The Boston Diaries

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

It was a cheap joke 31 years ago …

As Bunny and I were watching “Airplane II: The Sequel,” I remarked that I couldn't figure out if I was dismayed or thrilled at just how topical the jokes were in a 31 year old film. Was it the Middle Eastern terrorists wandering around the airport, the “naked full-body scanners” or the priest reading “Altar Boy” magazine (all within the first twenty minutes)?

I just don't know …

RIP Stupid Twitter Trick

One month shy of six years.

That's how long my Stupid Twitter Trick™ has been running.

Then, my Stupid Twitter Trick™ received the following from Twitter:

HTTP/1.0 410 Gone
content-length: 167
content-type: application/json; charset=utf-8
date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 06:57:00 UTC
server: tfe
set-cookie: guest_id=v1%3A137102022081399817; Domain=.twitter.com; Path=/; Expires=Fri, 12-Jun-2015 06:57:00 UTC
strict-transport-security: max-age=631138519

{"errors": [{"message": "The Twitter REST API v1 will soon stop functioning. Please migrate to API v1.1. https://dev.twitter.com/docs/api/1.1/overview.", "code": 68}]}

Sigh.

It isn't like this is the first time Twitter broke things and I was all set to fix it when I suddenly realized—six years! I've been pushing the same quotes file for six years! I've repeated all the quotes π times (no, seriously—7,743 tweets, 2,464 quotes, means each quote was repeated π times).

So, I've decided to put Silicon Wisdom on hiatus, until I figure out what stupid Twitter thing I want to do next.

Thursday, May 30, 2013

The Escherian Stairwell at RIT

Are you prepared to have your mind blown? Ready? Okay, check out the Escherian Stairwell. And while you are puzzling over that, remember the words of Sherlock Holmes: “that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth” (links via GoogleMyFacePlusSpaceBook).

Sunday, May 26, 2013

“Star Trek Into Darkness”

Bunny and I went to see the latest Star Trek movie, “Star Trek Into Darkness,” the latest film in the rebooted Star Trek universe. And overall, we both enjoyed the film. While not a perfect film (unlike the expertly plotted “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan”) it is a fun film.

Visually the film was stunning with the alien worlds looking, well, alien, instead of a sound stage filled with foam rocks or the California desert and the use of CGI not completely obvious (due to either a lot of time and effort into the effects, or the frenetic pace of editing, a complaint I had about the previous film). Also, to my relief, less lens flares in this film.

But that's not to say this film was flawless—far from it. The first major problem I had with the film was the tribble. Yes, it wasn't gratuitous—it did serve the plot of the film—but … tribbles? In the original series, they were creatures that multiplied faster than rabbits and infested the entire ship. Here … well, to me, it just seemed like the wrong choice for that particular plot point (yes, this is a spoiler-free review).

Also, this film could have used more Dr. McCoy. Karl Urban is wonderful as Dr. McCoy and it's a shame he doesn't get as much screen time as Captain Kirk or Mr. Spock (on the plus side, they toned down the physical comedy of Scotty and made his alien sidekick tolerable).

Another major complaint—they made too many references to previous Star Trek material, as if the studio just doesn't trust the audience to enjoy the film without using certain Star Trekkian tropes. Besides the obvious tribble, you have McCoy parodying himself when he goes “Damn it man, I'm a doctor, not a XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX!”; violating the Prime Directive (in the opening action sequence); explicitly referencing red shirts and the worst moment in the film that I won't mention (because it totally spoils the film) but you will certainly know it when you see it (and man, you see it coming a parsec away).

But to the film makers' credit, the ending isn't quite the deus ex machina it could have been—it was foreshadowed, so props for that.

Overall, I can recommend it. Just don't think too hard about it (why is the Enterprise underwater? Okay, it's because the plot needs for it to be underwater, but it still wasn't explained in universe) and enjoy it for what it is, a science fiction action movie set in the Star Trek Universe.

Monday, May 06, 2013

The only people that get rich with “get-rich-quick” schemes are those that are selling the “get-rich-quick” scheme.

From

XXXXXXXXXXXX <XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX>

To

sean@conman.org

Subject

Chuck Stebbins

Date

Mon, 6 May 2013 12:57:39 -0400

Sean,

Read your "Tampogo" article while researching Chuck Stebbins. Chuck is now with a company called XXXXXX XXXXX. Actually the name of the company is changing to XXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is the website.
I've invested some money with this company and awaiting the next step. If you have any insight or interest in Chuck's new business, please let me know.

He's writing in reference to one of four entries about Tampogo. I haven't really given it much thought since I wrote the articles four years ago, and it's interesting to note that the company no longer appears to be around (fancy that).

I can't find any connection between Chuck Stebbins and this “new” company, which is selling an opportunity to sell some diet-aid product. It's not coming across completely as a “multi-level marketing” scam, but some of the numbers the introductory video is showing are misleading.

Okay, the thrust appears to be you “invest” $5,000, and in return you get 10 tablet computers (wouldn't surprise me if they wholesale around $60/piece) for an “in-store interactive display”, 100 units of the diet product, and some guides about ~~shilling~~ selling the product. You place the “in-store interactive displays” in stores (nail salons, doctor offices, car washes(?!)) and split the profits 50/50 with the store.

Okay, sounds straightforward to me. But here are some numbers the introductory video is currently showing (not the full table, but enough to show what's going on with the numbers):

Small POP Reinvestment Model, $5,000 Investment, 50/50 with retail partner
		Month 1	Month 2	Month 3
Reinvestment	12%		900	1,238
POP Units		10	14	19
Sales		15,000	20,625	28,359
Cost of POPs	240	2,400	900	1,238
Gross Income		7,500	10,313	14,180
Network Fee	50	500	688	945
Retail Partner		2,300	4,363	5,998
Your Gross		2,300	4,363	5,998
Labor	Route Help	0	0	1,500
Your Net		2,300	4,363	4,498

Now, the “product” is $50 (okay, $49.95). Month 1 assumes the “starting package,” that you place them all out on day 1, and 30 (or 28, 29, or 31) days later. The numbers are largely consistent, although it helps to look at things slightly differently:

Month 1 revenue on 300 units sold (10 per POP)
Gross Income	15,000
Inventory	-7,500
Network Fee	-500
Cost of POPs	-2,400
Retail Partner	-2,300
Net Income	2,300

That makes it easier to see what is going where.

One issue already—the “starter pack” only comes with 100 units; that's still 200 units short of this projection, and so you need to spend (from what I can determine using these numbers) another … um … $5,000 just to top of the inventory (ouch) [this company also claims that the “starter pack” is worth $11,495, but given the figures from this, it's actually worth around $7,500 unless they really expect the POP units to retail at around $500 a piece—in any case, just looking at the numbers presented in their introductory video just … yeah … not good].

But the real issue I have is with that 12% reinvestment. $900 is not 12% of $2,300 (it's more like 40%!). No, that 12% is based off the gross income minus the inventory (or $7,500). That's before all other expenses! Okay, let's roll that in:

Revised Month 1 revenue on 300 units sold (10 per POP)
Gross Income	15,000
Inventory	-7,500
Network Fee	-500
Cost of POPs	-2,400
Retail Partner	-2,300
“Reinvestment”	-900
Net Income	1,400

Ouch. Okay, now let's look at month 2:

Month 2 revenue on
Gross Income	20,625
Inventory	-10,312
Network Fee	-688
Cost of POPs	-960
Retail Partner	-4,333
“Reinvestment”	-1,238
Net Income	3,095

And already the numbers are in trouble. Not only is that 12% “reinvestment” pre-net, but it's not even enough to support the additional POPs—it's actually $60 short! Also, the sales figure is bogus because I can't make it come out to whole number of units and the number. In fact, the numbers for months two and three are close but not quite right (averaging a bit under 30 units per POP per month).

And that 12% reinvestment figure is criminal, given how they've defined it, and the cost of the POPs across the months is inconsistent (some months what is listed is actually less that what it would really be; other months it's a bit more).

But the biggest problem I see is the end-game. At the end of year 2, they “show” you earning over $1,000,000 a year. But in order to get that, you need to have 332 POPs. That's quite a feat, but maybe doable. But when you start having two, three, ten, people all doing the same thing in the same area?

Um … good luck?

Really, all I'm doing here is applying basic math to the figures given. That, and some common sense (which does seem to be in short supply these days) and personally—this is a business I would give a pass on.

Thursday, May 02, 2013

A fit place for an Englifh Factory, along the Hogohegee R., the Head whereof very little known

Via Flutterby is this wonderful site of historical maps. I was checking out A Map of the British Empire in America with the French and Spanish Settlements adjacent thereto (1746) when I came across a Ft. Barnwell in North Carolina, built in 1712.

Ft. Barnwell was named for one John “Tuscarora Jack” Barnwell who fought the Tuscarora in that area in 1711-12. And John “Tuscarora Jack” Barnwell is an ancestor of mine (on my mom's side of the family—she was a Barnwell). How cool is that?

Sunday, April 21, 2013

Final thoughts on Chalet Suzanne

Aaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnd we're back!

Final thoughts on our stay at Chalet Suzanne—I don't regret staying there. Aside from the non-Euclidean geometry of the buildings and the (in my opinion) odd color schemes, the place was clean, the bed was quite comfortable, and the staff were extemely friendly. The food, overall, was good.

Was it worth the price? I, personally, felt it was more expensive than it should be (and yes, if you expect to stay and eat there, have a fat wallet on hand), but that's me.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Notes from an overheard dinner conversation at a 4-star restaurant

“Look, there's an aligator in the lake.”

“I don't see it.”

“Over there.”

“Hmm … looks like a log to me.”

“I've never seen a log move like that before.”

“The wind is making it bob like that.”

“I'll bet you that's an alligator.”

“How about loser pays for dinner.”

“Oh is that another 'gator in the lake again? I swear we had one removed just last week.”

“Ha!”

“I was paying for dinner anyway.”

“I wonder what they eat?”

“The turtles.”

“But it can't eat through the shell.”

“Alligators pretty much swallow their food whole.”

“But what happens to the shell?”

“I guess it comes painfully out the other end. Oh,sorry. Waitress, could we get an extra napkin?”

So, how good is the Chalet Suzanne Dining Room Lounge?

Bunny and I arrived at 5:00 pm for our five course dinner. We really didn't have far to go, just outside our room, down some stairs and around the building.

First up, the appetizer. I'm not fond of grapefruit, and a am thoroughly not a fan of chicken livers, so I opted for the Maryland Crab Cakes; Bunny kept with tradition for this course and had the Caramelized Grapefruit and Organic Chicken Liver. The crab cakes were very good, but not quite as excellent as the crab cakes at Cap's Place (which I'm surprised I haven't written about, seeing how getting there involves a boat ride). Bunny loved the Caramelized Grapefruit and Organic Chicken Liver.

Next course, soup, and both of us had the traditional Romaine Soup, which doesn't have any romaine in it (and hasn't had romaine in it since 1957, when the recipe changed so it could be canned and sold). It does however, have spinach and mushrooms. Bunny loved the soup. I didn't care for it. I found it to be a bit heavy in pepper, with a subtle other flavor that I couldn't quite place, but I didn't like. It wasn't repulsive and I could eat it, but for me, the soup that went to the moon could have stayed there with Apollo 15.

Next course, salad, and here, I kept with tradition with the unique Chalet Cæsar Salad, while Bunny bucked tradition and went with Baby Blend Salad. Bunny loved the salad, whereas I … well …

Okay. I have to explain something about my food dislikes. Generally speaking I have a thing about sweet dishes, and I tend to dislike the mixing of savory and sweet. I will admit to not being at all consistent about this (I love bacon and syrup for instance) and I have a larger problem with sweet dishes than I do savory. For instance, don't bother serving me rice pudding as that triggers my gag reflex. I just can't eat rice pudding. But risotto? I love risotto. The thing is, there's no difference in texture (another thing I have—I find some food textures revolting) as both are soupy, but rice pudding is sweet and risotto is savory. Same deal with bread pudding. Instant gag reflex, yet I love the bread in French Onion soup (and Bunny loves pointing out that French Toast is a type of bread pudding, but not in my universe). Again, it's a sweet/savory thing.

Cream cheese—I hate the flavor of it. And the idea of cheese anything in dessert is another thing I find repulsive. Don't get me wrong, I generally like cheese (except for cream cheese), and because I associate “cheese” with “savory,” I don't care for it in desserts.

And finally we get to gelatin. Me, I associate gelatin with dessert. You know, Jell-o. The idea of a sweet dessert-type item in a savory dish I find revolting. And that means aspics. Which reminds me of horrible things from the 70s and …

Yeah.

So the Cæsar Salad sitting before me. The unique Chalet Cæsar Salad. The artichoke in the middle of the salad is unexpected, but okay, I can deal with that. What I couldn't deal with were the two bits of slime on either side of the dish—orange aspic and tomato aspic.

IN A XXXXXXX SAVORY DISH!

Okay, yes, the non-contaminated portions of the Cæsar Salad were very good; perhaps some of the best Cæsar Salad I've had. But I could not wrap my head around the slimy bits of aspic in the dish. For me, they marred an otherwise excellent salad.

Yes, I'm still emotionally scared over the incident.

Anyway, onto the next course, easily the most problematic portion of our dinner—the entrée.

We both ordered the Grilled Buffalo Ribeye, medium for Bunny, medium rare for me. And not being a fan of winter vegetables, I was able to substitute mushrooms for the zucchini.

The entrées arrived. Mashed sweet potatoes. See above about sweet and savory. My buffalo ribeye was cooked fine, but Bunny's was still a bit too raw for her liking. So they took both dishes back. I to get regular mashed potatoes, and Bunny to have her buffalo ribeye placed on the grill for another couple of minutes. The dishes came back and we started to eat.

“Is your steak tough?” asked Bunny. “Because mine is very tough.”

“It's buffalo,” I said. “It's a game animal.”

“Buffalo?”

“Yes,” I said. “Buffalo.”

“This isn't beef?”

“Nope. Buffalo.”

“I thought ‘buffalo’ meant a type of cut!”

“Oh.”

Suffice to say, Bunny did not enjoy the Buffalo Ribeye.

I, on the other hand, found it to be very good.

The mashed potatoes weren't that great (Bunny tried them, liked them, but realized they had cheese. I'm not a fan of cheese in mashed potatoes, prefering a more pure approach of a dash of milk and a bit heavy on the butter).

And the mushrooms … well, let's just say I found the taste I didn't enjoy in the non-romaine Romaine Soup.

Finally, dessert. Bunny had the Crème Brûlée and I the Orange Aspic Pound Cake.

Hey, just because I found the orange aspic on my Cæsar Salad doesn't mean I don't like orange gelatin. It just has to be in the right context—in this case, dessert (yes, I'm weird that way).

And the desserts where very good. But at this point we really couldn't finish them, as we were both stuffed at the end of a five course meal, and passed out in a food coma as soon as we waddled back to our room.

Overall, the food was good; the only major failings were our own expectations on the food (mushrooms and aspic for me; buffalo for Bunny). Was it worth the price we paid? Even had we enjoyed the full meal, I still feel it was too expensive.

Isengard, a spooky place, and a gang of turtles

The weather permitted.

We saw Isengard!

[Isengard! It seems the Uruk-hai have yet to show up]

Okay, it's really Bok Tower, a rather large and imposing musical instrument which is acoustically engineered such that the sound only carries to the immediate vicinity around the tower itself.

We learned that there is an elevator inside, so the carillonneurs don't have to climb twenty flights of stairs to get to the keyboard.

We also learned that there are very few pictures from inside Bok Tower, and the few that do exist (of the first floor) are mostly in black-and-white.

After leaving Isengard, we then found ourselves at a nearby attraction, Spook Hill.

The illusion is pretty good. Stop the car at the white line, place it in neutral and let off the break, and yes, you do start rolling backwards. The perspective makes it appear as if you are moving up the hill, but that's all it is—an illusion. A darned clever one, but only an illusion.

Once back at Chalet Suzanne, Bunny asked if I could take pictures of the turtles in the lake. I cheerfully obliged and started taking pictures of the happily swiming turtles, but then, things turned ugly—they started bum rushing me!

Well, it wan't much of a bum rush—they are turtles after all, and I could easily outpace them back to the safely of the room. But they did rush towards me, sticking their little heads up at me, daring me to defy them and their territory.

Well … something like that.

By then, it was time to dress for dinner anyway …

A good sign

Bunny and I hit the Chalet Suzanne Dining Room Lounge for breakfast.

[Okay, I can see this being a 4-star restaurant]

The Dining Room Lounge is a multi-level facility. Really, each room is practically its own level, usually a few steps up or down as you work your way through the place. The decor reeks of a high-class restaurant and the staff is, as always, exremely nice. We're lead through several rooms (and levels) to our table, overlooking the lake (and incidentally, right below our room—yes, we didn't have that far to walk); jazz music barely audible in the background. Our waitress handed us the breakfast menu, a piece of slate just slightly smaller than an iPad with that day's selection.

Bunny and I both ordered the pancakes and bacon.

The plates came with three stacks of pancakes. The pancakes were roughly dollar coin sized, perhaps three, four inches across, and less “pancake” and more “crêpe”—very thin, nearly translucent. And excellent, some of the best pancakes I've had.

And the bacon? Well, it's bacon. Bacon is always good. If this is the level of food we can expect, then dinner should be well worth the trip.

Some clarifications about our trip and our room

Bunny is concerned that I've given the impression that she forced me on this trip to Chalet Suzanne, but that is far from the truth. While she did come up with the idea, she did ask me if I wanted to go and I said yes. No coersion involved.

There is one other thing I need to clarify—I said that the bedroom was six inches lower than the rest of the suite—and it is. It's just that there's two steps leading down into the bedroom—it isn't a sheer drop or anything bad like that.