How To Measure the Height of a Building With a Barometer

This is a very old story I first heard from my high school physics teacher (Mr. Key). The source I read it at is: http://www.quora.com/Humor/What-is-the-geekiest-joke There is something to be learned about rote/formulaic learning and testing in it.

Some time ago I received a call from a colleague who asked if I would be the referee on the grading of an examination question. He was about to give a student a zero for his answer to a physics question, while the student claimed he should receive a perfect score and would if the system were not set up against the student: The instructor and the student agreed to submit this to an impartial arbiter, and I was selected.

I went to my colleague's office and read the examination question: "Show how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer."  The student had answered: "Take a barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower the barometer to the street and then bring it up, measuring the length of the rope. The length of the rope is the height of the building."

I pointed out that the student really had a strong case for full credit since he had answered the question completely and correctly. On the other hand, if full credit was given, it could well contribute to a high grade for the student in his physics course. A high grade is supposed to certify competence in physics, but the answer did not confirm this. I suggested that the student have another try at answering the question I was not surprised that my colleague agreed, but I was surprised that the student did.

I gave the student six minutes to answer the question with the warning that the answer should show some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he had not written anything. I asked if he wished to give up, but he said no. He had many answers to this problem; he was just thinking of the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him and asked him to please go on.

In the next minute he dashed off his answer which read:  "Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the roof. Drop that barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then using the formula H = 0.5g*t squared, calculate the height of the building.  At this point I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded, and I gave the student almost full credit. 

In leaving my colleague's office, I recalled that the student had said he had many other answers to the problem, so I asked him what they were. "Oh yes," said the student. "There are a great many ways of getting the height of a tall building with a barometer. For example, you could take the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the barometer and the length of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building and by the use of a simple proportion, determine the height of the building." 

"Fine," I asked. "And the others?"  "Yes," said the student. "There is a very basic measurement method that you will like. In this method you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks, and this will give you the height of the building in barometer units. A very direct method."  "Of course, if you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string, swing it as a pendulum, and determine the value of `g' at the street level and at the top of the building. From the difference of the two values of `g' the height of the building can be calculated." 

Finally, he concluded, there are many other ways of solving the problem. "Probably the best," he said, "is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent's door. When the superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: "Mr. Superintendent, here I have a fine barometer. If you tell me the height of this building, I will give you this barometer."  At this point I asked the student if he really did know the conventional answer to this question. He admitted that he did, said that he was fed up with high school and college instructors trying to teach him how to think, using the "scientific method," and to explore the deep inner logic of the subject in a pedantic way, as is often done in the new mathematics, rather than teaching him the structure of the subject.

The article is by Alexander Calandra and appeared first in "The Saturday Review" (December 21, 1968, p 60). It is also in the collection "More Random Walks in Science" by R.L.Weber, The Institute of Physics, 1982.

I'm going to live forever!

Well, maybe not. But, being the prediction making fool that I am, at least 15 years ago I said that with enhancements yet to be discovered (then) I'd make it to age 120, and maybe longer. At least one friend of mine predicted then that he would live forever.

Seems that some scientists are starting to think this way too. How about this quote "For many scientists who know about such things, the question isn’t whether the first person to live forever has been born, but how old they are."

Supposedly those of us that make it another 20-30 years can expect to make it to 125. And, in those 20-30 years we will probably discover things that will make it possible to go even longer - presumably indefinitely. The kicker for many (like smokers - you know who I'm talking to!!) will be to make it the next 20-30 years.

The enzyme discussed in the linked article isn't considered the final solution, and is considered to be a weak attempt - but notably it is the very first product that attempts to slow down or reverse ageing (not expected to be successful in the latter). Note that this is a measure of how long a cell can divide without dying - possibly not what you are thinking of when you think of reversing ageing. :-)

Also posed in the article - current population predictions don't take into account current population not dying. As Stephen Hawking has said, our species will need to get off this planet if we are to continue. If we aren't dying then the only way to stop the population explosion will be to stop having babies - I can't see that as a viable option either. We will need somewhere else to put people!

Ageing article

I've always appreciated the quotes and stories about how hard work perseveres over blind luck. While I don't discount that occasionally real luck comes along at just the right time - I suspect that more often we create our own luck. That perfect job doesn't just come along; you don't just happen to get a great mark on a test; the perfect partner doesn't just happen to be where you went out. Rather, I think you found the perfect job because you were working hard to find it (submitting resumes, searching job ads, networking with the right people); you got a great mark because you did the homework, went to class, and studied; you found your perfect partner because (like the job) you hung out with people you liked - perhaps s/he was doing the same at the same time.

Well now there is a study that shows you can improve your luck. It examined "lucky people" and their attitudes and behaviours, and compared them to those of "unlucky people." The researchers were able to show that lucky people were better at seeing opportunity (and then taking advantage of it. It wasn't that they got more opportunities, just that they were better at recognizing when they did happen. The linked article (here) used one experiment where the subjects were given a task (count the photographs in a newspaper). There was a half page ad with 2 inch type on the second page that said "Stop counting. There are 43 ..." Although the lucky people tended to see this and stop counting, the unlucky people had such a narrow focus (looking for images) that they tended to miss the ad and kept counting.

The studies examined a number of other factors, but one central fact was that tense people have a harder time noticing things - even (maybe especially) when they are specifically looking for those things. Those who are less apt to focus on only one thing will notice more.

The study's author was able to create a "luck school" and teach unlucky people how to be more lucky. They emphasized four principles and tried to teach three techniques to improve them. 80% became "luckier."

Four principles

[Lucky people] are skilled at creating and noticing chance opportunities, make lucky decisions by listening to their intuition, create self-fulfilling prophesies via positive expectations, and adopt a resilient attitude that transforms bad luck into good.

Three techniques

Unlucky people often fail to follow their intuition when making a choice, whereas lucky people tend to respect hunches.

Unlucky people tend to be creatures of routine ... In contrast, many lucky people try to introduce variety into their lives. [see my earlier blog entry on practising change]

Lucky people tend to see the positive side of their ill fortune. They imagine how things could have been worse.

So - if you are unlucky - you can with a little effort become luckier. Try it, what can you lose?

Lastly, some quotes about work and luck:

"Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

The harder I work, the luckier I get. - Sam Goldwyn

When I work fourteen hours a day, seven days a week, I get lucky. - Dr Armand Hammer

It's hard to detect good luck - it looks so much like something you've earned. - Frank A. Clark

I'm a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it. - Thomas Jefferson

The only thing that overcomes hard luck is hard work. ~Harry Golden

Luck? I don't know anything about luck. I've never banked on it, and I'm afraid of people who do. Luck to me is something else: Hard work -- and realizing what is opportunity and what isn't. - Lucille Ball

Dictionary is the only place that success comes before work. Hard work is the price we must pay for success. I think you can accomplish anything if you're willing to pay the price. - Vince Lombardi

Learn to be lucky. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3304496/Be-lucky---its-an-easy-skill-to-learn.html

Support Our Troops

"Support our troops" is a phrase that is really beginning to bug me. Not because I don't think the troops deserve support - they certainly do. The phrase bugs me because it is used to justify telling us what to think and it only seems to appear during certain events.

I'll tackle the second issue first. Not all of the fatalities in Afghanistan are combat related. Some have died from the same kinds of things that were killing service members before we ever packed up and headed somewhere with lots of sand. Things like vehicle roll-overs. Before you start to think that I am suggesting these soldiers don't deserve our respect I want to make it clear: THESE SOLDIERS DESERVE OUR RESPECT - the same respect given to their comrades that die from combat. The thing is, the ones that die in-service here in Canada ALSO deserve our respect, no matter the end cause. In these situations the soldier was carrying out his/her duty to our country. The cause of death is not important. What is important is that they died doing their job - one which by it's very nature is a service to the country. But, here is where it gets really hairy - service members were dying on duty long before we ever heard of Al Queda or Taliban or even Saddam Hussein. They will still be dying in service after we have forgotten those names too. So, please respect all of those members that give the ultimate sacrifice in service - no matter the cause, location or time.

Now the issue that really, REALLY, twists my "short and curlies" into a knot: supporting your troops means realizing that a soldiers duties are not always pleasant, and yet understanding that someone needs to do them and that someone needs to feel appreciated in her/his job the way we all do. However, it does not mean that you have to agree with the reasons the soldier has been asked to do those things, nor does it mean that disagreeing with your country's political direction (etc.) disrespects the soldier (some soldiers need to sit up and take notice here as well). Many people though would have you believe that voicing opposition to a current political view that involves sending troops to foreign locations means you don't support those troops.

There are also people that believe they cannot support the troops if they do not believe in the politics. I am here to say that these are mutually exclusive. You can absolutely abhor the reason a soldier is sent on a mission - and yet still support the soldier for doing the job given to him/her. Take your opinion where it should be heard - to the soldier's ultimate masters - the politicians. If you change their minds then they will change the soldier's mission (and s/he will then tackle the new mission). Soldiers are required to obey orders - whether they agree with them or not. The rest of us have a duty to ensure they are given the correct orders.

One last note: occassionaly soldiers go beyond the morally (and legally) acceptable. It has happened in the past (most recently Canadians will remember what happened in Somalia) and will undoubtedly happen in the future. Blind support of the troops is nearly as bad as not supporting them when they are just carrying out their (lawful) orders. Thankfully these situations are not the norm. It is incumbent on the rest of our society to watch for these situations, and occassionally to censure those who go too far.

Cool optical illusion

How many colours do you see? There is orange, magenta, and green. NO BLUE! It is hard to believe but the blue stripe and the green strip are actually the same colour! (And sometimes I see two different magenta/purple/pink colours too - one of which is actually the orange.)

(On my LCD screen it looks pretty freaky if I scroll it quickly.)

Full details available here.

Opposing points of view

A couple of geeks (one that actually codes) with very different points of view:

Chris Pirillo

"When you believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do."

Jeff Atwood

talent is far less important than enthusiasm (Jeff's blog post on the subject)

So which is correct?
I suspect some of both. I've certainly seen the enthusiasm approach succeed in all kinds of areas - many of which have nothing to do with computers (the RMC recruit obstacle course comes to mind). On the other hand, I've also seen enthusiasm run into roadblocks that only new skills can overcome. Notice I did not say improved skills? That's because I've seen enthusiasm produce improvements. I've seen tasks (now I'm thinking of in the classroom) tackled where the participants definitely did not have the level of skills needed when they started. Enthusiasm gives them the courage to jump in and improve the skills they have - to the point where they succeed. They do not lose these skills after and can continue to use them for new challenges as they arrive. They do need some base level though (I don't think Jeff was really advocating that no skill can be overcome

In fact I think that is part of teaching - engendering the enthusiasm so that the students can learn on their own ...

Story of Stuff

This video (click picture for video) is a little over the top (for example implying that every use of flame retardants is evil) - but includes some real important points too. The big point is that we (it's American, but I'm including all of the "western world") consume too much instead of simply using items longer. Currently we cannot survive economically without growth. Many items are manufactured to fail (planned obsolescence) while many others are designed for us to simply "think" that something needs replacing (perceived obsolescence). Fact (I didn't check up on it): 99% of materials trashed within 6 months!

It's long been my opinion that the Western World's premise for economy cannot continue. Here in Canada we like to trumpet some of our social programs (IMO deservedly). However, most of those programs (like social security/old age pensions) cannot continue to be funded at current rates without continuous population growth. In fact, the Canadian birth rate isn't high enough to ensure this so we require immigration to support this. I am in no way against immigration, but I am saddened that this would be a reason for it. Many other things in our society also require the continuous growth. Watch the business news (occasionally - it's too boring to watch every day :-) and you will see stories of companies that are perceived to be worth less, simply because they failed "grow." They may have made excellent profits while offering useful products but since they only sold the same number as last year (last quarter, last month, last whatever) they aren't considered any good anymore. This is a clear example of how we force products into obsolescence. Obviously these companies MUST create a throw away product, just so investors want to own them.

The requirement for growth is much more widespread than many realize. My own employer is currently in a deficit position. The solution to that deficit is growth. With more customers, profit margins will increase and we can balance our budget. While I am aiming criticism here, it isn't at my employer per se. It doesn't have much choice in the current funding climate. It too is being forced into this situation by the overall strategies of government and economy.

How do we change this. Sadly I feel like most attempts are typical "tilting at windmills" examples of futility. Certainly supporting sustainable development is part of this. Simple things like recycling and re-use are very important but currently it is cheaper to throw away and get new stuff. Somehow it needs to become more expensive to replace with new. That statement smacks of government intervention which is something I dislike. An example that seems to work is the deposit on beer bottles (Ontario has a 95%-99% rate of return on beer bottles). I don't think that is extendable to every product we use though (what would the deposit on a car or house be?). My sadness comes from the thought that we will need some sort of crash (resource crash) to turn things around. Have you ever read "The Sheep Look Up"? A very scary book. Recently we have seen a large increase in interest in renewable energies and efficient vehicles. How come? In a large part because oil got expensive. Not because of some altruistic reasoning by the population. :-(

(Link to The Sheep Look Up search)

Physics Game

I like physics. I like games. 'Nuff said.

Online Physics Games

What is Unite for?

You've either already heard about Unite, or you will soon. This is a new product from Opera - the company that makes a supposedly really good browser, that I've never bothered to try. "Aye, there's the rub." A lot of people are used to seeing Opera in that context - just another web browser that they don't feel compelled to even try. That might be the first nail in the coffin for their new product Unite.

So what is Unite? Well basically it is a point and click web server for home use. Without going into technical details it allows you to easily put your own website on the Internet, without putting your content under someone else's control. It has drag and drop widgets for file sharing, a media site (think Internet radio with your music), photo-sharing (like flickr), a chat server, a message wall, and some others. If people like/use it I would expect many other widgets to come soon - the glaringly obvious one being video sharing (like YouTUBE).

Perhaps the biggest difference though is that since the content is on your own computer you do not have to agree to the terms of service of another site, nor give up your ownership of your files (that caused a huge backlash on FaceBook) and you can remove data when you want to. You also have control over who sees (or doesn't see) your content (if you care about this then do it carefully though).

Caveat: this is your own computer doing the serving, over your own Internet connection. If your connection isn't fast enough (upload speed, not download speed) then people won't be able to get your content fast enough. You may have limits on your total upload amounts, on top of speed issues.

So what could/will people use Unite for?

• replacing social networking software. Instead of hosting your status and your pictures (and other stuff) on FaceBook or MySpace or [insert huge list of social networking sites] host it where it already is - on your own computer. If you put up links to other people using Unite that are your friends you now have the "networking" part. P2P (peer-to-peer) social networking!
  
• replacing sharing services like flickr and YouTUBE - impose your own limits, no "pro" account required. No need to spend time uploading pictures/videos - it is already where you want to share it from
• having a personal radio station that only plays music you like (own)
• keeping in touch with people (like the social networking sites already listed)

Will people use it? I have no idea. It has a lot of potential, but like I said at the beginning many people are going to think of anything with the word Opera as just another web browser (or maybe a fat lady singing Wagner). The fact that you have to install Opera on the computer that is running Unite probably works against it. Note: people accessing the site can use any web browser.

Can people use it? On the technical side that will depend on their ISP (most will allow some use). On the useability side it doesn't look like most people will have much trouble getting it to work, although setting access/security might be a little more effort for some people.

What's missing? There should be a video sharing widget, and a friends widget. I'm also suprised there is no blog widget.

What do you think it might get used for? What do you think is missing? Have you actually tried it yet?

Another UI update

How about just using your cell phone to write notes in the air. Demo does not show this being used to interact with a computer - but why not. Especially if the phone and the computer are both Bluetooth.

Webpage for above video: http://synrg.ee.duke.edu/media.htm

Customized blogger template

I've always disliked the width of the templates that Blogger (blogspot) provides. I knew I could fix it, but I also knew it would take a while to find all the sizes that needed changing, as well as to resize the images used. Before I tackled the job I decided to do a quick search and of course someone had already done it. Here is a courtesy link to the site: The Blogger Guide.

UI update

Just a quick update to an older post concerning UI in the future. At that time I said Nintendo (Wii) and Apple "get it" and to expect similar UIs to emerge. I also said that I expect deviceless UIs, meaning physical gestures, touch control, etc., to get big (I know there is actually a device involved, but not an obvious to the user one).

Here are three new devices/systems:
Wii like motion controllers from

• Microsoft, and
  
• Sony

and a TV that has no remote - it reads your hand gestures.

Last, a device like a huge iPod touch (but it isn't focused on music/video) - the CrunchPad.

FireFox Overtakes IE

How come I didn't hear about this until today? (Click on the graph above to see it clearer.) Perhaps it just went past my radar when I wasn't watching. As a (semi) oldtimer I remember the huge news it was when IE overtook Netscape (see - I told you I was old). Originally Netscape owned the browser market, and not just by a small margin, but by huge margins. Then MS, who up till then seemed to have missed the fact that the Internet was going to be important, released IE. The original Windows 95 did not include the browser, but later OEM versions did. Since then it has always been bundled with Windows, although some court cases that MS lost required them to change how integrated it was. In it's heyday it apparently held 95% of the market share, mostly because until more recently, the collapse of Netscape left no viable contenders (as with several other products AOL managed to kill off a successful product by mismanaging it - IMHO).

A few years ago FireFox appeared on the scene (ironically rising from the ashes of the Netscape code). Besides FireFox, Apple has been promoting its browser Safari (and of course that is the default browser in Mac OS). A few other browsers appear as viable alternatives, especially Opera and Google's Chrome. Despite this however IE has held dominant. FireFox for example was released (final not beta) in 2004 - and five years is a long time on the Interwebs. However IE has been slowly losing ground. At one point though it seemed as the competitors were poaching from each other and not affecting IE.

Now, in 2009 we see that IE has finally been toppled from the king of the pile. Although me not hearing about this before now (May) really surprises me. FireFox is definitely my favourite browser, but I truly support multiple browsers in that I want them all to be successful enough to survive. I do not like monopolies of any sort. It may be hard to see in this chart because of the scale, it is interesting to see that the three "other" competitors listed above all have positive trends (this is more obvious if a logarithmic scale is used - see the closeup below). Despite the fact that I have no love for MS I hope that we can see a levelling off where multiple browsers trade the king of the hill position but essentially remain equal. This might actually lead the developers to make them all render pages the same (a holy grail for web developers).

For the record - my bet is that Chrome will be the next to the top (although it could take a couple of years).
Links:

• Wikipedia on Internet Explorer
  
• Wikipedia on FireFox
  
• Wikipedia on Opera
• Wikipedia on Safari
• Wikipedia on Chrome

I heard about this through Twitter via @kmesiab
Chart data from W3Schools.

Logarithmic scale applied to make the trending more obvious for the "other" browsers.

Let your mind coast

You can still get somewhere coasting.

I've long been an advocate for letting the subconscious do some of the heavy lifting when trying to solve problems. Many times my mind has solved problems for me - when I wasn't thinking about the problem. In extreme cases I have even woken from sleep knowing the solution to a problem (in the most bizarre example I dreamed I was a piece of data that had to navigate an algorithm). In any case - my advice has been to work on a problem until you seem to have hit a dead-end or impassable obstacle. At that point you should do something else - preferably something else that does not require heavy thinking (but at least make sure it is something else).

Recent research shows that this idea works. This new study (see links below) specifically examined when your brain is involved in a fairly repetitive or automatic function. In the study participants were given a fairly easy, repetitive task that the researchers knew led to mind wandering. The participants brains were scanned and the researchers discovered that the part of their brain that works on problem solving was quite active while they were involved in the given task. This is interpreted as meaning that while they were involved in the given easy task, they put their brain in neutral. And, the brain noticing that it had some free time decided that it would work on some of the harder problems it had been storing up (no indication of what exactly these problems were, but we always have something going in our lives on that needs to be fixed or organized).

Here is a link to a GizMag description of the study, and even better, a link to an interview given by one of the researchers (Dr. Kalina Christoff) on CBC's Quirks and Quarks science show (radio show, so audio only).

Change - Get used to it

"The only constant is change ..."(Isaac Asimov). Or so the saying goes. It's a fact that people often (usually ?) resist change. I suspect that all people resist change some of the time, but certainly how much, and what, people resist depends on the person. The problem is that it isn't useful to resist all change, and also not productive. Even tougher, the resistance is often a reflex - not something thought over. I know that I have caught myself doing this, and it is glaringly obvious in one of my sons.

I want to suggest that people should train themselves to live with change. By purposely making changes that we have control over - just because we can - we may gain an edge dealing with change that we have no control over. I guarantee that you will experience change you have no control over.

"Take a walk on the wild side." (Lou Reed)

Separate change from risk. Although change and risk are intertwined, they are not the same thing. Risks should be analyzed separately from the change that produces it (be careful also to realize that not changing can also create risk). What I am advocating is making change for change's sake, but only for low risk changes. High risk changes need to be analyzed a lot more closely. Here is a personal example. Last June I decided I would shave my head, and then let my hair grow for a full year. Having a shaved head was a change, as is now having long hair. The risk is minimal. Neither situation was likely to cause me problems (or advantages for that matter). I just wanted to try it. Although this post isn't about changing your hairstyle, you probably know people that haven't changed their hairstyle in decades because they are afraid to.

So my challenge to everyone is to practice change. Find something in your life that has very little risk and make a change. It's ok if you find you don't like the change - change back. You won't know though unless you try. Although the possible changes you might make are limitless here are a few ideas to get you thinking (you should leave other ideas in the comments section).

• Do you usually go to the same restaurant (or the same kind of restaurant) when you go out for dinner. Then try something new - really new, like an ethnic food you've never tried. If you want to lower the risk go with someone that has been before.
• Instead of going to a movie, try the theatre (or if you usually go to the theatre, try the movies)
• Try a new sport (I'm not talking about as a spectator). Many organizations will allow you to try before making any committments
• Take a course in something interesting (but not necessarily useful to you). Photography, food, human sexuality, foreign language, religion, creative writing, whatever
• Listen to some type of music you've never really listened to before (listen long enough to give it a real chance). This is one area where I used to resist change. I would never have admitted to enjoying "rap crap" 10 years ago. Now I'll give anything a listen - that doesn't mean I'll like it
• Visit somewhere new (of course finances can interfere here)
• Try some different (not necessarily new - just new to you) fashions. I'm not suggesting throwing out an entire wardrobe and replacing it
• If you don't read - try reading. If you read, try reading something different than you usually would

Hopefully in the end this sort of practice will help you to accept other changes. Perhaps it will be easier to truthfully analyze changes for benefits/problems instead of simply rejecting them because they are a change.

(I'll post a couple of pictures of me with shaved head and long hair later.)
Before
Bald

And still to come - hairy.

Climate change is real

Just a really short post on climate change. It is happening. That doesn't mean where you live will be warmer, or colder, or drier, or wetter. It simply means that the overall global climate is changing. The second point is that humans are contributing. Would there be climate change anyway - of course there would (ever hear of an ice age?). Would it be the same or happen at the same rate? No.

I can't believe the number of people still digging up "facts" from really obscure scientists or who think they are experts because they read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" (for the record - he didn't believe) and trying to show that humans aren't affecting it, or that it isn't happening. Yeah - and the world is flat!

Here are two articles - the arctic ice cover may disappear quicker than expected (notice that it isn't in doubt that it will disappear) and some stats on just how many ignorant (in this field) people there are out there. I like the quote "... no longer sure whether to be more concerned about global warming or global ignorance."

Finger Revision

A few people in the real world have commented on my new "big bandage" on my finger. I finally got an appointment with a surgeon to see my finger. Up to that point my family doctor had been telling me that we were just trying to let it heal while we waited for this appointment and that the surgeon would decide what needed to be done.

Well she decided that it needed to be "revised." Definitions: revision - changed edition, or new version. The revision was basically to fashion me an entirely new end for my finger. This involved removing what I figure is the rest of the fingertip bone (still just a small part of my finger) back to the first knuckle. Then the hollowed out finger (see the Dr Seuss drawing on this page) was folded and snipped and sewed to make a new end. I don't have any pictures yet but I will take some at the first dressing change (next Tuesday because of the holiday) and I think it will be obvious how much better the finger looks (the new pictures will be posted with the old - see the link in the original post). I will not have a fingernail. In fact, if any part of the nail should grow in I am supposed to go back for another revision. I haven't had a chance to compare yet, but I think it is now shorter than the index or ring fingers.

For me this basically means my finger is back to being freshly amputated - so it hurts just as much as the first time. Actually, for some reason it bothered me more this time than it did the first. The pain level has gone down quite a bit already though - perhaps due to the pain-killers - but since I have already started skipping pills I think just naturally.

Paid The Big Bucks

$$ People are upset about the huge bonuses that have been handed out to CEOs, presidents, and other high level employees of companies. Some of those companies aren't exactly doing well, and some of those bonuses have been paid with "bail-out" money. Many people's anger is misplaced. They shouldn't be upset that the bonus was paid - that's a matter of contract law. Perhaps the bonus was tied to the employees annual evaluation, or some other measurement such as customer satisfaction surveys. If a certain goal is met then they will be paid a certain amount. These people were hired under a contract that included those bonuses - therefore they should get paid those bonuses, even if the company is now failing (many employees at these failing companies were still individually performing well).

However, people should still be upset. They should be upset that the contract was signed in the first place (not that it was paid). The problem is that these types of bonuses should also be tied to the company's performance. At the very least to the performance of a certain well defined area of the company. So it might read that a person's bonus depends on how well they score on her/his annual review AND on the financial performance of the company. This is especially important for the high level management and executives.

At this level the employee should be taking personal responsibility for the organization's performance as well as the performance of all subordinates. If the organization isn't doing well it is the executive's fault. Using the auto manufacturing sector as an example it is clear that not all companies are suffering equally. And yet the CEO of one particular organization (the one that used to be #1) insists that the problems are not their own organization's. Instead he blames entirely different sectors (banking for one) for his corporation's problems. Then he has the temerity to say his company just needs some money to get through this period. It doesn't need to "fix anything" just survive another year or so and all the problems will go away. He clearly is not accepting any of these problems as his own - no wonder Obama told him to resign if he wants his company to get anymore money (he is now known as the ex-ceo of GM).

The excuse by these companies for the salaries and bonuses offered is often "we have to pay the big bucks to attract the best talent." I say that's a crock. It is similar to high level sports where the difference between the best is measured in hundredths of a percent. Just like high level sport, having the absolutely best person does not guarantee that the team will do well. Having a well organized and motivated team that are individually "pretty good" will always beat a poorly organized, under-motivated, team that happens to have a superstar.

Most of us aren't paid "the big bucks" but if offered them we would probably take them. Don't blame these people for accepting the money that they were promised when they signed their contract. Blame the organizations that are stupid enough to have such contracts.

Ouch

Longer version of what happened to my fingers, with link to gory photos (don't worry, the pictures are at a different address and require a second click).

My niece, my son, and I went for a 4-wheeler ride. My son and I on one bike, my niece on the other. All went well until my son and I got stuck in the snow on the way home. Sine the bike my niece was on wasn't stuck (yet) and since it had a winch I decided to try and use it to pull the other bike out. I got off and walked back. I grabbed hold of the hook with my left hand and reached to disengage the winch drive with my right hand so the cable would run freely and I could pull the hook out and attach it to the other bike. In the mean time my son ran over and hit the "IN" switch on the winch. The winch quickly pulled the hook and my hand inside the casing. Luckily I was quick to yell to have him stop. Since I couldn't see my hand I don't know if it wound my hand under a cable, or if it squished my hand against the casing, but the end of my middle finger was cut badly enough that the piece had to amputated, and the end of the index finger had the bone crushed. Then I had my son reverse the winch so it would spit out my hand.

It was not bleeding that badly, even though it obviously needed medical attention, so we spent a few minutes trying to get the bike unstuck. But without the use of my hand, all we managed to do was get the second bike stuck as well. Not being able to lift or pull, quickly led me to realize it was a lost cause, so we walked to the closest house - about 0.5km. This house belongs to my wife's cousin Tracy, and luckily she was home. She called my wife to come get us and let me borrow her camera to take the gory photos linked at the bottom (she wasn't too keen on taking them herself). Thanks Tracy. Her husband Ron later went and got the bikes unstuck for me - thanks Ron.

Although the finger with the end missing looks the worst I have been told that potentially the other could be more of a problem. It is possible that the tendon has been detached. If that turns out to be the case then it will need surgery to re-attach it. For now I'm told we will be letting it heal some before any other "modifications" are made. For the shortened finger the doctor thinks I will even regrow the fingernail, and it's only a little shorter than it was (it's still longer than the index finger).

I purposely didn't put the gross out pictures here so that only those who really wish to see them, will see them. A few of these are pretty graphic, and not recommended for anyone with a weak stomach. On the other hand, if this kind of thing does not bother you, go ahead and click through.

Pictures here. see edit2 below

From MangledFingers

Peace. :-)

Edit: just a short note that although my son was bothered a lot by what happened, he seems to be getting over it. We both had a lesson to learn here. Nothing would have happened if I had not grabbed the hook (there is even a cloth strap to use that is safer) and a) he shouldn't have touched the switch at all; b) he could have paid attention to which direction is out, and which is in; c) he could have checked to see if all was clear before operating the switch. We can all be more careful in most things we do.
Edit 2:  new link to the album

Here's the new pup

Jevin named him Spike. I would have picked a different name - but that's ok. Kathy at "All Hearts" calls his breed NSD (Northern Street Dog). Whatever - he's cute. My guess is maybe a little german shepherd with some husky and collie? House training proceeds.