Broofa.com

‘Just thought I’d share a little mom-love today.  I’ve blogged before about the sewing machine I picked up a few months ago, but what I haven’t shared is that of all the tools I’ve bought through the years this machine is quickly becoming my favorite.  Part of it is the unexpectedness of it – I’ve never thought of myself as a seamstress (or is it “seamster”?), and still don’t.  But I do enjoy sewing projects.  I’m used to working with metal and wood, or dirt and stone, and even some glass, but cloth and thread…? It’s a new domain for me.

But as it turns out, it’s not entirely new.  As I work through the in’s and out of working with this machine for projects like, oh, turning my son’s “onesie” pajamas that he’s outgrown into little shorty outfits that are more appropriate for the summer weather (see photo), I’m reminded of times spent with my mom when she tried to teach me how to use her sewing machine.  Oddly enough, she sent me some letters recently, from when she’d written to my grandmother about the “new” (to her) sewing machine that I remember her having when I was a kid:

We made a mervelous new purchase a week ago – a 1923  Singer sewing machine, cabinet and all.  It’s a grand old machine and, although it goes a little slowly now and then, it sews beautifully.  We only paid $20 for it…

That from a letter dated Aug 4, 1967, a mere 6 weeks after I was born.  It’s pretty fun seeing my mom’s excitement back then, and I chuckle to think I only paid $15 for the much more modern machine I have.  As you can imagine that machine was quite the antique, but sewing machines haven’t changed all that much.  The path required to thread that machine and the one I have now are not all that different.  The main difference, for me, is how challenging it all is.  Back then, with my mom trying to teach me, I remember being incredibly frustrated at how complex it was.  It was alchemy, going through the motions with no real appreciation for why, and I just never really took to it like I expect my mom would have liked.  Until now… 30-some years later.  Now, it all makes sense, and really is pretty darn fun.

So, a big, and very belated thanks to my mom for laying the groundwork for me.  I really do appreciate it (finally!)

Oh, and about this post’s title…  You’ll notice that I have Bernard Cornwell’s “Agincourt” on the table next to Dashiell’s chopped-and-cropped onesie.  It’s one of a series of novels I’ve been reading about the Dark Ages, it’s good, but rather bloody.  So when I noticed the similarity between Dash’s post-op onesie and the old practice of drawing-and-quartering… well, there ya go.

Five years ago I blogged about a phenomenon Andy and I had termed, “The Aristocracy Threshold“, and that I later learned was more commonly known as wealth condensation.  It is a formalization of the “the rich get richer” adage, and in terms of daily mind candy it’s pretty attractive.  It is the carrot that drives many of us to go to work each day and strive to better ourselves.  Or buy lottery tickets.

“If I can just make enough money to retire …”

What we spend less time thinking about is the opposite side of that coin, “the poor get poorer”.  There’s good reason for that – it’s not something any of us are striving for, there’s nothing attractive about it, and hopefully it’s not something we see on our personal life trajectory.  But it’s still an interesting economic phenomenon, one that if we hope to do some social good we really should understand.

In the Boston Globe article, “The sting of poverty“, we learn that mainstream economists generally blame poverty on poor decision making:

Compared with the middle class or the wealthy, the poor are disproportionately likely to drop out of school, to have children while in their teens, to abuse drugs, to commit crimes, to not save when extra money comes their way, to not work.

I expect this reflects our own personal views as well.  The simple act of giving money to that panhandler on the corner is always accompanied by a gnawing doubt – “Is this money really going to help this person?  Or are they just going to be stupid and waste it on booze and drugs?”

But in the Globe article we learn that Charles Karelis, a philosopher and former president of Colgate University, is arguing that the decision to buy drugs may not actually be a “bad” decision – that, in fact, it may be completely rational. He argues that the difference is in how the barrier between poverty and affluence is perceived.  To us it is conquerable – “Put on a nice suit, get a job, save some money, pay off your debts and, voila, it’s little-house-with-white-picket-fence time.”  But if you’re destitute that’s not how you see things.

For example, imagine you have $100 but owe $4K to the bank, the utility company, your landlord, and the hospital. Does it really make sense to give that $100 to any of them? You’ll still owe about the same.  In fact, next month, you’ll probably owe more anyway.  So does it really do you any good? But you have $100 today, so what would make a difference?  What might make you feel better about things?

A person with one bee sting is highly motivated to get it treated. But a person with multiple bee stings does not have much incentive to get one sting treated, because the others will still throb.

That panhandler guy?  Not sounding so stupid now, is he.

Much of this is intuitive, and reviews of Karelis’ book, “The Persistence of Poverty“, criticize it for not providing more concrete data to support his assertions.  So the jury is still out on the significance of Karelis’ work.  However as an engineer the symmetry in the economic spectrum to be pretty interesting. The poverty threshold provides the stick to the Aristocracy Threshold’s carrot, as it were.

Update: If you happen to spot this critical review on Amazon, please be sure to read Charles’ response.

I found myself staring at the fine-print on the comics in today’s edition of the Bend Bulletin, our local paper – things like the date, the syndicated company, and the name of the artist.  Curiously, that latter bit of info – the artist – turns out to be different from the creator a fair amount of the time.  Odd, right?  Maybe not, considering how long many of these strips have been around.  While wondering about just how old these strips were, and who’s penning them now, I compiled the following list.  It’s a rundown of each comic in our paper, along with when it was started, by whom, and who is responsible for the strip today:

• Peanuts – Started in 1950 by Charles Shultz (deceased 2000).  It is still the headline comic, reprinting old strips.
• Garfield – Started in 1978 by Jim Davis. Still penned by Jim Davis.
• Dilbert – Started in 1989 by Scott Adams. Still penned by Scott Adams.
• Doonesbury – Started in 1970 by Garry Trudeau.  Still penned by Garry Trudeau.
• Beetle Bailey – Started in 1950 by Mort Walker.  Penned by Mort’s son Greg.
• For Better Or Worse – Started in 1979 by Lynn Johnston.  Story line “restarted’ in 2008.  Lynn still writes and sketches, but final art done by other artists.
• Dennis the Menace – Started in 1951 by Hank Ketcham (deceased 2001).  Now penned by his assistants, Ron Ferdinand and Marcus Hamilton.
• Blondie – Started by Chic Young in 1930 (deceased 1973).  Now written by Chic’s son Dean, drawn by John Marshall.
• The Family Circus – Started by Bil Keane in 1960.  Written by Bil, with ink/color by his son Jeff.
• Hägar the Horrible – Started in 1973 by Dik Browne (deceased 1989). Now drawn by Dik’s son Chris.
• The Wizard of Id – Started in 1964 by Brant Parker (deceased 2007) and Johnny Hart (deceased 2007).  Now penned by Brant’s son Jeff.
• Zits – Started in 1997 by Jerry Scott and Jim Borgman.  Still penned by Jerry Scott.
• Frank & Ernest – Started in 1972 by Bob Thaves (deceased 2006).  Now penned by Bob’s son Tom.
• B.C. – Started in 1958 by Johnny Hart (deceased 2007).  Now penned by Johnny’s grandson, Mason Mastroianni.
• Born Loser – Started in 1965 by Art Sansom (deceased 1991).  Now penned by Art’s son Chip.

Notice a theme here?  On average, these strips are 44 years old so it’s not surprising that half of the creators are dead – a handful, several decades so.  And yet their strips live on, drawn by the creator’s children, or even grandchildren, or their assistants.

It’s a rather sad situation.  Comics are an artform that does best when driven by a mind that holds an insightful, creative spark.  But most of these strips lost that spark long ago, either when the reigns were handed off to someone else, or when the artist simply ran out of places to go with the strip’s characters.  But they are so lucrative that there is a lot of incentive to keep them going for however long they can be milked.  The result are tepid strips growing ever more dated with each passing year.  The real tragedy is the lost opportunity to showcase some of the talented young comic artists that are (surprise!) emerging on the Internet, who are creating strips like XKCD, Wondermark, Questionable Content,The Abominable Charles Christopher, Cyanide & Happiness, and Drawn By Mouse, to name a  few.

David Malki, who pens Wondermark, analzes this phenomenon in more depth and insight than I could ever provide in the final post of his “Comic Strip Doctor” series.  It’s worth a read, as are any of the other posts in his Comic Strip Doctor critiques.  So go learn something about these strips you may have been reading your whole life.   Meanwhile I’ll be here staring at the list above, wondering why it is readers have tolerated this situation for so long.

Over at TechSpaceBend, we needed to put up some whiteboards and corkboards.  Big ones like you’d have in an office, not the little ones that decorate your kids room at home.  The only problem is that TSB is a non-profit with little/no funds availble, and these things tend to be a bit pricey.  A 6′ X 4′ corkboard goes for $105, and 5′X4′ whiteboards come in at ~$225/per.  Ordering from a site like schooloutfitters.com (which seems to be one of the better sources for this sort of thing) was going to run us over $600-$700.

So instead, I turned this into a weekend project and got cracking in my shop.  Here’s what I ended up doing …

Making Your Own Corkboard

Total cost: ~$83. However it may be possible to reduce the cost by $20-$30 by using thinner cork (3/32″) and using 1/4″ plywood with only one good face.

Materials:

• Cork roll (4′x6′x1/8″) – $40.
• 1/2″ Plywood, one good face (4′x8) – Price varies.  I bought a sheet of lauan plywood w/ two good faces for ~$25 at Home Depot.
• Contact Cement (1qt) – $9
• D-Ring Hangers – $2.40

Tools:

• Skillsaw
• Masking tape
• Paint roller and adhesive cover – ~$6

You’ll need a large, very well ventilated work area for this project – a clean garage floor for example.

1. Place plywood on your work surface with the good face up.  Roll out the cork on top of it and position so that 3 of the four edges (mostly) line up.  Don’t worry about the plywood being larger than the cork – we’ll trim everything down to size later.
2. Firmly tape one edge of the cork to the plywood. Make sure this won’t come loose during the next few steps!
3. Flip the cork over, like turning a really large book page, to expose the cork and plywook surfaces that need to be glued together.
4. Using the paint roller with the adhesive cover, apply the contact cement to where both surfaces where they’ll meet.  This is where things get stinky – you have ~65 sq-ft of contact cement outgassing as it dries, so make sure you’ve got plenty of fresh air circulating.
5. This is the tricky part, and will be easier if you have someone to help.  You don’t want to mess this up because there’s no do-overs here. Once the contact cement is tacky (30 minutes or so?), carefully and slowly roll the two surfaces back together, using your hands to work the cork onto the plywood and make sure there’s no wrinkles or air pockets. Do this by starting from the edge you’ve taped down and working toward the opposite edge.  If you’re by yourself you’ll need to reach under the unflipped-section of cork for this.  If you have help, one person can hold the cork up while the other person works it onto the board.
6. Once you have the cork glued down, the skillsaw and a cutting guide to trim off the excess plywood.
7. Attach the D-Ring Hangers where needed.

Making Your Own Whiteboard

Let me start by saying there are two approaches to take with this project in terms of the actual white board surface.  You can either use Rust-Oleum’s Dry Erase paint product applied to a 1/2″ sheet of plywood, or you can simply buy a piece of “tileboard” at Home Depot.  I document the “Dry Erase paint method” here, since that’s what I built, but in hindsight I would strongly recommend people go with the tileboard solution.  It’s much cheaper and less labor intensive.  I probably spent $50 and two hours more than I needed to, and got a whiteboard surface that’s not as smooth.  Which is kind of a bummer.  The only advantage of the Dry Erase paint method is that the boards themselves, being 1/2″ thick, are much more sturdy than the 3/32″ thick tileboard.

The only downside of the tileboard is that it’s < 1/4″ thick, and rather flimsy, which I had thought would be a showstopper.  However I found myself adding a 1″x2″ tray along the bottom of the board that, in hindsight, would be enough of a stiffener to alleviate this problem.

Materials:

• (Dry Erase paint method only) 1/2″ Plywood, one good face (4′x8′) – Price varies.  I bought a sheet of lauan plywood w/ two good faces for ~$25 at Home Depot.
• (Dry Erase paint method only) Rust-Oleum Dry-Erase paint – $20
• (Dry Erase paint method only) Spackling compound – $4
• (Dry Erase paint method only) Latex Primer – $7
• (Tileboard method only) Tileboard (4′x8′) – $13.
• 1″x2″ x 8′ board – ~$5
• 1-1/4″ Drywall screws

Tools

• Skillsaw
• Tablesaw
• 200-grit Sandpaper
• (Dry Erase paint method only) 6″ Paint roller and ultra dense foam cover – ~$6

Steps

1. (Dry Erase paint method only) Use the spackling compound to fill in all imperfections in the good face of the plywood.  When dry, sand smooth with 200-grit sandpaper.
2. (Dry Erase paint method only) Using paint roller, apply a coat of latex primer.  Let dry.  Sand smooth.
3. (Dry Erase paint method only) Activate the Dry Erase paint and apply the first coat.  Let dry 30 min.
4. (Dry Erase paint method only) Apply a generous second coat of Dry Erase paint.  The instructions say that 3 coats are ideal.  However I found that by applying a liberal second coat, you would get a smoother surface because the paint flows better.  Note, however, that this requires painting with the plywood completely level to eliminate dripping.  Let dry.
5. Cut plywood / tileboard to size.  I made a medium and large board by cutting the board into a 4′x5′ board and a 4′x3′ board.
6. Make your marker tray by using angling the tablesaw blade to 10° and ripping both short edges of the 1″x2″ board.
7. Attach try to whiteboard as shown by clamping board to the bottom of whiteboard.  From the back of the whiteboard, drill pilot holes for the drywall screws every 12″ or so, and insert screws.
8. Round edges of all wood to taste using sandpaper or file.
9. Attach the D-Ring Hangers where needed.

In Conclusion

For TSB, I made one corkboard and four whiteboards.  I was careful to place the D-ring hangers at the same spacing on all of these (42″) so that they can be moved between the various offices with ease, which I’m sure will prove useful over time.

The dry-erase paint was a simply mistake.  It’s very labor intensive and if you can find an alternative solution I’d definitely recommend doing so.  In my case, I wasn’t as attentive to detail as I could have been on the first set of boards I made and the result came out a bit rough.  Still very usable, but definitely not the quality I would expect in pre-made whiteboard.  On the second set of boards I took a lot more care to prep and paint, which paid off, but even so the surface is still a bit orange-peal-ish.

One final note: The tileboard that HomeDepot sells doesn’t erase quite as well as you might expect.  However several sources recommend treating the surface with Turtle Wax, which should allow the board to erase better.  (Haven’t tried it myself, so if you

A reverse image search is probably not something many people will have a need for, but if you do, TinEye.com is an incredibly useful tool.  Point TinEye at a picture (either a URL or upload one), and it returns a list of all the places on the web that use a similar image.

This recently proved invaluable for me, as I’m in the process of overhauling my wife’s travel website. I discovered that I had (again, damnit!) misplaced the artwork files I used to create several graphics on her site.  And, specifically, I couldn’t for the life of me find the images we had used to create the stamps in her company’s logo, pictured here.

Normally, figuring out what paintings these two stamp images came from would be a daunting task, essentially requiring a degree in art history (“That one on the left sorta looks like Renoir, right???”), but I’m no PhD in that regard. I briefly toyed with the idea of trying to do a Google search –  ”Renaissance Woman”, “Painting of Virgin Mary” (if that’s who is pictured here!), etc – but obviously these are such generic terms that it would take hours of sifting through search results to find the right one… if I was lucky.

Fortunately I’ve used the TinEye search engine in the past to crack a little puzzle game a buddy of mine likes to play.  He periodically changes his Twitter picture to an obscure photo of some celebrity, and challenges his followers to guess who it is.  ’Turns out 90% of the time you can just point TinEye at the picture and it will turn up a page telling you who it is.

So that’s what I did with the stamps.  I used Pixelmator to crop the image down to two files, one showing the innards of each stamp, and then simply uploaded them to TinEye.  Lo and behold, in a few short minutes, I had the answers! (You can click either of the images to the right to see the results TinEye came up with for each.)  It turns out the first one is Delphic Sibyl, by Michelangelo (from the Sistine Chapel, no less), and the latter is Venus and the Three Graces by Bottecelli.

Pretty cool, huh!

P.S. On a related note, I just used IdentiFont.com to identify the font in Cartolina’s logo as Garamond.