Through Slashdot.org, I went to a website, Twins or Not, uploading several sets of photos for analysis. I assume that the website uses photo-metrics, so I tried to upload sets of photos showing the people at roughly the same ages. (This wasn't possible for the younger generations - using the electronic files that I have on hand and found, easily.)
Don't ask me how Dudette and Bogie can be a 100% match (clones!), but Bogie resembles our granddaughter more than Dudette (Granddaughter's mother) does.
I don't show the photos but the analysis reported an 18% match between Hunky Husband and his father, which doesn't at all agree with observation by a human. Since my grandmother and Mother were related by marriage, the 86% match is astounding. My own best match by the program was to Elder Brother at 80%. I did note that a person's photos without eyeglasses produced slightly better results than with eyeglasses. I need to find a good photo of Dudette without her glasses.
Have you used a device similar to this one (image, below)? If so, you know what it is. If not, you can probably figure it out. I used one for 1.5 - 2.0 hours, today. Happy to be done with it - at least, for the moment!
Addition of 6/2/2015:
Here (photo, below) is the product of my having spent 45 minutes picking cherries, 90 minutes washing and pitting cherries, and about 20-30 minutes cooking them up enough to kill the enzymes and pouring them into jars. Note that there is plenty of space left in each 1-quart jar and that the jars are frosted. Instead of taking the time to process everything for canning, I froze the cherries.
This (photo, below) is the bountiful little North Start Cherry tree from whence came the cherries. BTW: I didn't pick even half of the cherries. I lose interest rather quickly. Last year, the birds got them all - I wasn't in town to do any picking.
What I was doing seventy-five years ago: 5/12/1940 Cutting two jaw teeth - on opposite sides
What I was doing fifty years ago: 5/10/1965 Congratulating Hunky Husband's sister and brother-in-law on the birth of their first child (one of the cousins to whom Bogie refers in her comment to previous posting)
What I was doing twenty-five years ago: May 1990 Completing my first month back working at the Little Airplane Company (this time, as an aircraft structures engineer), closing the sale of my home in Albuquerque, painting a bedroom (having moved from Albuquerque into Hunky Husband's home a month ago), preparing to go to Kansas City MO to take my mother to her 65th high school reunion in Sheldon MO
What I was doing twenty years ago: May 1995 Wrapping up my mother's estate (including selling two small houses in Kansas City MO), preparing for sale the small house in Wichita that Mother had rented from me during her last several months (I had lived in the house 1978-1981, Dudette & family had lived in it 1981-1991)
1 year ago: May 2014 Working Baxter Springs KS tornado disaster relief as Government Operations Manager
Yesterday: Feeling ill, cleaning up the house following vinyl floor covering replaced in the upstairs (lots of dust!), tracking storms and communicating with staff setting up at local Red Cross chapter to coordinate response to storms of recent days (and predicted) in Kansas, Nebraska, and Southwest Iowa; picking up Hunky Husband for airport (returning from his 2nd week of FEMA Emergency Management Leadership training at the Emergency Management Institute in Maryland), stopping by the Red Cross chapter offices
For the past 5 or 10 years, Harold Bab [Correction: That's no way to treat a friend. His name is Babb.] and I have exchanged greetings/ideas/thoughts on an occasional basis. Since neither of us is a dyed-in-the-wool blogger and neither of us is a dyed-in-the-wool e-mailer, "an occasional basis" has served us adequately. Today, however, I would like to direct anyone who cares to make the "journey" to hop over to Harold's blog to read his posting Openly Secular?
History: I don't really recall, but I suspect that Harold and I met through Ronni Bennett's Time Goes By. At the very least I know that he shares my admiration for Ronni, as a person and as a blogger. Harold and I hit it off because we had a couple of things in common: 1) He served 20+ years in the US Navy, retiring in 2009 as a Chief Hospital Corpsman (while I served 6 years in the US Naval Reserves as a Aircraft Structures Mechanic at the grade below Chief) and 2) We both spend a lot of time in voluntary service to the American people through the same organization. I had previously mentioned Harold, and a previous blog that he had, in A bit on USN rating badges.
Theft: Harold had a device on his blog that told how many people there are in the USA who have the same first and last name as his. I took it as my own - using my real name. Thanks, Harold. Others may steal the device from him or from me!
Q: Does the program really know how many people have the same name as me?
No. The program returns an estimate based on available data. It should be considered a "ballpark figure". It will usually return an answer in the right general area, but the chances of the figure being exactly right are very low.
A full discussion of the accuracy of the program may be found here.
BTW: When I input my birth name, the occurrence rose to 905 in the USA.
Although I read the entire daily newspaper (well...I ignore the Sports Section), my greatest enjoyment is from the "funny pages" - the pages of cartoons. Sometimes there is nothing interesting there, but sometimes we are lucky and get a twofer. I'll give an example of a twofer from Friday's newspaper - The Wichita Eagle.
Pickles by Brian Crane April 17, 2015
Pickles cartoons are based on the lives of an older couple. It plays into many of the stereotypes about oldsters: that excessive time is spent with grandchildren, with pets, with knitting, puttering, loafing....The cartoonist does poke gentle fun at some of the stereotypes.
How did the stereotypes develop? Well, there must have been grains of truths in them. That doesn't keep me from bristling when an acquaintance implies one of those stereotypes violating my Pet Peeve #9. BTW: I'm taking the couple in Pickles to be 10-15 years younger than Hunky Husband and me.
B.C. by Mastrioanni and Hart April 17, 2015
I loved this B.C. strip because of Stu's recent posting Generating Pythagorean Triples, a somewhat typical posting for Stu who has an impressive background in mathematics; but, I was particularly attracted to the B.C. cartoon because of a snarky comment that one of his readers had made. One gathered from the comment that she had wasted her time by reading the posting - the subject being of no interest to her.
Obviously, we (the multitude) do not have equivalent interests. I think it bad manners to carry on in public about it, though. It violates my Pet Peeve #10. If a reader doesn't care for a topic, I expect him/her to skip postings on the subject or, if most postings on a blog are uninteresting, to stop reading that blog. When asked (as Stu has, in the past*) what subjects people find interesting, it is perfectly acceptable for a reader to express their preferences in an email. I think that B.C. gave a perfect response.
* My own answer to Stu was that he should keep on posting on the wide variety of topics that he finds interesting. I am perfectly willing and able to skip a posting that doesn't pique my interest!
Posted by timothyon Sunday January 25, 2015 @08:22AM from the pure-sugar-all-the-time dept.
HughPickens.com writes Jennifer Abel writes at the LA times that according to a recent survey over 80% of Americans says they support "mandatory labels on foods containing DNA," roughly the same number that support the mandatory labeling of GMO foods "produced with genetic engineering." Ilya Somin, writing about the survey at the Washington Post, suggested that a mandatory label for foods containing DNA might sound like this: "WARNING: This product contains deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The Surgeon General has determined that DNA is linked to a variety of diseases in both animals and humans. In some configurations, it is a risk factor for cancer and heart disease. Pregnant women are at very high risk of passing on DNA to their children." The report echoes a well-known joke/prank wherein people discuss the dangers of the chemical "dihydrogen monoxide" also known as hydrogen oxide and hydrogen hydroxide. Search online for information about dihydrogen monoxide, and you'll find a long list of scary-sounding and absolutely true warnings about it: the nuclear power industry uses enormous quantities of it every year. Dihydrogen monoxide is used in the production of many highly toxic pesticides, and chemical weapons banned by the Geneva Conventions. Dihydrogen monoxide is found in all tumors removed from cancer patients, and is guaranteed fatal to humans in large quantities and even small quantities can kill you, if it enters your respiratory system. In 2006, in Louisville, Kentucky, David Karem, executive director of the Waterfront Development Corporation, a public body that operates Waterfront Park, wished to deter bathers from using a large public fountain. "Counting on a lack of understanding about water's chemical makeup," he arranged for signs reading: "DANGER! – WATER CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF HYDROGEN – KEEP OUT" to be posted on the fountain at public expense.
To save you a little time, this (below) is an excerpt from the Oklahoma State University report on a survey taken by their Department of Agricultural Economics.
“Data were obtained from a stratified random sample of veterinary practices throughout Great Britain, and questionnaires were sent to owners of dogs with tail injuries and owners of a randomly selected sample of dogs without tail injuries…. Two hundred and eighty-one tail injuries were recorded from a population of 138,212 dogs attending 52 participating practices….. Dogs with a wide angle of wag and dogs kept in kennels were at significantly higher risk of sustaining a tail injury. Dogs with docked tails were significantly less likely to sustain a tail injury.”
See the problem with the logic? One hundred percent of the "Dogs with docked tails...." were injured (ask your dog!); thus, they cannot be "...significantly less likely to sustain a tail injury."