"NO SHUCKS" silk-free corn-on-the-cob, quick and easy

For years, I've paid extra to buy corn-on-the-cob with the husk removed, or spent time shucking the corn and tossing the husks in the garbage can. And, despite best efforts, there is always that odd silk thread or two that remains behind pretending to be tooth floss!

No more! As the You Tube video shows (click image above to view), there is a much, much, MUCH easier way!

How did you get along for years without this knowledge? I have no idea.

I've loved corn-on-the-cob since I was a kid 70-odd years ago. Heck, when we had a young family of our own, and grew our own corn on a "gentleman's farm" in upstate New York, we'd get the water boiling before we picked the corn, and then shuck and toss the cobs in. Delicious!

With the advent of microwave ovens, I've wrapped the shucked corn in moist napkins, and then nuked it that way.

But, always, always, ALWAYS, it has taken considerable effort (or cost) to shuck it before cooking.

Well, thanks to Nancy, my water aerobics instructor, who put me on to this "NO SHUCKS" silk-free method last week, I will never shuck a raw ear of corn again.

Here is how to do it:

1) Take one or more the ears of corn, exactly as you purchased them in the super-market or picked them in the field, and place them in the microwave.

2) Set the timer for 3-4 minutes per ear, depending upon the size.

3) Holding a hot ear of corn with gloves or a dish towel, remove the lower part by cutting completely through the husk and cob. You will have to sacrifice about a quarter-inch of corn when you do this.

4) Grasp the ear from the tassel end, and shake it a few times, to loosen the husk.

5) The absolutely clean cob - totally silk-free - will emerge and drop right onto the plate (in some cases, you might have to grasp the cob and give it a little pull).

6) The only waste will be the part you cut off, plus the husk - with ALL the silk still inside - which will all be in one neat piece instead of an unruly mess of vegetation.

THAT IS IT! ENJOY!

Ira Glickstein

Steve Jobs RIP - Our first and most recent Apples

My wife and I invested $5,000 in one of the first 3000 Apple II computers back in 1978 (about $20,000 in 2011 dollars).

<< Magazine ad shows Apple II using a TV set as a display, as we did. The inset photo shows Steve Wozniak, the self-taught computer engineer, and Steve Jobs, the visionary, with one of the first Apple II computers.

This year, I paid a fraction of that for my Apple iPad2.

<< Me with my Apple iPad2 (photo taken with the very same iPad2). Steve Jobs in one of his last appearances announcing future developments for the iPad tablet computers.

Our 1978 investment brought fantastic rewards. As a result of our Apple II, Vi became interested in computers, earned a Masters Degree in Computer Science, taught at Binghamton University for a year, and then had a very successful professional career as a team leader for Special Forces helicopter software at IBM and Lockheed Martin.

I brought my Apple II (in a good-size suitcase) to IBM and used it while teaching a course there.

As a result, when the original IBM PC1 was introduced, I got the first one delivered to the IBM facility in Owego and introduced it to the other engineers. I have written thousands of lines of computer code for the Apple II and the IBM PC, and, although IBM never paid me for writing code, I believe that my Apple II and IBM PC computer expertise was largely responsible for my success in conceptualizing advanced automation for avionics systems.

As the life and contributions of Steve Jobs were being celebrated on all the TV news programs and newspapers today, I could not help but add my thanks to this American Original. Every time I use my iPad2, I marvel at the concept and the execution of a wonderful product no one knew we needed a couple years ago. It has become my constant companion. I use it as a camera, web surfer, email communicator, video viewer, book reader, game player, and so, so much more.

So, Steve Jobs - rest in peace. And THANKS! Your contributions changed the world - and my life - and will be remembered forever.

Ira Glickstein

PS: Had we invested that $5,000 in Apple stock in 1978, what would it have been worth today? OY!

Gore-linked Video Fakes Climate Science

CLICK ON IMAGE BELOW FOR VIDEO THAT INCLUDES FAKED CO2 GLOBAL WARMING EXPERIMENT

CLIMATE 101 from The Climate Reality Project on Vimeo.

The above video includes a supposed "high school physics" experiment that has been shown to be an edited video fake by Watts Up With That? (WUWT)

Last week, while I was in Brugge, Belgium, near the end of my bike and barge trip from Brussels, I received an email from Anthony Watts (owner of WUWT) with a link to a review version of the above exposure of the Gore-linked fake, asking for my comments. As I sat in the Brugge Markt, using a a free WiFi link, I was amazed and pleased to see that Anthony had used one of my graphics in his posting to explain the "Greenhouse effect". (To see it, click on Watts Up With That? (WUWT) and then scroll way down to just beyond the image of the INFRARED HEAT LAMP and you will see the animated graphic credited to me.)

As I read Anthony's posting, which reveals that the supposed "high school physics" experiment in the video was obviously faked, I thought immediately of how Dan Rather got into trouble when he broadcast images of a letter about George Bush's military record that included a superscript "th" that proved conclusively the letter had not been typed in the year it was supposedly prepared, and was therefore a fake. Rather lost his job and reputation. I hope the same happens to Al Gore for being asociated with this type of easily proven fakery.

Ira Glickstein

Federal Regulation vs American Businesses

[from billlifka] There’s much debate over federal regulation becoming ever more intrusive, more unreasonable and more damaging to the economy. I agree with those who believe the federal bureaucrats have far exceeded their missions and have violated the constitution by usurping powers of Congress. Liberals (progressives) have been attacking the private sector for over a century. Their goal is a socialistic America. Consider my personal experience twenty six years ago. It’s only one of many similar happenings.

At the time, I was engaged in restoring a troubled company. Despite its negative cash flow, this company had a number of commendable characteristics. Having a few less than 500 employees, it was considered to be a “small business”. Small businesses are the real source of employment growth and for other reasons, also, the federal government was trying, in 1985, to encourage small businesses. Another federal goal was to reduce an imbalance of trade caused by much greater imports than exports. This company exported 35% of its products; well above average.

Both federal and state governments encouraged employment of minorities (translate this to be African-Americans) and especially those in pockets of poverty, like inner cities. The company was adjacent to Bridgeport, CT, with its large population of poor blacks. The company employed many of them in electronic assembly. This was not at minimum wage but competitive and union-negotiated hourly rates. Another federal concern, back then, was “Japan Inc. eating our lunch”, especially in the electronic industries. The company was leading all Japanese producers of its product, combined, in market share. (It shared the lead with the subsidiary of a huge American corporation.) The bottom line is that this small company deserved federal support, not its grief.

The company had two export licenses: one for trade and one for samples. The first was for items sold and the other for demonstration product which, eventually, would be returned or destroyed. In the company’s regular review of paperwork, it discovered that a small shipment (about three thousand dollars) had been filed under the sample license, mistakenly. The company reported this to the local Commerce Department office, within a few weeks of the mistake. Nothing was heard from Commerce for over six months. This wasn’t surprising. It was like not feeding a parking meter and showing up at city hall a few weeks later, voluntarily, to pay the dollar owed.

Without warning or discussion, Commerce cancelled the company’s export licenses, fined it $5 million (Like killing flies with a howitzer.) and spread the news to the company’s customers and distributors in federal publications. The company couldn’t raise $5 million or survive losing one third of its business. It appealed the ruling. The accuser was a young, black, female lawyer at Commerce who would not back down a penny. As far as she was concerned, the company was a typically rotten corporation better dead than alive. Her supervisor was empathetic, but powerless for fear of his underling’s political position. Eventually, the company had its U.S. Senator exert his clout; the licenses were restored and the fine reduced to $50K, less than cost of legal fees to continue the fight. That’s one example of regulatory action that is killing American businesses. Cost of filing compliance reports is worse. Over-regulation is a major factor in unemployment.

Billlifka

Score One for the Internet

The other day I was at the clinic to have blood drawn for some tests. I told the young lady poking me with a needle that the blood culture had to be done for 21 days rather than the usual 3 days in order to detect brucellosis. She said that she saw brucella on the order but nothing about 30 days. I insisted that it was necessary, because brucella is hard to detect. I had read that on the internet. She had never heard of brucella, but she went to ask the the microbiologist. When she returned, she said, "Score one for the internet. We would have thrown out the culture after 3 days."

There are only 200 cases of brucellosis in the US. The point is that health care can be improved if the public is educated about how to do internet research properly. My own doctor has never seen a case, although he learned about the disease in medical school. Doctors find patient research on the internet to be annoying, but when done right, patients can contribute to their own diagnosis.

What would you say are the key features of useful amateur internet research?

Global Warming Debate

I participated in a Joint Presentation on Global Warming at the Science-Technology Club, The Villages, FL, on 08 September 2011. My friend Bob Miller was on the AFFIRMATIVE side, which maintains that Global Warming due to unprecedented use of fossil fuels DOES constitute a substantial, near-term danger to human civilization on Earth. I took the NEGATIVE side that it DOES NOT.




Our combined PowerPoint chart set is available for anyone to download at https://sites.google.com/site/bigira/climate-related-ppt/SciTechGWDebateUpload.pptx?attredirects=0&d=1. Please use SLIDE SHOW mode to view the presentation because some of the charts are animated.

As indicated in the second graphic above, the debate follows the traditional 1858 Lincoln and Douglas debate format. (The photos show Bob in his younger days and me before I grew my beard :^).

The main difference in the format is that an Audience Participation Question and Comment period has been added between the initial presentations by each side and the rebuttal presentations.

To keep this debate on track, and prevent it from degenerating into a pointless argument about whether the so-called "Greenhouse effect" is real (it is), whether the Earth has been warming over the past century (it has) and, whether humans have any role in that warming (we do), both participants have agreed to the stipulations listed in the third graphic.

In short, we both agree that the "Greenhouse Effect" is real and rising CO2 levels do contribute to that effect, that it has indeed warmed, and that humans actions have some responsibility for the warming.

That leaves the much more important questions for debate:

• How much has the Earth actually warmed over the past century?

• How much of that is due to human activities, primarily rising CO2 levels?

• Does the temperature rise pose any substantial, near-term danger to human civilization?

• What, if any, drastic action is required to ameliorate human-caused Global Warming?

Ira Glickstein

GUILTY - Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

This posting is based on a presentation given to the Philosophy Club, The Villages, FL, on 26 August 2011.

The PowerPoint slides may be downloaded here.

WHAT IS THE STANDARD OF JUSTICE?

In CIVIL cases, where one person or organization is suing another, the standard is Preponderance of the Evidence, meaning that the winning side must tip the scale of justice by at least a little bit.

In CRIMINAL cases, where The State charges an individual, the standard is much higher. It is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, meaning The State has a very high burden of proof, reflecting the seriousness of the charge and the potential punishment.

In the past, the phrase "and to a moral certainty" has been used, but it is no longer used in NY and NJ and some other states because it is "outdated and potentially confusing". Indeed, some people interpret the standard to essentially require that the judge and jury find the defendant guilty beyond all doubt, which is an impossible task in many crimes.

According to the Federal Judicial Center:

• Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt.

• There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt.

• If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find him guilty.

• If on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that he is not guilty, you must give him the benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty.

JURY ERROR

In the well publicized OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony cases, many of us think the jury acted in error in finding the defendants not guilty.

OJ was rich enough to hire an excellent defense team. His celebrity and race appears to have led to what is called "jury nullification" where evidence is ignored in favor of some higher considerations. In this case, it was an ill-considered effort to correct past and ongoing discrimination by the US justice system against poor people in general an African-Americans in particular by releasing a rich man who, despite his race, has done very well in our country.

Casey Anthony, on the other hand, was neither rich nor black, but she was young and (to some) good-looking, and the unusual nature of the crime she was charged with and her bizarre actions after the death of her daughter attracted media attention. The State (IMHO) over-charged her by going for first-degree murder. No one (but Casey) may ever know exactly what happened, but I believe she was not guilty of pre-meditated murder but only of horribly negligent actions that led to her daughter's demise. I think she over-medicated the child with chloroform, to quiet her so she would be free to go out on the town.

THE "CSI" PROOF PROBLEM

Part of the problem is the unreasonably high level of expectation of proof juries have come to expect based on their experience watching crime programs such as Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) on TV. In many of those programs, the evidence is solidly physical and overwhelming. Juries therefore have a tough time with circumstantial evidence.

ARGUMENTS FOR "LAW AND ORDER" JUSTICE

• If a guilty person is mistakenly acquitted, he or she will likely recidivate and commit further crimes, condemning innocent civilians to becoming victims of crimes.

•Many wrongly convicted defendants have bad past records. They are most likely guilty of something.

• Not-guilty verdicts reduce respect for and fear of the police force, and thus are detrimental to public safety.

ARGUMENTS FOR MORE CAUTIOUS AND LENIENT JUSTICE

• If an innocent is wrongly convicted,then the cops stop looking for the actual criminal. He or she is still free, posing a danger of further crime.

• A guilty person mistakenly acquitted is likely to be re-arrested for further crimes and eventually will be jailed, and justice done.

» A guilty verdict in a highly charged case (e.g., O.J. Simpson) may cause riots. Better to let one killer go free than to have more innocents die.

• Many defendants are poor and have been abused by their families and society. Their crimes are a cry for help. Forgive them!

• A guilty person may escape justice on Earth, but will be severely punished in the afterlife. God’s justice will be done.

CRIMINAL RECIDIVISM STATISTICS

Within six years of release, after serving their term in prison, over 70% of convicted criminals will be arrested for a crime, and an astounding 50% will be convicted of another crime. Recidivism rates are higher for those released at younger ages. Thus, given that convicts have high recidivism rates, it stands to reason that criminals who get away with their crimes (either by not being arrested or, if arrested, being found not guilty by the jury), will have even higher recidivism rates since they are generally younger.

The graphic at the head of this posting shows the consequences.

1) Given ten murderers in a community, there are likely to be about twenty victims (since many murders involve more than one victim).

2) Violent crimes tend to be cleared by arrest at a rate of about 60% for murder. (Other violent crimes have clearance rates that are much lower, such as about 25% for rape. Non-violent crimes have even lower clearance rates, below 20% for theft and burglary.)

3) Thus, only about six of our ten murderers will be arrested and charged. Conviction rates are about 80%, so only about five of those six charged will be convicted and jailed.

4) This failure of justice leaves five murders out on the street, and they are likely to commit an additional ten murders.

5) Furthermore, when the jailed murders are released after serving their sentences, come of them will likely recidivate, leading to even more dead people.

Please consider the above if you even have the opportunity to serve on a jury!

Ira Glickstein