text:
In 1986-1988 I was working on Holt/Rinehart "Science" (their K6 text,) and also designing electricity devices at Boston's Museum of Science.
I began slowly collecting instances of wrong electricity explanations. Most were misconceptions being spread by the current crop of K6 (grade school) science texts. Others were in mags and newspaper articles. A few were even in dictionaries and encyclopedias. The more I found, the more sensitized I became, and the more I could "see."
In addition I began mining my own head for misunderstandings I originally had as a beginning learner. I couldn't get inside students' heads, but certainly I could get inside my own student brain of long ago. As I slowly learned new ways to understand the subject, I kept discovering new ways in which I'd misunderstood it myself, and I kept adding to the growing pile. The misconceptions list became large, and soon I also was discovering parts of electricity that the general public invariably found misleading, or parts that were universally explained badly even in physics textbooks. (Advanced texts get the math right, but sometimes the rest of the explanation is faulty.)
Below is the result. It's my big pile of raw unedited notes. Here's the finished product. Someday I'll try to include all the hand-drawn diagrams as well. (The edited condensed version is here" Bad Physics: common electricity misconceptions.)
Why is 'electricity' nearly impossible to understand? Because of...
- Confusing definition of "Electricity"
- Mistaken assumptions
- Electric Current
- Electric Energy
- Electrostatics
- Electric Fluid
- Electric Charge
- Misc.
SCROLL DOWNUP TO: finished electricity articles
Why is electricity nearly impossible to understand? Because of...
...wide misuse of the word "electricity." Using Electricity as the single
name for several completely different substance-like quantities, while at
the same time expecting students to extract each differing meaning of the
"electricity" from the way we use it in explanations. Unfortunately,
students instead become permanently confused because they don't realize
that the word has several definitions. They hear one word and assume
we're talking about one single entity. As a result, they hear us describe
a single "electricity-stuff" having contradictory, confusing, totally
impossible behavior.
...because we misuse the word "electricity." Using it to name physical
entities and also classes of phenomena. Students may end up believing
that static, current, electrons, and protons are various types of energy!
(This is like confusion over the difference between Geology and rocks, or
thinking that "Biology" and "living tissue" must be the same thing.)
...we misuse "electricity" in early grades, then we never point out our
earlier misuse during more advanced grades. Students end up with
misconceptions learned early on. We use "lies to children" to avoid
complicated explanations, but then we're never up-front with older
high-school students about the misconceptions they probably acquired in
grades K-6. Why can't we specifically teach kids about this problem with
the definition of the word "electricity?"
...because of our ignoring the contradiction between descriptions of
various "kinds" of electricity. We insist that there are only two kinds
of electricity, pos and neg electricity! Then we say no, there are only
two kinds, static and current. Then we say no, there are many kinds of
electricity: it's a class of phenomenon with many types, like
Bioelectricity, Piezoelectricity, etc. And then: no, there is
only one kind of electromagnetic energy, and electricity is a form
of energy, therefore there's only one kind of electricity. ...All these
statements are both right and wrong: when used alone they are accurate
only because "Electricity" has so many distinct definitions. But because
these statements contradict each other, collectively they become a serious
...because of "simplifying" a number of distinct concepts by collecting
them under the single name "electricity," with the result that students
come to believe in a nonexistent stuff called "electricity" which has
contradictory, confusing, and impossible characteristics.
...because we lack rigorous dedication to truth and clarity, instead
there's a cover-your-tail attitude where the confusing presence of
multiple definitions of "electricity" in dictionaries is used to
legitimize contradictory use of the word in classrooms. Rather than
fixing the problem in classrooms, we point to the confusion in
dictionaries and insist that the classroom problem is acceptable! But just
because a dictionary records the various contradictory definitions, this
doesn't constitute an authoritative approval of their use by teachers.
...because we use the physics-term "quantity of electricity" to legitimize
other misuses of the word "electricity." Physicists use the word
"electricity" in a very narrow sense, but does this mean that all
other definitions are OK? But "quantity of electricity" means just
one thing: it means charge, measured in coulombs. In other words,
physicists actually say (indirectly) that it's not correct to believe that
electricity many other things besides coulombs of charge. They're saying
that electricity is other joules of energy, electricity is
other the flow of electrons, or classes of phenomena, etc.
They're saying that electricity means "charge," and other definitions are
popular meanings, not scientific ones.
...because of mistaken belief that "electricity" travels one way in wires,
going from source to load... and at the same time believing that it
travels in a circle and all returns to the source, without any being used
...because of mistaken belief that "electricity" travels at the speed of
light, while at the same time it flows along at inches per hour as the
electrons travel slowly in metals.
...mistaken belief that "electricity" alternates: flows equally back and
forth at 60HZ, while at the same time it flows continuously forward from
source to load.
...mistaken belief that "static electricity" is "electricity" which is
static and unmoving.
...mistaken use of familiar terms with unfamiliar definition causes
confusion. For example, in electrical science "AC" does not mean
"alternating current". Instead it means something akin to "having changing
value." So a constant voltage is called "DC" even though it's not a
current. And a changing voltage is called "AC," and the term "AC voltage"
is commonly used. Does "AC voltage" mean "Alternating-Current-Voltage"?
No, that would be silly. AC voltage is changing voltage; DC voltage is
unchanging voltage. An "AC signal" may be entirely composed of
electrostatic fields and have nothing to do with current, even though we
call it alternating current "AC." But if you believe that "AC" means only
"Alternating Current", you will be confused by electrical explanations
written by the experts.
...wrongly assuming that students are as adept as their instructors when
it comes to manipulating concepts. Some instructors know that
"electricity" has multiple meanings, and therefore we must take the word
in context to see what the intended meaning is. But students don't know
this, they think we're using a single word, and so must be discussing a
single concept. We end up convincing them that a single entity called
"electricity" exists which has confusing, contradictory attributes.
...textbooks start with basic assumptions about "electricity," and then
expand on these. But if the basic assumptions are never critically
examined, they may or may not be correct. (Example: K-6 books assume that
a single substance-like entity called "electricity" exists. Another: there
are only two kinds of "electricity.")
...invisible war between old and new definitions of "electricity." The
word was originally used to mean "electric fluid." As the concepts became
refined, the Electric Fluid changed into "charge," so a quantity of
electricity was simply a quantity of charge. But in recent decades the
word has been usurped by electric companies, and now usually means
"energy." But this leaves a gap, since "electric fluid", or stuff-flowing
in-wires now has no common name. The word "charge" is often used instead,
but this is misleading, since a wire can have zero net "charge" even while
there is flowing charge within it. Even more often, the word "current" is
incorrectly used instead of "electricity", as in "flow of current" (but a
current is a flow. Are rivers full of current? No, water. Flow of
"charge" is correct, flow of "current" is not.) But lots of older
literature still contains the older definition, and it states that
"electricity flows inside of metals." Modern authors may unknowingly take
older explanations to heart and believe that they were discussing energy,
not knowing that the older works were discussing an entirely different
"electricity" than is found in modern texts.
...incorrect popular conceptions of electricity which must be unlearned
before accurate concepts can ever be understood.
...mistaking the wave for the medium. Is "electricity" the electrons, or
is it the wave of electron-flow, or is it energy that flows THROUGH a
column of electrons. Think of how difficult it would be to understand
sound waves and air pressure if we had just a single word that meant both
"sound" and "wind" and "air."
...mistaken belief that "generate electricity" means "create electrons."
...belief that a single "electricity-stuff" flows in circuits, when
actually there are several different types of "stuff" which can flow: the
charge flows slowly around a circuit, while energy propagates from source
to load at high speed, while net-charge and current also propagates fast
in various directions. Charge flows down one wire and back up the other,
while energy flows down both wires and does not return.
...mistaken belief that electric current is charges flowing inside wires
at the speed of light. The charges actually flow at inches per hour.
...mistaken belief that net charge and charged particles are synonymous.
However, a wire can have no net charge, yet its mobile electron-sea can
flow. An "uncharged" wire which has equal amounts of protons and
electrons can contain a huge electric current. Is there "charge" inside
the wire? But the wire has no "charge!"
...mistaken belief that "current" and "static" are substances. The only
substance here is electrons and protons. They cause the phenomena called
"static" (electrons separated from protons) and "current" (groups of
electrons moving in relation to groups of protons). "Static" and
"current" are events. They are happenings, not substances.
...mistaken belief that a phenomenon is "made of electricity," when the
phenomenon is really just "electrical." If we say that lightning is
"atmospheric electricity", then we mean that it is an electrical
phenomena, and should then never say that lightning is "a type of
electricity," or that it is "made of electricity". Doing so would be like
saying that clouds are "composed of weather," and the little droplets in
a cloud are made of a liquid called "weather."
...mistakenly confusing electrical phenomena with electrical quantities.
Lightning is "electricity" because it is an electrical phenomenon. But
lightning is not electrical energy (the energy actually flows into
the lightning bolt from the surrounding space) and lightning is not
electric charge (the lightning can strike much faster than the electrons
move, and the flowing electrons often move in the opposite direction from
the direction of the lightning strike) So, lightning may be
"electricity," but in the same way that batteries and bulbs are also a
form of "electricity": they both are electrical.
...belief that there are only two types of electrical phenomena: static
electricity and current electricity. In fact, there are many many others.
Lightning is Atmospheric Electricity (and since it involves both AC and
DC, electrostatics and electric current, it could also be called Impulse
Electricity.) Heart-muscle phenomena is Myoelectricity. Then there's
Piezoelectricity, Triboelectricity, Contact Electricity, Bioelectricity,
Photoelectricity, ...
...mistaken belief that "static" and "current" are opposites. Yet
pressure is not the opposite of flow. The opposite of Static (or
separated +- charge) is not Current (or flowing charge.) The opposite of
Static is canceled charge; neutral matter. The opposite of moving
canceled charge is not separated charge, it is unmoving canceled
...mistaken belief that electric energy flows through an appliance
and returns to the generator. Only the charges do this, not the energy.
The appliance acts as an energy absorber.
...mistaken belief that energy flows out of a battery through one wire,
then flows back through the other. The charges do this, while the energy
flows along both wires in one direction, from source to load.
...mistaken belief that, in an AC system, electric energy vibrates back
and forth. It is the charges, not the energy, which vibrates like this.
The energy flows forward continuously. It's like waves on water, or sound
in the air: the medium wiggles as the wave-energy proceeds forward.
...wrongly describing the presence of electric current as "electricity"
and the lack of current as "no electricity," when actually the flowing
charges which cause the current are present whether they move or not.
Analogy: when water stops flowing in a pipe, the water doesn't disappear.
And when an electric current is halted, the charges remain in the wires,
which is the place where they started.
...little use by educators of the wind/sound electrical analogy:
- AIR is a physical substance.
- SOUND is a wave that propagates rapidly through a volume of air.
- WIND is a flowing motion of air already present.
- ELECTRIC CHARGES are a physical substance.
- ELECTRIC ENERGY is a wave that travels via a column of charge.
- ELECTRIC CURRENT is a flowing motion of the charge already present.
UP TO: finished electricity articles
Why is electricity impossible to understand? Because of...
...student misconceptions which over the years have managed to invisibly
infect textbooks, and reference books, and even educators.
...widespread assumption that textbooks are nearly 100% accurate. This
causes us to be overly trusting of textbooks, and so we ignore any slow
increase of errors in the books. It makes us unknowingly spread the
authors' misconceptions. When we do notice misconceptions, we either
remain in denial about them or we minimize their importance. Our
assumption that textbooks contain only minor flaws causes us to be
threatened by anyone who points out serious errors or attempts to correct
them. Lack of a critical viewpoint leaves textbooks wide open for creeping
"infection" by increasing amounts of misconceptions.
...widespread assumption that textbooks are nearly 100% accurate. We
remain in denial that they are imperfect, and this keeps students in the
dark about the need to take all textbook assertions with a grain of salt.
It hides from them the need to constantly examine themselves for the
presence of misconceptions. As a consequence, they may never learn that
hard work is required to assemble and create their knowledge. Instead
they end up sitting back and being spoon-fed a group of disconnected,
possibly misleading facts. If we stop uncritically accepting the contents
of books, we might finally become aware of the necessity of learning
concepts rather than memorizing facts.
...widespread assumption that textbooks are nearly 100% accurate. This
keeps students from complaining about bad textbooks and teaching. If
curriculum materials are assumed to be perfect, the fault must lie with
the student. But if they could instead always regard curriculum materials
with a critical eye, they might demand improvements.
...assumption that student misconceptions always arise mysteriously within
the students, when in fact these misconceptions are often specifically
taught in earlier grades. E.g.: the constant current battery
misconception. In grades K-6, kids are hammered with the concept that
batteries are sources of "current electricity." High school physics
teachers then complain that the kids believe that batteries always put out
the same current regardless of the load. The solution isn't to figure out
better teaching methods in highschool physics, the solution is to send a
million complaints to the publishers of the misleading K-6 curriculum
...textbooks lack discussion of common flaws and misconceptions. Books
tell us all about electricity concepts, but never go into detail about
possible conceptual pitfalls to avoid, and don't expose us to the idea
that the recognizing and eliminating of misconceptions is a powerful
learning technique. They don't stress the fact that the wrong
answers are of tremendous value, that wrong answers shouldn't be punished
or hidden away in embarrassment.
...avoidance of discussion of misconceptions in the classroom. Common
misconceptions aren't specifically attacked in school. If learning cannot
progress until a misconception is UNlearned, then a student with a
misconception can waste years in futile attempts to progress. Talented
kids may needlessly abandon physics as "too hard," when the fault actually
lies with their distorting "mental filter" created by an unexamined
misconception. (E.g.: when kids believe that current is a substance, all
accurate info on electricity will be interpreted under this assumption.
As a result it will be twisted into useless garbage, while periodic
textbook assertions that "current flows" will keep reinforcing the
students' misconception.)
...students blaming themselves. Electricity is thought to be abstract,
complicated, confusing, mysterious, and invisible, with behavior which
frequently goes against common sense, and anyone who can't understand it
has just not worked hard enough. No. In fact, electricity explanations
are contradictory, confusing, needlessly abstract, and frequently go
against reality and common sense. But students who have difficulties
understanding them will not blame books and instructors, they will put the
blame on themselves. Therefore no one will feel any need to improve the
...mistaken belief that the understanding of electrical physics only
involves the memorizing of right answers, and that the concept-networks,
the storytelling part is not important. This allows us to blithely
teach sets of contradictory concepts, since each concept may be accurate
when examined on its own. Example: electricity travels at nearly the
speed of light (yes, this is true if "electricity" is defined as meaning
"EM energy." ) Example: electricity is composed of particles called
electrons (yes, if "electricity" is defined as meaning "charge") But the
student will never grasp electrical physics now, because these two
concepts turn to garbage when combined.
...explaining things in certain ways because it is traditional to do so,
rather than explaining things in certain ways because it gets the concepts
across well. "That's the way everyone does it, so it must be right." "All
the textbooks do it this way, and that many books cannot be wrong." This
is the "Fox Terrier Clone" problem described by Stephen Jay Gould. E.g.:
we always say that "current flows" out of battery, through lightbulb, back
to battery. Why not alter this to read: charge comes out of *lightbulb,*
is sucked into the battery, flows through the electrolyte, gets spit out
of second battery terminal, then flows back to the bulb? That's more
enlightning; more correct. But the distorted traditional explanations
muscle their way into all textbooks and wipe out creative improved
UP TO: finished electricity articles
Why is electricity impossible to understand? Because of...
Because most book and textbook authors believe ...that Electricity is the
flow of Electricity. (What?) They think that "Electricity" appears
whenever Electricity flows in wires? That whenever Electricity starts
flowing, this flow is called by the name Electricity? Yep. Or put more
simply, authors themselves have little grasp of the difference between
amperes and coulombs; between current and charge. They talk as if
electricity is a thing that flows inside of wires, then they turn around
and say that electricity is the flow of something else inside of wires.
It's as bad as being confused about the difference between air and wind,
or the difference between the flow of river water versus the water itself.
(Is electricity something like water, or is it something like the flowing
motion of water? Look in K-12 textbooks. You'll never pin them down to
one clear position, instead they switch back and forth.)
It's impossible to grasp because books continuously state that "current
flows." (This is connected to the mistake above.) If an author tells us
that "current" is a stuff that flows along, then this tends to convince us
that a substance-like entity called "current" exists. And it wrenches us
away from any use of the Charge-flow concept. (Physicists know that
electric current is a flow of charge, but read K-12 textbooks and see what
language they use: not "charges flow," but instead "flow of current.")
We can easily test for this mistake in any book or piece of written text.
Just mentally replace their word "current" with the phrase "charge-flow"
to see how it reads. Most explanations will then wrongly teach that
"charge flow flows," and they'll speak of "flows of charge flow." Some
books even say that an electron is a tiny piece of "charge flow." (No,
electrons are particles/carriers of charge, not carriers of "flow.")
...mistaken belief that generators and batteries send out a "substance" or
"stuff" called "current" to appliances. (In reality, electric current is
a flow of the copper's own charges. Currents are not like a substance
which can move.) This error is connected to the mistaken belief that
there is no path for current through a battery or generator, so
that the "current-stuff" can only be supplied by the battery. (In reality
the charges do flow *through* the battery and back out again. If the
flow-path did not go through the battery or generator, then that would
constitute an 'open circuit,' and all currents in that circuit would
It's impossible to grasp because of the mistaken belief that, since
batteries and generators cause electric currents, they must be
producing a substance-like material called "current." Or, since
batteries and generators cause a flow of "electricity," we wrongly assume
that they must be creating an electricity-stuff. In fact, the
flowing charges were already in the wires to begin with, and
batteries/generators simply behave as charge-pump devices. If electricity
is like the rubber of a drive belt, then batteries and generators are like
the drive-wheel which makes the belt move in circular fashion.
It's impossible to grasp because of the wide use of a confusing phrase
"amount of current." No, current is actually a rate, not a substance-like
quantity. Instead we should be careful to say it this way: "what's the
rate of current," or "intensity of current", or "what is the value of
It's impossible to grasp because early textbooks wrongly mix the concept
"quantity of a substance" with concept of "flow rate of a substance."
This mistake occurs not only in electricity. Does a shower use lots of
water? Meaningless question, since the length of time is not given. Or,
is a high current actually a flow of "lots of electricity?" Meaningless,
since it's the amount electricity flowing per second, not just electricity
flow. Is a 1000W lightbulb a user of "lots of energy?" Meaningless. A
1000W bulb uses energy at a greater rate than a smaller bulb. If I turn
on a small bulb for a year, versus a large bulb for a microsecond, the
small bulb uses way more energy.
It's impossible to grasp because of incorrectly stating that electric
current is the "amount of electricity," rather than "amount of electricity
per unit time." "Amount of charge per unit time" would be a better way to
say it, of course!
It's impossible to grasp because of the mistaken belief that devices which
cause currents must be the sources of the flowing charge. (No, it's the
wires which supply the charge which flows.) Mistaken belief that
generators "supply current" (i.e. charges) rather than simply pumping
them. This idea is supported everywhere by the incorrect terms "source of
current" and "current carriers," which should more clearly be written as
"cause of current" and "charge carriers."
It's impossible to grasp because of taking electric current as a
fundamental entity, when charge is actually the fundamental entity (maybe
done because of the N.I.S.T. ampere-seconds physical standard.) This
wrongly diverts us from exploring deeper concepts involving electric
current as flow of electric charge.
It's impossible to grasp because of mistaking the high-speed chaotic
vibration of electrons for the low-speed motion during electric currents.
(analogy: learning that air molecules individually move very fast, and
then wrongly concluding that the earth must experience constant hurricane
winds.) In fact, high speed air molecules imply HOT air. But the hot air
is unmoving. And the high speed of electrons in metals acts like thermal
vibrations; like heat in the metal object, and is not an overall motion or
electrical current.
It's impossible to grasp because of the mistaken belief that all electric
currents are flows of electrons. They aren't. This connects with the
misconception that "electricity" is composed only of electrons. As a
result, we tend to ignore the common non-electron currents in
electrolytes, in semiconductors, nerves, the ground, oceans, batteries,
corona, etc. In a battery, since only charged atoms are flowing between
the plates, and since no electrons flow there, we may end up thinking that
the path of electric current cannot be through the battery.
In fact the
path is through the battery. This "electrons are electricity"
misconception destroys the whole concept of "electric circuits", since we
mistakenly assume that batteries are open circuits. Wrong! A battery is
a closed circuit, because if it was like an open switch, then
battery-powered circuits could not even exist.
...mistaken belief that "electricity" obeys strange quantum-mechanical
rules, and therefore "electricity" must be very different than normal
matter. This connects with the incorrect belief that "electricity" is
made of electrons. But while electrons do display significant QM
behavior, electric charge in general does not. Circuits can be built
using saltwater hoses full of flowing atoms. If one believes that only
electrons are important, or that protons and ions can never flow, then one
may mistakenly believe that the strangely enlarged quantum-mechanical
behavior of the low-mass electrons proves that *all* currents and
quantities of charge are weird and Quantum-y. In reality, electric
currents don't have significant QM features, only *electron* currents have
these features. True, electrons are so low in mass that they sometimes
behave as waves, and their motion in metals is very far from the classical
views of physics. But ion-based electric currents are very common
phenomena in everyday circuits, and ions are massive enough that their QM
behavior is vanishingly small. Many of the purported
quantum-characteristics of electric current vanish when currents take
place in tubes full of electrolyte. Electrons may behave strangely, but
this doesn't mean that charge in general behaves strangely. Electrons may
vibrate chaotically at the speed of light in metals, but this doesn't
imply that "electricity" does this inherently.
...mistaken belief that no charge flows through batteries. (No electrons
flow through them, therefore there cannot be current?) This leads to the
traditional incorrect flashlight-current explanation (current comes out of
battery, flows...etc.) It also leads to the misconception that batteries
supply charge, and have a storage place for "used" charge.
This might
make sense if we believe that there's no path for charge through the
battery. But it's wrong, because there is a path, a path provided by
flowing charged atoms. Charge must flow around and around a circuit,
passing through the battery over and over.
...educators never employ the convenient fact that the rate of charge flow
is proportional to charge speed within a particular wire. This greatly
clarifies electric circuit concepts. High current is fast charges. Zero
current is stopped charges.
...wrongly describing a conductor as "something through which electricity
can flow," rather than as "something which contains movable electricity."
A vacuum is a perfect insulator, even though it offers no blockage to
moving charges. But a vacuum contains no movable charge, so it insulates.
...backwards introduction of electric flow vs. electric substance.
During teaching, electric current concepts are often explored first, then
electric charge is introduced later if at all. As a result, students
think they understand Amperes, and they have little grasp of Coulombs, and
in fact they may not really grasp either concept. Students end up
thinking that the Amp is a fundamental unit; they ignore the
Coulomb-per-second, and are confused by the Amp-second. The situation
should be reversed: they should learn all about the Coulomb, hear about
current only in terms of Coulombs per second, and should see the
Amp-second as a strange, roundabout way of saying "coulombs."
...mistaken belief that since physics defines "quantity of electricity" in
terms of ampere-seconds, quantity of electricity must somehow involve
current rather than charge. No, its just that physicists in a Standards
lab can measure charge flow and time more easily than they can measure net
charge. It makes more sense to measure charge, then define the current as
the flow of charge. Instead, the system of electrical standards first
defines the current, then defines charge as a current which is on for a
certain length of time. It might not make sense, but a Standards lab is
after measurement accuracy, not sensible pedagogy.
...everyday electrical energy sources operate in constant-voltage mode,
not constant current mode. We could say that they supply "voltage," not
current. A battery is not a supplier of "current electricity," it instead
supplies voltage, and various currents are drawn by placing various
resistances between the battery leads.
...mistaken belief that batteries and generators are sources of current,
when, since they are actually constant-potential systems, they are
actually sources of "voltage."
UP TO: finished electricity articles
Electricity is impossible to understand because of...
...mistaken belief that electric energy is not in the electromagnetic
spectrum, even though it is composed of electromagnetism. Mistaken belief
that electrical energy is fundamentally different from the rest of the
types of energy in the Electromagnetic spectrum. Mistaken belief that DC
or 60Hz energy is "electricity," while higher frequencies are "radio."
...mistaken belief that power is a substance-like entity which can flow.
Power is actually a flow of a substance. "Power" means
energy-current. Energy can flow, and its rate of flow is called power.
...mistaken belief that electric energy is made of small particles called
electrons. Actually, the fundamental unit of electrical energy is the
photon, not the electron, since electrical energy is electromagnetic
field/wave energy.
...mistaken belief that energy flows up one wire, through the appliance,
then back down the other wire. Energy actually flows up both wires, dives
into the appliance, and is converted to other types of energy (heat,
motion, etc.)
...mistaken belief that electric companies sell electrons. They actually
sell 60Hz "radio waves", and only use the columns of electrons in the
wires to transmit the waves to the end users.
...mistaken belief that energy flows inside of wires. Electrical energy
is actually electromagnetic fields. It exists as the voltage field and
magnetic field which surround the wires. Electrical energy flows as a
"tube" which encloses a pair of wires and exists only outside the metal.
...assumption that electrical energy is an abstract quantity which can be
ignored, rather than viewing it as the EM-wave energy which is sold by
electric companies.
...backwards conceptual construction of power vs. energy during teaching.
As a result, students think they understand Watts, none have a good grasp
of Joules, and in fact they don't really grasp either concept. Students
think the Watt is a fundamental unit, they ignore the Joule-per-second,
and are confused by the Watt-second. The situation should be reversed:
they should learn all about the Joule, hear about energy flow before
learning that energy flow is the same as "power," and should see the
watt-second as a strange, roundabout way of saying "joules."
...mistaken belief that individual electrons in wires carry energy along
with them as they flow. The situation is really like that with sound: the
energy moves as waves through a population of particles.
Electricity is impossible to understand because of...
...mistaken belief that "static" and "current" are opposites. Yet
pressure is not the opposite of flow. The opposite of separated charge
(static) is combined charge (matter.) The opposite of moving canceled
charge (current) is unmoving canceled charge (matter.) Pos and neg
charges which are separated from each other, are not the opposite of pos
and neg charges which flow relative to each other.
...mistaken belief that "static electricity" is "electricity" which is
static and unmoving, rather than separated and "pressurized."
...mistaken belief that when "static" begins to flow and turns into
"current," all the electrostatic phenomena must vanish.
...mistaken belief that when electrons and protons of matter are
separated, they become "static" and unmoving.
...mistaking e-fields for 'static electricity,' as in: "Teacher, is the
'static' on the surface of the balloon, or is it in the space surrounding
the balloon where my arm-hairs are standing up?"
...mistaken belief that "static" precludes "current" and vice versa.
Actually, separated charges can be made to flow, such as in high-voltage
transmission lines, and so we can have "static electricity" that flows.
Conversely, when an electric current is stopped, the suddenly-unmoving
charges do *not* constitute "static electricity", since there is no net
...mistaken belief that "static electricity" is caused by friction, when
it actually arises from charge separation.
...mistaken belief that "static electricity" only refers to dryer cling
and scuffing on carpets, when in its other guise it really involves all
circuitry. It's other guise is voltage.
...mistaken belief that since rubbing fur on a balloon produces electrical
effects, it must be producing charges. We should put much more emphasis
on separation of charge, and cut out any talk of "creating charge."
Charges can be created, but it takes a particle accelerator or a
radioactive source to do so.
...lack of an electrical term analogous to "magnetism." E-fields are then
left out of early teaching because "electricism" is not an independent
topic. When a compass aligns itself, that's magnetism. When hairs align
themselves in an intense, distantly generated e-field, what's it called?
Not "static electricity," because the strong charge is far away.
...significant emphasis is put on teaching of magnetic fields early on,
but e-fields are not taught until more advanced levels. (In grades K-6,
the e-fields are hidden within the "static electricity" concept and
never specifically discussed.)
...lack of early teaching of the important e-field concepts. This causes
the "voltage" concept to be seen as complicated and abstract, as involving
mysterious meter measurement which have no connection to anything
visualizeable. Yet "voltage" is "e-field", and we can draw pictures of it!
...mistaken belief that "static electricity" is caused by the static-ness
or stillness of the charges. This causes the whole charge-separation
concept to never be explored.
...electrostatics is skimmed over or ignored completely, yet in large part
electrostatics is a study of "voltage." Skip over electrostatics, and
your students will forever after be partially confused about voltage.
Electricity is impossible to understand because of...
...mistakenly believing that electric circuits are analogous to open
hydraulic systems (pouring a cup of water through a pipe) when they
actually behave like closed hydraulic systems: a drive-piston connected to
a driven piston, with the connecting hoses pre-filled with water. This
probably comes about in part when we teach that circuits are like pipes
with water, but students then imagine the faucet at home, rather than the
hydraulic system of a backhoe.
...mistaken belief that the fluid analogy does not apply to circuits
because in wires the energy flows, while in pipes the flow is of a
material. Mistaken belief that the "fluid" in wires always flows at the
speed of light, while in pipes the flow can be fast, slow, or stopped.
Mistaken belief that the "fluid" in wires flows from the source to the
load and does not return, while in pipes the water circulates around and
around. This is all incorrect. Actually the "electric fluid" in wires
flows slowly, not at the speed of light, just as happens in water pipes.
In wires, the "electric fluid" flows slowly while the energy flows fast,
just as happens in water pipes. And in wires the "electric fluid" flows
slowly in a circle, just as happens in a pre-filled hydraulic system.
...the lack of a good name for "canceled charge." When + and - come
together, the result is not nothing. The result is matter. The
result can also be the canceled-but-mobile "electric fluid" found in all
conductors. Since matter contains (is even made of) "canceled
and since electric current in wires is a flow of "canceled charge," we
should see matter as being made of "non-moving electric current." Matter
is made of "frozen electricity." The exception is conductors, which
contain "liquid electricity." Some common names for the neutralized
mobile charges found in conductors:
- Electron sea
- combined charge
- canceled charge
- mobile charges
- mobile ions
- current carriers
- carrier population
- electric fluid
- Total Electrification (jc maxwell)
...early teaching about current, yet without teaching about the
"substance" which flows. We shouldn't teach about "current" until after
we've taught the "electron sea" concept. It's like learning about ocean
currents without ever learning that water exists. It makes "current" seem
needlessly abstract and non-visualizeable.
...mistaken belief that Ben Franklin's one-fluid theory of electricity was
correct, and the two-fluid theory was wrong. In fact, matter contains pos
and neg charges, or two kinds of "electricity." Ben thought that pos. and
neg. was a
surplus or deficit of a single sort of electric fluid. Not so, because
matter turns out to be composed of positive and negative particles, so
there are two kinds of electric-stuff after all.
...mistaken belief that early theories of "electric fluid" were struck
down, and so "electric fluid" does not exist. Ancient experimenters
believed in electric fluid, but today we know better? No. Today we know
that wires contain canceled, mobile charges. Today this is called the
electron-sea of the metal, but "electric fluid" is not an incorrect way to
describe it.
...misleading explanations of conductors and insulators. Instead of
saying that conductors allow current, and insulators prevent it, say that
conductors contain mobile charges, while insulators contain immobile
...misleading explanation of a conductor as a material which passes
electrons. Incorrect, since a vacuum offers no barrier to electrons, yet
vacuum acts as a good insulator. The difference is that a vacuum contains
no mobile charges, so when a potential difference is applied, no current
results. A metal conductor doesn't pass electrons, instead, a metal
conductor contains movable electrons.
...mistaken belief that electric current is a flow of energy, when it is
actually a flow of matter. (our beliefs about energy tend to make us
avoid ever teaching the fact that electric current is a matter flow.)
...use of the term "current carriers." This connects with the mistaken
belief that current is a fundamental entity, rather than seeing charge as
fundamental, and seeing current as simply a flow of charge. After all, we
wouldn't say that the water molecules in a river are "water current
carriers". Wires are full of mobile charges, not "current carriers."
...misleading description of wires as "hollow pipes." Ex: wires conduct
electricity, metals conduct charge. Saying it this way covers up the fact
that metals contain vast amounts of mobile charge already, and it
paints a distorted picture of the situation. Better to say "the canceled
charge inside metals is mobile," or "the charges found in wires can be
made to move."
...mistaken idea that electric charge in metals is gas-like and easily
compressible. Actually, the canceled charge within wires is fluid-like,
very difficult to compress, and energy can be transported very rapidly
(rigid rod analogy.)
...little use by educators of slow-electron-flow concepts. Ex: electrons
flow like the minute hand on a clock, and if they were to flow fast enough
that you could see a movement, that wire would be heated white hot by
"friction." The electric fluid acts like tar: it stops instantly when the
pressure is removed, gets hot from friction when forced to move, never
moves very fast, large flows require huge pipes, small pipes are subject
to very high friction, and fast movement always implies immense heating.
...mistaken "empty pipes" analogy. Wires actually behave like pipes full
of water, with no bubbles anywhere, so when more water is pushed
into one end, water immediately flows from the far end.
...mistaken "swirly water" analogy. If water is injected into a bowl, it
just makes the mass of water flow in loops, and we mistakenly believe that
the same holds true within pipes. But in a pipe, if more water is
injected into one end, the entire column of water advances as a unit, as
if it were a solid rod. In pipes, water behaves like a solid drive belt.
...mistaken belief that since electric current is invisible, the charges
in an electric current are also invisible. Little use by educators of the
convenient fact that electrons are visible. "Electricity" is always said
to be invisible, yet the mobile charges within wires constitute a silver
liquid. The milk in a glass bottle may never be seen to move when stirred
(no bubbles!) but that doesn't mean that the milk itself is invisible.
...little use by educators of the drive-belt analogy. Electric circuits
are like pulley/belt systems, the electron-sea within a metal wire is like
the rubber belt. When one part is moved, the whole thing turns, when one
spot on the belt is clamped, the whole thing stops, no rubber or electrons
are consumed, the belt moves slow in a circle while the energy moves fast
in waves, the belt is not invisible and neither are the charges,
back-and-forth motion sometimes works better than continuous rotation (AC
vs DC), friction causes heat and even light, pulleys can drive or be
driven (motor/generator duality), pulleys are not a source of rubber and
batteries are not a source of electrons, and when the belt or the circuit
is stopped, the rubber or electrons stop in place and forever remain. And
belt-systems were in actual use until supplanted with generators and
...the discovery of the electron is mistakenly interpreted as suggesting
that electric fluid does not exist. This is analogous to a mistaken
belief that the discovery of water molecules implies that water is not a
liquid. Electrons and protons are fundamental particles of the electric
fluid, in a similar way that the molecule is the fundamental particle of a
macroscopic material fluid.
Electricity is impossible to understand because of...
...misuse of the word "charge," using it both to refer to a charge of
energy (capacitor, battery) and a quantity of electric charge. A
"charged" battery contains just as many electrons as a "discharged"
battery, because batteries store their energy as chemical fuel, a battery
is simply a chemically-fueled electron pump, and is "charged" with
chemical fuel, not with electrical energy. A fully charged battery
contains the same net electric charge as a discharged battery. (yet it
contains huge amounts of matter, which is made of charge!)
...the word "charge" is used to refer to net-charge and to
canceled-charge. Students will see "charge" as following conflicting
rules, yet their instructors act as if no conflict exists. But there is a
conflict: an object with zero net charge is still full of charges, and an
uncharged object will behave very differently that will empty space (ex:
heating of neutral metal by induction, while empty space is not heated
even though it is neutral.) And fast waves of net-charge can propagate
through populations of barely-moving charges. Groups of charges can have
zero net charge, so do they not exist? And neutral circuitry can support
enormous charge flows (current) yet have no net charge at all, so how can
there be charge flow if there's no charge?
...a problem with the word "charge": an object with a dipole charge
distribution is "charged," and if the charges come together , the object
is "neutral," yet no charged particles were destroyed, and in fact the
same quantity of charged particles are still there. So two charges far
apart equals "charged," while two close together means "uncharged?" But
the particles never lose their charges, so the quantity of charge never
...a problem with the word "charge": when a battery is suddenly connected
to a pair of long wires leading to a distant lightbulb, the wires become
charged and a wave of net charge propagates along the wires at the speed
of light. Yet the individual electrons, the "sea of charge," flow slowly
around the circuit. So did the charge go fast or slow? Depends on
whether "charge" means the electron sea, or whether it means the imbalance
in quantities between the group of electrons and the group of protons in
the wire.
...a problem with the word "charge": A capacitor is briefly connected to
a battery, so energy is stored in the capacitor. If the leads of the
capacitor are now touched together, charge moves from one plate to the
other. Does the capacitor now contain less charge? Yes, because its
plates are now uncharged. No, because the total quantity of electrons and
protons never changed (each electron that left one plate ended up on the
other plate.) A "charged" capacitor contains exactly as many electrons as
an "uncharged" one. Charge imbalance is called "charge", but electrons
and protons are also called "charge."
...mistakenly trying to combine the particle-physics use of "charge" with
the everyday-world use. In the everyday world, when positive and negative
charges are combined, the result is neutral matter. In particle physics,
a combination of positive and negative charge can result in many different
things (gamma rays, if positrons and electrons annihilate.) In particle
physics, oppositely charged particles can be created from empty space. In
the human world, neutral matter must first be present before pos. and neg.
charges can be separated out: fur and rubber can "create" opposite
charges, but empty space cannot. So, in the everyday world, opposite
charge can fall "together," only to be separated at a later time. In
particle physics, if you touch a pos to a neg, the particles are
This is all a question of microscopic energy levels, of chemistry versus
nuclear effects. But circuitry and electrical science involves atoms, it
does not involve high energy particle annihilation.
...mistaken belief that when a positively-charged wire is connected to a
negatively-charged wire only the negative net charge moves as the charges
cancel. Actually the positive and negative net charges both move, they
flow together and vanish. The net charge is of course an imbalance
between pos. and neg. charged particles, and it is true that only the
negative particles moved. Net charge is the difference between
quantities of positive and negative particles, and the net charge can move
differently than particles.
...ignorance of the existence of neutral charge. If we add the number of
particles in equal quantities of positive and negative charges, we get a
larger number: the total number of charges. If we subtract the negatives
from the positives, we get zero, the net charge. The sum is linked to the
amount of matter and to the amount of electron-sea able to carry current
in a metal. The difference is linked to the e-field surrounding the
object and to the charge-imbalance on its surface. It's wrong to call the
sum and the difference both by the name "charge." For example, an
uncharged wire can carry a large charge flow. Does the wire contain zero
charge, since it is uncharged? Or does it contain an immense charge,
since it contains moving electrons?
...mistaken belief that "electricity" involves only electrons. For
example, mistaken belief that "static electricity" is the excess or
deficit of electrons. In fact, positive net charge is not a lack of
electrons, it is an imbalance, it appears whenever there are more protons
than electrons, and fewer electrons than protons.
...mistaken belief that "electricity" involves only electrons. For
example, mistaken belief that conductors contain movable electrons. This
is true only of metals, and is not true of water, human flesh, sparks,
neon signs, batteries, currents in the earth, etc., etc.
...mistaken belief that "electricity" involves only electrons. For
example, mistaken belief that "electricity" cannot be easily explained,
since electrons are both waves and particles. But the flowing electrified
atoms in a non-metal conductor are easily localized, and are even visible!
The bizarre Quantum Mechanics which applies to electrons does not apply
to "electricity" (meaning charges) in general.
Electricity is impossible to understand because of...
...mistaken belief that electricity is a glowing blue "crackly" substance
(mistaken belief that sparks or lightning bolts are electricity.)
...mistaken belief that electricity is a substance that feels tingly.
But high voltage causes body hair to repel and rise. The charge itself
has no "feel." And during an electric shock, the creation of ion currents
in your hand will be felt by the nerves, but the ion-charges were there to
begin with, and only their motion causes a tingling sensation.
...mistaken belief that atoms cannot be torn apart. Belief that an atom
smasher is required. But all of chemistry, and all of basic electrical
physics, is based on torn-apart electron shells. It's only the atoms'
nuclei which are never disrupted.
...mistaken belief that electrons in conductors must be forcibly pulled
from individual atoms before an electric current can commence. The
"jumping electrons" misconception.
...mistaken belief that famous people have the "right answers." Example:
if we want a good explanation of electricity, we take the writings of a
famous physicist as gospel, as the single best way to explain it. But
what if that physicist was a lousy educator? Skill in science doesn't
lead directly to skill in explaining what one knows. Fame does not
automatically make one into an ideal teacher, so in order to find a good
way to teach, look for good ways to teach, don't look for famous people to
...mistaken belief that in order to create teaching techniques at lower
levels, we simply take the techniques used at higher levels and simplify
them. However, the techniques used to teach college science students are
aimed at a population which lives in a very different world than do K-6
teachers and students. Educational material tailored to train scientists
is written in a different "language" than the one used at the K-6 level.
Advanced material cannot just be simplified, it also must be "translated."
It must use concepts relevant to the world in which its audience lives.
It must do this to such a great extent that a K-6 explanation might better
be created from scratch, rather than being derived from college physics.
...mistaken belief that, when it comes to explanations, there is one Right
Answer. Wrongful pursuit of a single "perfect" way to explain
electricity. This goes against the way people grasp concepts. To
paraphrase the physicist Richard Feynman, "If you can't explain something
in several independent ways, then you don't really understand it." Give
up looking for the "correct" explanation, instead try to learn as many
different competing explanations as possible. If one of those blind men
had known that an elephant was a rope, and a leathery wall, and a moving
hose, and a heavy stump, he might have synthesized a sensible view of the
whole animal. The situation with electricity is very similar. We can
only begin to grasp the nature of that invisible elephant by acquiring
many separate and seemingly incompatible viewpoints.
TO BE ADDED:Protons can never flow? Wrong. Protons are high energy particle beams only? No, instead, in acid solutions all electric currents are actually flows of protons (usually labeled "mobile +H positive hydrogen ions," the chemistry-word for "free mobile proton.") And here's other mistakes:
- Batteries: there's no electric current in the liquid between the battery plates? Textbook diagrams show none. Wrong.
- Batteries: one plate stores up electrons, the other plate collects used
electrons after they've powered a device
- Excess positive charge is really just a lack of electrons.
- Capacitors: energy is stored on the surface of the plates.
- Capacitors: charge is actually stored inside the dielectric.
- Radio waves come out of the tip of the radio tower, like bulls-eye ripples
- Atoms always contain equal numbers of positives and negatives; one
proton always has an electron, atoms aren't split (electrons not
- Charge conservation is just a rule to memorize? No, because conservation
laws mean that the property "charge" is substance-like. We can have
matter transport, mass transport, since mass is a conserved property.
We can also have charge transport or "electric current," and it remains
independent of the type of charges involved: protons, electrons, ions.
- "Electricity" is the flowing motion of electricity.
- Energy flows out through one wire, and the other wire is empty
- Electrons can have a voltage; have energy. No, individual electrons
never carry energy along as they flow, instead the energy leaps from
electron to
electron, where electrons are the wave medium and the energy is waves.
Analogy with air
- Voltage is potential energy. No, it's a "Potential," a math term.
- Voltage is the energy of each electron (no electron, no voltage.) No,
voltage is the e-fields in empty space.


text:
I have a new user who wants to import contacts from his personal computer (running Office XP Pro on WinXP) to Outlook on his work computer (running Office 2007 on Win7). We exported the contacts to both CSV and PST. Many of them contain Chinese characters. When I import them to Outlook 2007 on his computer the Chinese characters show up as question marks. I tried it with both the CSV and the PST files.
Strangely, when I import the contacts to Outlook on my computer (also Office 2007 on Win7) the Chinese characters show up correctly.
So, this has to be a configuration issue on his computer. I have tried changing the language for non unicode programs setting in Region and Language (admin tab) but this didn't help.
Any ideas? Thanks in advance!
Jul 23, 2010 at 3:52 UTC
Hey there,
It took a little bit of searching but I found this http:/
2 Replies
Jul 23, 2010 at 3:52 UTC
Hey there,
It took a little bit of searching but I found this http:/
Jul 29, 2010 at 11:34 UTC
Thanks for your help. This article didn't address my specific problem but I emailed the author and he has been helping me try to solve it.
This discussion has been inactive for over a year.
You may get a better answer to your question by starting a new discussion.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
This Forum has been archivedVisit the new Forums
What is your username?
Avatarbender (I have Vamper-RPG too, but I don't use it very much anymore)
Please link to the wiki here:
How many edits have you made on that wiki?
249 edits.
How many days/months have you been editing there?
Since July 19, 2012.
On the Special Pages -> Special:ListUsers when was the last time an admin edited, and who was it?
TheSims2, 12:03, March 29, 2009
Any other information:
I am the only editor there with my two accounts (if you want to know the reason, why I have two accounts, I will explain). The last editor (except me) edited at 23:15, April 13, 2011, so I think it's pretty inactive wiki. I have some experience with administrating, because I am the founder of Vamper Wiki (with Vamper-RPG) . I know, it's not 60 days, but the wiki needs help. I don't know if you agree or decline, but I really want to make that wiki better.
Avatarbender 10:25, August 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. I've given you the rights. Good luck with the wiki! - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:02, August 10, 2012 (UTC)


text:
There are no releases this week and Love and Kanti aimed at the youth could not make any impact at the box-office.
But Ambareeshs 200th film Gowdru is running in packed houses all over Karnataka. This film aimed at the family has a clichéd presentation and an old story, but is doing well at all centres.
The coming week, Sarvabowma of superstar Shivrajkumar in a dual role directed by Mahesh Sukadhare is to be released. This film is much hyped and has Shilpa and Mayoori as his heroines.


text:
Vintage 1970's KUSTOM STUDIO 4 VALVE AMPLIFIER. Kustoms version of the Fender Twin, but with the hybrid Solid State Pre-amp. Two Eminence Redcoats British style Speakers installed. Old Stock Tubes test out good with lots of life left.. Amp works very well. Massively heavy solid oak Cabinet. 4X6l6's. 100 E-normous Watts. . Nice Fendery Cleans on this amp. One of the most lush sounding phasers I've ever heard onboard. This amp isn't built like a tank, a tank is built like this amp. I have it put together very solid where evrything is tight, nothing loose /rattling, and all controls and work and the speakers work without any issues.
360.00 + 45.00 shipping. I would love to trade this to a forum bro for something /anything of interest.
I'm trying to sell or trade it cause I also have the 6X6l6 version of this amp with the 15" SRO that I wouldnt sell for anything. These are really fantastic amps.
P.S. "Buttery". Nothing..just wanted to use that word.


text:
The most fight from the Gold Coast on Sunday was arguably shown by coach Guy McKenna after the Suns' anti-climactic AFL season ended with a 52-point loss to West Coast Eagles at Metricon Stadium.
West Coast kicked 11 goals to the Suns' two in the third term to ensure a year that promised so much ended with the Gold Coast wondering what might have been.
Gold Coast finished with their most victories (10) in a year but still can't shake off the impression they can't win without skipper and dual Brownlow medallist Gary Ablett.
Considered top four chances after a 7-2 season start, the Suns (10-12 record) completed their late season stumble against the Eagles - their 10th loss in their last 13 games.
The Suns won only once after star midfielder Ablett suffered a season-ending shoulder injury in round 16.
But a defiant McKenna said they had taken a "step forward" in 2014 despite the damning statistics.
"We won eight games last year, so we improved by 25 per cent," McKenna insisted.
"If you asked anyone in business or sport to improve 25 per cent I would think that is a pass mark.
"Unfortunately we didn't make the finals.
"It certainly leaves a hollow feeling in the stomach but it will drive us next year."
McKenna glared at one reporter who suggested it was "alarming" that the most fight on Sunday was shown by their 11-game youngster Jack Martin, who kicked four goals and had 19 touches.
"No I am not alarmed by that," he said.
"It is our youngest and most inexperienced side so if a young fella is going to stand out this is probably the game."
Gold Coast didn't seem to fire a shot after Ablett went down in their stirring July 5 win over Collingwood.
But McKenna suggested they were on the nose weeks before Ablett's cruel injury.
"I thought we were getting a bit smelly before he got injured," he said.
"Just the appetite to work and ability to get across the ground, those sort of things."
McKenna even turned back the clock and played the age card again when pressed on the Suns' season finish, despite pumping up their finals hopes just weeks previously.
"Our average age is 22 against a side that averages 25," he said.
"A top four side's average is 26."
And McKenna appeared to contradict himself when he admitted their season finish was a "step back".
"Today's result has probably summed up our second half of the season, a step back not being able to compete for the full four quarters," he said.
"I thought we had moved past that."


text:
I'm very passionate about the environment and like to spend as much time outdoors as possible. I'm rather fond of camping, hiking, small boating, swimming, and have even been known to do some rock climbing from time to time :P I'm very into fitness and try to get top the gym 6 days a week.
I'm very easy going, and light spirited though know when it's time to be serious. I generally prefer a quiet and relaxed environment with close friends than huge parties, busy bars and clubs(which are very much so not my scene). Also I really enjoy wearing suits, so pretty much any excuse to dress up is good with me :P.
Mithgar series by Dennis L. McKiernan
Legend of Drizzt by R.A. Salvatore
Most Fantasy in general :P
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
The Theory of Everything by Stephen Hawkings
Most Star Trek movies
Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit
Boondock Saints
The Avengers
Secret of Nimh
Sherlock Holmes
Ice Age
Rob Roy
Star Trek
Game Of Thrones
Historical/Science documentaries
Adventure Time
Old Loony Toons
Invader Zim
Smarter Everyday(youtube series)
Tool, Animals As Leaders, Imagine Dragons, Minus The Bear, Rush, Starcastle, Pink Floyd, Tesseract, Blotted Science, Dvorak, Igor Stravinsky, Aaron Copeland, Gustav Holst, Spiral Architect, Uriah Heep, Blind Guardian, Mike Stern, Frank Zappa, Manu Delago, Apocalyptica, Meshuggah, Fleet Foxes, Busdriver, k-os, Incubus, 311, Al Di Meola, Coheed and Cambria, Mars Volta, James Brown, The Doobie Brothers, America, Styx, Boston, Porcupine Tree, Steely Dan, David Bowie, Iggy Pop, Earth Wind and Fire, Ohio Players, Skinny Puppy, OSI, Opeth, Katatonia, Deftones, Iced Earth, Fionna Apple, Chick Corea, Miles Davis, Dream Theater, Soen, and so many more of so many different genres it's ridiculous. I tend to just listen to my music of shuffle because it's easier than pawing through several hundred artists. Unless of course I have a particular song in my head.
Mostly European/American cuisine. I'm not really big into eastern or mexican foods.
Friends, Family, Pets
Physical Activity
Quiet/Down time(I don't get much of this, but I value it all the same)
The vastness of the universe and my place within it.
Any recording project I happen to be working on at the time.
Drum parts for my band's songs.
My next workout :-P


text:
Screen Australia backs 'Bait'
A 3D shark pic from "Highlander" helmer Russell Mulcahy tops the list of 22 projects in Screen Australia's final funding round of the year.
A 3D shark pic from "Highlander" helmer Russell Mulcahy tops the list of 22 projects in Screen Australia's final funding round of the year.
Seven Network has announced it will enter the online catch-up TV market with a site streaming full episodes being launched in January next year.
Aboriginal love story "Samson and Delilah" continued its dream run this year by sweeping seven honors -- including best film -- at the Australian Film Institute awards, the country's top kudos, in…
The drawing power of Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving and Richard Roxburgh in "Uncle Vanya" pushed the Sydney Theater Company to an all-time single-day box office sales record Tuesday, with some 5,000…
Kerry Stokes' Seven Network has lost its appeal against a group of media, telco and sports orgs related to the 2002 demise of its pay TV sports channel, C7.
The Australian biz is still abuzz over what emerged from the annual Screen Producers Assn. of Australia conference.
Pop duo Nick Littlemore and Luke Steele, known as Empire of the Sun, scooped the prizes at the 23rd annual Aria Awards, Oz's top music kudos.
It was yet another kudo win for indie darling "Samson and Delilah."
Lachlan Murdoch has bought a 50% stake in Australia's DMG radio network.
Australia's film subsidy, the Producer Offset, has contributed A$123 million ($112.6 million) to the industry since its launch in July 2007, according to government-backed promo and funding org…
The tourism biz in Australia -- like the rest of the world -- is getting hammered by the recession, so Tourism Australia is thinking inside the box … the TV box.


text:
Comments from our readers:
I RECENTLY moved to Augusta and attend Academy of Richmond County as a senior. I had to go pick up some paperwork from the Board of Education downtown and was dumbstruck. How can the BOE have marble floors, automatic hand sanitizer dispensers and ambient music throughout when ARC does not have enough books for the students, major roof leaks and gaping holes in the floors of portables?
A RANT TO the Richmond County Board of Education. The transportation office should be ashamed of letting high school kids ride the bus full of students. I pass by school buses and see students standing up. Suppose the bus driver has an accident. Then it's going to be too late.
TO ALL PARENTS who send their child to school knowing that the child is sick. You need to keep the sick child home not only for your own child's sake but for the sake of all the other kids at school. My 5-year-old grandchild (in a Richmond County school) is sick because someone sent a sick child to school. There's a lot more to being a real parent than making a baby or giving birth.
IT IS SO SAD when parents make negative comments, especially about the school their child is attending. That's why we have students disrespecting administrators, teachers and staff, etc. You make negative comments about the school and the staff in front of your child, so what can we expect from your child? Discipline problems. Parents, please support your child's school and teach your children how to do the same.
RECENTLY, I WAS ticketed in Columbia, S.C., for not wearing my seat belt. Guilty as charged. $25 and a lesson learned. As I pulled away after receiving the ticket, I immediately noticed a motorcycle rider with no helmet. I'm at a loss. Would someone explain the rationale of this?
MR. PRESIDENT, please stop trying to work with the Republican grand old poohbahs. They do not want health care reform in any way, shape or form. Ignore the Republicans and get it passed, public option and all.
U.S. JUDGE Randal Hall "departed from the federal sentencing guidelines to impose a longer sentence ..." on convicted bank robber D.B. Kelly. Good for Judge Hall. Now, if this judge can "depart from sentencing guidelines," why do so many judges hand out wrist-slapping sentences and then claim they had no choice because of those same guidelines?
STEPPING BACK and looking at the big picture, it appears our local government officials consider the money in their coffers to be their own personal spending money. They want to build stuff we don't need, instead of fixing stuff we do need. The economy is in the toilet and they still don't get it.


text:
The Best Convertible Car Seats of 2014
If your baby is out-growing his infant car seat, it's time to think about buying a convertible car seat. What's a convertible car seat? I was long baffled by this myself.
It's a car seat that's "convertible" because it can be used in a rear-facing position for babies, or in a front-facing position for toddlers. Like infant car seats, convertible car seats use your car's LATCH system or seat belt to hold it in place, and they also have a five point safety harness. Unlike an infant car seat, they are rather large and cumbersome and generally aren't meant to be seats for your child outside of the car.
The important thing to know here is that the American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends keeping your child rear-facing in the car until age two, or as long as possible. This means you want to look for a convertible car seat with high rear-facing height and weight limits so that you can keep your child rear-facing longer.
I've looked at many, many convertible car seats, and have complied this list of today's safest, most cutting-edge, and all-together best convertible car seats.
Maxi-Cosi Pria 70 Convertible Car Seat
Maxi-Cosi Pria 70 with Tiny Fit Convertible Car Seat
What's the Pria 70 by Maxi-Cosi all about? Your baby's comfort and safety. This seat is the comfiest looking convertible car seat I've found, and it's made of a special fabric that stays cool to the touch – an absolute must in hotter climates. This is like a La-Z-Boy for your little one.
If your baby is cranky in the car, I would pick this car seat to try. Safety-wise, the Pria 70 has a special "air protect" system that immediately reduces impact forces through the precise release of air. It's actually safe for babies from four to 40 pounds in the rear-facing position, so you can skip the infant car seat and go straight to this one to save some money. Forward-facing, this seat is safe for children 22 to 70 pounds.
There are a couple not so great things about this seat that may or may not be a big deal to you. One is that the seat isn't the easiest to install with a seat belt (versus the LATCH system). Given that you're probably only going to install the seat a handful of times, perhaps this isn't a huge detractor. The second negative for this seat is that you cannot remove the cover and machine wash it. Instead, you must spot clean the fabric and let it air dry. If your baby does a lot of eating in the car, take a look at the other options here before deciding on this one.
Clek Foonf Convertible Car Seat
Clek Foonf Convertible Car Seat
Out of all the car seats I've looked at, this is the convertible car seat I plan to buy. It's the most expensive, but I think the safety features are head and shoulders above other car seats on the market.
The Foonf uses the same "crumple zone" technology that cars use, reducing collision forces in the forward-facing position by up to 40%. For extra protection in the rear-facing position (still the safest position, even with the "crumple zone" technology), an anti-rebound bar presses against the back seat to keep the car seat in place in a crash. The safety features alone make this one of the best convertible car seats available today.
Aside from the safety features, another huge selling point for me is that this car seat sits higher in the car than others, allowing for your little one to see the view out the window, which I'm sure my daughter would appreciate. The Foonf allows for rear-facing up to 45 pounds (the highest rear-facing weight limit that I've encountered) and forward-facing up to 65 pounds.
This seat is only safe for babies six months or older, however. The Foonf comes in awesome colors, has easy-clean fabric, and has magnets that keep the belt out of the way while you put your child in the seat. Genius! The big downside is that it's expensive. If it's in your budget, however, I highly recommend the Foonf.
Safety 1st Guide 65
Safety 1st Guide 65 Infant Car Seat, Seaport
This seat is the most affordable on my list, which makes it a great option for families on a tight budget, or for anyone looking for a secondary seat to keep with Grandma or the babysitter.
The Guide 65 comes with all the standard safety features, and is cushy for your little one's comfort. This convertible car seat fits fine in smaller cars, too. Like the Maxi-Cosi, the Guide 65 is safe for babies five to 40 pounds rear-facing, so you can put your newborn right in the convertible car seat if you don't need the portability of the infant car seat carriers.
For the forward-facing position, this seat is safe for kids 22 to 65 pounds. The Safety 1st Guide 65 makes my list of the best convertible car seats because it's safe, comfy, and most of all, affordable.
Chicco NextFit
Chicco NextFit Convertible Car Seat, Mystique
Chicco makes a fantastic infant car seat, and now they've finally released a similarly fantastic convertible car seat. This seat comes with some awesome bells and whistles, like one-handed head rest and harness adjustments, EPS foam for side-impact protection, and nine recline positions.
It even has a SuperCinch LATCH Tightener that uses force-multiplying technology to get a super tight fit with less manual effort when you install the seat. The seat is safe for children five to 40 pounds in the rear-facing position, and 22 to 65 pounds in the forward-facing position.
My only beef with this seat is the harness. It's more difficult to tighten than other seats I've tried, and the shoulder pads are bulky. Despite this, the Chicco NextFit makes my list of best convertible car seats because it's extremely easy to install and it has cutting-edge safety and comfort features.
Britax Marathon 70-G3 – Best Convertible Car Seat ($209.25)
Britax Marathon 70-G3 Convertible Car Seat
The Britax Marathon 70 is the #1 best seller in convertible car seats on Amazon for a reason – it's comfortable, decently priced, and it has a ton of great safety features.
The safety technology in this seat is no joke – side impact protection system, a base that compresses to contract forward momentum, an energy absorbing tether, and integrated steel bars keeps everything stable.
The Marathon 70-G3 is safe for babies in the rear-facing position from five to 40 pounds, and 20 to 70 pounds for forward-facing. I find that this car seat sits a bit lower, making it a little difficult for babies to see out the window.
Also, the darker colors get blazing hot in the summer sun (nothing a blanket over the seat can't fix). In short, this is one of the best convertible car seats on the market because you get so much bang for your buck – safety, easy installation, and comfort.
All of these choices on my list of best convertible car seats are highly rated for safety and will help protect your child in a collision. But please remember that a correctly installed car seat is the safest car seat. Once you've chosen your car seat, doubly ensure your child's safety by having a local child passenger safety technician check the installation for free.
If you like this article, you may also like our round-up of the best baby cribs and cradles.


text:
ORLANDO, Fla. - Two Orange County sheriff's deputies and a Florida Highway Patrol trooper were taken to a hospital Wednesday morning after being exposed to formaldehyde while investigating a crash.
A car crashed into a barrier wall outside the Green Gables Apartments in Orlando around 8 a.m., and law enforcement officials found the driver, 34-year-old Felix Lockett, who was naked, outside the vehicle behaving strangely, troopers said.
The FHP later said the driver admitted to mixing marijuana and formaldehyde.
A vial containing a substance, later identified as formaldehyde, was located in the vehicle, and the deputies and trooper were overcome by an odor. The three law enforcement officers were taken to a hospital for evaluation. Lockett was taken to Florida Hospital South with serious injuries, the FHP said.
Hazmat teams were called to the scene about an hour after the crash to investigate.
No evacuations were ordered at the apartment complex, but roads were closed in the area.
Watch Local 6 News and stay with ClickOrlando.com for more on this story.
Copyright 2013 by ClickOrlando.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


text:
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Digital reviewing
I demurred. Electronic galleys for fiction, maybe. Although my Kindle gathers dust (too hard to hold; I hate the buttons and typeface; the "page" is too gray), my iPod Touch is perfect for reading on the subway or in the dark and can hold hundreds of books. Lots of editors and agents are already using Kindles or Sony readers to manage otherwise innumerable reams of manuscript pages. (It is unfortunate that there is nothing about digital technology that will reward people for writing shorter books.) But picture books demand to be held, and the page-turn and your fingers are part of the story. Less ethereally, picture-book reviewers will often hold them at a distance to see how an image might carry across a story hour, or they will want to try one out with an individual child or group. I remember Chris Van Allsburg musing about the unlikelihood of families gathering around the cozy glow of the computer screen to "read" the cd-rom version of The Polar Express.
I understand the publisher's desire to keep down costs, and, theoretically, electronic galleys would allow reviewers to post their reviews earlier, which is to everyone's advantage. But I wonder if the distance between what is seen by the reviewer and read by the consumer is too great. Are film reviewers allowed to watch the movie on TV?
30 comments:
- Jennifer Schultz said...
Don't know about reviewers, but I'm pretty sure members of the Academy receive DVDs come Oscar voting time.
(However, some big stars might have screening rooms that are better than the local cineplex!)
- 3:51 PM, August 27, 2009
Sometimes film reviewers receive "screeners"--but most see movies in real theaters before the general public. In my experience, they usually send screeners to help you prepare for an interview with the director or actors, not to review.
- 5:13 PM, August 27, 2009
At the risk of opening another conversation, part of the Monday morning quarterbacking on how Saving Private Ryan lost Best Picture to Shakespeare in Love concerned the idea that Academy members were watching/rewatching both movies at home on DVD, and that Pvt. Ryan lost something on the small domestic screen that Bill Shakespeare did not.
David Lynch talks about large versus (very) small screens in a way that may be relevant to picture books v. JPEGs:
- 5:32 PM, August 27, 2009
- Brigid said...
I agree, Roger. I review a lot of comics, and while digital review copies are certainly convenient, they are not the same as a physical book. If I set my Adobe reader to show a full page at a time (as the artist intended me to see it) the text is too small to read. I would imagine you might have a similar problem with picture books. And then there are the tactile qualities of the book—paper quality, print quality, etc.—which probably matter even more for picture books than for comics.
- 10:33 PM, August 27, 2009
- Turrean said...
I can't imagine it would even be possible to review some picture books based on a digital copy. Anything with textures, lift-the-flaps, pop-ups, fold-out pages, or die-cut "windows" would be out. A quick look at Amazon's "Look Inside the Book" feature shows how much of Lemons Are Not Red or The Black Book of Colors is lost in the "translation" to digital.
- 11:33 PM, August 27, 2009
I so agree, Roger.
When ipicturebook.com made a big, enthusiastic presentation at the winter SCBWI conf. some years back, I turned to the person sitting next to me and said, " It will never fly."
Sure enough, in no time flat, they went belly-up.
Good. Picture books are meant to be held and caressed and enjoyed in bed next to kids or held aloft in a classroom with real pages of paper turning slowly enough for the kids to savor a moment of anticipation.
- 1:08 AM, August 28, 2009
- Andy Laties said...
Aww come on you guys--are you trying to hold back the future??
"Of man only the brain would remain, beautifully encased in a duroplast: a globe equipped with sockets, plugs and clasps….The brain case could be connected to any number of appendages, apparatuses, machines, vehicles….Then…transcepting would do away with crowds and congestion, the consequence of overpopulation. Channels of interbrain communication, whether by cable or radio, would make pointless all gatherings and get-togethers, excursions and journeys to attend conferences, and therefore all personal locomotion to whatever location, for every living being could avail itself of sensors and scanners situated over the whole expanse of human habitation….At this point I stopped and remarked that the authors of these papers were surely deranged. Trottelreiner replied coldly that I was a bit hasty in my judgments…the criterion of common sense was never applicable to the history of the human race."—Stanislaw Lem, The Futurological Congress, Translated by Michael Kandel ([1971] New York: Continuum, 1974): 135-136.
- 10:57 AM, August 28, 2009
I listened to a lot of archived interviews of John Updike in the wake of his death and was struck by how often he talked about his love for the "thinginess" (his word) of books: the paper, the ink, the letterforms, the jacket design, the heft. True of all books, I think, and doubly true of picture books.
- 11:27 AM, August 28, 2009
- William said...
I think the "thinginess" of picturebooks is going to be replaced by a new "thinginess" of the digital book sometime soon. It will be durable and have its own kind of wonderfulness very different from that of paper and texture. First we will use it as an alternative and then slowly the books will fade away. It's all about conditioning. The next generation will look at picturebooks and say they are nice, but awkward to hold and they just "aren't what we are used to." The way we feel about trying to read by candlelight, maybe.
- 11:41 AM, August 28, 2009
Did anybody ever really miss trying to read by a small, feeble, flickering glow? Listen, I'm generally a technology fan and like many a Victorian would probably have studded my house with as many electric light bulbs as my means allowed. But in my opinion the Kindle, etc., is a solution looking for a problem.
- 12:02 PM, August 28, 2009
- Roger Sutton said...
William's comment allows me to give another plug to Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age--if anyone wants to know the great possibilities of the electronic book look there, not at the Kindle.
But my concern is very much here-and-now: are digital ARCs too different from finished books to make reviewing from them inept and/or dishonest?
- 12:10 PM, August 28, 2009
- 12:19 PM, August 28, 2009
- Andy Laties said...
OK as a serious response, I recall that a few months ago a friend sent a series of PDFs of a picture book he was shopping, and I was quite capable of evaluating it on the basis of those PDF images. (It was obviously terrific -- I could certainly tell that by looking at PDFs.)
I can see why publishers would want to send digital files to reviewers: they are already sending digital files around amongst themselves, in-house. Their authors are being instructed to use YouSendIt.com
I would think that a smart publisher would of course not ask for a book review based on digital files if there were some pop-up or physical attribute of the book that would contribute to the reviewer's successful judging of the book. But for most picture books a reviewer would be expected to get with the program and operate the way in-house staff and authors are now operating.
If you, the reviewer, ask to be sent physical books only, you'll surely get those only. But perhaps over time competing publications will find themselves receiving their digital versions before you get your physical F&G's...
- 1:38 PM, August 28, 2009
- Andy Laties said...
All of which said, I agree with you Roger. Some books turn our to have poor production values, or, do not work well when physically produced, for some reason. As actually printed and bound, their colors have been poorly reproduced, their endpapers are indifferent, their bindings are cheap, their formats or sizes have been poorly chosen. A reviewer (or bookstore buyer) cannot judge these attributes of final physical production by inspecting a PDF.
Contrariwise, an editor who prides her/himself on the physical production work done by their house would certainly prefer to have the reviewer handle a finished book -- that's the best seduction.
- 2:16 PM, August 28, 2009
- Mary Ann Scheuer said...
I can see both sides of the coin. On one hand, it's easier to send and receive digital copies. But then you are reviewing something that is different than the final product.
I'd like to add one more layer to consider. I often want to "test drive" picture books on children, to see what their responses are. This is much, much harder if I only have digital copies to look at. If I like a book, I often want to gauge a child's reaction - for that, I would definitely want a hard copy.
- 2:36 PM, August 28, 2009
Very good points about production and quality in Andy Latie's post.
Also, as an author and illustrator, I'd like to say that the reason so many other authors and illustrators make book dummy after book dummy after book dummy while working is that something HAPPENS in a story when you physically turn the page that doesn't happen when you're looking at storyboards, or InDesign, or Quark, or whatever. There is form and function in bound pages; they are not a neutral bucket into which one just pours content; their form affects the telling. We are writing and drawing and in a real sense building for that form. We are not just making stories and pictures. We are making books.
- 2:51 PM, August 28, 2009
I'm not willing to predict a future for electronic picture books -- except that I think they will/would be a different kind of art form. About digital ARCs, they could be useful up to a point but no review should be finalized until the reviewer has seen a printed book or F&G. Paper choice and the contrast between type and background are both elements that every reviewer should be looking at. As a graphic designer I am all too aware of the medacity of monitors. Lots of type/background combinations look great on the screen and die on press.
- 6:46 PM, August 28, 2009
What about splitting the baby? Obviously HB and some other publications don't review everything (at least, not in the real magazine). What if the publisher sent the digital copies, and the journal used them to decide which books to review . . . then got hard copies of the books they actually chose to review? Probably, the digital copy is sufficient to separate the wheat from the chaff, but maybe not enough to separate the, um, best wheat from the, um, second-best wheat (Sorry. Don't know enough about farming to continue this wheat metaphor properly).
- 11:18 PM, August 28, 2009
I can certainly see a huge benefit to the publisher in not having to print and ship a bunch of paper, but I can't see any benefit to me, the reviewer. ARCs are incredibly appealing--I often like them better than the finished book as an aesthetic experience.
All of your points about picture books are valid. I'm not going to gather a storyhour group around the computer to try a book out on them.
What would stop people from forwarding them to other people once they're in electronic form?
- 8:50 AM, August 29, 2009
Remembering all the past conversations about sexism in the selection of the Caldecott, I wonder if you would find over time, that some sorts of books translated to the digital better than others. As Andy Laties said, he could look at one set of digital images and see their obvious quality. I'm more interested in the books that would be passed over because their finer points didn't translate to digital. No one would ever see the book, and then no one would print more like it. Digital reviewing, whether it privileges male, or female, or one kind of story or one media instead of a another, seems likely to narrow the field inappropriately.
- 11:29 AM, August 29, 2009
- Danny Errico said...
I'd agree there is a difference, but the change to digital format is probably inevitable. Perhaps there is a better way to present the media digitally that somehow captures more of the "real book" feel?
- 11:52 AM, August 31, 2009
- Andy Laties said...
Why inevitable? Don't customers have any say over, or influence on, the marketing behavior of corporations seeking to sell products?
If I as a bookseller want to see physical F&G's, am I powerless to prevent publishers from attempting to get me to buy using digital-marketing media only?
(You can argue that a generational change will implement this on behalf of the publishers--once I'm out to pasture--but this assumes a lot as well. Computers were a big part of my childhood in the 1960s--already big computer companies like ITT were buying publishers -- and then divesting when the promised electronic era was much slower in arriving than promised. Generations raised in a computer era can still exhibit preferences for the non-computerized information paradigms.)
The question is how to sell books. No inevitability exists: it's in the hands of We The Readers.
- 2:00 PM, August 31, 2009
- Danny Errico said...
@Andy Laties I meant inevitable for digital _reviewing_. In that sense, the publisher has the power to control the format because they can (probably) get faster, and thus cheaper, results from their reviewers by providing them digital copies. This is a different process than selling "real" books vs electronic books to consumers. For that latter case, I agree with you that we-the-readers have the power to choose which format we prefer.
- 2:11 PM, August 31, 2009
- Andy Laties said...
Sorry if I came on too strong.
I did understand you though. Reviewing and buying for a bookstore are very similar activities. I was disagreeing with you -- pretty much in keeping with what I've already been saying in this conversation. I think that lots of people who make decisions about what books to recommend or place bets on want to see physical samples of the books they will be staking a bit of their reputations on. It's entirely reasonable. We are strong-minded professionals. We will get our way. The publishers will not be able to ignore our unpleasant insistence that just because something is more convenient for the marketing department doesn't mean it's a smart business practice. It's not a smart business practice for marketing departments to rely on digital review materials as selling tools, when that marketing department is working for a company that is attempting to sell physical books or get physical books evaluated. The company should supply actual, physical samples for evaluation by us, the gatekeepers. We will win this one.
- 4:26 PM, August 31, 2009
- Andy Laties said...
One way to understand my point is to consider this as simply a variation on a really old question, which is, "Is it really necessary to send review copies to book reviewers or booksellers?"
Of course publishers would rather send cheaper evaluation materials. They've wanted to do this forever! Sending physical review copies has always been a big expense for publishers. And yet, decade after decade, publishers that have failed to send physical review copies have had trouble getting their books into the marketplace. Publishers compete with one another. Which publisher will be the first to stop sending physical objects to reviewers? Will their list of books for that season be reviewed proportionately to the competing publishers, who continue to send physical samples??
You can respond by saying that it's a huge waste of money to send physical review copies. That may be true! But I'm just saying that it's been a huge waste of money for many years and yet it's continued to be the necessary practice. It's terribly difficult to get your books into the marketplace. It's expensive. This is a part of the expense.
If you want to know where publishers should be cutting back, I can tell you that in MY opinion this has to do with the incredible waste in the way they work with chainstores -- in particular, payment for shelf-placement; and excessive returns allowances/costs-borne. That's my hobby-horse. They are places to change the industry which I prefer to focus on. My opinion is: I don't know as this is the central problem in the industry, this review-copy-expense-issue.
- 4:42 PM, August 31, 2009
I'm responding to this idea in the essay: "reward people for writing shorter books."
If this has already been discussed on this site I apologize.
Is there anyone else out there who feels that many books currently on the market are unnecessarily long? I'm not speaking of picture books, of course, but of books from about 3rd grade reading/interest level and on up.
I can't decide if it is because authors are paid by the page or if it is lax editing or if it is a trend.
Or do books seem so long because the descriptive writing is so dull?
I realize that I am generalizing in a very bad way. But I'm still wondering, does any one else notice this?
- 5:48 PM, September 01, 2009
Authors are not paid by the page.
- 8:58 PM, September 01, 2009
Van Alsburg's nightmare about families gathering around the computer to "read" a book may be all too likely! Just what would suit some publishers: think of the savings in paper, shipping (no returns!) etc. etc. Not to mention getting rid of many employees, from sales force on up. A clever promotion could sell the idea to modern parents.
- 9:26 AM, September 02, 2009
- Danny Errico said...
@Andy Laties I understand your point. Hopefully publishers will continue to stick with physical review copies.
- 9:53 AM, September 02, 2009
1) I do not think most books are too long. I sometimes feel cheated by short books (Briar Rose/Yolen come to mind). Diana Gabaldon, on the other hand, needs to be edited but they are too intimidated by her.
2) I understand why people complain about placement to the chains but without the quantities they move, there would be fewer books. I would instead be critical of publishers who don't use their profits (if any) from the chains to fund arcs for the indies. One problem is that feedback from the chains comes earlier and is circulated faster, so is more useful early on to the publisher.
3) I review for PW and would probably quit if I had to do it on a reader. I spend enough time at my job staring at a computer screen. I understand the need to save money, however.
4) I notice that I am buying fewer books, partly because feeling frugal but partly because I just have no room! I try to donate $25 to my library every other month as it is GREAT about ordering my requests.
- 11:24 PM, September 09, 2009


text:
Twin brothers are facing felony burglary charges following a recent incident at a home near the northwest edge of Kent State University's campus.
Kent police arrested Adam R. Dombroff, 25, of 7053 Heathwyck Road in Maumee, and Andrew G. Dombroff, 25, of 1325 S. Water St. in Kent, at about 1:30 a.m. and charged both brothers with burglary, a second degree felony, after the pair allegedly kicked in doors and took property out of a home in the 200 block of East College Avenue. According to KSU records, Andrew G. Dombroff is a senior nutrition and food major at KSU.
"There were a lot of exterior and interior doors damaged -- kicked in," said Kent police Lt. Jim Prusha. "(There was) a lot of missing property, a lot of which was recovered in the vehicle they were driving."
He said the details of what the brothers allegedly stole from the house are not being released to the press because some of the items have not yet been identified and claimed by their owners.
Prusha said the house may have been targeted because there was little visible activity inside Sunday morning.
"It sounds like there was hardly anybody (at the house)," Prusha said. "There was one person home who called us."
Prusha said police officials have not linked the brothers to any other burglaries in the area. He said the police are more likely to be called to the area, popular among student renters, after residents report theft following a large party.
According to Portage County court records, Judge Barbara Oswick set bail at 10 percent of $50,000 for each of the Dombroff brothers Monday. Both brothers were being held at the Portage County jail pending future court dates.
Contact this reporter at 330-298-1126 or email@example.com


text:
Download an application form here and Click here to download the Student Biographical Information Form or visit a campus near you.
Please note that all documents need to be certified.
Please inform the interviewer if you have any disabilities.
You will receive a letter from False Bay TVET College informing you of one of the following:


text:
Facing TV Problems? Ask a TV Technician.
Thank you for posting your question on Just Answer! I will be happy to help you with this problem. Can you please give us some more information so I can better answer your questions.
-What is the model number for the television? (this can be found on the back of the unit)
-How old is the unit?
-Is the light flashing a code? (example 6 blinks pause 6 blinks pause repeat)
Please give me this information and I will be happy to assist you further.
Thank you,
Tim Nolan
Sharp 32sb24u
3years old aproximately
continuous blinking