Coffee Maker & Towels

Here's Another email I sent at work. Really.


When I came in this morning, I discovered that someone had again "helpfully" found a way to bring the water port of the coffee maker and quite a bit of liquid dish soap together. To make myself look naive, I'm going to continue to assume that this is all due to some misunderstanding. So let me try to clear up the possible misunderstandings.

Helpful Coffee Maker Hints:
--The coffee makers are not subject to SOP-035 [Standard Operating Proceedure for cleaning a Glass Lined Chemical Reactor]. They should be kept away from both soaps and solvents, even during routine cleanings.
--While "clean water" is all the rage (and has many health benefits) this is not the process via which it is made.
--The burners and water inlet ports make unsafe storage racks. This is similar to your stove at home, but I can see how our Pro II stove could cloud this point [It's an electric with a flat top surface].
--Washing the dishes is obviously not popular with this crowd, but there is no good way to adapt the coffee maker into a dishwasher.

I have moved the coffee maker well away from the sink, in the hopes that this will fix anything that my sarcasm did not.

While I'm spending my time writing about kitchen related problems, I might as well get them all. We do not have a good towel system in place. The ones in there this morning were nasty. From here forward, please toss any dirty towels onto the chair in my office (dry please). I'll set these aside to be washed. Replace the dirty towels with a clean one from the drawer. This should cut down on the "gigantic pile of filthy towels in the lunchroom" problem.

Thanks for reading.

Iraqi Revenge

Ok, here’s one written specifically for you nitpicky types who hate whimsical blogs because they have nothing you can fight about.

I’m only going to ask you to do me one tiny favor. Unfortunately, I realize that most of you will be completely unable to do this favor. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Here’s the favor: pretend you’re an Iraqi who thinks Americans are arrogant imperialists.

I’ll give you a second to muster up the mental power of a preschooler. Almost ready? Can you do it?

Ok, let’s find out. Now that you’re an anti-American Iraqi, but yet one who strangely has the benefit of a great deal of Western education, tell me this. Pride issues aside, why would this not be the best possible form of revenge for your dissatisfaction for the American occupation of Iraq?

As soon as humanly possible, all of your (Iraqi) leaders who are not being actively pursued by suicide bombers gather in the most official (Iraqi) government building that can house both them and a huge crowd of reporters all at once. Invite as many members of the press and foreign governments as can possibly fit, including a solid number of American politicians from all sides of the political spectrum. Explain to them only that you have the perfect solution to ending the current crisis and for forming a long-term stable democracy in Iraq, and that it’s so perfect that you want to share it with the entire world.

The vagueness of it all will annoy everyone. Many will assume it’s some sort of trap. To get past this, be totally thrilled to have as many security detachments on hand as anyone cares to bring along. But insist that the exact solution to the Iraq crisis will be revealed only at the conference, to everyone – including the international press – at once.

When everyone arrives (What are they going to do, say no? Even if they do, members of the press will suffice, and they’ll go to anything.), send up a small group of people who can most effectively represent all aspects of the current Iraqi government. Let most of them stand in smiling, silent support of the one clear leader, who will give a very short, pleasant speech. It will read as follows.

“My good fellow Iraqis, members of the international community, members of the press, welcome. After the past several years, I am delighted to invite you all here to witness the first moments of our transition. A vision of a new era stands before us. After careful deliberation, we are at long last ready to fully embrace the democracy of our liberators. I have called you all here to announce our new plan for better embracing the democracy of the United States. Specifically, we have made preparations for becoming a state. Congress willing, we will begin the Iraqi Constitutional Convention next week. It seems so clear now that for our peoples to truly embrace the gift the American people have given us, we must fully adapt to the strongest principles of democracy and freedom. What better way could there be for this adaptation than to use them in the full, official capacity? To celebrate this momentous occasion, we have prepared a grand feast for everyone gathered. Come, join us in the festivities!”

It would be fascinating to watch the reasons presented for why this would have to be denied. Or, if it were actually embraced, well, that sounds like a solid improvement over the current situation too. In either case, the shock would be overwhelming to everyone. And the US would find itself massively between a rock and a hard place. No matter which way they went – granting, denying, trying to put off indefinitely – the question of allowing Iraq to become a state, the act of having to manage that issue would quite possibly be the last challenge of American imperialism.

For those of you who just shit your pants, I promise that I do not actually expect this to happen. But, issues of pride aside, tell me this. Why, specifically, would asking for this loudly and publicly, be a bad strategic move for the Iraqi people right now?

Plant Metaphor

[Originally Posted 4/24/07]
About 13 months ago, my building manager gave me an Easter lily when I returned from a bereavement leave. It was a very nice gesture, and the plant was very pretty. I put it on the windowsill of my office, and I believe it can be seen in its original form in the office pictures I have posted elsewhere.

The lily eventually died, of course, as such plants are expected to do. But I had seen this coming and took the required steps to pollinate the plant before it went. I calmly went about my business as the original plant grew brown leaf by leaf. Eventually, I chopped it down entirely and left the pot of dirt I was now caring for in the window.

I have continued to manage the empty pot of dirt now for 13 months. It is no longer empty. Where the one former, simple stalk once stood, there are now four behemoth stalks, coiling wildly and continuing to grow rapidly. Each individually is about twice as tall as the original stalk that I used to create them.

I am beginning to wonder if they will eventually try to eat me.

This seems pretty typical of how projects I manage usually turn out. The lily has attracted the attention of the green-thumbed types around the building, and a few from other buildings. They all point out that many people who do not routinely grow plants would not have expected anything nice to grow out of the pot of dirt at all. Many of them additionally point out that lilies are rarely expected to be taller than the gardeners managing them. But that just sounds pessimistic to me. I’ll just continue to assume that the plants are immortal and care for them as such until proven otherwise. That’s how I usually manage projects like this. It works pretty well.

Thank Goodness for AIDS?

Disclaimer: In my last post, I pointed out that I was trying to make up for my recently-stagnant blog writing behavior by temporarily injecting some heavy controversy. Please keep that in mind while reading this one.

Recently, studies have shown that it might already be possible to dramatically reduce – if not eliminate – the number of new HIV cases using existing drugs. We should know for sure in less than a year. (Article is here: http://www.healthology.com/hiv-aids/hiv-aids-news/article3505.htm) The gist of it is, in monkey trials (the last stage of testing before human trials, which are in progress), researchers simulated hardcore receptive anal intercourse once a week, for fourteen weeks, in twelve monkeys. This turned out to be very bad for the six control group monkeys. However, the six monkeys that spent those fourteen weeks on existing AIDS drugs came out of the diseased bareback orgy squeaky clean. And they stayed that way, even after the researchers took them off the drugs. Again, to reiterate, the study also shows that people should normally assume that a fourteen-week bareback orgy is not a good idea.

But those six healthy monkeys are really impressive. Taken collectively, they suggest that the odds of contracting AIDS via the highest risk sexual behavior is less than 1/588 (less than 0.17%) per sex act while on the drugs. In contrast, the other group shows that normally, the odds of contracting AIDS is somewhere between 5.1% and 83%. (This has been studied more thoroughly in humans with different results. I present only the like for like data, which accounts for the wide range. For people who are curious, the monkeys were apparently experiencing simulations of exceptionally rough sex.) Worst case, that means that monkeys on the drugs are 3.33% as likely to catch AIDS when compared to the monkeys who are not. (Best case is that the monkeys are 0% as likely.)

That’s a very big change. These drugs are not terribly cheap, but let’s face it. Most people who are at high risk of catching AIDS know who they are. If even a majority of these people went on these drugs (assuming they work in humans), we would see the rate of AIDS transmission in developed countries drop dramatically. Pair that with widespread testing, which looks like it might become standard with routine physicals in the near future, and we might basically be looking at an end to the AIDS crisis entirely (again, this is in developed nations only).

Skeptics will point out that we are no closer to a cure, and they would be correct. I should also remind everyone that we do not yet know that the monkey data will hold true in human populations. But it looks promising. That said, to rebuff the critics of the lack of a cure, I would point out that if we eliminate new cases of AIDS, even if we never find an outright cure, the AIDS problem will eventually go away via a tragic, but very predictable series of events.

That is a good thing, if the only other available option is the same end to existing AIDS cases, but with new cases still spreading. That said, I will unabashedly call this a potentially very good thing.

But it has the potential to get even better. The reason that HIV has been as bad as it was is twofold. First, it gets along a little too well with the immune system. Second, the immune system is exceptionally bad at noticing that HIV is even around. The virus’ surface looks deceptively like human cellular material. Therefore, attacking it directly is extremely difficult. Normally, that’s very bad for people with these viral shells around. But modern science is experimenting on HIV. It is possible to remove the genetic material inside the “stealth” viral shell and put something else in there. This new genetic material can then be selectively targeted to cells for delivering gene therapies. If the research stays promising, HIV shells could turn into a major pharmaceutical product and save countless lives through a large number of applications. Similar things can be said about the virus that causes genital herpes.

So here is today’s controversial question: How many lives would HIV technologies have to save before you considered the virus to have been a benefit to humanity?

Lake the Writer

It’s been a while since I last posted, so I figure it’s only appropriate I balance out my silence by upping the controversy, and thus the level of interest. I’ll try to write both ideas in my head right now in one sitting, and post them a bit apart. (I do that sort of thing more often than you might think.)

A suspicious number of people in my life have suggested I become a writer. Now before many of you (correctly) point out that my prose has a lot in common with Mercury (think density), I have to qualify that a bit.

Some people have suggested that I become a technical writer. I would probably be good at that. I say that primarily because the existing technical writers, in general, are not good at what they do. But unless we’re talking professorial work in academia, this line of work does not much interest me.

The more amusing line of thought is the people who have suggested I write fiction. They’re more common than you might think. However, in general, I worry that (while I could probably scare up a small, devoted cult following) most people would find any book I would write to be an excellent makeshift high chair, but otherwise indecipherable (and harmful to children). That is not the path to success in a writing career, as I know them.

But here’s the amusing spin. There’s a subgroup of the fiction-suggestion-makers that I think might just be onto something. Specifically, the subgroup of people who suggest I write overwhelmingly salacious novels targeted at people with short attention spans.

Here’s why that could work. If I was writing for the purpose of (how to say…?) “pointed entertainment,” I would never think, “Hmmm. What would be a good word here? How about ‘salacious’? Yes, that’s definitely the word that most of my readers will really appreciate and savor in this paragraph.” Instead of humoring my instinct to frighten readers away with obtuse metaphors and onomonopoetic vocabulary (it’s a strong instinct), I would have another mindset at work entirely. Specifically, the mindset of “Hmmm. How could I seduce everyone worthy in this room as quickly and efficiently as possible?” That’s an even stronger instinct, and people seem to find that one less intimidating than the one about heavy writing. (An aside: I have always found it extremely amusing that many more people find my instinct to casually, yet discriminately seduce far more charming than my instinct to write accurate, but playful narratives. This is bad news for social conservatives.)

I am aware that most of the people who will read this blog will have never read a word from me that actually resembles outright naughty fiction. In fact, some of you might still be numb from my seven (I mean, two) page essay on endothelial binding domains on artificial substrates.

But I would be very curious to know this: How many people who read this would be interested to see me write naughty fiction?

Patriotism

Rumor has it (though I haven’t actually checked for sure) the city I live in is home to the world’s largest American flag.

The story seems likely, because right off the highway, there is an enormous American flag hoisted way up in the air and flapping away. Sheboygan is a good city to put up an enormous flag, because the city has a lot of wind. In fact, I cannot for the life of me explain why the city is not making headlines for competing with the Dutch for wind power open-mindedness. It’d be a gold mine. Keeping your car on the road is difficult half the time. I have to imagine 4000 turbines spinning away would help.

The part about the flag that strikes me as odd is how it’s lit during the night. They turn on several extremely powerful spotlights on the platform below, and point them (more or less) straight up. This does indeed light up the flag very well.

The part I find odd is what else it does. It lights up the sky WAY above the flag also. On cloudy nights, the flag appears to be centered underneath an apocalyptic end-of-times burning sky. From ten miles off, you can see the bright patch on the horizon. The right shaped cloud can make it look like a tear across the heavens.

In addition, in case the enormous spot-lit flag was too subtle, a large red airplane traffic light blinks on and off on top the flagpole, just above the flag itself.

I concede that it’s nitpicky, but I find these backdrops to the almost excessive patriotism interesting.

Bossy

I usually go out of my way to try to make fun of myself while I write these things. I’m going to try my hardest to do the same thing in this one. In theory, it should be easy, because I was the only person in a growing crowd who was completely clueless and lacking in even the required vocabulary to understand what was going on. This time, however, I’m not sure it’s going to work. Let’s find out!

This story took place last week, in the lobby in front of my office, on the temporary secretary’s last day in my building, when the manager was away. Because of that stack of details, the mood was casual. The secretary was reading some sheet about an activity one of her grade-school-aged children was eligible for. I did not know that specific detail. All I knew was that as I walked past, she asked me, “So are you going to watch donkey basketball this year?”

I was confused. The term “donkey basketball” was not cohering into any likely event, at least not in my head. Reeling against the unknown, my subconscious mind decided that the term could probably be filed in the same folder as terms such as “Cleveland Steamer” and “Donkey Punch.” That did not much help me reply to the cheerful secretary who was waiting expectantly.

Just then one of the younger operators walked by. The guy is about my age, and a pretty quick wit. Clearly deciding that I was taking too long, the secretary casually swiveled in her chair in his direction and asked him the same thing. He broke into a rare, complete grin and cheerfully replied, “Of course!”

That smelled fishy to me. I broke silence by asking them to tell me what donkey basketball is. Much laughter ensued. Now I was almost positive that I was in the middle of an April Fools prank. They continued to laugh, and kept trading off sentences as they tripped over each other explaining what donkey basketball is. Through the boisterous laughter, all I could clearly make out was that it involved a lot of children, donkeys, and the passing of something.

Something about the loud laughter and the “children, donkeys, and passing something” trio left me suspicious. Sensing my confusion, the secretary them asked me if I had ever played “Bossy Bingo.”

Again, confusion was the best I could muster. Again, I asked for some clarification. This time, I was told that Bossy Bingo is a community event consisting of painting giant white boxes on an open field, taking bets on the boxes, releasing a herd of cows, and waiting to see which box gets shat in first. Preferably while drinking and roasting brats. Again, some skepticism on my end.

Then, along comes my predecessor who confirms to my satisfaction that, yes, both these games are real, and common in small, rural WI areas such as those surrounding the city where I live.

After he leaves, along comes another engineer who, when hearing of my earlier confusion, informs me that what I was thinking of was a “Donkey Show,” which I should neither Google at work, nor expect to be able to read about anyway unless I learn how to speak Mexican. (I am aware that “Mexican” is not a language.)

So now, let’s return to the original question. Throughout this entry, I was the only person who had no idea what everyone was talking about. Hands down, I was the clueless one. But did I manage to make fun of myself while explaining that in detail?

I Write Too Much

Remember back in high school, when everybody tried to inflate the size of their papers by narrowing the margins, using fonts that were too big, and trying to add extra spacing in? And how in college, that mostly went away because paper sizes started to feel more natural? Well, So far, grad school has me widening margins, decreasing font sizes, and eliminating line spacing. I fit this onto two pages. (Go ahead and read it if you like that sort of thing.)





Challenges continue in the field of creating and sustaining ideal environments in which new cells can grow and adapt. Of particular interest is the study of how to grow or develop tissues, starting with existing tissue fronts (such as at a wound site) or some number of initial cells (such as seeded, undeveloped cells). This paper seeks to summarize some of the promising methods of tailoring specific environments to meet cell developmental needs currently being researched.

A promising branch of the ongoing work looks into moving past the study of specializing cells via traditional stand-alone chemical developmental factors. Additional control can be applied using properties of the extracellular matrix to create additional or complimentary effects. This is a promising field of study both because of the potential to base the matrix on a wide variety of materials, and also for its potential to tailor those materials to naturally contain one or more desired factors to influence cell development. (Hileshorn, 2007)

Liu, Heilshorn, and Tirrell (2004) studied endothelial cell adhesion on customized protein-based extracellular matricies containing RGD and CS5 cell-binding domains. Using protein-based scaffolds is just one of many options for studying cell/environment interactions. Poly(ethylene terephthalate) and expanded poly(tetrafluoroethylene) are cited in the current study as alternative substrates out of which to make implanted synthetic vascular grafts. By creating a protein matrix on which to mount the cells, the option of adding in the amino acid RGD and CS5 binding domains to test their relative adhesive potential for endothelial cells became possible. Since the RGS and CS5 domains are themselves amino acid sequences, they are but two of many building blocks available for the construction of the protein matrix scaffold.

The fact that these domains are naturally occurring in fibronectin and are thus familiar hints at an advantage that protein-based scaffolds boast: extreme customizability. The ability to create cellular factories from bacterial cells, all producing amino acid chains of identical length and pre-tailored features offers major advantages for study. Put directly, the ability to exactly replicate amino acid chains of the same length is a degree of control not seen in other matrices, such as the polymer substrates mentioned earlier. The ability to exactly duplicate amino acid sequences of specific functional groups in sequence is also a feature unique to the protein scaffold. The ability to study one or a few functional groups at a time allows for a great deal of control for research purposes. However, in the long term, protein-based scaffolds may offer the most tailorable extracellular environment simply due to the naturally-occurring wide variety of functional groups available in the protein chains. (Hileshorn, 2007)

That said, it is worth noting that there are drawbacks to protein-based scaffolds. The very mechanism of production – bacterial cell construction – has a strong potential to add contaminants into the isolated protein chains. To isolate the grown proteins, cells are typically lysed and the resulting mix then purified. Bacterial cells generally inspire an immune response in living creatures, thus, contaminants that would be naturally found as parts of the lysed cells may result in dangerous side effects during practical use of the desired protein chains, unless they are very well isolated. Additionally, the batch yields of bacterially-produced proteins are much smaller than those of many alternative scaffolds. (Hileshorn, 2007)

Returning to the topic of vascular grafts, the protein-based scaffold was chosen to test the feasibility of overcoming limitations in the artificial materials currently used. Liu, Heilshorn, and Tirrell (2004) report that the poly(ethylene terephthalate) and expanded poly(tetrafluoroethylene) grafts are prone to failure due to thrombosis and intimal hyperplasia. In other words, the grafts are often seen to either restrict down due to unnatural clotting on the inner wall of the graft, or the graft inspires cell growth to the point that living tissue restricts the flow of blood through the passageway itself. The exact mechanism via which these responses are generated is not perfectly understood, but use of the protein scaffold was chosen for study as an alternative to try to compensate for two possible factors. First, the rigidity of the protein matrix can be customizable to more closely mimic those seen in healthy arteries. Engler, et al. (2006) demonstrate that the elasticity or relative stiffness of the matrix on which cells bind has a pronounced effect on the eventual cell specialization and characteristics. Thus, creating a graft which more closely moves and bends like a healthy artery would be expected to develop cells more typical of those living in a healthy artery. Second, the protein substrate was tailored to specifically incorporate the RGD and CS5 binding domains, in the hope that they would encourage adherence of endothelial cells like those found lining the inner walls of healthy arteries. Having this endothelial cell lining would offer artificial vascular grafts the added benefit of duplicating the expected environment for permeation by the immune system and other processes normally carried out by arterial linings (as opposed to the hyperplasia otherwise often seen).

However, it must be noted that initially, there was no specific proof that the use of the RGD and CS5 binding domains were specifically responsible for favorable endothelial cell adhesion. Without further study, some unknown aspect of the protein matrix could have been arguably just as (if not more) responsible for any and all results. Thus, Liu, Heilshorn, and Tirrell (2004) tested multiple variables via which they could determine the actual results of the use of the binding domains themselves.

First, four artificial extracellular matrices were used to mount cells, and then were stress-tested by attempts to centrifugally detach the deposited cells after they were allowed to bind. Two of the four matrices were proteins containing RGD and CS5 domains, respectively. The second two matrices were identical, with the exception that the RGD and CS5 domains had two of their amino acids switched, and thus would no longer act as RGD and CS5 domains (though they would remain otherwise extremely similar). These studies showed that the matrices containing the proper binding domains contained higher observed cell adhesion indices than their incorrect counterparts as seen by a roughly 60% increase for the RGD domain and a roughly 100% increase for the CS5 domain adhesions.

Second, the cells adhering to the four substrates (the same as in the first test) were allowed to spread (settle onto and bind with) the surface of the four substrates over a period of time. In these tests, the cells on the correct RGD domain substrates spread similarly to those on the positive control fibronectin. (This was a qualitative trial, with cell shape being the observed variable.) However, the cells on all other substrates did not show fibronectin-like spreading – including those on the correct CS5 domains. From those results, it is difficult to conclude anything about the CS5 binding domain’s effect on endothelial cell adhesion. However, the RGD domains do seem to be either binding with the cells as expected or in some other way inducing the cell shape to allow for greater contact between the cell and the substrate (and thus have more area over which for other binding mechanisms to apply).

A third trial was performed on the two substrates featuring the proper RGD and CS5 domains. In this test, cells were allowed to settle onto the substrates, but then, peptides were introduced into the system which would themselves bind – in competition with the proteins in the cells themselves – with the binding domains in question. In both cases, the competing peptide had no pronounced effect on cells on control fibronectin substrates (proving that the peptides introduced do not naturally remove the cells via some innate property), but dramatically reduced or eliminated the number of adhering cells on the RGD- and CS5-only domains. In other words, the specific competition for these binding domains seemed to – as expected – eliminate the cause of cell adhesion to the substrates. There is one curious note to this set of tests, however. In the trails examining the effects of modified competing peptides (which would be expected not to be able to bind/compete), it was shown that the addition of modified (inactive) peptides similar to those competing for the CS5 binding domains, the added (inactive) peptides actually nearly doubled the number of observed adherent cells. This is an unexpected result, because if the peptides were truly having no specific interaction (which is precisely what they were selected to do), they would be expected to have a negligible effect on the system, much as is seen in the RGD trial with similarly inactive peptides. While this finding does not directly argue with the stated conclusion that the binding domains are the cause of cell adherence in these tests, it does suggest that some other force(s) may be at work as well.

Given that cell binding appeared to be taking place via the binding domains – especially on the more clearly confirmed trials for the RGD domains – a fourth trial was performed to examine the internal characteristics of the cells bound specifically to the RGD substrates. Here, cells were dyed to show F-actin and vinculin filaments – cell proteins found at focal adhesions, such as those which would be present at bound RGD domains. As expected, cells on the RGD substrate showed comparable F-actin and vinculin filaments forming when compared to those found in cells on fibronectin. These fibers were not seen in cells on negative control substrates, which, again, is strong evidence that specific, localized binding domains (such as the predicted RGD) are causing the cell adhesion.

It is further interesting to note that Engler et. al. (2006) have looked further at these cell focal adhesions and their effects on cell development. In their work, they discovered that a cell is capable of sensing the mechanical properties of the substrate on which it is growing (rigidity, tensile strength, etc.), and that these substrate properties have strong effects on the eventual specification of undeveloped cells as they adapt to more specialized tasks/environments. This raises the question of how exactly the cell is able to sense, let alone respond to the mechanical properties of the scaffold. In their research, they propose that the same actin filaments stained and examined in the RGD domain binding work (Liu, Heilshorn, and Tirrell, 2004), along with their focal adhesion points (including the RGD complexes) provide a structure capable of being pulled and exerting forces in response to the movements of the extracellular matrix (previously called the substrate). Engler et. al. point out that these same actin/focal adhesion complexes are known to interact with signaling molecules that may act as the transducers of this mechanical stimulus. This adds further interest to the question of artificial vascular grafts. Given the modified structural properties of the current artificial grafts, the cells may not only be failing to settle onto expected cell-binding domains, but may also be adapting to an entirely inappropriate (non-vascular) task in the body due to responses to the mechanical properties of the artificial matrix.






References



Engler, Adam J.; Sen, Shamik; Sweeney, H. Lee; Discher, Dennis E. Cell, Volume 126, August 25, 2006, pgs 677-689. “Matrix Elasticity Directs Stem Cell Lineage Specification.”


Heilshorn, Sarah. Lecture, March 28, 2007. “Engineering the Cellular Microenvironment: Protein-Based Scaffolds, Patterned Substrates, and Microfluidic Devices.”



Liu, Julie C.; Heilshorn, Sarah C.; Tirrell, David A. Biomacromolecules 2004, Volume 5, pgs. 497-504. “Comparative Cell Responses to Artifical Extracellular Matrix Proteins Containing the RGD and CS5 Cell Binding Domains.”

Three-Way Relationship Application

I’ve been sexually harassing one of my friends via this thought process for at least a month now. The creation of this application was my way of escalating the good times. But then I had a breakthrough… Given that the document is electronic, I can sexually harass lots of people with it!

That said, by all means, fill it out as a joke, fill it out for real, or just read it for fun. Submissions can be sent to me via whatever means you think would be most fun or best! Enjoy!

Application to Become the Third Member of a Now-Two-Way Relationship

Section 1, Multiple Choice:

1) Three way relationships are all about:
a. Sex
b. Communism
c. Money
d. Breaking up an otherwise stable couple for entertainment
e. The same things a two way relationship is about, but more so

2) Relatively speaking:
a. I want to join the relationship pretty much exclusively because of one person in the existing couple
b. One of the people in the existing couple is SO much hotter than the other one
c. I’m in it for the money/cheap rent/babysitting perks
d. I enjoy conflict as something to do
e. I suspect that a three-way relationship would require an unusual amount of maturity from everyone involved

3) I can probably be classified as:
a. Jealous
b. Really jealous
c. Insanely jealous
d. Insane
e. Measured and rational

4) I can probably also be classified as:
a. Combative
b. Always right
c. Territorial
d. Feral
e. Open-minded

5) I would try to resolve conflict in a three way relationship via:
a. Playing the other two people against each other
b. Sabotage
c. Attempting to eject the undesired third member from the relationship, finally
d. More conflict
e. All of the above
f. Logical debate

Section 2, Short Answer:

1) Please comment on how you feel you would be compatible with the existing personalities in the established couple individually.




2) Please comment on how you believe you would add to the social dynamic of the relationship by becoming an active member.




3) Please comment on any incompatibilities you foresee, and how they might be addressed.




4) Please comment on your sexual side, including any suspected compatibilities or incompatibilities with both the individual members of the couple, and with the couple as a unit.




5) Please comment on how happy you feel you would be as a member of the three way relationship, including any concerns you may have that might negatively impact your happiness.

The Tiniest Snowstorm

In my last entry (which I wrote about a week before I actually posted it), I introduced the new super-cold freezer that I bought for work. To refresh your memory, the freezer runs at –85 C, which is the same as -121 Fahrenheit. Or, put more bluntly, it’s f*ing cold.

It’s also just about the coolest thing ever. (The literal scientist in me insists that that is not a bad pun, because if it were, it would be wrong.)

Now that it’s been running for a while and I’m satisfied that it will continue to do so, I am having it equipped with a chart recorder to track and record its internal temperature. To do this, I will be having a contractor drill through the outer wall to mount an RTD (probe) inside. The point of this is that I wanted to know if the RTD was long enough to go through the outer wall. To find out, I got out my tape measure and opened the door.

This was the first time anyone had opened that freezer since it was powered up and allowed to cool. The door is normally held shut by two industrial latches.

When you open the main door, all that you see is a stack of what look like cabinet doors, one on top of each other. If you open all of them, it’s just a wide open space inside with no blockage. But the cabinet doors are in there so that you only open as much space as you need and let the cold air stay inside otherwise.

You should also know that since the latest thaw, the weather here has been crazy humid.

Finally, we’re getting to the cool part.

I opened the main door, got out my tape measure, then opened the middle cabinet door, exposing the inner chamber to the outside air.

As soon as the moist air started to make contact with the inner chamber, it condensed and froze in midair. Put directly, it started snowing inside the freezer. The wisps of snow started swirling and settling down onto the inner floor of the unit. It was like looking at a miniature blizzard in a box.

I just love that freezer. I need to get one for my apartment, just on account of the awesomeness factor.

Many people will argue that wanting a –85 C freezer in my living room is too dorky.

I would argue that those people are bad chemists. I’d bet good money that they’d change their minds entirely after I serve them vodka on the (ethanol) rocks. (Pure grain alcohol freezes at –73 C.)





(((Secret closing note: I would have to decide how retarded I felt the critical guests were being while detracting my awesome freezer. If they were nice but misguided people, I would probably not let them drink vodka on the ethanol rocks if there were still visible rocks. If they were just being dumb or nasty, I might let them find out that there is such a thing as a drink that was just “too refreshing”… as I listened to the subtle cracking noise of their shattering teeth and tongues.)))