Chip's Quips
A tiny spark of wit for a highly flammable world

The sauce that keeps on saucing

April 30th, 2009 1:08:59 pm pst by Sterling Camden

I love habanero pepper sauce.  I use a lot of it, so it makes sense to buy an “every day” brand that isn’t as expensive as Marie Sharp’s or Dave’s Insanity Sauce (which I save for special occasions).  Recently I picked up a bottle of Castillo Hot Sauce.  I was drawn by the combination of price (about 1/3 of most similar sauces) and the lack of dyes or other extraneous ingredients. 

This sauce tastes great, with plenty of burn.  It’s packaged in a cheap plastic bottle, which isn’t the greenest alternative but probably helps to keep the price down.  Underneath that tear-off wrapping around the neck is a flip-up top for squeezing out just the right amount.  But that design introduces one very big usability problem.  Can you spot it?

This sauce is hot enough that if you get some in your eye, in a cut, or even on sensitive skin you could be in serious pain.  Some of the oil from the habanero often remains on your hands even after washing with soap, and can still do harm even if you can no longer taste it on your fingers.  So a flip-top that encourages you to apply your thumb or finger to the very same opening from which the sauce leaves the bottle is not a good idea at all.  Most other hot sauces sport a screw-off cap that acts as a barrier between your fingertips and the liquid fire of death.  I can’t imagine that whoever designed this bottle actually uses the product it contains.

Of course, it never happens right away.  A few hours after breakfast, concentrating on unraveling some programming knot, I’ll bow my head, close my eyes, and pinch my tear ducts between my thumb and forefinger.  After three successive days of subsequently irrigating my eyes, I think I’ve finally learned to wrap a paper towel around my fingers when opening and closing this bottle.

Posted in Get Outta Here | 9 Comments » RSS 2.0

Chipping the web: April 28th

April 28th, 2009 11:00:32 am pst by Sterling Camden

Chipping the web

Posted in Share the Love | No Comments » RSS 2.0

Chipping the web: April 27th

April 27th, 2009 10:01:58 am pst by Sterling Camden

Chipping the web

Posted in Share the Love | 5 Comments » RSS 2.0

Chipping the web: April 23rd

April 23rd, 2009 10:00:23 am pst by Sterling Camden

Chipping the web

Posted in Share the Love | No Comments » RSS 2.0

Chipping the web: April 22nd

April 22nd, 2009 10:00:02 am pst by Sterling Camden

Chipping the web

Posted in Share the Love | No Comments » RSS 2.0

Extreme Snakes and Ladders

April 20th, 2009 4:37:17 pm pst by Sterling Camden

Most people remember Snakes and Ladders (or the alternative version, Chutes and Ladders) as one of their earliest board games, usually right after Candyland.  I never played either as a child, but I’m unusual in more than that respect.  My son finds Snakes and Ladders comforting, primarily because of its use of numbers on each square.  He figured out early on that you can simply add the number you rolled to the space you’re on to get the number to which you go next, without having to count the spaces in between.

But the official rules for Snakes and Ladders lack any opportunity for applied skill, unless you can cultivate the ability to roll whatever number you want on the die.  So to make things more interesting, my son developed a few new rules (as he is often wont to do).

Our edition of the game came bundled in a set of board games.  One of those, Parcheesi, requires four pawns of each color.  So my son asked if we could play Snakes and Ladders using four pawns each – for each roll, the player decides which of his pawns to move.  That really changes things!  Obviously, you avoid moving to a space occupied by a snake, but you also try to set up each pawn to be within six spaces of a major ladder — then let them sit there until you roll the right number.

Another not so obvious feature of this rule is that as your pawns reach 100, your options are reduced.  Thus, it’s not in your best interest to always try to get the lead pawn home.  In fact, even once a pawn reaches the 90’s, your choices for that pawn are significantly limited.  When you have only one pawn left, you’re back to the old “victim of chance” rules of the original game.

But my son still found this version a bit too easy, so he invented another rule:  if at the end of your move, your pawn is diagonal to one of your opponent’s pawns and there is an open space diagonally beyond that, you can jump it as in Checkers and remove it from the board.  I thought that the captured piece should then have to start over, but he insisted that it should be gone for good.  If you can capture all of your opponent’s pieces, then you win – without having to get your pawns to 100.  However, there’s a catch – if you don’t take all four of your opponent’s pieces, he or she only has to get their remaining pawns to 100 in order to win.  So if your opponent already has pawns at 100 and you capture the last one on the board, they win right away.  Jumping your opponent may help you win quickly, or it may merely shorten your opponent’s distance from winning.  Unlike in Checkers, you can choose whether or not to jump.  Naturally, this rule increases the value of getting one pawn to 100 quickly.

But my son wasn’t finished yet.  He wanted to make the game even more interesting.  So, for whichever pawn you decide to move, after you compute the space on which it would land, swap the digits and go there instead – if you would land on 85, go to 58, for example.  Then follow the rule (if any) at that space (ladder, snake, or optional jump).  Naturally, multiples of eleven are unaffected by this rule.  But for other numbers, it has the effect of sending you back and forth all over the board.  If you’re at 89 and roll a 2, for example, you have to go all the way back to 19.  The ideal space to hit is number 8 – which when swapped becomes 80, where stands a ladder right up to 100.  But you can’t get to 8 on your first roll, and whatever space you do hit on your first roll will send you to a multiple of ten.  So you subsequently either have to hit a snake or land on a multiple of ten to get back into range of 8.  Naturally, if you end up exactly on 100 you don’t have to go anywhere else.

With all of these rules in play, determining your best move given the roll on the die can be quite challenging.  The probabilities become difficult to compute in your head, and the game can last for a long, long time – until it abruptly ends.

Posted in Oleum perdisti, Wildly popular | 6 Comments » RSS 2.0

Chipping the web: April 17th

April 17th, 2009 4:00:13 pm pst by Sterling Camden

Chipping the web

Posted in Share the Love | 1 Comment » RSS 2.0

Chipping the web: April 16th

April 16th, 2009 6:00:50 pm pst by Sterling Camden

Chipping the web

Posted in Share the Love | 2 Comments » RSS 2.0

Breaking some eggs

April 15th, 2009 1:27:19 pm pst by Sterling Camden

I eat a lot of eggs, which means that I cook a lot of eggs, which means that I break a lot of eggs.

This morning as I cracked an eggshell against the rim of my frying pan, I wondered how different the art of breaking eggs would be if eggs weren’t blessed with a membrane underneath the shell.  According to Wikipedia, eggs actually have two membranes right inside the shell, but I can only see one with my naked eye – or even when my eyes are clothed in bifocals.

If there were no membrane, though, would the shell shatter on impact?  That sometimes happens anyway, but I think it would be a much more frequent event if the shell fragments couldn’t cling to that inner skin.  We’d probably have a whole kitchen utensil or appliance dedicated to the successful separation of egg from shell.  Perhaps it would cut a cap off the shell rather than breaking it, or suck the egg out through a hole that it drilled, or dissolve the shell through some chemical process.

And what if the albumen wasn’t quite so viscous?  As soon as you made a crack the thickness of a frying pan’s edge the egg white would come pouring out instead of nobly sticking to its breached fortress via the comradery of surface tension.  You’d always have to crack the eggs in the desired container instead of on its side or on the countertop.

The egg also fits the palm of the human hand just right for the act of knocking it against something or throwing it at someone who particularly deserves it.  You can even break open an egg with only one hand.

Obviously, God must have created the egg for human use.

What isn’t so obvious is that we humans have shaped the chicken egg ourselves through millennia of breeding chickens and selecting for those that produce eggs we like.  We’ve also developed cooking practices that take advantage of an egg’s unique properties.  Both the human and the egg have evolved together to create this efficient predator/prey relationship.  We didn’t need the hand of a deity to shape the egg, or us.

Unless, of course, you think of said Divine Appendage as merely a poetic anthropomorphism for some guiding Force behind everything that happens, evolution included.  Just remember that crediting it with a human-like capacity for intention is just as anthropomorphic as giving it four fingers and an opposable thumb.

Posted in Out of Nowhere | 10 Comments » RSS 2.0

Chipping the web: April 14th

April 14th, 2009 1:00:17 pm pst by Sterling Camden

Chipping the web

Posted in Share the Love | No Comments » RSS 2.0