A related note about corpses.

Today I learned about the story of Elmer McCurdy:

In December 1976, during filming at Queens Park (A.K.A. The Pike), of the television show The Six Million Dollar Man episode "Carnival of Spies" (#4.17) (1977), a crew member was moving what was thought to be a wax mannequin that was hanging from a gallows. When the mannequin's arm (some accounts say finger) broke off, it was discovered that it was in fact embalmed and mummified human remains. Later, when medical examiner Thomas Noguchi opened the mummy's mouth for other clues, he was surprised to find a 1924 penny and a ticket from Sonney Amusement's Museum of Crime in Los Angeles.

Long story short: the guy got shot in 1911, got mummified, got turned into a sideshow attraction, and somehow became a prop on a California boardwalk.

"the corpse progresses through several forensically recognized stages of decomposition, including Fresh (before decomposition begins), Active Decay, which includes Bloating and Rupture, and Advanced Decay"

Creepy-spooky microbiology fact: Grave soil differs in biochemical composition from other soils. It's probably due to the action of microbial communities. Along the same rapidly-decomposing lines, forensic investigators may be able to use microbes to estimate a corpse's time of death in much the same way they may use insects.

Salt of the earth

The word of the day is 'saltern'. That's a place where salt is made. We've been doing that (making salt, that is) since prehistoric times, but what's even more interesting about salterns is how rich they are in salt-loving microorganisms. One such group is the Ectothiorhodospiraceae, or purple sulfur bacteria. They just love salt. That, and sulfur. 

There's no conclusion here. I just really enjoy microorganisms with exotic lifestyles.

Check it off

As part of my quest to find ever duller subjects to blog about, I will now briefly discuss web-based task managers. These are bits of software (let's avoid that badly-abused term 'app', shall we?) designed to replace all the usefulness of a pen and pad of paper, at least when they're used for keeping track of lists. Electronic solutions offer benefits like sorting, accessibility, and categorization, all of which can be performed on paper with the right combination of tabs and color-coding. Even so, no notebook matches the Internet's ability to make the same bits of information available everywhere, all the time. The end goal is to decrease the amount of friction between conceptualizing a task and actually completing it.

So here's a bit of pro and con:

• Pen and paper. It's easy, requires no power or data connection and looks great in a Lisa Frank Trapper Keeper.* It also cannot exist in more than one place at once. That may be a feature rather than a bug if security is a concern.
• A text file. The digital equivalent of pen n' paper, this option is cheap and flexible. It does require access to wherever the file happens to be, though placing it in a Dropbox solves that issue handily. Even so, mobile devices find editing text files challenging. I'm not sure why. Text editors also aren't ideal environments for sorting tasks though they are great for searching, especially when regular expressions are involved.
• Remember The Milk.  I used this for a while last year after migrating from the maddeningly minimal Google Tasks. It's free-ish, plays well with Google Apps of various sorts, and parses natural language very smoothly (i.e., you can enter a task as "eat ham on Wednesday" and it will understand when the task should happen). The -ish is an issue as the web interface is free but the mobile version won't sync tasks more than once a day without a $25/year pro account. The interface used to be genuinely ugly on all platforms but appears to have improved recently. It has plenty of features and active support. That added cost is really the only downside but it's a notable one.
• Astrid. This isn't even a real option any longer as the Astrid team got bought out (read: consumed and digested) by Yahoo** a few months back. It's sad. Astrid ran smoothly on all kinds of platforms, looked great, and allowed for shared lists. Now it's all gone.
• Wunderlist. This option may, in fact, be on its second iteration (Wunderlist2) and is primarily a mobile application. At least, I had daily problems with its interface: tasks would disapper, buttons would become invisible, and most recently I couldn't even log in to my account. The entire project has a Web 2.5 sheen which is attractive until the point at which it works slowly. Even worse, there is no option to export tasks to anything other than a bloated, difficult-to-import-with-other-software JSON file. I used Wunderlist for about six months and just couldn't tolerate all the bugs.
• Toodledo. Just started using this one. It's rich in features but I'll have to use it a while to see if they're useful. The desktop web interface has some really basic usability issues, but hey, it's all free.

Next week, I plan to discuss the care and handling of airborne sawdust. Stay tuned, kids!

*I was blissfully immune from the Trapper Keeper trend when it was endemic. Have students ever been so excited about personal organization since that time?

**Or, more officially, YAHOO!

Yes, that is correct, more dumb Excel tricks

For personal future reference and otherwise: how to hide text in Excel but retain the formatting. Just change the Format to ;;;. That's all it takes.

See also: this blog post.

Learning to love mothballs

Today, I learned about the existence of a bacterial species named Polaromonas naphthalenivorans. This lil' guy* fits into the mysterious, often baffling category of extremophile bacteria - that is, species capable of living in environments we normally wouldn't consider habitable. Originally isolated from a coal-tar-contaminated aquifer somewhere in the northeastern US,** P. naphthalenivorans can grow using naphthalene as its only carbon source. It's not terribly surprising, as naphthalene is a major component of coal tar (and was originally isolated from coal tar, in fact), so this species is just working with what it has. It's still rather odd as naphthalene is toxic and a suspected carcinogen. Those kind of rules don't always apply to bacteria.

Dividing P. naphthalenivorans cells. Micrograph is from the Joint Genome Institute (JGI). See this page for more details.

Most people are familiar with naphthalene as a component of mothballs. This paper suggests that a whole metabolic community could subsist on naphthalene, or at least could adapt to its presence. Evolution is great that way!

*Literary anthropomorphism is a constant danger when discussing animals and especially when discussing microbes since it's difficult to understand why they do what they do. I will rarely, however, avoid an opportunity to make bacteria seem cute. They're already tiny, and tiny things are cute, right?

**A paper describing the aquifer describes it using little more detail than "A single truckload of coal tar was buried in a forested area in the northeastern United States." This MicrobeWiki page says it's in South Glens Falls, New York. There's a lab at Cornell that likes to work there. As far as they know, the local drinking water isn't contaminated with coal tar or anything like that.

Goofy Excel tricks episode #1048577

Just a quick trick I learned today about how to make Excel search a series of values and return one or more corresponding adjacent values for each. I'd normally use VLOOKUP for such a thing but the function only returns the first match it finds. How about situations when I have more than one match, like this one:
A   elephant
B   truck
C   large rock
D   pudding
B   gopher

in which I want to know which values are adjacent to value 'B'?

Googling a bit provided this convenient and non-obvious answer. The general function is:
=INDEX([the values you want to return], SMALL(INDEX(([the search value]=[the values being searched])*(MATCH(ROW([the values being searched]), ROW([the values being searched])))+([the search value]<>[the values being searched])*1048577, 0, 0), COLUMN(A1)))


The function will return one matched value at a time, so to get the other matched values to appear in the same row just copy it over to the adjacent cells in the row. It will return #REF! if the search value isn't found.


Don't forget to make references static as needed, i.e. $A$4:$A$979. The 1048577 is to convert the function from an array function into a normal one, I think. Not really sure what that COLUMN(A1) part is doing. Maybe it's just to establish where the upper-leftmost cell is.


This post is mostly for my own edification but I hope it was helpful. To me. Most people don't use Excel arrays for things that are better suited to a bit of SQL, right?

For future reference: to remove bromophenol blue stains from clothing, soak with ethanol, dry with paper towel, then spray with Windex or something similar and dry again. It's not just the isopropanol in the Windex - I think the surfactants help, too.

For future reference: the Excel escape character is not a slash. It is a tilde, i.e. searching for ? performs a wildcard search but ~? will return question marks.

No big deal. Just some big viruses.

Searching PubMed for the keyword "giant virus" always provides some fun results. That's not what I did today - though I do recommend trying it sometime - as the recent reports about oversized viruses have been spreading like some kind of very small causative agent of infectious disease.

Here's the first one: the isolation of a Mimivirus from a patient with pneumonia. The particular viral isolate is more than 550 nanometers wide and has a 1.23 megabase genome. For reference, that's huge. For a better reference, that's about the width of an average E. coli cell and a genome in the same size range as many of the more genetically streamlined bacteria (it's more than twice as large as the tiny Mycoplasma genitalium genome, though that's about as minimal as known bacterial genomes get). Most viruses we know of aren't quite this massive, though Mimiviruses and other record-holders for viral size share the characteristic of infecting Acanthamoeba polyphaga amoebae. So if this new mimivirus infects amoebae, is it pathogenic to humans as well? The authors of this paper seem to think so. As always, further viral isolates will be necessary. (The actual paper is right on the other side of this concrete paywall.) 

If you thought that mimivirus was big and/or had a silly name, check out the Pandoraviruses. These viral isolates average more than 700 nanometers in diameter and bear genomes of, in at least one case, more than 2 megabases. They were found in sediments and mud where amoebae are plentiful. There are some hyperbolic news reports out there about these new viruses already so I'll just pick some interesting bits out of the paper itself:

Unlike eukaryotic DNA viruses and phages, which first synthesize and then fill their capsids, the tegument and internal compartment of the Pandoravirus particles are synthesized simultaneously, in a manner suggestive of knitting, until the particles are fully formed and closed.

Knitting viruses. Don't tell Pinterest. Not yet.

The high percentage (93%) of CDSs without recognizable homolog (ORFans), the alien morphological features displayed by P. salinus, and its atypical replication process raised the concern that the translation of its genes into proteins might not obey the standard genetic code, hence obscuring potential sequence similarities.

The authors are trying to say that these viruses are almost suspiciously strange. It's not uncommon to see large chunks of viral genome sequences that don't look like any known sequence, but when you're talking about genomes larger than many bacterial ones then this becomes a sizable reservoir of new, uncharacterized genes and proteins. They may be more familiar than we can initially tell.

...their DNA polymerase does cluster with those of other giant DNA viruses, suggesting the controversial existence of a fourth domain of life ... The absence of Pandoravirus-like sequences from the rapidly growing environmental metagenomic databases suggests either that they are rare or that their ecological niche has never been prospected. However, the screening of the literature on Acanthamoeba parasites does reveal that Pandoravirus-like particles had been observed 13 years ago ... although not interpreted as viruses. 

So these viruses aren't totally alien. They've been around for at least 13 years! Probably even longer,* though exactly how much longer may determine how controversial that claim about the "fourth domain of life" becomes.

Citations follow.

Saadi, H., Pagnier, I., Colson, P., Cherif, J. K., Beji, M., Boughalmi, M., … Raoult, D. (2013). First Isolation of Mimivirus in a Patient With Pneumonia. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. doi:10.1093/cid/cit354.

Philippe, N., Legendre, M., Doutre, G., Coute, Y., Poirot, O., Lescot, M., … Abergel, C. (2013). Pandoraviruses: Amoeba Viruses with Genomes Up to 2.5 Mb Reaching That of Parasitic Eukaryotes. Science, 341(6143), 281–286. doi:10.1126/science.1239181.

* Some varieties of amoebae may have been around as long ago as the Neoproterozoic Era, or between 1,000 and 541 million years ago. If there were amoebae then viruses with amoebic hosts may have also been present.

New job, same as the old job

I'm finding this report on the growth of temporary work in the US quite interesting. It's at least partially because I've worked temp jobs before, even immediately after finishing the undergraduate stages of my ongoing academic career. The unnerving thing about each job wasn't the uncertainty, the mediocre pay or the lack of decent benefits. Rather, it was the sense that you could serve as a critical element of a larger whole yet retain absolutely no role in your long-term fate with the company. Anyway, here are some bits from the report I found especially damning:

Every year, a tenth of all U.S. workers finds a job at a staffing agency.

That's both temporary and contract workers. The American Staffing Association states that staffing agencies employ more than 2.9 million people in the US every day. That time factor is the critical element here -- these may not be the same 2.9 million employees from one day to the next.

“We’re seeing just more and more industries using business models that attempt to change the employment relationship or obscure the employment relationship,” said Mary Beth Maxwell, a top official in the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division. 

Obscuring the employment relationship doesn't initially seem like an ideal goal but it certainly looks like an effective way to turn formerly long-term employment into a more commitment-free model.

“I think our industry has been good for North America, as far as keeping people working,” said Randall Hatcher, president of MAU Workforce Solutions, which supplies temps to BMW. “I get laid off by Employer A and go over here to Employer B, and maybe they have a job for me. People get a lot of different experiences. An employee can work at four to five different companies and then maybe decide this is what I want to do.”

This kind of attitude reminds me of the whole "self-deportation" idea. Nothing with that much uncertainty can be a solid long-term solution. There will always be enough work for everyone but not at the same time. Traditionally, this problem was alleviated by unions, though clearly they come with their own issues. Aren't they worth a try for temp workers?

A 2004 order by the National Labor Relations Board barred temp workers from joining with permanent workers for collective bargaining unless both the temp agency and the host company agree to the arrangement.

Oops, maybe not.

Only 8 percent get health insurance from their employers, compared with 56 percent of permanent workers. What employers don’t provide, workers get from the social safety net, i.e., taxpayers.

And don’t look for Obamacare to fix it. Under the law, employers must provide health coverage only to employees who average 30 hours a week or more. After pressure from the temp industry and others, the IRS ruled that companies have up to a year to determine if workers qualify. 

Health care, or the lack thereof, may be the most worrisome element of the growth of temp work. If most of the temp job growth is in industrial jobs, more people will continue to be at risk of experiencing injuries they will never be able to afford. Many of them may not even work for a single employer more than a year, or when they do, they still won't be able to afford the plans the employers offer (in my experience, the plan wasn't exactly cost-competitive).

This whole problem is genuinely worrisome from numerous perspectives. It's yet another economic maelstrom waiting to happen, with the added stench of Industrial Age exploitation swirling throughout.

Time to BRCA the habit

The US Supreme Court has ruled that human genes cannot be patented. That's great news until we stop to consider what a human gene includes. The ruling bars patents on original human DNA, presumably in any variation of its sequence. That is, I couldn't file a patent for the sequence of my favorite human gene or of any of its alleles. The ruling does specifically permit any implementation or subsequent product made using that sequence, up to and including synthesis of cDNA. By means of awkward simile, that's like prohibiting patents on maple trees (or, at least, the concept and structure of a maple tree) but permitting patents on maples grown in a tree farm. There's still plenty of room for perfectly legitimate patents to be granted and for new products to be protected. I'm just concerned that this ruling stops well short of actually resolving the issue of what kinds of biological material can or can't be patented.

We've reached the point at which the whole "natural" vs. "artificial" dichotomy just doesn't pass muster anymore. Advancements in synthetic biology promise to blur a line that wasn't especially crisp to begin with, especially when discussing raw DNA sequences. The SCOTUS ruling states "cDNA does not present the same obstacles to patentability as naturally occurring, isolated DNA segments...creation of a cDNA sequence from mRNA results in an exons-only molecule that is not naturally occurring." The issue here really shouldn't be whether cDNA of a patented sequence could be found in a human (that is, without influence by outside factors like viruses), but rather that the cDNA still bears exactly the same protein-coding message as the RNA transcript does, just in an edited format.

We can, of course, get more philosophical about the issue and debate what constitutes a "human" gene. At least eight percent of the sequenced human genome is made up of retroviral sequences. Some of them even code for things in active use. There have also been suspected instances of bacterial sequences jumping into the genome of their human host. I suppose each of these issues will create their own legal issues when the time comes, i.e. the next time a biomedical company gets overzealous about their intellectual property. In the meantime, this new ruling will have to suffice.

Update: I like the 2010 district court ruling. It went farther than today's SCOTUS ruling.

"We shot lightning"

Hello! Here is a neat timelapse of a particularly large and impressive storm. Not anywhere near me, and not my video, but quite striking nonetheless. That's it for now!

Golden eggs

I just got back from visiting my lovely lady counterpart in Germany. In lieu of describing the whole trip, here is a photo of a gold-plated silver chicken.

Click here and see if you can find this guy. Hint: he's smaller than the average rooster.

Many, many more photos, presented with no context at all, are present here.  Nope, that link is no longer operational. Photos available upon request.

Do you have a second?

Every 15 minutes, someone averages a sum of events over an arbitrary period of time. No, I don't have a citation for that. It's standard practice to assume that frequencies are infrequently constant yet are much easier to understand if we can apply some kind of linear assumptions to them. That's perfectly fine, especially when we don't really know when the event in question is more or less likely to happen. This approach is used in science and medical journalism with the intent of breaking down impossibly huge numbers (i.e., 50 thousand deaths due to Ocelot Fever) into something more human-readable.

The problem arises when the level of granularity imposed by averaging over time obfuscates the reasons why the events happen at all. If MADD tells us that "In 2011, 9,878 people died in drunk driving crashes - one every 53 minutes", what do we really learn? That single number, (9,878 deaths / 53 minutes) is so specific that it disregards critical time-related factors like the weekend.*

I was planning to do an XKCD-inspired bit of Googling** and search for results of a few arbitrary frequencies to find out what happens at those times, every time. The results are too ghastly to share as most of the assumed events involve death, dismemberment, or assault. So, for the sake of diversity, I'll pull a few numbers from everysecond.info instead:

• Every second, Johnny Depp makes $2.92. The guy makes $92 million a year. Economists do use hourly pay or yearly salary to estimate how much an individual's time is worth, such that any period of time is "worth" however much they would have earned had they spent it working for pay. This can lead to some rather ludicrous estimates when inappropriately applied. We know Johnny Depp isn't actually working continuously despite his numerous sources of income. Even so, a number like $2.92/sec doesn't really provide us with any context to Mr. Depp's economic situation.
• Every second, 194 videos are watched on Myspace. What a perfect example! The statistic is from 2009. Some big changes have happened since then. Even so, it's fun to imagine Myspace users draining what's left of their attenuated attention spans on single-second videos. Hundreds of them every second!
• Every second, cows emit 250 kgs of methane in the United States. It's already difficult to imagine what a single kilogram of methane looks like,*** much less how what happens to it when the next second's round of methane arrives. Even so, cows don't continuously emit methane and they may emit more or less of it depending on what they're eating. Those factors can't even be considered when we break things down into seconds or even hours. If I observe a cow swish its tail three hundred times in an hour, perhaps I can safely claim 5 tail swishes per minute. Expanding the observation to a thousand cows over the course of months or years would render per-minute or per-second estimates useless without a greater knowledge of the relationship between cow tails and time.

All I'm saying is that averaging massive numbers over time is misleading at best and dangerously myopic at worst. These are situations best handled by probabilities, not solid quantities and linear relationships. Averaging such an immense quantity over such a small period of time distorts our understanding of both quantities.


*This paper's thesis in brief: young people like to drink for fun on the weekends. To be fair, the study subjects were Swiss rather than the usual Americans. I'll refrain from griping about social science research for now.

**I have this nagging suspicion that this actually was an XKCD piece at some point. If so, go read that again too. It was probably pretty entertaining.

***250 kg of methane is 375 thousand liters, if that helps.

Get well soon

Here is a use for one of the strange but inevitable results of modern society: singing greeting cards. The materials in one of those cards, plus a cheap resistor and capacitor, are enough to assemble a perfectly usable pulse sensor. The original paper suggests that this off-the-shelf solution could be used in an educational setting. 

A little Googling shows that a number of pulse sensors are available or can be made for all kinds of platforms.

• This one is intended for use with Arduino. Total cost is ~$25, not counting whatever it's attached to.
• For comparison, this one is a more clinical model. I can only imagine how much it costs.
• This setup uses an optical approach instead of a piezoelectric one. It seems like overkill, possibly because the signal requires a lot of amplification.

I'm imagining an art project in which a viewer's heart rate changes the intensity of lights in a room or turns certain appliances (i.e., a fan or a radio) on or off at certain rate thresholds. Even something like a cheap knock-off of this bike helmet seems entirely feasible. 

More like "Nope! Share, Fool!"

It's worrisome to see politics bleed into science. It's even more alarming to see sources of scientific funding dry up because they don't fit a specific agenda. The National Science Foundation, under directive from Congress, recently cut off funding for political science research except for that "promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States." It's a rather general guideline for a specific field. It also reveals how legislators feel about the role of any science and when it deserves to be funded: we want results, we want them now, and we want we certainly don't need any context.


The NSF spent more than $7 billion last year. It's where 20 percent of the money for federally-funded research in the US comes from. That total goes a long way and contributes to numerous fields, from engineering to education. It's only a matter of time before some Congressman decides an entire field of research doesn't need federal funding at all.

There aren't as many videos about yawning out there as you might think.

This Slate article about a supposed phenomenon known as ASMR is a few months old but it's still an interesting subject*. ASMR, or the Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response** is a rather general term for a collection of subtle but pleasurable psychological and physical reactions to what appears to be gentle or indirect stimuli. It can reportedly be triggered by gentle whispering, light touching, or even just the implication of receiving care from another person. Crinkling food wrappers, sorting silverware, or examining groceries also seem to produce ASMR for some individuals.

I don't experience this phenomenon. I generally remain skeptical about unexplained phenomena, too, especially when they're endemic to the Internet. Despite my skepticism I can't help but wonder if ASMR is really just a way to collectively codify a set of real psychological phenomena previously considered too minor to observe or too difficult to quantify. Everyday life is rich in dull but enjoyable moments. Perhaps mass communication just offers them in a more concentrated format, much like it does with news. Information overload is a real issue, too, if not a psychological one. It's the result of an inability to distinguish signal from noise; perhaps ASMR is pleasurable because it requires observation of a small signal (like Bob Ross' whispered instructions, for instance) in a low-noise background. It's relaxing because there isn't a lot of stimulus competing for the recipient's attention but it's stimulating because it's direct.

What's considered ASMR may truly be a collection of phenomena all related to the same set of primarily audiovisual stimuli. I think it's safe to suggest that the limbic system is involved and that much of the reaction is subconscious. It's reported to be not quite but almost orgasmic, much like yawning or sneezing are sometimes described. The Slate article above also suggests some potentially Freudian parent-child reaction but I think that may just be confirmation bias; Youtube participation may skew toward female users.

It would be interesting to see what range of stimuli repeatedly produce ASMRs in those who feel them. Do gently-worded threats do it? What about calming medical interviews in foreign languages?


*This sentence originally ended "...but it's been making the rounds again." That's how the last entry begins and it's kind of an embarrassing phrase to use anyway. Calling attention to it kinda defeats the purpose of editing but now it's not redundant, at least.

**It's really kind of a curious name for the phenomena. I'd generally expect unexplained psychological responses to acquire more pseudo-scholastic and less clinical names, i.e. Morgellons. Perhaps that's one distinction between a pleasurable unexplained phenomenon and a collective delusion.

Hunka burnin' love

There's a web game called No One Has To Die that's been making the gaming-blog rounds. I don't intend this to be a gaming blog per se but this particular game is really quite good. Without giving too much away, it an excellent example of how even the smallest dose of interactivity can turn a fairly average story into a multifaceted one by virtue of player choice. The venerable Choose Your Own Adventure books did that too, of course, but aren't those really games, too? Either way, No One Has To Die isn't even that much more fun than flipping around a paperback to avoid the "bad" endings, but in this case it's clearly intentional. Perhaps most games can be reduced to repeating different permutations of the same actions until the desired result is reached.

As cheap as free?

It now costs about $3000 to $5000 to sequence a human genome. That cost is 10,000x less than the same effort had required just 10 years ago. Obviously we can't get the technology to be much cheaper, right? The sequencing machinery itself is growing cheaper: as of last year, a decent next-generation sequencer could be purchased for $80,000 to $120,000 or so, down from half-million dollar models from just a few years ago. The limiting factor here may be how the machines are intended for research purposes. A well-funded lab can certainly afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a single machine, to say nothing of the reagents required to actually get data out of it.

Ubiquitous DNA sequencing has the potential to upend nearly everything we know about personalized medicine, but only if it's not cost-prohibitive. Basic molecular biological techniques certainly have applications in clinical or diagnostic environments. Sequencing could really go beyond that and become relevant to everyday folks. It could just be a matter of having a streamlined, automated system, with samples sent elsewhere. A recent start-up called uBiome offers to characterize the microbiome of just about anything you'd like for less than $100. They aren't specific about how they got their costs so low, but I'm assuming they're just doing the usual 16S rRNA amplification and some quick next-gen sequencing. That's one way to create demand for incredibly cheap sequencing technologies.

Let's wax futurist about the potential of super-cheap, publicly-available nucleotide sequencing:

• Breakfast cereal manufacturers can offer free microbiome sequencing in every box of Cap'n Bran Flakes to show how their product might contribute to a healthy gut.
• Vending machines can offer genome screening on demand to screen for potential genetic maladies (but do people ever use those drugstore blood pressure screening machines? Are they secretly some kind of Scientologist apparatus?)
• Speaking of drugstores, pharmacies could do quick screens for genetic predisposition to adverse drug reactions before they actually dispense said drugs.
• Labs could spend money on more practical things, like this electronic ice bucket. Oh yeah.