So I bought Viva La Vida by Coldpay. Rare that I buy an album without listening to it first. I find there are very few albums these days, aside from good jazz, old standards, classical, and tried and true bands such as Radiohead or The Killers where I buy based on the strength of the band’s reputation alone.

I bought Viva La Vida on the strength of the iPod commercials, the reviews I read, and the fact that X&Y was a great album from cover to cover. This time, however, the critics were wrong, with the exception of Viva La Vida and Violet Hill, the album is pretty vanilla. The songs are a little contrived and, for lack of a better way of explaining how I feel about the album, Chris Martin et al., tried too hard to top X&Y. The result was forced, apparently hurried, and in many instances putting too much reliance on an overused hook, much like movies that rely too much on their special effects.

For example, the song Lost! (not to be confused of the excellent television show of the same name) repeats the same tired theme over and over again without enough variation to make it interesting. In fact, I got sick of listening to it 30 seconds into the first time the track played.

With the execption of a couple of good hits that will spice up the soon-to-be-released-I’m-sure Greatest Hits, Viva La Vida is a very "ehhh…" effort on the part of Coldplay. After listening, Viva La Vida takes a step backwards to the level of Parachutes and reinforces that X&Y was an anomoly that is unlikey to be repeated by Coldplay any time soon.

As a patent attorney, I know better than making public disclosures of inventions without first filing a patent application. But who cares? I have an idea and I don’t play to spend my hard earned cash (which needs to go to gas) to pay the application fees. Gas is expensive. For me, it isn’t a bad thing per se, although it reduces the amount of computer equipment I can buy and the clothing the missus buys for the kids. But in a market economy, the only way to really promote a change in the behavior of citizens is by hitting their pocketbooks. If you want them to save water, make water expensive. If you want to promote new energy sources, let gas be expensive. etc., etc., etc.

My idea, stimulated from trying to be a more efficient driver to eek out better gas mileage, is to install devices at each intersection that allow drivers to know how fast they have to drive to hit the next light on green. Because the biggest source of gas consumption in the city is acceleration (I am looking for a source to back me up, but according to the principles of physics this is why you get better highway mileage than city mileage), the idea is to minimize starting and stopping in city driving: The idea:

1. Divide the roads in a city up into a predetermined sets of street busy-ness ranks. For example, a residential street would be classified as a ‘1,’ while a residential artery might be labeled ‘3.’ Main roads would be ‘4′ or ‘5′ depending on how busy they are. The invention would not apply to streets that don’t have traffic lights or intersect with streets having traffic lights, so it might be irrelevant to label residential roads.
2. Create a light timing system based on the business ranks. Where a ‘5′ street intersects a ‘4′ street, the green light on the ‘5′ street may stay green for 60 seconds. The green on the ‘4′ for the same intersection would stay green for ‘45′ seconds, for example. The timing is designed to accommodate the traffic level and prevent bottlenecks. Thus, ideally each light will stay green long enough for all traffic waiting at a red light to make it through the intersection when the signal turns green with a buffer at the end. The buffer might be large if the street is intersection with a relatively low ranked street (such as one coming out of a residential neighborhood). Also, the timings may be variable depending on the time of day and the level of traffic.
3. Attached to each traffic light or on a separate sign posted shortly after, but within sight of the traffic light a secondary display is shown that tells the drivers the speed in which they have to drive to hit the next intersection when the light turns green (or a few seconds after the light turns green) to allow stopped motorists to pass the upcoming intersection before the cars from the previous intersection arrive.
4. At night, where lower ranked streets intersect higher ranked streets, the timing remains. Because some streets are dead during the night hours, leave high ranked streets green and turn the lights for the lower ranks streets into stop sign signals (blinking reds). I.e., we abandon the metal detectors and light sensors for light changing.

The idea here is to allow drives to modulate their speed to avoid starting and stopping. If you hit a green light in 50 zone, the sign may tell you that you have to drive 35 MPH to hit the next intersection on a green. Thus, you never have to completely stop you car and thereby your gas efficiency is improved. Additionally, if you don’t have to wait at stop lights, travel time becomes much more predicable and less frustrating.

So who pays for it? I have no idea. I don’t want any additional taxes (especially in California). Global warming people will hail this as a way to reduce the carbon footprint. Global warming disbelievers will hail it as a way to keep a few hundred extra dollars in their pockets each year. Win/win.

OK, I said I wasn’t going to write about politics when I restarted my blog. But I just can’t resist.

In a spirit of fairness to the debate, I am a conservative. I want to reveal my bias before I climb onto the soap box. I also live in California. Californians voted on and ratified Prop. 22, which outlawed gay marriage. Recently, the California Supreme Court overturned the voice of the people and ruled Prop. 22 unconstitutional.

This week, my church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, will encourage members of California congregations to take an active role in promoting the proposed amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman to be on the ballot this November. I am somewhat ambivalent about social conservatism. Generally, government should butt out and let people make their own choices, whether good or bad and let people suffer the consequences of their choices. With gay marriage, it the undemocraticness of the gay position that gets me motivated — the insistence of a small minority of people to force the majority of people to accept and embrace a position I find immoral.

So what is the big deal with gay marriage anyhow? Gays already have all the same civil rights as married people, can live together, shop together, share a bed together. In other words, they have already forced the government to accept and embrace their position. So why are they so hell-bent on the right to be married?

Mr. Sulu, of Star Trek fame, summed up the gay position:

"The California Supreme Court . . . ruled that our Constitution provides for equal protection for all and that it cannot have marriage for one group and another form – domestic partnership – for another group. No more “separate but equal.” No more second-class citizenship."

The issue isn’t about "separate but equal," which is focused on how the government treats a group of people, but on the attitudes of people themselves.

The problem of the gay position is that they don’t fully understand the purpose of marriage. In other words, they don’t understand why marriage is marriage. Marriage is organizational principle about which families are created and administered — husband, wife, and children . Although gays can adopt children, they cannot ab initio have children and participate in the core function of a marriage. Children are most successful when raised in an environment with both a father and a mother present. Thus, a "gay family" is an artificial creation that doesn’t exist according to the laws of nature or according to the traditional purpose and function of getting  married. A gay couple with children is a different social and emotional dynamic than a married couple with children. It simply isn’t the same as a family started with "marriage." Gay couples cannot provide children with the same nutritive environment as fostered by a father and a mother, each of whom impart very different social and emotional food to children.

Thus, gays shouldn’t be clamoring for a title that represents a wholly different family dynamic and environment than what their relationships offer. Even if you call it marriage, it will always be something different. An apple doesn’t become an orange simply by calling the apple an orange.

So why is having the name of "marriage" with all the attendant tradition etc. so important to gays? They have all the same rights with a title the aptly describes their relationship.

For gays, the battle for marriage is not about the title, or the issue of family, or any of the issues having to do with family or title. The marriage battle is a clever smokescreen for the real issue: insistence that society at large not only allow their lifestyle, but accept and embrace as correct, right, and holy. This is why they aren’t content with the same rights. Having the term "married" applied to their relationships blurs the distinction between the traditional family organizations and their unnatural relationships. By blurring the lines, the hope is that future generations come to fully accept homosexuality as correct, right, and holy. This is why they target young children in schools. This is why they have to have to crash the party of married people everywhere. This is what the debate is about, not rights, not equality, but acceptance of a lifestyle that many people in this country find repugnant.

Evidence of this argument? Again Mr. Sulu:

"With time, I know the opposition to same sex marriage, too, will be seen as an antique and discreditable part of our history."

Mr. Sulu can cast the argument in terms of intolerance and bigotry. Ironically, gays demand our tolerance of their position, but offer no tolerance to the viewpoints or voices (e.g., Prop 22) of those who disagree with their position. Gays are focused on pounding their round peg into the square hole of society (bad analogy), and have no tolerance or respect for the feelings of the majority of the people, the unchanging morality revealed in the Scriptures, or the democratic voice of the people. Perhaps that is why they have no problem that the California Supreme Court overturned the majority voice of Californians. I suppose next they will insist that they be called "heterosexuals."

For a religious examination, please see the  The Family: a Proclamation to the World , promulgated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

(more…)

One of the advantages of waking up early in the morning is that you have a lot of quiet thinking time. As soon as my alarm went off at 5:30 this morning, my mind was in gear and I stood in the shower pondering all kinds of issues from gay marriage in California to some of the dumber things that happened at work the last few days to application of my most recent reading of the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People to wondering why current art is so focused on the basest human nature to whether the Coldplay album released this week was worthy the rave reviews it has received.

Of course, I am slammed at work today with a patent application that has to go out the door tonight, so I had time only to jot down my ideas on the back of an envelope and all of my congitions will have to wait.

I find it really interesting (frustrating) how when one has free time there is nothing to watch, and no good books to read, nothing that looks interesting on the internet, and nothing to do. But when you are busy, there isn’t time enough to accomplish everything you want to do… I think any reasonably motivate person knows exactly what I am talking about.

Almost got Vonage, right up until they explained the two year commitment not to have to pay the $40 cancellation fee. Things were looking up when a woman from AT&T called me back after her company auto-canceled 3 orders. (Yes. Three orders). She promised to take care of it and call me back later that day. A week later I am still waiting for the call back.

By the way, in AT&T defense, feeble as it is, they had some trouble running credit checks. That is the cost of using LifeLock — the put fraud alerts on file with each credit agency which fouls up getting credit checks done in a timely fashion.

Did I mention that we still don’t have a home phone?

Today, I started my Saturday off pretty much like normal. I got up at 6am and went mountain biking at Peter’s Canyon Reservior, which is reachable from my house without the need of a car. In fact, thanks to some horse trails, I am literally only on pavement for about 1/2 mile. Today, I decided to take the ridge trail into the park, which is much harder than taking the ridge trail out of the park.

Like most Saturday’s, I filled my camelback and kicked myself for not cleaning my chain last night. Because I don’t have a big appetite most Saturday mornings at 6, I opted not to eat. BIG MISTAKE .

I am in pretty good shape and haven’t had too much difficulty on the hills lately. Today, totally different story. I knew I was in trouble on the first climb of the day, which is fairly gradual after the first 30 feet. It is a single track, and as I made a switchback, I tried to hit the gas and there was nothing but a nagging voice inside my head telling me it would feel better to stop. I spun my back tire and lost my momentum. My feet hit the ground and I stopped (not good when you are climbing on a mountain bike because it is hard to start again when the track is dusty or sandy, which it was).

I said to myself, no, I am not letting this hill beat me. So I decended 50 feet and tried it again and barely made it. I got to the top of climb one, with a little difficulty, but made it all the same. Climbs two, three, and four, however, are significantly steeper, longer, and harder. I went down a short rise and started up climb two and realized halfway up that I had completely bonked out. I had no power or energy and I couldn’t make the climb. I walked my bike up the second half of climb two, determined to do a better job on climb three.

The problem with climb three is that I invariably forget how steep it is and how long it is. Not to mention the rocks and ruts. Same story, made it half way up, but had nothing. I dug deep and pedeled through the pain, but I couldn’t keep my front tire steady and eventually I rode up into the bushes off the track and again stopped. Again, I walked the bike up the last 200 feet

I knew the hills had the better of me, but I had to at least have some bragging rights, so I decided I would go for Big Red (hill four), which was going to be the hill I finished today. It is much less steep, but considerably longer than the others. It was really embarrasing walking my bike up the last stand of Big Red. The downhill was great, but I had had enough and hit the fire trail for home.

So, moral of the story? Eat before I ride so I have some energy? No, get a new bike to get an edge on the hill.

So I bought a new mountain bike today. I spent more than I wanted to, which causes me to have multiple buyer’s remorse. First, I felt guilty for spending the money (4 digits worth of money, before the period). Second, I felt guilty for having to justify to the Missus why I get to spend money on myself. Well, she was supportive, but I felt guilty having the internal conversation with her about spending the money on myself. But I had been riding a bike from 1988 that had no suspension that I had kept in reasonably good shape. It was only a matter of time before I killed myself on some of the downhills, right?

Got it home, accidentally squeezed the front break lever with the tire off (= bad for hydraulic disk brakes), and now there is rub on the front brake rotor. Then realized I forgot to buy cleats that fit my shoes and the pedals I bought.

Sigh.

But it is a sweet ride.*

* I haven’t actually ridden it yet, but in my head it will be a sweet ride.

My sister gave us this game. I am not a huge game player, mostly because I suck at games like Balderdash, Nerts, and Scattergories. But this game is really fun for an evening after the kids are in bed. Strategy is required, but not so much that your head hurts. The pacing is just right — the game is completed in 30 minutes to an hour. Longer if chatty women are playing and not paying attention to the game flow. It is really embarrassing to lose to such women when you are trying your hardest to win.

The goal is to connect cities together on predetermined routes you draw from a pile of route cards. Points are awarded for connecting distant cities by connecting routes of adjacent cities, and lost when you fail to complete the route. Train track connections between cities can be used by only one individual (except for double track connections), which creates an interesting strategy when you think your opponent is trying to connect two distant cities and you can disrupt the flow by claiming a connection along their route. Stations allow use of your opponent’s tracks at a point cost. Points are also awarded based on the length of each segment connected and the longest overall route.

We started with Ticket to Ride: Europe, which is the base game with some fun variations, including tunnels and ferries. Other variations include Switzerland (2-3 player game) and a number of United States variations.

Ticket to Ride Website

(I have given up on trying to get the margins right on the picture)

By the way, we still don’t have a home phone line. And AT&T still plays Muzak.