriction works as a general dietary strategy or not. Why not?

Each participant's caloric prescription represented a deficit of 750 kcal per day from baseline, as calculated from the person's resting energy expenditure and activity level.

This one sentence is rather telling. It seems that every group, regardless of macronutrient breakdown, was given a "caloric deficit" up front. So already we are abandoning the idea of testing whether caloric restriction, in general, works. In fact they admit there is no control group whatsoever.

No diet was considered to be a control diet, and the dietary counseling and the attention that we provided were the same for all diet groups throughout the study period.

We're not off to a very good start, but let's continue by looking at the metric they did actually measure, weight loss. Ordinarily here I would raise objections because what most people really want is to lose body fat, not weight, and losing the latter does not imply losing the former. But in this case (the individuals were overweight or obese middle aged men and women) they are probably close to the same, so we'll overlook it. Fortunately, they did measure waist size, a far better indicator of body fat levels. Here is what they found.

They claim the results are equivalent among groups but I'm not so sure. In both the "high protein" and "low carbohydrate" groups, waist reduction was 20% greater than in the "low protein" and "high carbohydrate" groups respectively.

OK, well even with these relatively minor problems, surely the central premise can still be salvaged. I mean, they are actually testing whether it's just the number calories that matter, not what they come from, right? Surprisingly, no! The bombshells (credit goes to Garret Smith and Steven Low for pointing this out to me).

Other goals for all groups were that the diets should include 8% or less of saturated fat, at least 20 g of dietary fiber per day, and 150 mg or less of cholesterol per 1000 kcal. Carbohydrate-rich foods with a low glycemic index were recommended in each diet.

Behavioral counseling was integrated into the group and individual sessions to promote adherence to the assigned diets.

The goal for physical activity was 90 minutes of moderate exercise per week. Participation in exercise was monitored by questionnaire and by the online self-monitoring tool.

First they are mandating a dietary fiber requirement, which clearly falls into the "where they come from" category. But more damningly, by even acknowledging glycemic index, they are freely tacitly admitting that not all calories are equal. That is, after all, precisely what GI is concerned with (favorable versus unfavorable carbohydrates with regard to weight management).

And not only that, but now they are throwing in the undeniably confounding variables of exercise and counseling into the mix. I thought this was supposed to be a dietary study.

So, in the final analysis, this study has very little to do with diet in general, forget the significance of the number of calories consumed. Now, as a fun experiment, let's visit some bizzaro alternate universe where they actually designed this study to test whether it was strictly the number of calories that matters in fat loss.

Create real control groups, which are allowed to consume as much food as they want but in the proportions as each of the test groups. This will let us test whether caloric restriction actually works.

Get rid of the exercise requirements and counseling. Let's stick to testing diet.

Make a real low carb group (35% isn't low enough), and high protein group (25% isn't high enough).

Impose no requirements on saturated fat, fiber, or glycemic index. Only calories matter, remember?

Yay - I could be a medical researcher!

Calories, Schmalories - Part 1 - Thermodynamics

2008-07-25T22:50:00.000-05:00

Poor, poor Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot. I mean, sure, we've all suffered through the equations for his theoretical heat engines in physics class. But the dude always gets snubbed by armchair and "professional" nutritionists alike when they start spouting off about calories. You can always tell they're experts on the subject, because invariably they walk up to a whiteboard and write a very scientific equation looking something like:

Δweight = calories in - caloriesout

Of course, the somewhat more enlightened ones will be a bit more precise:

Δweight = calories consumed - caloriesburned

They'll then go on to explain, in a very authoritative tone, how this is an irrefutable law of thermodynamics, and that a person can't lose weight unless he eats fewer calories than he burns, how this is all very well understood and accepted by all the top scientists, and so forth. And the onlookers all nod in agreement; I mean, after all, this seems so obvious - how can anyone disagree?

At least one part of that proclamation is correct - it is an irrefutable law of thermodynamics (the first one, to be exact) that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so any "excess" calories we eat must go somewhere. They can't just vanish into fat air, for crying out loud. If we don't burn them during our 30 minutes of cardio three times a week, or... ahem... expel them somehow, then they must be stored in our bodies. Otherwise, we could all pig out on donuts nonstop and remain thin, thereby causing the entire universe to collapse into a microscopic yet delicious piece of bacon.

Our experts are also correct that the equation and accompanying explanation are unquestioningly accepted. In fact, this mantra is so pervasive in our culture that its evidence is difficult to miss. Go into any restaurant or grocery store and just try to swing a tofu wrap without hitting some foodlike product adorned with label "only 100 calories per serving," "33% fewer calories," or of course the holy grail of thermo-dieting, "zero calories." In New York City, some chain restaurants are now required by law to display the total calorie content of the items on their menus. Over the past several years, our water cooler chatter has shifted from the amiable enumeration of a wide receiver's merits to a pissing contest to determine who has the lowest calorie low calorie Lean Cuisine® frozen brick for lunch.

To express even a shade of doubt, to suggest that this common wisdom is in any way flawed or just oversimplified, is to absolve the obese of their sins of willpower and invite admonishment from an army of pseudo-scientists and experts on nutrition and health. In some circles such an utterance is tantamount to questioning the moon landing or the spherical shape of terra firma herself.

I respectfully submit that these individuals' physics grades be retroactively changed to Fs for ignoring half of the course material. It turns out there is more than one law of thermodynamics1, and that Carnot fellow's heat cycle was not his most important contribution to science. He formalized the equally inviolable second law, and its most relevant interpretation for our discussion here essentially says that no chemical reaction is perfectly efficient - some energy is always "lost" in the process.

How is that relevant to a discussion about calories, metabolism, and fat? Well, even if our bodies were perfect theoretical Carnot engines (which they're not, as we'll discuss in later parts of this series), they would still have to obey all the laws of physics (the first and second laws of thermodynamics included). And the chain of reactions our bodies use to convert dietary fat into usable energy is a lot longer than the chain used to convert carbohydrates into energy. In fact, the chain for fats is a superset2 of the one used for carbohydrates. In other words, to metabolize a calorie of dietary fat, our bodies must do some additional steps beyond those required to metabolize a calorie of carbohydrate.

So already we encounter a problem with the idea that a calorie is a calorie, period, end of story. Namely, our bodies can absorb more energy from one calorie of dietary carbohydrate than one calorie of dietary fat, because less of it is wasted in the reactions along the metabolic pathway.

Lamentably, my explanation of metabolic pathways is itself oversimplified and incomplete. But the materials are out there for anyone with an open mind willing to do a bit of research. In particular, the Nutrition Journal has one much more detailed explanation, by someone far more qualified than myself3. And for a very detailed treatment of the subject, as well as a good simluation of taking the red pill4, check out Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes5.

Still, the small matter of the second law of thermodynamics isn't the only, or even the strongest, evidence against the calories in minus calories out hypothesis. What about the experimental evidence - what does it actually show when we put this theory to the test? While they're re-enrolling in physics, why do these nutritionists also need to sign up for a probability course? And just what the heck do hormones have to do with anything not related to baby making?! All this, and much more, to come.

So until next time, whenever you hear the faint but unmistakable cry of "remember Carnot!" undulating softly through the warm night air, well... chances are it's me.

References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Feinman, Richard, and Eugene Fine. ""A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics." Nutrition Journal 3.1 (2004): 9.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix

Taubes, Gary. Good Calories, Bad Calories. New York: Knopf, 2007.

While You Respawn

2008-06-30T23:48:00.000-05:00

To the tune of Since U Been Gone by Kelly Clarkson

Here's the thing
You started out grand
You shot someone but it was not a trend
Yeah, yeah, while you respawn

You had a ping of one-oh-nine
I even thought I guess this guy is fine
Yeah, yeah, while you respawn

And all you'd ever hear me say
Is you should find a clip or two
That's all you'd ever hear me say

But while you respawn
We can lead for the first time
You're better off gone, yeah yeah
Thanks to you, there's a kid, a kid I can taunt
While you respawn

I thought I told you, don't camp so long
I ever thought I guess he heard me wrong
Yeah, yeah, while you respawn
How come I'd never hear you say
I just got a kill or two
Guess you never learned to play

But while you respawn
We can lead for the fist time
You're better off gone, yeah yeah
Thanks to you, there's a kid, a kid I can taunt
While you respawn

You had your shot, you missed it
Up and right, you must be blind
Pull the plug, I just can't take it
Again and again and again and again

While you respawn
We can lead for the first time
You're better off gone, yeah yeah
Thanks to you
There's a kid, a kid I can taunt
We can lead for the first time
You're better off gone, yeah yeah
Thanks to you
There's a kid
You should know there's a kid
A kid I can taunt

While you respawn
While you respawn
While you respawn

Wheel Reinvention Project Abandoned

2008-04-01T21:50:00.000-05:00

That's right. The oft-neglected, painfully minimalist, and oddly spamophilic jeffevans.us will no longer see any new content. Given that Google is gradually commandeering the e-mail, medical archival, and interplanetary planning domains, it seems only natural they should absorb my smatterings somewhere along the way. Plus at some point I forgot how to write php, or at least read the festering pile of pre-CS-125 spaghetti code that comprises my source.

Yes, I know the timing is highly suspect but no, this is not a joke. This, however, is... I hope.