Restaurant Title

I was thinking about how delicious my sandwich was, but also how peculiar my tastes are as well. Growing up in a home with odd condiments always available (horseradish, 4 different kinds of mustard, mint jelly) I have learned to sample new ones now and again. Who puts spicy mustard and horseradish on their turkey sandwich? 

It was delicious but I do not think it would be for everyone. It seemed like a manly sandwich with some punch. So I want to make a restaurant called, "Real Man Food." The only milk there would be whole. No diet sodas. Lots of spicy stuff. Etc.  What are some manly menu items you can think of?

That sounds like Foo Manchu (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHMG_enUS291US303&q=foo%20man%20chu&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)

Which sounds like another good restaurant name, "Food Man, Chew!" And you could have a whole theme derived from the facial style.

Food Orientation

I have a theory about food orientation. I think foods taste slightly different, or I should say, the eating experience is slightly different based on the direction of intake.

For example, asparagus eaten leafy side first is different than stalk side first. I prefer leafy side first because it tastes more bitter, then the stalk is crunchy and does not leave the bitter after-taste. 

Another idea based on the first is multiple ingredient foods relative position. I find that a sandwich tastes different if you flip it upside-down and take a bite. The relative position of the layers creates a different experience.

In choirs, a good director will blend a SAT or B section  into a smooth gradient of vocal tone and sound quality. This helps the singers blend and match to create an overall more beautiful sound. I wonder if this analogy can apply to foods. Is there a most beautiful order to assemble then devour a sandwich?

Duke Boys

Do Luke and Bo have a hidden secret farm-base?

The wrecked a cop car every episode by evading the police. They are probably up for hundreds of moving violations, but somehow the Roscoe P. Coltrane never takes a warrant to the Duke home. Law enforcement is different these days. 

Global Warming

I recently blogged over to this page about global warming:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm.HTM

I found that while I agree with most of what he writes, the tone he wrote it in made me constantly fight what he was saying.  As I read I kept having to tell myself that I agree with his main(and just about only) point that increased carbon dioxide has increased in the atmosphere and that increased carbon dioxide leads to increased heat. In any case, this professor's arrogance really turned me off from his message and I kept trying to find holes in it. 

Some thoughts on global warming:

1. Most of the references I hear about global warming are anecdotal and therefore not extremely useful. 

2. Carbon dioxide has increased in the atmosphere and while there a lot of scientific research out there, I do not know of any conclusive evidence that ties the increase to human activity. My guess is that human activity is a substantial contributor to the increase. 

3. The above author seemed miffed when people refer to global warming as a religion. I also consider it a religion in a sense, but not with the same meaning as he refutes. I suppose that I do not think that calling anything a religion discredits it. I am a 'scientific' thinker but am also religious. I think that my religious believes are based on a scientific type method (See Book of Mormon, Alma 32). Nothing about carbon dioxide levels requires faith, but to change one's actions due to the belief/understanding of global warming does require a moral stand. 

Even at the most extreme of generally accepted estimates, the benefit of taking measures to reduce greenhouse gases  does not outweigh the costs when discounted over time. The effects are too slow and too far into the future to justify current action. Also while substantial evidence supports an increase in carbon dioxide and heat, there is much less conclusive evidence about the extent of the effects.  Therefore the moral stand is for the benefit of others (future generations.) 

I think those who change their actions to reduce global warming are acting in faith and due to a moral position. This statement is not intended to discredit anything or anyone, but to express their motivation more precisely.

4. Should this moral stand be legislated and enforced? I do not think so. I think before laws are enforced to make people act against personal time preferences, people should try social influence. Television networks, celebrities and many many people are doing just that and it is great. I do not oppose missionary work or trying to share the positive effects of moral actions.

Since greenhouse emission has a significant negative externality, it seems wise to in some way tax the bad activity or subsidize the good. I think this type of legislation is less preferrable than societal influence, but it is better than outlawing consumer products or certain car colors. I think that this type of legislation should be within reason. I know that is subjective and I would not know where to draw the objective line, but extreme taxes could severly limit personal liberties.

Sometimes taxes can erase societal influence though, and that would be bad. So really, stay away from tax and subsidy if you can!

5. Lastly, I think it is funny how much contradiction exists due to political party stances on various issues. When people try to paint things black and white, they are bound to contradict themselves at some point. In this topic, I consider the typical liberal stance, which is to enforce as many laws as possible to protect the environment and in so doing, limit personal freedoms (like owning a black car or buying certain types of lightbulbs.) I think that these are decisions based on a moral position. The same typical stance would think it bigotted and cruel to not recognize same-sex marriage, which is also a decision based on a moral position. 

Please notice that the inverse is true of the typical conservative viewpoint. 

I also believe that government legislation is easy to create, but harder to eradicate. So if in doubt, I lean to the libertarian side of non-implementation. 

But in all things, there is so much gray area. In order to treat others as you would be treated, how does this apply here? Should we treat future generations like we would like to be if we were them? Or should we treat others now the way we would  by allowing people to consume according to their own morals and preferences?

I do not know what it is about those Subs

As I was eating at Subway today, I started to think about how many possible combinations of sandwiches you could create.

Someone may note that I have more posts inspired by sports and subway...

Anyway, in order to be a sandwich, you need bread. There are 7 or 8 bread choices.

On the website I see 21 permanent meat choices. (Includes veggie, which is the choice of no meat.)

The subway by my office has 3 kinds of cheese. 4 choices if you get no cheese, but 7 with 2 cheese options and 8 cheese combinations if you include no, one, two or all choices of cheese. (2 to the 3rd power.) Has anyone ever asked for multiple cheeses? I think I want to next time.

Toasted or Not. Mutliply by two.

I believe there are 9 veggie choices. I think the easiest way to do this is to raise two to the ninth power because you can get multiple veggies.

Then there are 8 dressing choices, wait, 9 because you can get oil OR vinegar. Again, multiple dressings is also an option.

Salt and pepper comes in one can so thats another times binary multiplier. 

Parmesean cheese sprinkle? Another two. 

So if my memory and math serves me right, that is 8*21*8*2*(2^9)*(2^9)*2*2 

And that is assuming you do not get multiple meat orders. I may try that next time too, "I would like ham, turkey and meatball marina sub please. Toast it. With pepperjack and provolone."

You could bound the options by only allowing choices that have no effect on the price (post-meat selection). I do not know if multiple cheeses increases the price, I am sure that multiple meats would. I also like to get my onions and peppers toasted with the rest of the sub -- that option is free, but not included in my combination calculation. For the sake of simplicity I will say that a sub with toasted onions and peppers is the same as non-toasted.

My product is 2,818,572,288 combinations. If you ate at subway once per day and chose a unique combination, it would take you 7,722,116 years before you ate them all. If you ate 3 times a day that is still 2.6 million years. How about 5 meals a day, all subway: Only 1.5 million years. 

I think my favorite combinations would coincide with the most hungry days: Veggie sub, no veggies, no dressing. You would only have to eat plain toast or bread 16 times. 

Home Court/Field Advantage

Dave and I were chatting about baseball and basketball playoffs. He mentioned that there are more upsets in baseball than basketball meaning home field advantage is less of an advantage in baseball.

This is interesting because it seems that baseball would have more advantage due to the home team always having the last scoring opportunity and the fields are not standardized like they are in other sports.

First off, I would need to compare actual data to see if HCA is significantly different (number of upsets) in baseball than other sports. Secondly, if there is a difference, then I would need to make a testable model. 

Some preliminary ideas I have are that due to the simultaneous offense and defense in baseball or that baseball has a slower pace therefore crowd fed momentum may be less influential. Or perhaps scoring in baseball is driven primarily by consecutive hits instead of one time attempts in basketball. 

Any other hypotheses out there? 

Moneyball

This is a great book! The only downside was some locker room and back office quotations that were uncensored- but it was a fascinating look at how some clubs have exposed arbitrage opportunities in baseball created by old baseball knowledge. Strategies and players may be over and under valued because the decision makers in baseball are athletes and not statisticians or analysts for the most part. Thus old ideas have been assumed correct and not been exposed to thorough analysis.

It explores the Oakland A's management techniques and how they have done a lot with a little money by taking advantage of buying assets (players) cheap, in using their talents they show how they are good ball players and then sell them at a profit or lose them to free agency and start over again.