numbah wun!

Posted in Vintage by dave on March 27, 2005 No Comments yet

At least that’s the way the guys down at “New #1 Chinese Restaurant” pronounce it when they answer the phone. They have very excellent Chinese food if you’re after a quick bite between fits of coding at 3AM. Or if you want lunch delivered.

Today is the day to celebrate a different kind of #1, though – daverea.com is now the top-ranking hit when Googling (in an unabashed fit of narcissism) “dave rea”.

Ooh. Strong Bad’s Techno song just came on the stereo. I will now proceed to go bust a move.

new galleries

Posted in Vintage by dave on March 25, 2005 No Comments yet

Well, after all this overly-political ranting, I figure it’s time for something a little more fun…

http://www.daverea.com/gallery/guysanddolls – Photos from the musical Guys and Dolls, starring my younger brother Andy as Nathan Detroit

http://www.daverea.com/gallery/icerescue05 – Photos from the Honeoye Falls spring ice rescue drill, shot last weekend.

taste of freedom?

Posted in Vintage by dave on March 23, 2005 No Comments yet

On March 14th, I filled out a simple form, made a photocopy or two, signed my name and wrote a personal check for twenty clams. I tossed everything in a spiffy Priority Mail envelope, and sent it on its way. The envelope arrived at the New Hampshire permits and licensing unit on the 18th. And today, in exchange, a small envelope arrived in the mail with a plastic card. That card is my New Hampshire non-resident firearm permit.

It’s entirely possible that I’ll never actually use my shiny new permit. Or maybe I will, given that it’s accepted by eighteen different states, in some of which I may someday want to train, attend trade shows or participate in competitions.

Let’s contrast this with the permit process for the People’s Republic of New York. In my home state I had to submit to a background check, a mental hygeine report, fingerprinting, cross-checking of four different character references by two different agencies, and (to top it all off) a mug-shot. On top of this, I had to fork over a postal money order for over $100, and spend an afternoon running from office to office in order to submit all the right papers in the right order. If this wasn’t enough, New York also files away two spent shell casings from any handgun I decide to buy, an exercise in futility which (if nothing else) is a blatant waste of taxpayer dollars.

Meanwhile, let’s look at crime. In New York, there were about 6.5 violent crimes per thousand residents in 2000. Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, there were 1.7 (source).

Oh, did I mention my NY permit also took eight months, not six days to arrive in the mail? I guess it’s a good thing I didn’t need it for any pressing reason!

that new camera smell

Posted in Vintage by dave on March 17, 2005 No Comments yet

Every photo geek knows it. It’s a treat for the senses that’s second only to the near-religious* experience of removing the plastic film from a virgin LCD**. It’s the new camera smell.

FedEx finally delivered that over which I have been drooling since last August this afternoon. And when I got home and opened the box, The Smell was the first thing to greet me.

For your viewing pleasure, here is a (miniaturized) peek at the first image I shot with the new camera. This preview is brought to you by Canon USA, Inc., the letter R, and the Eye Of Gnome image viewer extrordinaire.


* This description for LCD protective film removal was first coined by my good friend Andy, whose photographs will always make mine look like the amateur I am.
** Note that I did not engage in the redundancy violation of the misnomer “LCD display”, which (upon expansion of the acronym) would be read “Liquid Crystal Display Display”. You’re welcome, Brett!

confusing

Posted in Vintage by dave on March 17, 2005 1 Comment

As I drove home last night, a New York State Trooper cruiser passed me. While most police departments these days are employing the venerable Crown Victoria or the (reportedly undersized) Chevy Impala, this was one of the troopers’ fleet of pursuit Camaros. I’m not sure exactly what path my brain took, but seeing this sleek, fast patrol car made me realize yet another contradiction of liberalism.

As faster and faster cars hit the market, and thus the streets, we outfit our cops with faster patrol cars. Why? Because while 99.9% of sportscar drivers are law-abiding citizens who don’t commit crimes with their cars, there’s still that miniscule number of criminals who either break the law in their own sportscar, or do so after stealing someone else’s. The same goes for SUVs. You or I can go to our local car dealer and pick up a kick-ass off-road vehicle any time we want. So, naturally, our cops get Jeeps and ATVs too.

This makes sense, because it’s grounded in logic. What if someone suggested that we ban all sportscars? Or perhaps require extensive background checks and fingerprinting before allowing their purchase? They can be used recklessly, and every year countless people are killed (including cops) because people don’t drive their sportscars responsibly. Same goes for SUVs – just watch any episode of “World’s Scariest Police Chases”!

But outlaw a Lexus, or a Corvette, or an Acura just because it can be misused? Or require governors to prevent excessive speed? NO! Even the most liberal college professor or administrator who drives such a car (assuming she doesn’t rely exclusively on Birkenstocks and a bicycle for transit) would scream bloody murder if you tried to restrict their “right to speed”.

Why? Because it would strip away the rights of millions of law-abiding drivers due to the actions of a few who break the rules and kill people. Oddly enough, you never hear liberals calling for sportscar or SUV restrictions, begging the motoring public to accept them, “if it saves the life of just one pedestrian!”

In case you hadn’t already figured it out, the contradiction I’m referring to is that of one of liberalism’s pillars: gun control.

Criminals kill people with fast cars just like they kill people with guns. In 2004, 57 law enforcement officers were shot to death, and 51 died in automobile accidents (source). How many of these officers might still be alive today if fast cars were banned, and high-speed chases were impossible? Hopefully, by this point, you’re starting to see the absence of logic here.

I’m sure I could ask any liberal how they feel about equipping the New York State Troopers with pursuit Camaros, and they’d tell me they’re all for it. Of course the police should have response vehicles that can keep up with the fast cars in which many criminals will be fleeing! The same seems to apply – a least for most liberals – when it comes to guns. Of course the police should have the best handguns, tactical rifles and shotuns our tax dollars can buy!

What, then, if we look at criminals? Liberals and those with working brains alike will tell you that guns don’t belong in the hands of criminals. If you’re a convicted felon, you don’t get to buy guns. Cool with me if it’s cool with you.

So we’ve got cops and criminals (not always mutually-exclusive groups, mind you) covered. That leaves us with regular law-abiding citizens like you and me. We haven’t hurt anyone, killed anyone, acted irresponsibly or demonstrated that we’re incapable of handling a car, or a gun for that matter. We play by the rules. We keep our driver’s license current, we keep our car inspected, and we pull over when red-and-white lights flash in our rearviews.

Why, then, are liberals so opposed to firearms in responsible citizens’ hands? They seem fine with sportscars (“instruments of death, claiming thousands of victims every year”) or SUVs (“tools of war, which should be restricted to military use”) in the hands of Joe-law-abiding-citizen, despite the ever-increasing annual death toll at the hands of a miniscule minority of drivers.

Automobile crashes claim fifty three times more lives each year in the US than accidental firearm discharges (source). According to the CDC, violent firearm crimes claimed about 29,000 lives in 2002. Automobile deaths amounted to over 45,000 in the same year (source). It’s reasonable to assert that placing firearms restrictions on law-abiding citizens would have done little to prevent most of the violent firearm deaths – common sense dictates that criminals by nature do not follow gun-control laws. Meanwhile, vehicular restrictions would likely have prevented a sizable chunk of those 45,000+ automobile deaths.

All of this simply goes to illustrate that the contradiction that is gun control doesn’t work. If “car control” would do any good to eliminate the need for pursuit Camaros, I’m sure liberals would be 100% behind it. Meanwhile, our cops still need AR-15 rifles and tactical shotguns in their cars, despite the myriad hoops that law-abiding guys like me still need to jump through.

made it out

Posted in Vintage by dave on March 16, 2005 No Comments yet

I got out. Not a single Krispy Kreme passed these lips. The other engineers were of no help, what with their vocal enjoyment of said donuts. But I made it, and took a deep breath of sunny, frigid afternoon air as I walked out the company doors.

But that was because the other Dave was spraying conductive paint all afternoon and that stuff smells really bad.

One way or the other, it’s been a Krispy-Kreme-free day!

the calories are calling…

Posted in Vintage by dave on March 16, 2005 No Comments yet

For the last few weeks, Kelly and I have been keeping food journals. We’re trying to figure out areas where we can improve our eating habits, and at the same time we’ve been doing more exercise and staying more active. That’s tough in Rochester in the winter, since single-digit temperatures and horizontal snow make it tough to want to exercise, no matter how you slice it!

Today, however, is a true challenge. Our shipping sales rep stoppped by the office this morning, and (as he has a bothersome habit of doing) brought a box of Krispy Kreme donuts.

I like to call them greasemuffins.

Today’s goals? #1: Try not to go stir-crazy while waiting for the FedEx truck to arrive with my new camera. #2: Get out of this office at the end of the day without having eaten a single Krispy Kreme donut.

I think I can handle it. I have my stock of saltines and rice cakes in my desk. I can splash cold water on my face and shoot Lysol up my nose if the smell of glazed evil gets too strong. I shall prevail!

lotta spending going on…

Posted in Vintage by dave on March 15, 2005 1 Comment

I rarely buy things. It’s not that I never spend any money – Kelly can sure vouch for that! But when I do, I don’t like to believe that I hand someone some cash (or my credit card), they hand me something in return, and that’s where it ends.

Because realistically, that’s not where it ends. Maybe if people realized that, the US wouldn’t lead the world in credit card debt, and Wal-Mart’s customer service wouldn’t suck. In reality, “it” ends when that thing I purchase fails me. So when I turn over my hard-earned clams in exchange something, I think of it as an investment. An investment in my peace of mind, an investment in a friend or relative’s happiness (in the case of a gift) or an investment in my sanity, safety or satisfaction.

Usually, that means I invest as smartly as I possibly can. If I’m picking out a garbage can, or a snow shovel, or a charming vacation spot for a weekend away with Kelly, the least-expensive option isn’t always the best investment. Heck, even picking out a gas station or a brand of shoe polish can be an investment if you make it one. If you pick good gasoline, your car will thank you. And if you pick good shoe polish, your boots will serve you that much longer. It’s all connected.

And when a $2.50 can of shoe polish is connected to a $60 pair of boots, you can bet I’m going to take it over the 99-cent stuff.

And then there are the investments that pay off in more than money. Like a good washer and dryer. If being able to rely on your washer and dryer wasn’t important to a marriage, why would Phil Vassar have sung about ‘em in “Another Day in Paradise”? OK, seriously. How about a good camera? If you can’t rely on your camera, how will you ever embarass your children with a slideshow for their future significant others?!

I think, all in all, I’ve made some pretty decent investments, and not paid an arm and a leg for them either. I’ve got a good bed, so my back doesn’t wake up angry. I invested in that whole washer and dryer thing, and if GE’s track record has anything to do with it, mine should last as long as my parents’ set did. My car puts up with my abuse, and my boots still hold a shine.

There have been plenty of other investments to be made along the way, too. But I’ve decided it’s time to fill a couple of big holes. So first and foremost, I opted for a new camera. If my experience is any guide, it should serve me long into the future…

And after that? Well, dumping the better part of a grand every month into an under-insulated apartment is not high on my list of “things to keep doing for another year”. So, starting this month, Kelly and I are starting to look at houses.

It’s a big, scary, exciting world out there. But I know that I can rely on my own advice: make good investments, and they’ll pay for themselves time and time again.

Next Page »