here's a fine movie quote for you. And it's misquoted, as you can see in the last paragraph on this page. But it matters not to me, as it's embedded in my head as "Brad" and not "Brett".

That's sort of an ironic page to link to, also, since it was one of the top listings in a google search for that quote, and I happen to ride a Cannondale (not early, and not often, unless Chad has anything to do with it). Plus it brings up good bike-related thoughts. The Tour de France has already been through 17 stages as of this morning, and there are only 20 total. Our boys in blue, the US Postal Team are doing an awesome job. They've helped keep Lance Armstrong at the front of the pack wearing the yellow jersey. This is his attempt to tie the record of Miguel Indurain for an astonishing 5 wins in a row. When you read any articles about Indurain, they go into how amazing his lung capacity is, and how amazing a physical specimen you need to be to win, etc. etc. It's easy to see that someone who succeeds (heck, even finishes more than 1 stage) of the Tour has to be exceptionally dedicated and healthy. There is no room for mediocrtity on the course - it will crush you. So how do you reconcile that absolute fact with Lance being a cancer survivor? And not like a malignant mole on his back... He lost one of his "boys down below" - the stuff had spread through his body, and to his brain as I recall. He didn't survive cancer, he demolished it. Sure it may come back, but it will have to be in pretty good shape to catch him. The weird thing is, we're so acclimated (or I am) to seeing a cancer victim as beyond hope, or a weak individual, or someone to feel bad for, that its very difficult to hear about Lance's success without thinking a) the cancer wasn't so bad or b) the Tour isn't that hard. But both facts are incontrovertible - The cancer was devestating and widespread, and the Tour is one of the most difficult (if not the most difficult) sporting event in the world.

In the end, he's an exceptionally blessed guy who isn't squandering his gifts. I'm not one to find heros in celebrities and athletes, but I haven't been this riveted by something sports-related since playing hacky-sack back on the ICC quad...

No news on the power plant. Sigh. Budget-watch 2003: I have no budget. I got a new 50 mm f1.8 Nikkor lens today for the camera. It was reasonably cheap as Nikon lenses go, and it gets mass props from the folks at DP Review as well as by Ken Rockewll who is an interesting guy, but pretty camera-savvy. This lens is called a prime, because it doesn't zoom. It's fixed at 50mm focal length, and all you do is focus it (or let it auto-focus). This means you move your body if you want to zoom. This also means that they can give you much higher quality glass (the lens itself) because they don't need fancy mechanicals inside the lens to accomodate zooming. Simpler lens = less money. Anyhow, I'm excited, because it was about $100, and its tack sharp (that's cool-camera-guy talk for very clear and precise). It's also quite tiny, compared to the big thing I did have on there.

So today I wanted to learn something new. It had been a while. I wanted to see what effect huge changes in ISO settings would do. ISO is a measure of how sensitive your film is to light. Higher ISO values = higher sensitivity. With higher ISO you also get more noise on digital cameras - areas that should be smooth colors appear blotchy. To the left and right are the results. I know, not terribly exciting, but hopefully I'll keep this in mind down the road. Lower is better, but No filter found for popDBImage you don't have a choice and need the higher sensitivity. School is out. Time for lunch.