Know More

Resume Workout

Jeremy — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:47:27 GMT

I started up the Couch to 5K program again yesterday after almost a year's hiatus. I stopped last year because we moved and I was working extremely hard with that for a month or so. Then after the move, I was doing lots of work around the yard. For a while, I was also walking our property which has some very steep hills.

But I haven't been exercising much at all for the last 6 months or so and am probably 30 pounds overweight. We got an eliptical exercise walk/bike machine, so I'm going to start my C25K efforts on that machine.

Probably the best part of doing some exercise is it makes you more aware of what you're eating. I'm less likely to eat that pastry or pie slice when I've been doing work to keep the calories off.

I've seen a couple links for the program, the one I'm using is here: www.fromcouchto5k.com/articles/training/the-couch-to-5k-training-plan/

The more official version (the one linked from the facebook page) is: www.coolrunning.com/engine/2/2_3/181.shtml?cmp=18-1, but that one is quite a bit more convoluted, and they both end up in the same place.

Utter bullcrap: "Obama admits not being born in Hawaii"

Jeremy — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 22:15:00 GMT

I received this email today. Please note that the video in question starts with a spot borrowed from a Youtube video channel called obamasnippets.com, which is some joker who likes to pull different clips together to make it look like Obama said things he didn't. This guy even commented the following on this birther video:

ObamaSnippetsDotCom is an Obama HUMOR channel. MY ORIGINAL VIDEO starts out with the definition of the word, "SPOOF!" But I clearly underestimated the level of stupidity and laziness of those who don't bother to watch MY ORIGINAL VIDEO, in which the humor context is OBVIOUS.

--- It was a JOKE, people. Just like my other videos:

"Obama on ACID!"

"Obama DRUNK!"

"Obama Drunk Speech FAIL!"

"Obama Loves to PARTY!"

"Obama QUITTING in 2012!"

ObamaSnippetsDotCom 5 hours ago

Personally I couldn't care less whether Obama was born in the U.S. or not. I think there's pretty strong evidence that he was, but there's bound to be some people who don't believe it. Schwarzenegger wasn't born in the U.S. -- what does it matter? It's an ancient part of the Constitution that needs to be amended anyway.

Of course, there's plenty of people who think he's Muslim as well. Again, not sure I care -- probably better a Muslim than an evangelical nutjob. One thing I think we can all agree on is that he's black. And truthfully, that's probably the reason so many people don't like him. That fact is shameful.

Here's the text of the email:

Subject: FW: Obama admits not being born in Hawaii

Can one doubt his own admission? Where is Sixty Minutes?

Who would believe Obama is actually on this video admitting he was not born in Hawaii but was born in Kenya and is not even a citizen. Obviously he made these statements because he did not know at that time that a president must be a "natural born" citizen. OOPS!

Subject: Obama admits not being born in Hawaii . (He made this statement before he learned that he had to be a natural born in this country to "citizens" of this country........................We may not be as crazy as the press would want us to be.)

Circulate this before they yank it from the internet.

Will some one tell me why this guy is not being impeached??

If you just watch the first 30 seconds your mouth will drop open.

Obama admits he is not a citizen

Hmmm...maybe the "birthers' are on to something...

THE AMAZING PART OF THIS TRAVESTY IS AMERICANS CONTINUE ALLOWING THEMSELVES TO BE RULED BY AN ILLEGAL ALIEN.

Watch it before it’s pulled!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded

C25K

Jeremy — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:49:00 GMT

For all those who were inspired by my workout progress, I just wanted to say that I have not stopped working out. I am currently on Day 10 of the Couch to 5K program. Today's workout calls for:

5 minute walk
7 minute run
5 minute walk

which is the same as Day 9 which I did on Tuesday.

I've managed to keep to a strict program of doing the workouts every other day, except for 2 occasions where I slipped one day.

I am working out at the Y every time. I have added the 30-40 minute cardio lifting circuit to each workout. I have had to forego lifting which targets my trapezius and anterior delts because I have a persistent pain in my neck/shoulder from tweaking it. On Tuesday, I started doing a low weight for that area to try to get back into it slowly, but it still hurt a bit afterward.

As far as food, I have not been real good about sticking to any kind of diet. I've been eating desserts and extra helpings, probably at about 2000 calories or more per day. This is fine for maintaining weight, but it's not going to lose any pounds. I have lost about 5 or 6 pounds since I started but need to be more careful about the calories in order to lose more.

Workout

Jeremy — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:44:00 GMT

I'm a day ahead of schedule now.

Yesterday on the treadmill I did:
5 minute walk
5 minute jog
5 minute walk

That's actually the Day 5 schedule, and yesterday was Day 4.

I also did a full workout on the nautilus machines.

Young Man

Jeremy — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:18:00 GMT

Yesterday it was too cold and rainy to run so I joined the local YMCA and did my exercise there.

Day 4 of the Couch to 5K program
5 minutes walk
4 minutes jog
5 minutes walk

but this time it was on a treadmill.

Then I followed it up with 45 minutes of cardio-lifting on the nautilus machines and some free weights. I have to do some research to remember all the dumbbell and free weight exercises I was doing when we had our own equipment in the garage. Those Nautilus machines just aren't the same.

I'm a little sore now but not too bad. I noticed a small difference in my triceps and biceps.

It's a nice little YMCA but EXPENSIVE. $87.00 a month for a family membership. Fortunately they waived the $99.00 one-time membership fee because they had a January special which I missed by one day, but they gave me a reprieve.

Solar Powered Hut?

Jeremy — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:52:00 GMT

I love this picture from mongabay.com. It's a hut in Western China with a solar panel!

It's included in an article stating that this year, China has become the world's largest manufacturer of solar panels and wind turbines.

Cell Phone Bans do little to Reduce Crashes

Jeremy — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:33:00 GMT

I suspected this to be the case. Having recently moved from California to Texas, I left a cell-phone ban state for a non-cell-phone ban state and can say from experience that I'd rather drive in a non-ban state.

I've always believed that cell-phone bans might actually increase accidents for the following reasons:

drivers still have to dial numbers and look up information; in ban states, they have to do so secretly, hiding the phone in their lap, looking away from the road; in non-ban states, you are free to hold the phone up at eye level and keep traffic in your peripheral vision,
in ban states, you can't tell if someone's talking on a cell phone; in general, drivers talking on the phone are paying less attention than those who aren't so I'd rather know who's talking on the phone and drive defensively around them, and
in ban states, drivers who don't have the proper bluetooth equipment often have to deal with poor speaker quality, so they end up holding the phone halfway up to their ear, or trying to conceal it; they also spend more time with their eyes on their rear-view mirror looking for police; all this sneaky activity makes them far more dangerous than if they could just hold the phone up to their ear.

If you are going to have a ban on cell phones, it needs to be complete: no talking on any cell phones, hands-free or not. Of course, that's tough to monitor, perhaps law enforcement could carry electronic cellular detectors (I'm sure they exist) to monitor for violators. And why stop at cell phones? My personal experience is that eating certain fast food while driving is far more dangerous than talking on the phone. Ever try to eat a salad or a messy taco while driving? It's an accident waiting to happen.

Source: Christian Science Monitor

Cell phone bans do little to reduce crashes, study finds

New data from the Highway Loss Data Institute finds that laws requiring hands-free devices for cell phones don't change accident rates.

By Andrew Heining / January 29, 2010

You're a safe driver, right? You signal before changing lanes, never (gasp) text-and-drive, and always use a cyborg-chic hands-free device to talk on the phone. A model mobile citizen.

Here's a shocker: That Bluetooth appendage in your ear isn't doing anything to make you safer. This comes from the Highway Loss Data Institute, which studies such things. More precisely, its study found that crash rates in places with bans in place – California, Connecticut, New York, and Washington D.C. – stayed the same when those bans were implemented.

"The laws aren’t reducing crashes, even though we know that such laws have reduced hand-held phone use, and several studies have established that phoning while driving increases crash risk," said Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and HLDI president Adrian Lund in a press briefing.

The National Safety Council earlier this month found that one in four US car crashes involves cell phone distraction. At the start of this year, Illinois joined the list of states that have banned texting behind the wheel, but with these new findings, are such laws enough? Digital distraction behind the wheel has been called a safety epidemic – should bans go all the way and ban all in-car cell phone use?

Some of the study's data confused the researchers, such as a finding in New York that a decline in crashes had occurred, but that it started before a cell phone ban was implemented – and then leveled out afterward. "Whatever the reason," Lund said, "the key finding is that crashes aren’t going down where hand-held phone use has been banned. This finding doesn’t auger well for any safety payoff from all the new laws that ban phone use and texting while driving."

On this study, PC World's Brennon Slattery reminds:

As always, studies need to be taken with two whopping fistfuls of salt. Notice that this particular study only looked at 100 cars -- hardly enough to gather substantial data leading beyond a flimsy hypothesis. And, for you conspiracy theory types, it's worth reiterating that this study was funded by insurance companies, suits that profit off this kind of stuff.

The institute's full report is available here.

3.83 TRILLION?

Jeremy — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:19:00 GMT

After reading about the 2011 proposed budget of $3.83 trillion, it seems like an appropriate time to re-post this:

3.6 TRILLION?

Posted by Jeremy at 2/28/2009 1:28 AM
Categories: Economy

I did the math: the 2010 U.S. budget ($3,600,000,000,000.00) isapproximately $12,000 per person. So, for a family of five like mine,the U.S. government will spend $60,000 in 2010. So, the question is, ifthe government weren't around, could I get the services they provide(the ones I use) for less than $60,000? I know this is a simplifiedview of things because some services are provided by state, city, andlocal governments, but let's assume it all comes from one place.Private school tuition (for grade school) is between $9000 and $15000per child per year.

SoI'd have to pay $10K or so for each of my two youngest daughters to goto school. My older daughter's at a public University, so let's figure$20,000 for that. That's roughly $40,000 I'd have to pay for educationalone. Now, figure in the cost of roads. Based on what you pay to driveon a toll road, I'd say if roads were all privatized, you might end uppaying about 50 cents per mile. I only drive about 15,000 miles a year,so lets be liberal and say $10,000 for roads, which should also coverthe costs of railroads, airports, seaports, and interstates requiredfor bringing me food and merchandise.

I guess I'd have to pay alittle extra for mail. I suppose I'd have to chip in some money forsome sort of armed forces to protect my home and family from foreignerswho want to take my land and kill me, and more still for some basicpolice, fire, and paramedic services.. I guess I'd pay at least as muchfor that as I pay for health or auto insurance, so add in another $5000a year. I suppose that without the government I might have to help outpeople without jobs if I didn't want them dying in the streets. I'dalso want to pay someone to protect the environment from those whomight wish to harm it, and I'd pay someone else to make sure my foodand medicine is safe. I'm a big fan of parks and open spaces, so I'dpay some more to make sure I had plenty of that in my area, and that itwas well-maintained, etc. I guess I'd also want to pay someone to keepan eye on the banks and other financial institutions to make sure theydidn't steal my money.

I guess it looks like $60,000 might justbe a bargain. Of course, I'm not paying $60,000 -- the government is --which is to say, the taxpayers are. Anyhow, $3,600,000,000,000.00 is areal big number, but so is 300,000,000 which is the number of people inthis country. Personally I'm glad the government is doing all thisstuff for me. If the government wasn't doing it, someone else would be,and guess what? they'd probably be more corrupt than politicians.

Frog in New Guinea Changes Appearance as it Ages

Jeremy — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:50:00 GMT

A frog recently discovered near New Guinea drastically alters its appearance from the time it is young until it matures to adulthood. Such a transformation has never been seen in another frog. The new species is called Oreophryne ezra. It begins life a shiny black with bright yellow spots. As it ages, it becomes rose-colored and its eyes change from black to blue.

At this point, the only known habitat of the frog is a small patch of cloud forest on the highest peak of Sudest Island, also known as

Vanatinai or Tagula.

A young Oreophryne ezra frog is shown above. Below is the adult version of the same species.

See Mongabay Bay for more information.

Silly Salahi Silence Stymies Subcommittee

Jeremy — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:24:00 GMT

Somehow I ended up watching CSPAN's coverage of Congressional Hearings regarding Tareq and Michaele Salahi's gatecrashing of a November 21 State Dinner attended by the Prime Minister of India, and the President and Vice President of the United States. I hadn't followed the story so was surprised to learn that the event was apparently filmed as part of Mrs. Salahi's appearance on the Bravo Network's reality TV show: Real Housewifes of Washington, D.C.

The Congressmen and women on the Committee were unanimously aggravated and offended by the Salahi's refusal to answer any questions related to the event, asserting their Fifth Amendment Constitutional right to remain silent. Their counsel had advised them that until the grand jury legal proceedings surrounding the event were completed, any answers they gave to this Committee might incriminate them. So, 98% of the questions asked of the Salahis were answered with "On advice of counsel, I respectfully assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer your question." Occasionally, Mr. Salahi would turn and consult with his counsel before answering "On advice of counsel, I respectfully assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer your question."

Only about 10% of the questions were addressed to Mrs. Salahi, so she wasn't as practiced with the answer. For each question posed to her, she methodically, but elegantly, read her answer off a card on her podium: "On advice of counsel, I respectfully assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer your question."

Mrs. Salahi did answer "Yes" to one question, which was something like: "Mrs. Salahi, when your legal proceedings regarding the events of the night of November 21 are complete, will you be willing to return and answer the questions posed by this committee?"

Mr. Salahi answered about three questions directly.

When first asked by the committee Chair whether his actions on the night of November 21 were influenced or coordinated in any way by a reality television show, he stated haltingly "I am under a non-disclosure agreement and so I don't think I can answer you."

When the Chair responded, "Well, that doesn't really answer my question ...", Salahi turned to his counsel and then said "On advice of counsel, I respectfully assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer your question."

Prior to the opening of questioning, the Salahis were given five minutes to read a prepared statement. Mr. Salahi dispassionately read the statement, which finished with an avowal of their fervent patriotism and their admiration and respect for all federal law enforcement officers, including those with the Secret Service.

While this strategy may have seemed like a good idea when conceived, it had the undesired affect of rousing the Committee members and resulted in several harsh scoldings about the Salahi's obvious lack of patriotism in participating in the event, and their blatant disrespect for the Secret Service in refusing to assist the Committee in determining if there had been any wrongdoing by officers responsible for Security at the event.

Dan Lundren, a Representative from California actually raised his voice and angrily admonished the Salahis for about a minute and a half. Other Committee members took a harsh tone but none quite so passionate.

Bill Pascrell, a Representative from New Jersey, showed the most frustration with the proceedings. He asked Mr. Salahi a series of questions with easier and easier answers, finally asking "Were you there that night?" to which Salahi began to assert his right to silence, but was interrupted by Pascrell asking "ARE YOU HERE RIGHT NOW?" to which Salahi responded with a silent and obviously humiliated stare.

Apparently prior to when I started watching these Hearings, the Committee had interviewed a Secret Service Officer who was in charge of the event. Unlike the Salahis, he was very forthcoming in taking responsibility for the faux pas, and attempted to divert all blame from the Salahis and the White House onto the Secret Service. His gallantry made the Salahi's cowardice even more despicable to the gathered Congressional members.

The Hearings depicted a patriotic intensity that I was not aware existed in Washington. The Committee members, regardless of party, age, gender or race, showed emotion and passion in their questioning and admonishment of the Salahis. The Hearings, for the most part, were untainted by the partisanship so evident in today's national politics. My wife and I were almost immediately drawn into the drama of the event and were both riveted for almost an hour to what might not otherwise appear to be must-see TV.

In summary, I was pleased by the attitude of these elected public officials and it made a stark contrast to the impression of Congressional stalemate and stagnation implied by the President's State of the Union address.

Icy morn

Jeremy — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:19:00 GMT

I was supposed to run last night, but it was 28 degrees out, so I waited till the morning.

Not the early morning -- about 9:30 to be exact. But around my household, that's pretty early.

Day 3 of the Couch to 5K program calls for:
5 minute run
3 minute jog
5 minute run

I stretched it to about 5 / 4 / 6. I didn't have my watch with me so I can't be sure.

When I finished up, I found a big puddle outside my house completely covered with a thin sheet of ice. Reminded me of being a kid in Lodi. On cold nights, we'd get out the hose and make big puddles to see the ice on them in the morning.

This was the first exercise day I felt like I was pushing myself. Toward the end of the jog segment, I was winded and wheezing, experiencing a bad side ache and just feeling generally out of shape. I think it was a combination of things that made me feel this way:

morning tiredness,
no energy because I hadn't eaten,
dehydration from not drinking any water before I left, and
the cold (it's still only 32 degrees).

Is that enough excuses? But despite all the excuses, I did complete my goal. Once again, as on Day 1, I am coughing quite a bit, hacking from congestion.

The good news is this was the first day of the three that I haven't felt any pain in my joints. On the first two days, my knees and ankles were giving me some grief. Bad knees have plagued me since high school when I broke my knee playing basketball in gym class. Last time I tried to start up a running regime (about 3 years ago), I had to stop after a couple weeks because of my knees. That's actually one of the reasons I wanted to try the Couch to 5K program -- an associate at a former job told me it was the best way of gradually getting old and sore joints into shape.

Good post-run stretching is also important. Stretching also improves flexibility in general which is always a plus.

So far, so good, but then again, it's only Day 3. Cough, cough.

State of the Union (It's a Mess)

Jeremy — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:08:00 GMT

Following last night's State of the Union address, I watched a little bit of analysis and interviews on two different news channels. Both channels had a brief interview with David Axelrod, Obama's Senior Advisor. He answered all of the questions with essentially the same answers, apparently having his own agenda and message to push forward.

What was interesting to me were the questions.

On one channel, the questsions took the form of:

"David, how do you think the President reacted to the growing feeling among Americans that he and all of his staff and advisors are losing touch with America?"
"David, with last week's election of Scott Brown to the Senate and concerns about the possibility of the Democratic party losing their majority in Congress, do you think the President was taking a more centrist approach?"
"David, the fact that the President waited until half way through his speech to bring up health care ... does that indicate to you that he is ready to abandon his efforts to push through his unpopular health plan?"

And, on the other channel, the questions were like:

"David, our polls show that almost 70% of Americans had a positive reaction to the President's speech. Do these numbers surprise you?"
"David, the President did not bring up health care until almost half way through his speech ... does this indicate that he views other items as being higher priority to the American public?"

That first channel was the one I was watching just as the speech ended. The analyst's very first words after the speech:

"Well, it seems quite apparent that the President is taking a more moderate approach following the recent election of Scott Brown to the Senate and the increasing likelihood of the Republicans taking over control of Congress in November."

What disturbs me about all this is that the media is not at all on board with Obama's pleas to Washington to put politics and partisanship in the back seat while they work together through some important issues. I can't say with certainty but I would wager that the vast majority of Americans, regardless of which party has power, would like to see Washington make progress on health care, education, the economy, alternative energy, and the housing crisis. Are there Americans who are so partisan that they would rather see nothing done than see even small victories won by the other party in achieving goals consistent with their own? As Obama clearly stated, this is the current state of affairs in Washington. Too many politicians have an "America loses, I win" attitude. Can Republicans afford to compromise on any issues, if by doing so, they run the risk of increasing Obama's approval rating?

I can't remember a time when Washington was so stymied by partisanship. I have 100% confidence that if a Republican replaces Obama in 3 years, partisanship will dissipate as Democrats in Congress concede graciously and work to accomplish what they were elected to accomplish. It's a truly sad state of affairs and I'm not sure there's any easy answer. The only way to get a Republican Senator to work with the other side would be for the electorate to rally behind America's goals and force their representatives to take action if they want to be reelected.

I don't hear Obama saying much of anything controversial. He wants to work with both sides, he wants compromise. Mainly he wants things to happen. I can understand this, the way things are going right now, he may be a one-term president who accomplishes nothing more than breaking the color barrier to entry to the highest office. I'm amazed by how many people in this country refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem with health care. They've gone beyond criticizing Obama's plan to now firmly believing that America's health care system is perfect. I'm not making this up, I've spoken to these people at the Post Office in the very conservative little town I live in.

If there's no problem with health care, then why couldn't I get insurance for my family three years ago when I was out of work? I was a healthy man in my mid-40's with a healthy wife and three healthy children. According to the insurance company, it was because my wife had two ongoing prescriptions and because I had visited the doctor for a cold in the previous 12 months. I was forced to form a corporation and get a group plan, for which I pay almost $1000 a month. I've paid close to $100,000 for health insurance in the last 10 years. And yet, whenever I go to the doctor or the pharmacy, I'm still digging deep to pay the copayments. Then when the doctor's bill comes, they've got an unimaginable fee listed for services; this number is whittled down by what the insurance company agrees to pay with no argument from the doctor, who is just playing along with the system.

Unlike so many "uninsurable" Americans, I was lucky to be able to afford to incorporate and get group insurance, but the experience told me that something's wrong with health care in this country. I'm not saying I like Obama's plan. All I'm saying is, let's all agree that there is a problem and move forward toward a solution. Too many people are in favor of just ignoring the problem altogether because they don't like the plan that's on the table.

Quiet and Dark

Jeremy — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:03:00 GMT

It didn't rain at all today. It was really quiet and still outside tonight.

Good night for a run. Or, in my case, a walk and a run.

Day 2 of the Couch to 5K program is the same as Day 1:
5 minute walk
2 minute jog
5 minute walk

It was definitely easier than Monday, and I didn't end up coughing at all. Not sure if that's because I got it all out of my system or maybe the air is different. After all that hacking on Monday night, my sinuses felt cleaner than they had in a long time. I felt extremely refreshed.

I did my 12 minutes tonight, then did some stretching and then put some salmon in the oven.

I liberally covered the fish with a Texas-style mango pico de gallo, some Tapatillo sauce and salt and pepper. I'm also steaming some zucchini and yellow squash splashed with olive oil and salt and pepper.

I really like to cook, but I'm the only one in my household that eats regular food, so I can only cook for myself.

When you're doing any sort of intentional exercise at all, it's impossible to eat badly because it makes you feel like all that work you put in on the exercise is for naught.

So, it's a vicious cycle. In a good way.

From Couch to 5K

Jeremy — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:43:00 GMT

So, it's been almost exactly five months since we moved to Texas.

I weighed myself the other day and found I was about 35 pounds overweight. Since my ideal weight is about 205, an extra 35 pounds is like 20 pounds on a smaller man. But still, I consider myself as borderline fat right now. I was about the same weight two years ago and then I spent six months getting into shape. I got down to about 210 and was doing a regular routine of cardio-lifting. Exercising tended to make me want to eat right as well, so I was tracking calories and reading labels. I felt awesome.

But I faltered and gained just about everything back in less than the time it took me to lose it.

Then, as we were preparing to move to Texas, I did quite a bit of exercise for a couple months (painting, cleaning, packing), and was feeling fairly trim. However, Texas is all about lots and lots of really tasty meat and other fatty snacks, so it didn't take long to get back to a pretty uncomfortable heft.

Today I decided to gradually work into shape again. Unfortunately all of our workout gear is in storage in a POD in California and isn't scheduled to make the trip out here until April. So, for now, I'm just starting with some jogging.

I decided to try the Couch to 5 K program, which I'd heard good things about, so according to plan, today I walked 5 minutes, jogged 2 minutes and walked another 5 minutes. The symmetry is cool, because you can just walk 5 minutes away from your house, jog 1 minute, then turn around and come home.

I set off walking at a pretty brisk pace, and found myself breathing hard after about 2 minutes. I did not feel a great deal of exertion though, even after five minutes, but then came the jogging. Two minutes of jogging at a moderate pace and I was winded. It took the entire five minute walk home to recover. Then I did some stretching and took a shower.

But here's the thing that always baffles me about starting to exercise when I'm out of shape. Once my heart rate was back to normal, I started coughing and hacking like a pack-a-day smoker, but I don't smoke anything ever (at least not in the last ten years). Where is all this phlegm coming from? This condition definitely hammers home how out of shape I am. TWO MINUTES OF JOGGING and it takes me almost two hours to feel relatively calm and normal afterward.

It's not pleasant to be coughing and realizing how much work it will take to get in shape, but on the other hand, it sure feels good to have started to do something about it. Exercising has always been a love-hate relationship for me; I don't believe I've ever exercised consistently for more than a year consecutively, and over the course of my adult life, the periods of time that I haven't exercised probably outweigh the times I have by a factor of three or four to one.

There's something to be said for a job that forces you to exercise. When we flipped a couple houses in Tustin, I was working very hard every day for months, doing concrete, tile, drywall, framing, painting, cleaning, fencing, and landscaping, and I was definitely in as good a shape as I'd ever been. It didn't feel like exercise because it was my job at that time. I think computer programming is possibly the single job with the least exertion of any other on the face of the earth. A computer programmer sits very, very still for most of the day, moving only his fingers and eyes. A programmer's best work gets done when they exert the least amount of energy. Meetings, phone calls, going to lunch, anything that requires physical exertion detracts from writing code. And the worst part is, the more involved you get in the code you're writing, the harder it is to want to get up and do anything; you want to work until it's done. Today I worked 10 consecutive hours and spent about 9 hours and 45 minutes of that time sitting quietly at my desk.

According to plan, I should be doing the same 5 minute walk, 2 minute jog, 5 minute walk on Wednesday, but the forecast calls for rain, so we'll see what happens.

Sisterly Love.

Jeremy — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:53:00 GMT

These are my two youngest daughters. They love to make videos.

U.S. Carbon Footprint Shrinks

Jeremy — Mon, 25 May 2009 17:20:00 GMT

U.S. CO2 emissions fall 2.8% in 2008
May 21, 2009
Source: mongabay.com

Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use in the United States fell 2.8 percent in 2008, the largest annual drop in more than 20 years, reports the Energy Information Administration. A slowing economy and high gasoline prices contributed to the decline.

Emissions fell for all major fossil fuels: emissions from petroleum fell 6 percent, natural gas dipped 1 percent, and coal retreated 1.1 percent.

Emissions also fell across most end-use sectors including electricity generation (down 2.1 percent), industrial use (down 3.2 percent), and transportation (down 5.2 percent). The only sector to see a rise in emissions was commercial, which increased 0.5 percent.

Despite the largest decline since 1990, the transportation sector remained the largest end-use source of energy-related CO2 emissions. Since 1990, transportation sector carbon dioxide emissions have risen by 21.1 percent — 1.1 percent per year.

The carbon efficiency of the economy also improved, with emissions per unit of GDP dropping 3.8 percent in 2008.

U.S. emissions from fossil fuel burning in 2008 were 15.9 percent above the 1990 level (the baseline for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol) and 2.8 percent below the 2005 level (the baseline proposed under the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 [Waxman-Markey bill]).

rich:modalPanel doesn't display/update data from backing bean.

Jeremy — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:57:00 GMT

Problem: rich:modalPanel doesn't display/update data from backing bean

Possible Solution: This one has taken me weeks to solve. But finally, with the help of Max Katz, author of Practical Rich Faces, I was able to tackle it. There are many reasons why you might be having these problems. Your best bet is to go take a look at a tutorial that Max wrote on using a rich:modalPanel to allow editing of data in an underlying page. Max' solution even allows you to reRender just the row that was edited. I extended the code to allow adding a new entity as well.

Click to see the tutorial.

Click here to purchase Practical Rich Faces.

If you have problems with the tutorial, Max is pretty good about answering comments/emails.

Max is also conducting free webinars on Rich Faces for redhat/Exadel. You can view the previous sessions and register for the upcoming sessions by clicking here.

THANKS MAX!

detached entity passed to persist

Jeremy — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:57:00 GMT

Problem: detached entity passed to persist

Possible Solution: This error can occur for a number of reasons. I suggest that if my solution doesn't help you, then you keep doing google searches. There's a lot of different forum posts about this one, and there's a lot of different problems that can cause the error message.

I was getting this error (apparently) because I was bi-jecting a Seam entity though multiple session beans. When I changed this to bi-jecting just the id for the entity and then doing an entity manager lookup using the id (in each of the session beans), the problem went away. I worked on this for a long, long time, and when I found a solution that worked, I was happy to just stick with it. However, I don't believe that this is the absolute correct solution, because it means doing a database lookup on the entity each time a new page is displayed.

Anyhow, right or not, here's the details. I had a Seam entity called coupon, defined in Coupon.java. My first screen is a table to look up the coupon to work with. Previously, I had this screen's session bean setting an out-jected conversation context variable called selectedCouponObj. Then, the next screens would inject selectedCouponObj and work with it. Note that this actually worked as far as getting and setting the values inside the object. BUT, as soon as I did an entityManager.persist(selectedCoupon), I'd get the detached entity error.

So, the fix was: instead of out-jecting and in-jecting the Coupon itself, I out-jected and in-jected the Coupon id: selectedCouponId. Then, I' set the selectedCouponObj in each session bean by calling selectedCouponObj = entityManager.find(Coupon.class, selectedCouponId)

Like I said, this does not seem like the ideal solution, but it worked for me.

Imogen Heap (a.k.a Frou Frou)

Jeremy — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:38:00 GMT

I have recently discovered the very talented Imogen Heap, shown here performing Goodnight and Go, in April, 2006 on David Letterman, and in the video of It's Good to Be in Love from the 2002 album Details (recorded as Frou Frou).

value bound to h:selectOneMenu doesn't get set

Jeremy — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:30:00 GMT

Error: value bound to h:selectOneMenu doesn't get set

Possible Solution:

This problem has given me serious problems on three different occasions. To summarize the problem, I've created an h:selectOneMenu control on a form. I've set the value attribute to be a property of a Seam component. The value is supposed to serve a bi-directional purpose. If it is non-null when the control is rendered, then the specified value will be selected in the resulting combo box. I haven't had any problems at all getting this to work. The problem is with the other direction. When the user selects a new item in the combo box, the property in the value field is supposed to get set using the class setter for the property.

So, I've had several issues, including just not understanding some things. I will try to document them all here.

The name specified in the value field should be a Seam component property, NOT a Seam context variable. For example, you should probably be using value="#{myList.selectedValue}" AND NOT value="#{selectedValue}". The first way will call the setSelectedValue() method of the class corresponding to the myList Seam component. The second will get the correct value when rendered, but I don't believe it will result in setting the value when it's changed. But I might be wrong about that.
The name you specify must equate to a Seam component name (i.e. something specified as @Name("name"). So, in the example above, you would need a class with @Name("myList") that defines a selectedValue property and implements a getter and setter for the selectedValue property. Note that if it's an EJB3.0 bean, then you will also need to define the getter and setter in the corresponding interface.
Of course, you're probably going to want to promote the changed value to a Seam context, so you'll probably declare the selectedValue property as an outjected context variable by placing an @Out annotation above the property declaration.
This to me was one of the trickier points that I did not see documented anywhere: the setter method is NOT called when the user selects one of the items in the combo box. Coming from a heavy JavaScript background, I assumed I'd see the setter get called each time I changed the combo box selection. However, instead, the setter is only called when the page goes away. Note, that if you have commandLinks on the page that rerender the page, that will also cause the setter to get called. Hence, the value should remain set after a rerender. The setter gets called whether the destination page is the same page or not. So, if you're debugging and trying to follow along, don't expect the setter to get called until a button is pressed.
This one was also tricky for my JavaScript-addled brain. The valueChangedListener attribute is NOT used to specify a method that gets called when the user selects a new item. The valueChangedListener only gets called when the property value changes.
Now for the most tricky point of all. THE selectOneMenu control MUST RESIDE IN THE SAME FORM AS THE BUTTON WHICH IS USED TO EXIT THE PAGE!!! I spent about eight hours trying to figure this one out. My page had two separate forms, one of them for my wizard-style buttons (because they are defined in a template.xhtml). I finally discovered the cause of the problem when I realized that one button on the page that just did a reselect of data for the combo box DID result in calling the setter, but the other button (to go to the next page) DID NOT!!. Once I put all the buttons into the same form as the combo box, it worked perfectly.