http://qctimes.com/news/local/former-mayor-pleads-guilty-to-theft-charges/article_b5a86eba-d7f9-11e1-be68-001a4bcf887a.html

Its not every day, in every city, a former cop/ former mayor gets to plead guilty for theft.     Not only theft, but while working for a pawn shop in the downtown area....  Not only for a pawnshop, but falsifying records for fake pawns, then pocketing about 10k in cash.    Yeah.  Thats a Quad Cities kind of day.  Keep it classy out there folks.


Hello Quad Cities!!!!

[M]uch ado about [M]irrors

Earlier this week Canon officially announced its newest eye-porn, bank drainer; the EOS-M.   This is M for mis-nomer, M for more money, and M is for moniker.


 From what I experience, people seem to think removable lenses yield better results [image quality].  Secondly people want smaller, lighter products that are less to man handle.   I get that too.  I get tired of dragging 40 pounds of gear with me at times. Lastly we all want sexy.   So camera manufacturers must make it sexy.   So what do we do?  If we're the camera industry we find a way to marry the two ideas, and give you neither of what you want, but make it look drop dead sexy.   Enter the mirrorless, and Canon M platform.


I'm a Canon-ite.  I openly admit this.   I love their gear.   Its not what I learned on, but I've made the switch for many reasons; and one of which is the availability of glass.  Canon of course makes great glass for their own systems.  The difference is the availability of OTHER manufacturers glass.  Huh?  Competition.  Back in the dark [room] ages, lenses were not interchangeable, and were unique mounts mainly because of the intricacy of making a system operable.   Focal lengths to the image plane had to very widely with the unending sizes of film available; as well as the ridiculously small apertures people were shooting through.  Add in the 35mm film cell standard, and 40 years of mechanical intervention, and we start to see some realy thought and technology invested into the platforms.   Competition isn't far off now, is it?   So all the other manufacturers learned image quality was half film/recording state, and half [or more] optics getting that light to the image recording plane.  So while making your own lens was nice, it became a revenue stream.  And where there's money, there is people willing to make money.  So some manufacturers decided to start working their products fit onto other manufacturers products; or simply quit the camera business and focus on the optics portion of the game [remember, we'd standardized to 35mm film by this point, and the film companies we not pressed to re-invent the film until the needs existed], so as glass quality went up, so did the demands on film.  Rangefinder style cameras had to go away nearly over night once they met the might 35mm slr platforms that started gaining popularity in the late 1960's.   Especially by the time of the calculated program metering 1970s and 80s hit, glass was king.  Now the camera did much of the work of evaluating exposure, and to do it correctly it had run the light through the glass you were using to make the evaluations.  Sounds great, who gives a fuck?

That pushed out those precious rangefinders.  Rangefinder camera systems did not use the light coming through the lens to make calculations; and if they did [read late 1970s, and modern digital Leica platforms] you still weren't able to see what the lens saw.  All of the field of view was approximated.   Slr's used a flipping mirror action that routed light to your eye to see what the lens saw, then flipped to let light pass through to the film / recording plane.  All of that wonder and splendor added a mechanical contraption that is prone to failure and excessive mechanics.  Keep in mind, if its not light tight, pictures are ruined, image evaluation is faulty [at best], and you get a frustrating day of not taking pictures.   For what they were worth, rangefinders were still mechanically simpler [even if drastically difficult to reassemble yourself], with fewer failures, in a smaller package, and gave slightly sub par, but similar performance to slr's.  But to improve on their photographic value, few manufacturers spent time developing glass for the rangefinders, and moved into the revenue stream of making new slrs.  Those that did remain, come with cumbersome bayonet and screw threads to detach lenses from the body, and were very limited in angle and aperture.  Slr's took all the development, all the cookies, and your piggy bank.

Come to the modern era.  Now that film is gone, why does it matter if the same light is brought through the lens to your eye?  For several years we have had great success with live-view systems, where the light hitting the sensor is displayed on the digital screen on the back.  I use it frequently for critical focus and metering myself.  Why is that damned mirror still there?   The industry first tried removing it about 8 years ago with the micro 4/3rds platform.    Which took a smaller sensor, a smaller overall physical product, and added industry standard mounts so anyone could make glass for any platform.   Lens makers could make lenses.  Camera makers could make cameras.  Digital sensor engineers could work their magic.  For companies like Nikon, and Canon, this was a no go.  Wheres the piggy bank at when you don't sell your own lens?  Its in someone else's pocket now.    But just like 40 years ago, people still desire a simple alternative to take better pictures, with limited means of adaptability.  

Whats killing the micro 4/3rds platform is the lack of big names.  Canon and Nikon.  So they sit and wait.  Now we are the present.  With Nikon running out its own platform last year, Canon plays catch up this year with its own.  This new toy starts out with a proprietary lens mount.   Why?  Because consumers want that!  Bullshit.   I don't.   Nikon and Canon want that.    People want to get better image quality than a cellphone and point and shoot; so we'll brand this new toy with the EOS moniker.  Why?  Because we will steal the sensor from the slr line, thats why!  So now people have the quality of the slr, but how do we make it smaller?   We gut the mirror.  So now we have our sexy M moniker, mirrorless.   We've made half the battle up at this point.

To get the money M in there, we can just shrink the mount by 5 millimeters, and make it electronically different.   Poof.   Since no one else can make glass, we make money.   So its about money.  Isn't it?  Noooo  this is cheaper! Its simple.  Its small.  How can it cost more?   Well with a lens it will set you back 900 bucks.   You can buy the same slr they ripped this image sensor from, that weights about 1.5 times as much, and is an inch thicker, with available and varied glass, for half of that price.  Its about money.  The EOS M:oney model is born.  

Notice, I haven't even touched it.  I don't care to.  I love my rangefinders.  I love my slr's  But I love them for two different reasons.   I don't want a complicated lens system and changing bag for my rangefinder.  I want a streamlined, analog, approach that isn't always laser precise.  I want my slr for a bag of options, for ways to solve challenging lighting, with precision.  I don't want the peanut butter in my ice cream.  Canon is betting I don't.  Its a complete mis-nomer to have a small, lightweight system; that necessitates a bag full of glass to get anything done.   Besides which, to gain the complexity of control over the image sensor overly complicates the experience for someone that wants to make quick photos.  But its selling you the idea that this is better than a point and shoot [minus that its MORE encumbering and expensive], and looks like its equal to an slr [it isn't] in performance.  Quite the misnomer.   Then the loyal Canon buyer either gets to play with a limited amount of expensive lenses [2 as of right now] that are of questionable quality [definitely not up to the L glass standard!], or buy a stupid mount adapter that will affect your image quality.  $hit.

People are floored that I'm mad about a new Canon product.  Its just so pointless.  Its a category that doesn't really make sense, but will make some money for Canon.  But it runs the risk of alienating consumers [by the complexity and price tag for essentially a point and shoot], and limiting the creativity by limiting the lenses available.   Make a damned micro 4/3rds mount instead.   Show off your optical resolve that way.  Make consumers flock to you to buy your glass, instead of giving them a reason to go somewhere else.   The only reason you have with the M platform: no one else makes any!   

What flows into my mind

... Often drips onto the page.

I think that I'm rapidly approaching burnout stage. They have me working hard for many hours doing far too many things for far too little money. I miss seeing the sun. Miss having days off really good call friends or even read my email. Anymore you Indian to sit down and eat dinner while the sun is or have two hours to do laundry is a luxury I don't have. And it's all so very depressing to consider what I become to make a company more than what it was six weeks ago. I'm trying hard to be impartial; but the addition of the store the size and magnitude built and staffed doesn't go unnoticed. It's been on the front page of both newspapers several times. Television advertising is hard to miss at normal levels; but now during grand opening its unbearable. But people are excited to come give their money away. And uncle John is more than happy to take it. Accountable people that you need to stand there and take it, are the truest hard things to come by. Working 70 and 80 hour weeks indefinitely; it's not a good existence. And forget the money crap. From working all these hours the money doesn't justify my feet killing me. Or the fact that I'm practically a zombie.

A little bit of nothing

I'm posting this from my iPad. Yes. I am that guy now. I will say that bloggers app is terrible for iPad and only mediocre for the iPhone. I've used it off and inform a while on my phone to some success; but its downright awful on the iPad. The humongous, highly detailed screen is useless when viewed like this. And stretched to its double size proportion it isn't winning any other beauty contests either. It's unfortunate at best. But I'm slowly delving into the world of iPad. It's clumsy at times but it's so refreshingly simple and elegant for about 90% of computing needs that I don't notice the flaws so much now. Hopefully I'll find a descent microphone option that is iPad happy to begin work on the podcast on the road. For now its a toy. And a simple way to view the web without a wait time. Typing. Typing can wait for a real keyboard though.

Adventures In Wet Shaving, Update

Since so many people have been asking me, through the typical quiet channels, I thought I might give a bit of an update on my adventures in wet shaving.  More importantly are my long form thoughts on the mechanical aspects.

 

What makes it wet?  New-comers like me may opine that it’s the blood.  That makes it sound like torture to most people.  Its half true.  Its not called wet shaving because of that, but in the beginning there has been a fair amount of bleeding!  Its wet because you need to use water and lather much more frequently than most disposable blades require, and nearly no electric razor on the market requires it [or functions correctly if you do use it!].  So already the key is quality and quantity of lather.  Coming from a disposable system mindset, gel based bullshit was ubiquitous for this purpose.  Getting past the garbage aerosol scent and reddi-whip appearance of Barbasol products, and graduating to the generic gels, gave the best results.  In fact, my favorite non gel form, made at one time Edge as a cream in an apothecary type tube, would have been my only trial in wet shaving… the rest of it is awful.  The gel products create a low friction point [good], but extremely thin and viscous.  Why?  Because they clog the 5 blade razors too quickly [bad].   I need to lower the point of friction, but not to nothing.  Some of that friction is important, I’ve found.

Friction in multi blade throw-away’s comes from two places: poor lubrication across multiple blades and cutting surfaces, and poor technique.  Both of those points, on a quality edge wet shaving system will gouge seams in your face like the ones on your jeans!  Since I’m relying on only one edged surface to cut with, the ability of the shaving creams or lathers must not run or flush too quickly from the surface; and since its only one edge, clogging between blades isn’t of any concern.  Granted, this razor will clog as well, but it takes considerably more material [wider blades, and more space available in the razor head], and you are constantly flushing the head of the razor with water to clear away the build up of lather from the non cutting surfaces.  As a down side [of sorts], I’m using considerably more lather than I had with a 5-blade throw-away.  A tall can of Fusion Gel lasted me MONTHS [six maybe?] with daily use.  That’s ridiculous, and I realize that.  However using more of the gel product didn’t make a difference in performance: the gel product was still thin, would still clog very quickly in the cartridge, and it didn’t change my poor habits.  And with the advent of built in lubrication strips [note to reader: if dissipating friction was not an issue, why are manufacturers putting these on the cartridges? Because their gel products clog the cartridge, in the attempt to continually atomize the particles to lubricate the growing number of cutting surfaces.  So they include lubrication that does not leave residue to clog, but that still acts as a friction modifier to the gel system].  In short, the fewer the cutting surfaces, the less you need to worry about keeping each lubricated to relieve friction problems.

A bit more about the blades is important before I get to technique. The cutting edge is honed to exacting specifications by these manufacturers, and ideally, the edge cuts as clean of a pass on one face as another.  So why doesn’t work like that?  Piss poor technique, and product engineering.  As the material the edge is made out of is thinned, and its composition is changed, the quality of the blade will change with it.  Softer material dulls quickly [rather, the edge folds and rolls or degrades against stronger materials], but harder / denser materials have less flexibility inherently.  Manufacturers must strike a balance to keep flexibility [to move with the round contours of the human face, and to stay some what forgiving when necessary], yet keep the edge honed to cut cleanly. 

Adding multiple blades became the fad, and it introduced thinner, flexible blades of softer material. Why? First and foremost, to sell more cartridges…  No shit.  As the edge dulls, you need to replace it, since it no longer cuts the hairs.  Seems simple, but people glaze past this point.  Part and parcel, adding multiple blades in a cartridge raised the price.  Now its about money, on recurring bases, balancing how quickly the edge dulls, multiplied by the price point of each sold cartridge unit, divided by the likelihood of the consumer to purchase replacement cartridges on a frequent recurrence.  But it also gives you the impression the blades weren’t flexible before; and in fact as a cartridge, they are less flexible now.  In the same idea as doubling up 2x4s to strengthen a wall, creating five layers of redundancy spanning a distance will always yield less flexibility than spanning the same distance with one substrate.  Each of the extra blades keeps you from bending and flexing, increasing rigidity.  The notion of rigidity is engineered into the cartridge because of the poor technique of the user! [I promise I’m coming to that point!]

So I’m using a single cutting edge, that is more flexible than its “modern” counterpart, that needs different lubrication demands [that are actually in my favor], how the hell am I cutting myself more often?  Its that poor technique.  [bingo]

Using the multi-blade disposables we fight friction with minimalist layers of lubrication [to keep from clogging the blades], on cartridges that are firm and moderately inflexible by comparison sake.  However, we introduce friction to combat its by product.  You push harder to over come the softer edges that dull faster on the multi blades, to get the same quality shave as the edge disintegrates.  Secondly you make fewer passes over skin because you have made the same pass 3 to 5 times with each cartridge movement.  The idea of a once and done solution.  That doesn’t work with a single blade.  As my blade flexes better, it will bend and skip over spots on my skin that are not completely flat [read: everywhere]. What I’m seeing in my bleeding pattern are many, small dabs of blood.  When I shaved and erred with cartridge razors I had deep cuts that bled and were wide.  Its clear that the force I was using on the cartridge systems made the cuts; and it’s the blade bouncing causing smaller pricks with the single edge.  My technique then became the issue, as I realized this.

I have always trusted in the cartridge razors’ motto: once and done.  Making one pass, or two if really necessary, is all it needed to get the job done.  With a single edge, I do need to make two or three passes.   But more importantly, I need to relube and lather up each time…. something I rarely did with cartridges.  Secondly, friction is important, but it doesn’t come from pressure.  Using hand pressure flattens the skin around [and in between blades] of a cartridge system.  On a single edge you will cut yourself deeply.  With a multi blade cartridge you are minimizing the pressure by distributing it across multiple points.  You don’t always cut yourself because it’s the same idea as the old circus bed of nails trick… however as the skin changes angles and is no longer flat, that’s when you bite hard… with excessive pressure behind a dulled edge, you do immense damage in the little vertical wrinkle under the nose and above the lip!   With the single edge, I need some friction to know I’m gaining traction and working with the skin, pulling it taunt under the blade; this pops the hairs up and keeps from ballooning skin up in front of the cutting edge. 

All of this takes time and forethought.   But as of 2 months into it, I will say, I have a much closer shave, that I can get two days out of with a single edge system, compared to the cartridge razors.  Secondly I can factor in the pricing as such:

Cartridge Razor Typical Expenditures:

1 - 2cartridge each week: 3.75 each
1 razor handle:  9.00 [good for a year or so]
1 can saving gel : 3.00
------------------------------------
in 60 days totals: 57.00

 

Straight Razor Blade Typical Expenditures:

1 blade each week: .30 each [in 50pk quantity]
1 stypic pencil:  1.97 [good for years?]
1 cake shaving crème: 1.99 [good for 6 months]
1 shaving brush:   20.00 [good for years]
1 razor handle:  25.00 [good for decades]
----------------------------------------------
in 60 days totals:  51.36

 

Also note… that while I do have to purchase and use more items, they are cheaper, and they do last considerably longer in the wet shaving system.  In a years time, I should be somewhere in the 30% to 50% price equivalency of cartridge shaving.  It does add up.  But I have learned that much so far.

 

S

Without the nicks and cuts of a blade

The first experience of wet shaving bears grizzly fruit. I can't lie. In my absence, I've been doing alot of things. All of them revolve around making changes in life. Now that I'm back from California, I thought I'd try out my new toy. The Edwin Jagger, chromed double edge safety razor was had for under 30 dollars on amazon. So begins a new way of doing business!

People ask me about all kinds of things, and facial hair is rarely one of them. So I thought I'd expand beyond the obvious question I get [why do you have brown hair and a red beard], to step out on a limb about the mess of straight razor shaves. I made the leap for several reasons.

1. Its far, far cheaper to the safety razor multi blade craze. I've used several different electric razors over the years, that range from 10 to 150 dollars, and all of which gave moderate to terrible quality of shaves. The best shaves I've done myself, have been with multi blade disposable safety models [read: Gillette Mach 3 and Fusion errr Mach 5]. Consider the cost per shave of the electric high-ends to be nearly a buck, and the cost per shave of the Mach'ing Birds to be about 3 dollars. Enter the double edge buckshot, somewhere under 15 cents per shave. Yes. I'm serious. Blades run 2 bucks per pack of 5, last about 3 shaves, with two cutting edges per blade; figure in a few pennies to buy back the razor, and we're there. Obviously a straight edged razor would be cheaper, but it require maintenance and care [honing, stropping, and alcohol based cleaning], as well as perfect technique.

2. Its far superior in shave quality compared to anything else. This will be true, but not yet for me. I still reach for the Mach'ing Bird when I need a descent shave, in a hurry. Its reliable, but not well suited for long term switching. The Mach's require more pressure as they dull, to the point its not safe. Its downright dangerous to keep that habit up with a single blade. The single blade will cut closer and flex better than 5 blades; which is the reason why Gillette went to the multi blade system: to prevent cuts on the average Joe. The position and blade angle is what determines the closeness of the shave; a razors edge is not sharper than another's [although they may hold and edge longer], and the multi blade system prevents you from changing the blade angle, and decreases the pressure you can create at any one point [the same idea as the circus actor laying on a bed of nails]. This works to minimize nicks and cuts for people with bad shaving habits. But it forces you to change blades frequently [as the edge dulls, its ineffective, and since you can't compensate to change to the proper angle, you push harder and continue dulling the edge until its a comb for crying out loud]. So the single edge forces you work with the proper pressure and angle of cut, which rewards the cleanest shave by far. This is true for safety edged and straight razors.

3. It gives me a sense of nostalgia. This is how men have shaved for about 100 years. Since the replaceable double edged safety razor was invented near the turn of the 20th century. [It was first made in 1847 and patented in 1880, but it did not become popular until Gillette won a military contract to furnish American soldiers with them in the First World War.] But for 100 years this has been the industry standard in shaving, our fathers and grandfathers had this option before any other. And, I always maintain, I should have been born in the 1930s. I love old technology, film cameras, newspapers, and fedoras. I fit right in.

So I took the plunge, bought a book for 50 cents on amazon, and bought the razor, blades, soap and brush. And here I am. 2 shaves in, and I can tell you its all about technique and practice. The zen of my life. I get lazy, I do things wrong, and I replicate it until I can't tell where the bad habits start and the good ones end. This is pretty much instant feedback. I've seen butcher shops with less blood in the sink than my first shave. OJ Simpson couldn't have made a worse mess than I did that morning. But its not about that. Zen, is about the path, not where it began, and seldom of where it leads us beyond enlightenment. My path for next portion of my life had to begin again somewhere. So it has started.

So here is a picture of my "rig" courtesy of the iPhone.