Month: June 2003

Marijuana Doesn’t Harm Brain Functions

Ashley Bischoff15 Comments

According to researchers at the University of California at San Diego, smoking marjuana doesn’t permanently harm brain functions. This meta-study of other studies covered 704 cannabis users and 484 nonusers.

The studies tested the mental functions of routine pot smokers, but not while they were actually high, Grant said.

The results, published in the July issue of the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, show that marijuana has only a marginally harmful long-term effect on learning and memory.

No effect at all was seen on other functions, including reaction time, attention, language, reasoning ability, and perceptual and motor skills. […]

The findings weren’t particularly surprising to me, as they anecdotally coincide with what other people have told me. In other news, a drug based on marijuana may help curb brain damage (to be clear, Dexanabinol is a synthetic drug intended to treat traumatic brain injuries).

More on Sugar Free Bread

Ashley Bischoff2 Comments

I bought some Mrs Baird’s Sugar Free Wheat Bread yesterday. At the time of that entry, I hadn’t tasted it yet, so I couldn’t comment on that aspect of it. Well, I tried it today and I&rsuo;m pleased to say that it’s very much like regular bread.

I wanted to be sure to write about how it compared to regular bread (since the target audience presumably already likes regular bread but is just looking for something with fewer carbs). However, I found that comparison more difficult that I expected since I haven’t had regular loaf-bread since sometime last year (not counting the occasional bread or roll served at a restaurant).

I was really jonesing for a tuna sandwich this afternoon, so that was the sandwich du jour. I removed two slices from the bag and prepared the tuna. However, before applying the tuna to the bread, I made sure to take a bite out of one slice (plain) just to get an idea of the bread’s flavor and texture without the tuna influencing my perception.

As I chewed the bread, I noticed that it might have been just slightly chewier than regular bread. If anything, it wasn’t overtly chewy. And on the chance that I wasn’t remembering regular bread correctly, perhaps it was no more chewy in the first place.

Texture aside, it tasted very much like regular wheat bread. At the time, it seemed to have an elevated wheat flavor, but maybe that was just because I was eating that bite as plain bread. I was also concerned that the Aprartame (Nutrasweet) might get in the way (since that’s one of the ingredients), but I detected no Aspartame taste.

I then proceeded to apply the tuna to create the sandwich. It was a rather pleasant afternoon as I ate the sandwich while watching some Wimbledon (ahh, Sundays). Perhaps the tuna moistened the bread or maybe I was imagining it all in the first place, but the chewiness wasn’t an issue in the context of a sandwich. And the bread still had a distinct wheat flavor but that was definitely a Good Thing (there’s no point in flavorless bread, after all).

I bought two loaves of this Sugar Free bread on a lark, but I’m glad I did. It costs about the same as regular bread ($1.87/loaf - 18 slices) and it tastes about the same as well. I think it’ll be a part of many tasty tuna sandwiches to come.

Sugar Free Wheat Bread

Ashley Bischoff29 Comments

I needed some mayo, so I stopped by Target on the way home from the gym this evening. On my way to that area of the store, I ended up walking past all the breads (since they’re in the same aisle). What caught my eye was some Sugar Free 100% Whole Wheat bread from Mrs Baird’s.

I wasn’t even aware that regular bread had an appreciable amount of added sugar (I just figured that all their carbs were due to the flour). At first, it came to mind that maybe this was like the labeling of some peanut butters as “cholesterol free”. Of course, because only animal-based products can contain cholesterol, all peanut butters have no cholesterol (since they’re made from peanuts). Along those some lines, I considered for a moment that maybe this was just a new labeling initiative.

But, I then went to check the labels themselves. I compared the Sugar Free bread to some nearby rye bread (also from Mrs Baird’s). The rye bread had 14g carbs (with 1g fiber) while the Sugar Free bread had 9g carbs (with 2g fiber). So, discounting the fiber, the Sugar Free bread had an effective carbs of 7g per slice — which is about half that of regular bread.

It came to mind that it could be mighty tasty to have a tuna sandwich from time to time (just like old times), so I picked up two loaves. I’ve transcribed the ingredients below, and it looks like there’s nothing egregiosly bad in there:

Whole Wheat Flour, Water, Wheat Gluten, Yeast, Wheat Bran. Contains 2% or Less of the Following: Soybean Oil, Crushed Wheat, Extract of Corn and Barley Malt, Maltodextrin, Wheat Fiber, Calcium Sulfate, Salt, Datem, Grain Vinegar, Corn Starch, Mono and Diglycerides, Ethoxylated Mono and Diglycerides, Calcium Prorionate, Aspartame, Soy Lechtin, Enzymes

And, yes, it apparently contains Aspartame (Nutrasweet). Perhaps breads normally have token amount of sugar to round out the flavor (as opposed to conspicuously sweetening it) and the Aspartame was needed to fill that role. And if Mrs Baird’s website didn’t suck so much, I’d compare this with the ingredients of their other breads (but, their website doesn’t list the ingredients for any of their products).

In any case, I’ll write more about the bread once I’ve had a chance to taste it. And, if you’re looking for this bread on your own, the most easily noticed design element is probably the words “Sugar Free“ which are written in white text against a green banner.

Migrating Movable Type?

Ashley Bischoff3 Comments

So, I’ve been thinking about web hosting since my current host doesn’t offer me quite enough space on my current plan (100 MB but just $5/month). There were several suggestions in the comments and my choice is becoming harder (or even whether I should switch at all).

Supposing that I choose to go with a new web host, I’d have to move my data over. Moving the static bits (such as my portfolio) is easy and even moving Gallery shouldn't be that hard (since their FAQ specifically addresses how to migrate Gallery).

However, I’m having some trouble finding solid information on migrating Movable Type to another host. Sure, I could just export & import the entries, but I think I’d lose my comments that way. The Movable Type documentation addresses some troubleshooting issues when moving servers, but doesn’t seem to describe the move itself :-/. And their support forum has a few posts about moving servers but they’re hardly the definitive answers that I was hoping for.

In any case, if you’ve moved Movable Type from one server to another (entries, comments, and all), please let me know.

Budget Digital Cameras

Ashley Bischoff3 Comments

As one of the comments to my entry about my new digicam, Gary asked about budget cameras. I e-mailed him about what he had in mind, and he clarified that he was looking for something around $200-$400.

I read camera reviews all the time, and I was happy to offer a suggestion. I narrowed it down to the Canon PowerShot S230 (about $345 shipped), Canon PowerShot A70 (about $312 shipped), Nikon Coolpix 3100 (about $301 shipped) and the Nikon Coolpix 3500 (about $338 shipped). I was expecting tough decisions, but it was easier than I expected to narrow it down further.

As it turns out, neither the Coolpix 3100 nor Coolpix 3500 offer ISO locking. ISO, of course, refers to the camera’s sensitivity to light. But, higher ISO settings lead to graininess. So, it can be convenient to be able to use low ISO settings with long exposures for night shots (resulting in proper exposure without the film grain). Unfortunately, those Nikons automatically crank up the ISO when the lighting gets low. Don’t get me wrong, I still think highly of Nikon as a company (I have a Nikon myself), but I think it was a mistake to leave out this feature on their low-end cameras.

So, it came down to the Canon PowerShot S230 vs the Canon PowerShot A70. Both are 3.2 MP cameras and their prices aren't that far apart ($345 for the S230 and $312 for the A70). In the end, I prefer the A70:

  • The A70 has a 3x optical zoom compared with the S230 which only has a 2x optical zoom.
  • The A70 supports add-on lenses. After buying a lens adapter, you can use wide-angle, telephoto, and closeup lenses with the A70. (The S230 doesn't support add-on lenses).
  • The A70 supports aperture priority and shutter priority. With shutter priority, you can specify a shutter speed and the camera will choose the right aperture (f-stop) for correct exposure. Likewise, with aperture priority, you can specify an aperture and the camera will choose the appropriate shutter speed. This degree of control can be handy, for instance, with action shots where you may want to force a slow shutter speed to blur the background or force a high shutter speed to freeze the action.

The only disadvantage to the A70, if you could call it that, is that it uses four AA batteries. Personally, I prefer the convenience of a single battery module as it can be less bulky than a set of batteries. However, AA batteries have the advantage of being widely available (you could easily buy a new set while on vacation). And, they’re much cheaper than proprietary camera batteries which can cost $25-35 (or more) each.

So, Gary, I think the A70 would work well for you. B&H Photo is one of the cheapest retailers on PriceGrabber to have it in stock. B&H is also highly reputable with an 8.87/10 score at ResellerRatings along with Gold, Platinum, and Platinum+ Elite Customer Excellence Awards (the awards are given out by ResellerRatings for exceptional retailers).

The camera comes with a 16 MB CompactFlash card, but that’s just about useless. Taking full size pictures at the Superfine quality settings, you can only get about 8 pictures on the card. So, you’ll want a bigger card right away (not to worry, you’ll still be under the $400 mark). You can get a 256 MB CompactFlash card for $54 from Crucial (with free 2nd day shipping).

Other than the CompactFlash card, I’d also recommend picking up a set of NiMH AA batteries and a charger. Steve’s Digicams has a thorough review of NiMH batteries and chargers — some of the better chargers can charge a set of batteries in about an hour. In particular, the iPowerUS set looks convenient as it includes “[the] Charger, AC and DC cords, 8 AA-size iPowerUS 2100mAh NiMH batteries and two battery carrying cases”.