Dear Blog, I've missed you. Love, Jack

I would say the best fans are here in America, but apparently I would be wrong.
Yet again, I know it’s been a while since I last posted (and I see Teresa beat me to it…haha. Be sure to read hers too, which is below my monstrosity of an entry). I was actually quite surprised by the number responses I received over the last three weeks asking what’s up with the blog. You know, for a while there I thought the only people that checked this thing and rung up the site meter were “Megan’s Law” offenders looking for naughty pictures of Patrick. But no, it turns out many of our true fans check this site, including our Slovenian and Asian buddies from overseas (at least I think that’s what they are writing about…I see mostly Wingdings). Besides, I only send out Patrick’s naughty pictures through a discreet email account, so if you want ‘em, you know where to go. Wink, wink,

ring…ring…“Hello? Yes, I would like to change my movie reservation please.”
I was watching TV yesterday, and tuned into HBO as they were doing one of those 15-minute “First Look” segments on The Ring Two . I tuned in a little over 5 minutes into it, and saw them discussing a scene where a couple of deer attack the aunt and kid in a car. So they are going on and on about this scene, and how they had to use special effects and computers because they couldn’t get any dear with antlers this time of year, and how the live dear didn’t even act properly in filming, and the actors are discussing what it was like to act around blue screens, etc. This went on for about 6-7 minutes, leaving a few minutes at the end for some quick plot stuff, and the credits. So basically, over half of this HBO First Look show was about computer generated deer.
Honestly, if the most impressive thing about The Ring Two is that they have computer-generated deer, I am getting in line for The Pacifier instead. Vin Diesel…you crazy kid, you.

My roommate is very picky about her toast. This is what I wake up to every morning.
And some more science fun…you know that myth about buttered bread always falling buttered side down? Before I even torment my scientist sister about this one, I thought I might let her eat her words in peace, and divulge a different theory.
So the myth is that buttered toast always falls buttered side down because butter weighs more. However, the scientific explanation so far been that when the problem of toast falling off the table is examined more carefully, it turns out that toast does indeed have a natural tendency to land butter side down. This is not due to weight of the butter, or aerodynamics however…it because using normal table height, the toast only has time to complete 1/2 rotation. And if the buttered side always starts on the top, it will almost always land on the bottom. If tables were double the height, it is expected that we would see toast completing a full revolution, and usually landing buttered side up. Essentially, the butter has no effect. Therefore, people have begun to say you could basically throw a piece of buttered toast off a building, and you would see no statistical evidence for buttered side up or down.
HOWEVER, I was just introduced to this thought, which is quite interesting. When you butter toast with any sort of force, you sometimes create an indent in the toast, forming a concave (bowl-like) shape. Therefore, if it followed the pattern of a leaf falling from a tree…it would fall with the concave (buttered) side up, convex side down. What can we learn from this new theory? If you’re eating breakfast on the top of a building (or an airplane wing like one of those stunt guys…or Agnes Skinner), and want to ensure your toast will fall buttered side up, make sure you butter your toast like Mr. T on crack.
It’s amazing I did so horribly in AP physics in high school.
