I am no icthyologist, but I find this Science Friday video interesting.
Addendum of 7/24/2014:
From Slashdot.net, with emphasis added to one quote.
I find it harassing enough that so many of the games make sex objects of young women (it's been a while since yours truly has actually worried about this for herself!) Are there games out there that feature female protagonists going after beefcakes? As a non-gamer (heck - I don't usually enjoy playing "games" of any type - electronic or non-electronic), I only know that to which I am incidentally exposed (2nd or 3rd hand).
Posted on 7/16/2014
I'm too beat to put words on paper, but wish to share a couple of Slashdot.org postings.
Stu (of Eunoia) has already seen this video; but, I'm posting it anyway.
The first riders went down Verruckt on Wednesday July 9, 2014 at Schlitterbahn Water Park in Kansas City, Kansas. Video by John Sleezer.
The Mamba- Kansas City,Mo- Worlds of Fun
Last February 1, Stu included a comment in an email to me. He wrote, “BTW, a Kansas City amusement park now has the tallest water ride in the world! Looking forward to reading the ride-report by you and HH this summer :-)”
If you can get Worlds of Fun/Oceans of Fun to shut out the other visitors for a few hours, I’ll arrange to go try out the Mamba ride for you – assuming that’s the ride to which you refer. The first hill takes one 200 feet above ground – which shouldn’t be thrilling to a crop duster! [Note: Although I have hours of flying crop duster planes, Stu has many more hours actually dusting crops! CC]
When our daughters were young, I would take them on the “thrill” rides at the local (now closed) amusement park – to spare their acrophobic father. However, I let their grandparents (in Kansas City) take them to the more crowded venue. I took my nephew on rides at one of the smaller amusement parks in California; but, even when I lived in Florida or California, I did not visit the Disney venues. I’m not bothered by heights or gees, but I am very bothered by crowds. Hate ‘em!
As it worked out, it seems that Stu was not referring to the Mamba ride, (I had missed/ignored "water" in Stu's note - my mind does that sometimes) but to the Verruckt water slide that was scheduled to open in late May. (Opening was delayed for modifications to the slide when the first weighted raft to be sent down it went over the edge. In addition to modifying the slide trough design, a safety net was added that encloses the trough along its length.)
Well...my comments still stand. Either looks like it would be a lot of fun - if they would get the crowds to stay home so that I would have the whole place to myself.
One of the reasons that I use the activity center for swimming and working out is that, as was true today, I am sometimes the only person in the pool, the only person in the women's locker room, AND the only person in the weights room. How fabulous is that!?!
Last Monday, Pergelator posted Soldiers concerning a young woman who was denied enlistment into the US Army because she had a tattoo on the back of her neck. Immediately, I thought of all the tattoos gracing the bodily parts of men in the US Navy. (I was an AMS-1 in the USNR 1980-1986.) Curious, I looked up the US Navy policy concerning grooming of sailors.
To my surprise, the young woman mentioned above would not have met US Navy policy. In BUPERS' (Bureau of Personnel's) Grooming Standards (updated online: 5/21/2014 3:26 PM) we are told (I have changed the most relevant part to red text):
7. TATTOOS/BODY ART/BRANDS. Four Criteria will be used to determine whether tattoos/body art/brands are permitted for Navy personnel: content, location, size and cosmetic.
a. Content. Tattoos/body art/brands located anywhere on the body that are prejudicial to good order, discipline, and morale or are of a nature to bring discredit upon the naval service are prohibited. For example, tattoos/body art/brands that are obscene, sexually explicit, and or advocate discrimination based on sex, race, religion, ethnic, or national origin are prohibited. In addition, tattoos/body art/brands that symbolize affiliation with gangs, supremacist or extremist groups, or advocate illegal drug use are prohibited.
b. Location. No tattoos/body art/brands on the head, face, neck, or scalp. The neck area for purposes of this regulation is any portion visible when wearing a crew neck T-shirt or open collar uniform shirt. In addition, otherwise permissible tattoos/body art/brands on the torso area of the body shall not be visible through white uniform clothing.
c. Size. Individual tattoos/body art/brands exposed by wearing a short sleeve uniform shirt shall be no larger in size than the wearer’s hand with fingers extended and joined with the thumb touching the base of the index finger. Pre-existing tattoos/body art/brands that exceed size criteria are waiverable provided they do not violate the content and/or location criteria.
d. Cosmetic. This regulation does not prohibit cosmetic tattooing to correct medical conditions requiring such treatment. For the purpose of this regulation, cosmetic tattooing refers to medical or surgical procedures conducted by licensed, qualified medical personnel.
As I've never had a tattoo, this part of the regs had never come to my attention. While I was at it, I read through the whole chapter and learned that the regs on wearing of earrings had not changed much, as far as I know. (I did not have pierced ears until 15 years later, but I happen to somewhat remember the regs on the wearing of them.) The Grooming Standards tell us:
6. JEWELRY. Conservative jewelry is authorized for all personnel and shall be in good taste while in uniform. Eccentricities or faddishness are not permitted. Jewelry shall not present a safety or FOD (Foreign Object Damage) hazard. Jewelry shall be worn within the following guidelines:
a. Rings. While in uniform, only one ring per hand is authorized, plus a wedding/engagement ring set. Rings are not authorized for wear on thumbs.
(1) Men. Not authorized while in uniform. Additionally, earrings are not authorized in civilian attire when in a duty status or while in/aboard any ship, craft, aircraft, or in any military vehicle or within any base or other place under military jurisdiction, or while participating in any organized military recreational activities. When considered appropriate by the prescribing authority under article 7201.2, earrings may be prohibited while in foreign countries.
(2) Women. One earring per ear (centered on earlobe) may be worn while in uniform. Earrings shall be 4mm - 6mm ball (approximately 1/8 - 1/4 inch), plain with shiny or brushed matte finish, screw on or with posts. Gold for officers/CPOs, and silver for enlisted personnel. Small single pearl earrings are authorized for wear with Dinner and Formal Dress uniforms.
What I did not recall was that the metals were prescribed for officers/CPOs (Chief Petty Officers) and for enlisted personnel. I would have been authorized to wear silver. Note the inversion of the status of gold versus silver in this case, recalling that in general, silver outranks gold in US military insignia. Never having owned Dinner or Formal Dress uniforms, I would never have been able to wear pearl earrings.
For obvious safety reasons, as a mechanic (AMS-1 is Aircraft Mechanic, Structural - Petty Officer First Class), I wore no jewelry while on duty. This is a photo of a rating badge like the one I wore on short-sleeved white uniform shirts.
Three weeks ago, I re-posted a YouTube video that I had seen at Ronni's blog, Time Goes By: What It's Really Like to Get Older as Older Ladies. (I failed to credit JB Lockhart for having brought the video to Ronni's attention.) I first started reading Ronni's blog over ten years ago. I must say that, as a daily dose, I would get bored with the whole premise of that blog; but, occasionally, I go by on a daily basis to see what's happening with Ronni. You see, she and I struck up an online friendship. We are close to the same age (she's three years the younger), but we've lived completely different lives, so we've had a lot of interesting things to share with one another.
Ronni was a professional in the television industry; thus, she tends to structure her blog by bringing in "experts" on a regular basis (music, health, legal, LGBT have been the subject matter of a few of her, for a time at least, regular contributors.) One of her more popular regular features is her Saturday "column". On Saturdays, Ronni shares "Interesting Stuff" - stuff that has usually been brought to her attention by one of her hundreds, yea thousands, of readers. (I recognize the names of 50-100 of her faithful readers/commenters.) Today was no different. Ronni posted, Interesting Stuff: 5 July 2014.
One of the videos featured in Ronni's current posting is 23 and 1/2 hours. Although I know of no readers of my own blog who "need" this video (everyone in our family is an exerciser), I post the video, and include Ronni's lead-in to it, for my own future reference - to help motivate me. I, myself, exercise; but, I am (and have been for the past 21 years) over weight. (Okay...make that fat if you insist!) Obviously, I need to take a leaf from either of HH's and my daughters' books!
On to Ronni's posting.
I'm acutely aware that I spend a lot of time here since I've lost so much weight [40 pounds - CC] and become an exercise convert reminding you of the astonishing health benefits of moving around a lot.
Not that I want to become a bore about it, this video animation has been sitting around on my computer for nearly a year and it is one of best exercise motivators I've seen. Take a look. From Dr. Mike Evans.
Today's edition of The Wichita Eagle contained the obituary of Kay Arvin who had lived in the Wichita area until 2001. She was well-known, admired, and respected in the community. Unfortunately, I never met Ms Arvin. Here is the obituary, as published.
I don't know who wrote Ms Arvin's obituary; but, with the exception of praying, I can certainly be enthusiastic in following their suggestion concerning honoring her memory.
In a previous posting, I was scratching my head over the fact that the US Trade Commission had (retroactively) denied trademark protection to a sports team because "Redskins" was judged to be pejorative. The comments got so far off track that I closed them down - a first for me. So...let's talk about how insulting it is for Native Americans to have sports teams named after them, such as Chiefs, Redskins, Braves. Should those teams be required to change their names?
My personal opinion: I don't give a rat's ass. I'm not a sports fan and I don't care much what they call the teams. To me, we have a tempest in a teapot. In addition, I am prone to judging speech/labeling by intent and I fail to be a very sensitive person.
All of my life, strangers have been calling me "Red". While I didn't/don't like it, never once have I felt insulted. Intent is very important when it comes to that sort of thing. If someone called me a "dirty, rotten Redhead", I might feel differently. Well..even worse than being called "Red" is that Hunky Husband has called me by a shortened version of my real name (he uses the first syllable, for those blog friends who know my real name) for about 58 years, now - a name that I really, truly dislike. HH's whole family, and anyone to whom I have been introduced by HH, have always used the shorter version of my name. BUT...I know that he means/they mean no harm and that it is just easier for him/them to use one syllable instead of three, so I don't make an issue of it. And...one VP insisted upon calling me "Doll"! (I usually tell people once what I prefer and ignore whatever I'm called, thereafter.)
Moving along: one of my blog friends (in the previously mentioned comments) thought that I was excusing a practice without having a basis for judgment. Were I to have an opinion on the appropriateness of the name "Redskins", I would agree that I have little basis on which to form an opinion. Among my friends/acquaintances, there are a number of Native Americans - to varying degrees of inheritance. Since closing the comments to the previous posting I've had the opportunity to quiz two self-identified Native Americans on the whole thing. I asked if they thought the teams should be required to change their names.
Woman - Did not care one whit. She saw nothing insulting in the name "Redskins" and thought that people were getting upset over nothing. She volunteered that her husband (also Native American) didn't care a whole lot, but that he would be just as happy to have the name changed. BTW: She's a Kansas City Chiefs fan.
Man - Thought the whole thing silly. He's a sports fan. He didn't give a [obscenity omitted]. He felt that people were going out of their way to find insult where none was intended. (His wife is not a Native American so I won't include her thoughts.)
That's not a large sampling size, but it's a start.
Historical tales to give you a laugh: 1) In grade school, I was terribly jealous of Ruth Sunday (and several other classmates) because she was 100% Native American. I believe that one of my 3X great-grandmothers was Cherokee [not enough for me to have bragging rights!] 2) Our teams in high school were the Knights - never once did anyone think we were insulting knights. 3) Back in the late 1970s, Bogie and I were driving in Oklahoma. Stopping to get directions, the two of us were salivating over the gorgeous cop from whom we asked directions. He was obviously pretty much 100% Native American and, to this day, Bogie and I agree that he was the best-looking guy we'd ever seen! *pant, pant*
The carpeting in our bedrooms is being replaced, today (I guess I never got around to posting about it when the rest of the carpeted rooms in our house got new carpet - not wishing to bore everyone to tears?), I have more time for posting. Thus, I'll share with you that I find a recent US Patent & Trademark Office ruling beyond comprehension.
I can understand that folks might not appreciate some names; but, their being disparaging should be a reason for barring issuance of a trademark? Obviously, this must stem from some anti-discrimination law or another, but it is beyond my understanding. I'm wondering if companies that make products such as the line of Tired Old Ass bath products are denied trademarking? The name, after all, disparages elders. Aren't elders protected from discrimination? *wandering off mumbling to myself*