Beeve's Cleaves.

Jarhead Brown Ale

Six pints of this and you should know everything about Military Intelligence.

So Tel Janin wanted to brew and kill on his birthday? Here's what happens when the brewing is on the back burner, and Myth/Unreal Tournament get all your conscious attentions. A rough sketch of the brew process, but will it be a smooth Brown... or a Marine Green beer? Time will tell.

Moral: Sometimes, it's best to brew in the background. Just boil and play.

Shooting for an OG of 1040ish / FG: 1012.

* 2 lbs. Oatmeal
* 1 lb Carapils cracked malts
* 3 lbs Light DME
* 3 lbs Dark DME
* 1.5 lbs clover honey
* 2 oz. Cascade plugs (6%)
* 2 Windsor / 1 Nottingham packets of dry yeast

Boil (Day 1):
Began steeping Grains and Oatmeal in gauze sack from 90° to 172°, made sure that it took a good long time, and dig a little squeezin' on the bag at the end, just to get all the goodness out. Tel stirred in all the DME and the honey, and we were on our way. Man, it was smelling good!
30 mins after a real rolling boil, tossed in the first 1 oz of the Cascade. Never boiled over or anything. What a brew with military polish.
35 mins after; added the second dose (1 oz) of the Cascade. Made certain that we got a good hour of hard boil, and a serious protein break. Not really, we just lost track of time playing on the computer.
Popped in the wort chiller about 20 mins after turning off the heat - a no-no, we know, but we were preoccupied, again. Once the chiller got to cooling, I shook it a few times, and shook the hose clean off the chiller, er, a few times (think I'd learn). We didn't get water directly into the wort, but dang.

Chilled to touch-temperature, mixed the 3 packs of yeast, and tossed it into uncleaned, unsterilized corneys still housing the slurries from Haley Ale. OG: 1040 dead on (!). Both corneys filled to 3/4, just enough head room. Everything looks, smells, tastes great - man, oughta think less and brew more in the future, if I get results like this all the time.

Fermentation (Day 3):
Took about 6 hours (six hours of Unreal Tournament) for the yeast to really begin its blowin' and goin'. After a too-cool night in the fridge at 50 degrees, warmed up to the 65° where we expect to finish at in about 3 more days.

Racked, Carbonating & Conditioning (Day 10):
Okay, fermentation took a bit longer than we anticipated. On day 6, we racked off some yeast and took a gravity reading: 1018 and 1020 for the two 5-gallons - surprisingly, the corney without the slurry was the one that ran to 18. Still a little higher than we would like, so a quick shake, tap on the thermostat (to 68°) and four more days of final fermentation were in order. Which, now four days later, was precisely what the doctor ordered as both corneys now check in at 1012. Perfect!
The slurry is still very yeasty (racked off as much as possible warm, after a couple of days we'll pull some more off the bottom) with a little yeasty bite that may add character, or may make for BitterBeerFace competitions. We'll see. The other batch is already very drinkable - still a touch sweet since the honey hasn't smoothed into the hops and still a bit green, but it smells great. All signs point to this 5 gals as a real winner.
Had to change out a cap on the non-slurried corney, turned on the Co2 to 22 lbs, then took everything down to 45° . We'll wait 3 days, turn off the Co2, then let everything condition cold for another week.

Final Notes (Day 18):
Well, after a little time, a couple of mild rackings and 3 more days at 20 lbs Co2, Tel came by and downed one or two from both corneys, and the verdict is in: It's good stuff, and only gonna get better with a week or two more conditioning. Surprisingly enough, the slurry, which was a bit too tangy a week ago, improved and surpassed the other corney. It's really smooth, and perfectly carbonated. The non-slurried batch sports a more substantial head, and with a week in the Lazyboy, will be simply awesome. Cheers!

Geocaching vs Terracaching: Side by Side Comparison Dept.

Navicache didn't make it into this comparison because the site just doesn't have enough caches to pursue, it's clunky as hell, and damn! it's so ugly it hurts to look at it. The site is going to be discounted here until something dramatic happens there.

A Most Excellent Mash: Chocolate Honey Porter

Trying something new this time. Using a 5-gallon recipe, and beefing it up a little to make for a 8 gallons of wort, and 13ish gallons of beer. We'll see if thin is in.

Shooting for an OG of 1030 / FG: 1002-1006:

* 8 oz. Black Patent
* 8 oz. Roast
* 30 oz. Oatmeal
* 4 lbs Amber DME
* 3 lbs Dark DME
* 5 lbs clover honey
* 2 oz. Fuggles (4.8)
* 2 oz. Cascade (6.1)
* 8 oz. Baker's Chocolate
* Struggle for Yeasty Supremacy: Part II: Using London, Windsor, and Nottingham slurry to see who can do the best with this batch, in the three 5 gallon corneys. May the best microorganism win!

Boil (Day 1):
Dropped the grains into 9 gallons at 140º and let them steep up to 160º for 35 mins. Stirred in the extracts and honey, and once the boil began (at 170mins), dropped in the first ounce of Fuggles bittering. Took that long to get a good running boil - hey, I can make good beer, but I can't afford a good system, okay? I'm also trying to heat the house by boiling on the stove... After 30 minutes of a good boil, added the chocolate and the second oz of Fuggles, and boiled for another good 50. Turned off the heat and let the brew keg cool slowly with the 2 oz of Cascade down to 140º, where we began. Evenly distributed the wort between 3 corneys; one laced with a packet of dry London, one with Windsor, and the third fresh off of a run with the last batch of American Brown Ale, slurried with second-generation Nottingham.
OG: 1042 at 70º before greedily and brainlessly cutting it into 5 gallon corneys with some Culligan water.

My prediction? Nottingham may be aggressive, but you can't beat a slurry of proven yeast. See you in a few to prove me right.

Fermentation (Day 6):
Wrong. Believe it or don't, the Windsor took right off, and was creating some good pressure in only 6 hours. Added some yeast nutrient to both the London and Nottinghams, and tapped in a packet of dry Nottingham, and at the 24 hour mark, the London was on a roll; the Nottingham of all things, hadn't. Got a little worried and added more nutirent to the Nottingham and another, new packet of dry. It took, but wasn't as aggressive as usual (maybe it's because there's more yeast than beer in that bucket).
Let 'em all run to the 5 day mark, when they all began to lose their fizz simultaneously. Dropped 'em into the fridge at 47º to arrest anymore fermentation.

Racking (Day 12):
Pulled yeast off the bottom of the corneys with a quick shot of CO2, and took a hydro of the mixture of all three types after the stuff settled: .1011. A little higher than I predicted, but a sweet beer probably won't be that bad... The chocolate might improve the density a bit, I imagine. Chilled to 40º, and will continue into conditioning, full steam ahead.

Second Guessing (Day 27):
Went in to rack a second , and what I thought would be a final, pull of yeast off the bottom of the corneys only to discover to my horror that the hydro had the gravity at .1012. I admit it. I got nervous. I got crazy. I got a screwdriver and heated the fridge up to 54º. I'll let it run for a week, then chill it back down and rack twice. Sigh.

Finally Happy.
Okay, it worked. This Porter turned out really nice, with no dramatic variation between yeasts. It's all good, baby.

Hedge's Horror Movie Survival Tips - an excerpt

If you find a town which looks deserted, it's probably for a reason. You should check it out.

If you find that the house you've considering buying is built upon or next to a cemetery, or over an ancient Indian burial ground, or it was once a site that was used for black masses, or had previous inhabitants who went mad or committed suicide or died in some bloody fashion, be sure to move in right away. Better yet, move in the day before Halloween.

When you find that book on Demon Summoning in the attic, be sure to read it aloud, just as a joke.

Keep all of your sharpened steak knives in one of those wooden block thingies on your kitchen work surface where visitors can find 'em real easy like.

People really enjoy the intellectual stimulation involved in solving puzzles that open portals to Hell. Don't give up! You can do it.

When the power goes out, and the phone suddenly decides to stop working, you should search the basement for the breaker box. You know, the one behind all the big boxes and the mannequin collection.

Should you find someone in your party strangely absent, forget knocking on the bathroom door. Split up and look in all the darkest corners of the house first.

If you're running from a monster, expect to trip or fall down at least twice (more if you are of the female persuasion). If you don't fall enough times, be sure to look over your shoulder to see how far behind you the monster is. You'll fall more if you remember that, despite the fact that you are running and the monster is merely shambling along, it's still moving fast enough to catch up with you.

When it appears that you have finally killed a monster, always kneel down next to its face to see if it's really dead.

Okay, I Take It All Back.

[sheepishly]

I got two sponsors at the 24 hour mark on Terracaching. Seems ppl out of your area have to wait a day before they're able to step in and sponsor. So, I only waited a day. Guess I got a little melodramatic there. Sorry.

What makes TerraCaching different

Can't I just pay 30 bucks and get started as a plank premium member on my planet?

• Sponsors function as your personal cache approvers, providing you with close attention and quick approvals.
• You choose your own cache approvers (sponsors) from a list of offers. If you don't like them you can dump them and find new ones.
• Fewer "written in stone" rules allow greater creativity in cache hides.
• A cache rating system (MCE) provides the ability to rate caches, allowing each community to define their own standard of quality. Poorly rated caches are easy to ignore.
• The TerraCaching Point System (TPS) fosters an enjoyable competition.
• All caches are not worth the same value (one smiley), but are rewarded based on a measure of how challenging they are.
• Hiders are rewarded too, not just finders.
• Leaderboards provide a quick way of comparing your progress to that of your fellow cachers.
• Locationless Caches (LC) and Virtual caches are embraced, rather than considered something less than a "real" cache.
• Better information for seekers is available, such as distance and elevation gain, camouflage/mental/physical challenge estimates.
• Optional First Finder Codes and Confirmation Codes conveniently handled by web site to reduce controversy and allow creative hides that don't use a log book.
• The forums here are actually friendly.

• Oh yeah, and you can't do jack shite until you get sponsored. We did mention that, didn't we? Funny thing is, if you have no Terracachers in your sector, you're SOL until a friggin' spaceship lands on your bassackwards planet and some little green terracaching men step out of their probe and, should they decide to, glance in your direction and determine if you're a lifeform worthy of inspection. Until then, just remain in the vacuum of your impact crater and exercise patience until they do.

The Hot or Not of Appearance 3: Conclusions

I love you just the way you are. Now, who are you again?

We've learned a few things from these exercises. Let's review.

* One, as I've said, a swarm of the smallest of improvements can add up. Just make sure that the integrity of your image is maintained. Lose the dress, keep the shoes.

* Two, perfect appearance probably always requires some falsification. Even the highest-paid, most-nearly-perfect supermodels' photos get the same airbrush touch-up I've given myself here. Why not? Tens don't come naturally.

* Three, this might be a good test for those who are concerned about how they are percieved by others and who are considering surgical changes. Does it matter if you're better physique-ally or facially? Not too much. What little difference we saw was more generally accepted in facial improvements, while body-shape changes produced unpredictable reactions; either more positive or more negative, but not better on the average.
For anyone considering any kind of surgery, I suggest to find out how much a change can make in others' perceptions beforehand. Make the planned changes digitally as we've done here, and take a quick poll before going under the knife (also, see the next point). You may find that your percieved audience won't notice enough of a difference to make the pain and expense worthwhile.

* Finally, no matter what you do to improve yourself, there are a group of people out there who will rate you as lowly as they can. They just won't like you, no matter what. Take solace in the notion that they're envious of what you got, baby.
And, on the flip side of the coin, there's a segment of the population who think of you as an 8 or a 9. Maybe even a 10. These are the people who count. They're out there somewhere. Find 'em.

The Hot or Not of Appearance 2: Plastic Surgery

Better looks through digital science. Maybe even worth the effort.

Now, where were we? Oh, yes. Obsessing over our physical appearance. Our last experiment, while interesting, really didn't test for changes in the actual physical form, did it? Let's make that happen this time. Remember that nose we discussed? Let's fix it.

Sometimes, its the little things that count. Our appearance in its totality, is composed of so many minute intangibles, measured in degrees. At what point do those exposed teeth go from an average smile to knockout pearly whites? I'm not sure. I do know that a group of smallish touches to a photo of my tired self after the Marine Corps Volkslauf 10k Mud Run should make a difference in how I am perceived.

First, let's lay down some clean contact paper. Have a look at our control image and its subsequent ratings:

I'm since in better shape. Uh, kinda. Anyway, note that while this shirtless, red-faced guy is now a solid Eight, he's still not a 10 in anyone's eyes. So what if he's hotter than 77% of the other hosers on the Hot or Not site? He's still mostly just a 5 in most raters's eyes; an average Joe. Cool.

Now, let's get out the computerized scalpel and see what's tweakable.

What a change a difference makes.

We crack open Photoshop and make incremental changes everywhere, in keeping with societal norms as expressed by those supermarket-checkout-lane men's health magazines. The short list of airbrushes includes:

* drop receding hairline
* desaturate race-reddened face
* narrow jaw, temples and cheeks
* shrink ears
* tweak eyes
* lighten rings under eyes
* whiten teeth
* thicken neck and trapezoids
* round out shoulders
* boost biceps
* tighten waistline
* square off stomach
* pull in beltline

Note that I didn't change my skin tone to make myself more tan (or should I say, tan at all) which is step one in image improvement for many. Oh, and you know what? I'm kinda happy with my busted-up nose. Indulge me as I maintain its cragglinesses as trophies of milestones passed / milestones impacted. I'll keep it as is.

Otherwise, these are all the changes we're going to make shrugging at us in the image at to the right.

How much is it worth? That little No to Yes switch was worth a 1.2 incremental change. I figure that all these, while slight modifications in all their own rights, should add up to a significant increase in our panel's perception. Perhaps a point and a half increase? At the outside, perhaps an increase in ratings to an average 9.2 or 9.5.

Wishful Thinking?

What are we gonna do with you? Not much, after all.

Good thing we didn't pay some Plastic Surgeon / Liposuction Practitioner / Personal Trainer / Body Double for all that tweakage. This ain't much movement on the Tachometer.

Seems like a lot of retouching to get us from an average of 8 - with no one among 241 raters thinking that I'm a perfect 10 - to an average of 8.4 with at least some small faction of 244 finding I'm a 10. I thought that was a total image makeover, and all it was worth was a measly 4 tenths of a point - a third of what we might have predicted, and a third of the impact of merely scribbling on my hand with Magic Marker in Test 1!

On the other hand, at this point, there are now some people giving this falsified image perfect 10 ratings, and that's something. Perfection. Wow.

But what price perfection? For our final exercise here, let's see which weighs more: the body sculpting, or the facial features. I'm curious about what garnered the 10's... was it from the Neck Up, or the Neck Down?

Because, well, I've always been adverse to the thought of undergoing plastic surgery (and I'm not at all certain that I'd like to imagine the process for narrowing one's skull, as we've just done), but making somototypical changes via exercise... that, I can handle.

Curious? I am.

Care to make a prediction? Face, or Flesh?

Taking everything at face value here. Shallow, I know.

Face.
First, we'll take our same image, and submit it for ratings with changes only from the neck up. These, as you recall, were

* drop receding hairline
* desaturate race-reddened face
* narrow jaw, temples and cheeks
* shrink ears
* tweak eyes
* lighten rings under eyes
* whiten teeth

Here's the image, and results:

Remember, we received an 8.4 with all changes, and here's an 8.4 with only facial changes. Seems that the bodily improvements made no difference at all in average rating. Interesting. But we're not finished unless we've seen the other side of the coin.

Flesh.
Now, we'll take our original image, and submit it for ratings with changes only from the neck down. These, as you recall, were

* thicken neck and trapeziods
* round out shoulders
* boost biceps
* tighten waistline
* square off stomach
* pull in beltline

Here's the image, and results:

Huh. An 8, just the same as our original, unretouched average rating. On the average, making all those bodily improvements didn't change our rating at all. What a waste for those poor aerobics instructors out there working tirelessly to improve their body images. Or is it?

Look again, and note the categorical responses. Ratings in the higher-end categories for our bad face/better body image were all more numerous for 6's, 7's, 8's, 9's and 10's compared to the better face/bad body image. This is to say, that the better face/bad body is higher on average simply because he's so average - scroll back up and take a second look at how far the 5 category outstrips all others. The better body/bad face is lower on the average, because he elicted so many 1's - nearly as many as the 5's - and a toiletbowl full of 2's as well. These were all unprovoked responses, by the way, from Computer Potatoes with bad bodies from the inactivity of sitting at their computers all day giving unwarranted poor ratings on Hot or Not to those with better bodies than themselves. If you'll notice, these same wanks ran the 1 ratings off the scale on our previous better body/better face total-everything makeover. See it again to confirm.

For the record, our better body/bad face guy has nothing against those with bad bodies, or, shall we say, those that are sex-appeal-impaired. They're just petty, vindictive snails and he pities them.

But we digress. All this is to say, in this instance, to attain a better appearance to the average viewer, getting a facial is the way to go. Don't ask me why another pretty face is average. Fuel for another experimental installment, perhaps.
On the other hand, if you wish to attain a much higher rating from one segment of viewers, and receive distain and hatred from the other portion, work on that body. Your keen physicality can induce admiration and adversion simultaneously.

Finally, let's examine our Final Findings.

The Hot or Not of Appearance 1: Integrity

Your lips are saying Yes, but your eyes are telling me No. ... Maybe?

Okay, first theory. There has to be some integrity, some cohesion to the whole. He'd be the next young Sinatra, except for that Ronald McDonald clown nose. This is my premise, the substandard single feature disintegrates the whole. For instance, note the oft-broken nose on the otherwise perfect face to your right. Is that a problem for you? heh.

But the opposite might well be true - that the beholder makes an assessment, then tacitly accepts, or rejects the person in his or her entirety by pointing to the subject's imperfect feature. Look at that nose! What a clown. Do we make a universal judgement, and then merely seem to base it wholly on a single feature?

Let's test for it.

No, and I mean it.

Control.
Okay, so we'll take an image and place it up for review on Hot or Not (for this experiment, an unflattering snapshot of an overworked me who'd Magic Marker'ed a NO onto his hand as proof against the time-sucking vampires of CanYouOnly - if you must, you can see the original image again above). A sour looking expression on an ordinarily-average looking guy, who's hand is saying something negative. It's little wonder he only rates a 7-point-3, and no one thinks of him as a perfect 10. That the guy is yet hotter than 69% of the men on the site is merely testament to the myriad intangibles of his pervasively positive nature.

Prognostication.
Now for the prediction. What if we make a change, one that will only serve to cripple the integrity of the image? If we change that "NO" on the hand to a "YES," would that add dissonance? Why would a sour-faced guy's hand be saying Yes to me like that?

We think it might. The face is telling me No, but the hand is telling me Yes. These cross-messages should disintegrate the image, and disintegration is a bad thing, right? The Theory of Integrity says yes. A bad thing. We predict a score lower than our original 7.3. At least among respondents who don't want sour-looking negative men saying Yes to them. Ewww. That thought gives me shivers.

Let's find out if our Hot or Not panel of judges agrees.

Well, well, we're so smart.

Hmmm.
Okay, so we're right. All that's changed in the image is the message on the hand, from NO to YES. The rating falls on average from 7.3 to 6.1, and note that the poor feller is hammered with a greater number of 1's and 2's. compared to more higher mean numbers than the previous "NO" time. I'm not saying that rating me a 1 or 2 isn't a mean thing, mind you. It stings. It stings, but I am a survivor.

So, our little test seems to indicate that an appealing appearance has something to do with the integrity of the presentation, if only syntactically. Mind that silkscreened message on that shirt of yours; all you former-joggers, throw out those old racing shirts that won't fit over your spare tire now. You don't want to send any unbecoming mixed messages.

Let's do some more interesting Plastic Surgery in experiment 2.

Hot or Not and the Psychology of Appearance: Intro

An Ongoing Attraction

Ruminating on "Shallow Hal" and the movie's fusillade of fat jokes, I began to wonder exactly what makes for an attractive external shell. How much does weight factor into the ratings game, especially in a land like America where 90% of the populace has over 30% bodyfat? Just who are these viewers who point fingers and laugh with their bowls-full-of-jelly bellies?

At this time, I had recently stumbled upon the Hot or Not website (www.hotornot.com), and was intrigued at the ratings system, my own reaction to rating others' images, and how my perceptions differed from the crowd's ratings. Why are some judged so near a perfect 10, and some, so average to my reckoning, dismissed so immediately as a perfectly imperfect 1? How is this appearance thing gauged?

And, to be honest, I poked my own self in the gut, wondering how I'd rate.

Don't we all. Why else put one's image up on a virtual bullseye like Hot or Not? I'm not seeking attention. Maybe, deep down, I still have the body image of a 13 year old. Maybe, but I don't believe so. Using my own images seemed more honest than doctoring Brad Pitt's, or any of my unsuspecting friends'. Not as much fun, but more fair.

Before continuing, take 5 minutes and visit Hot or Not to get a feel for the ratings process. The site is financed on banner ads and, I suspect, an underlying vortex into some dating service for lonely people fixated on externals. You may find it interesting, or trite, or disturbing. I find Hot or Not all of these. You have been warned.

Let the pseudo-scientific experimentation begin with, appropriately, a test of Integrity.

Beauty on the Road part deu

Sometimes, we find the most beautiful scenery on the way to paradise.

GeoNaviTerra.

I just had the 3rd of my last three caches reviewed at geo.com and denied. Each was in violation of the letter of the law there. Not the spirit of the law, grant you - but the letter of the law is what matters when you're dealing with bureaucracies. And teenage fast-food workers, but that's a thinking-outside-the-box issue. Where was I? Yes, placed geocaches. Has geo.com had to defend itself in any lawsuits because it published an "unsafe, beyond the scope of the rules" cache? Even if not, they *might* - right? So we uphold the letter of the law, in case something bad might ever happen.

The third is in place, and I'm pretty fed up, so I self-published it on navicache and, soon I hope, on terracache (I have to be sponsored there before I can do anything, besides beg for sponsorship).

My first foray beyond the bounds of the behemoth. I want to believe that monopolies can be beneficial (and dictators can be benevolent, and world peace can be attainable, and some other stuff) but in this case, the monopoly is failing me. We'll see what happens.

BTW, power corrupts so we're not gonna see any nicety-nice dictators anytime soon, and as long as there are crazies memorizing the Koran instead of bathing, world peace is right out as well.

Like I Care Dept: What's a Brick?

A brick is a double workout, usually a nice long bike ride followed by a fast run of short to medium length. The purpose is to simulate race conditions of jumping off the bike and running full speed. This is an exercise that pays large dividends, and much like speed work on a track, requires determination.

The body needs to be trained to go from biking to running without much of a warm up, because in a triathlon, this is the most taxing aspect of the race, bar none. More than likely as you progress in training you will undoubtedly train in more than one sport per day, but it's the immediacy between sessions that make a true brick workout.

You can make up your own bricks of back to back events; the transition from swim to bike is more mentally challenging, as your equilibrium will tend to continue to "swim" and you may lose focus (try to pedal away without putting on your bike shoes, for example?), but the bike/run transition leaves most triathletes' legs feeling like cement. But it's wet cement. Whether or not those legs continue to harden into immobility during the course of the run depends on training.

American Brown Ale.

What happens when you clear the cupboard and try to make beer of it.

If you were baking a cake, you'd probably get out the recipe and read it through to make sure you had all the ingredients you needed before starting to bake. Well, I'm usually that way and more so when brewing, but this time I just winged it, thinking that I had more than enough of everything on hand to have the goods there when needed.
Uh, don't brew this way. It's too stressful, and you may find, as I did, that some of your ingredients ain't up to snuff when you need to be snuffin'.

Shooting for an OG of 1048-1052 / FG: 1004-1008:

* 1 lb. Oatmeal
* 1 bag Doc's Cellar Porter Grains
* 2 lbs Light dry extract (1.5 lbs were boiled in later)
* 4.4 lbs dark liquid extract
* 3 lbs light clover honey
* 2 oz. Hallertauer hops (3.5)
* 2 oz. Cascade hops (7.8)
* 1 old Munton's, 1 old Nottingham packets of dry yeast, which was old stuff that was lying around in the garage. But hey, I figured, if Munton doesn't get after it, Nottingham will.

Boil (Day 1):
Began steeping Grains and Oatmeal in gauze sack from 120° to 180. Poured in the liquid extract at 180°. Added the dry extract, and waited for a real boil (17 mins)
15 mins after a real boil happened, bagged in 1 oz of the Hallertauer.
30 mins after; added the second oz of the Hallertauer, and 1 oz of the Cascade.
45 mins after; stirred in the honey, and popped in the wort chiller.
60 mins after; put in the last oz of finishing Cascade.
The Early Prognostication: I think that it's gonna feel a little underhopped.

Chilled to 80°, pitched the prepped yeast. OG: 1030. I had 3 corneys, one with 4 gallons, one with about 3 gallons, and a last with the bottom-of-the-boil 3 gallons. I was figuring that this last one might turn out either bitter, or the best of the three if the other two seemed underhopped.

Stuck Fermentation (Day 3):
The kicker: The old yeast was old yeast, and dead. That night, no activity. The next day, the yeast had not taken off! I freaked and chilled down to 30°, and called everyone looking for a back up, and ended up getting some from Darin at Lengthwise Brewing.
Since I was a little low on the OG, I boiled up a kettle of water and added 1.5 lbs of dry extract to about 4 gallons of water. This, with a little pouring from corney to corney, gave me about 4 gallons in 3 corneys. All three have an equal mix, equal OG at 1038 and equal head space now, and should end up tasting exactly the same.

Racking (Day 16)::
Sucked yeast off the bottoms of the corneys. Gravity is at 1006 @ 44°. Tasted like a really underhopped, really young beer. Looking good, will wait a full month before taking another sip and carbonating hard.

Carbonation (Day 28):
Okay, so I couldn't wait. I'm carbonating two of the corneys at 30 lbs pressure at 48°....
Kept em on it until Wednesday, when I switched over to the last one and ran pressure on it until Saturday.

End of Conditioning (Day 58):
Took a few tastes from two of the corneys, they're a little thin (for me -- but then, they were supposed to be) and just a little young. I need a little practice in dialing in the carbonation levels. Overcarbonated a bit, but not a problem. And yeah, it feels a little underhopped.

3 months later, this turned out to be a very good brew; smooth and amber, dark with a light body. It just took the honey an extra month to kick in. The anemic hopping turned out to be characteristically American Brown. Whaddya know.

A Big Lie.

Here's a good Big One: Second hand smoke is more dangerous than taking drags off of an actual cigarette.

Go ahead, flame me. Tell me how unattended cigarettes burn at a lower temperature and therefore don't incinerate all of the toxins before releasing them into the air. I've heard the yadda yadda, same as you. That much is true. That little itsy bit of smoke *is* more potent than an itsy bit of "heated" smoke. The big lie is that there's just so little of it compared to the lungfulls one gets via direct injection when actually smoking.

Put it this way: you've heard the same thing about car exhaust. An idling car creates more pollutant exhaust than one going full speed. But you know what? No one says that breathing the air at an intersection is more dangerous than actually wrapping your lips around an exhaust pipe and sucking in a big drag. Why not? Because it would so obviously be a Big Lie.

And He Got the Cache Published.

Geocache player broke all the rules of Internet treasure hunt

Mike Vogel
Idaho's NewsChannel 7 BOISE, ID

Tuesday’s closure of Highway 55 has brought a lot of attention to something called geocaching.
Police say this green bucket beneath the Rainbow Bridge contains trinkets for a popular Internet treasure hunt game known as geocaching. It did not contain explosives as first feared.

This was not the first time that a geocache has been mistaken for a possible bomb. Police say it was the third or fourth time the Boise bomb squad has responded to a false alarm. For people who participate in Internet treasure hunts known as geocaching, there are very specific rules and guidelines to follow. But just about every one of those rules was broken when this geocache was placed underneath the Rainbow Bridge.

“It's not illegal to play these games, but the bridge is state property, just use common sense, put it by a tree or something,” said Scott Tollersen, Idaho State Police.

Common sense is one thing that would have avoided a lot of headaches for motorists and police on Tuesday. Idaho 55 had to be shutdown because of a suspicious looking green bucket that turned out to be part of an Internet treasure hunt known as a geocache. The other important thing police say those involved in geocaching should do is follow the rules of the game.

“What we suggest is follow the guidelines on the Web site, don't place it in historical locations, or on historical structures, don't place it on bridges or schools or other places that could potentially be a terrorist target,” said Kip Higby, Boise Police bomb technician.

Originally, the caches were placed off of trails or where there isn't normally a lot of traffic. Authorities say you should ask for permission if you place a geocache on private lands and make sure you find out the rules before hiding it in a national park. And finally, choosing the right container can help out any law enforcement that might come across them.

“We also encourage on their geochache to put it on a clear plastic container, rather than something that can't be seen into, if we can see into it we can rule it out rather easily,” said Tollersen.

Meanwhile, Valley County is still looking into filing charges against the man who placed that geocache under the bridge.

Two Naughty Brown Ales for the Price of One (and 50¢)

I entered this in a Homebrew competition. The entry needed to be an English Brown Ale: sweet and malty, low alcohol, with some hop character, but not much bitterness. If you've had a Newcastle, your tongue knows what the target should have tasted like.

I used this batch as an experiment to compare liquid (wyeast) and dry (packet Nottingham) yeasts. I boiled for a 10 gallon batch and planned to split it into two 5-gallon batches, keeping as much control as I could. I wanted the only difference to be the yeast.

Imagine my surprise when the Ales took both First and Second in the competition. I just got lucky, or the yeast did some syncronized swimming or somethin', because there were a whole lot of better-experienced brewers entered: guys who had been instructing me in the finer points of le malt only weeks before. God smiles on the stupid. Here's how it happened.

* 1 lb. Quaker Oats (steeped)
* 12oz. 50/60 (steeped)
* 4oz. Caramel (steeped)
* approx. 1.5 lb. clover honey
* 6 lb. British Pale DME
* 1.2 oz. Fuggle Hops aa:4.2% (Boil) -- 40 mins.
* .3 oz. Fuggle Hops (Finishing-5 mins)
* Nottingham dry yeast (1 packet), Wyeast 3056 (bavarian)

Added the oats and grain, in grain bag, to 10 gallons cool water in brew keg. Kept the heat on for one hour until it got up to about 150° then yanked the grains. I hoped that this would improve head retention and mouth feel. Added all other ingredients and left it for 70 mins. It finally really boiled then.
After 20 mins at a bubbling boil, I added the boil hops and left it for 40 mins. Then I put in the aroma hops, waited 5 mins, and and killed the heat. Where I screwed up: Because I was also puttering around the house and running errands (yes, shoot me here and now), I put the boil keg into a sink full of ice and hoped that it would chill. An hour and a half later, it was still 120°, and what's worse, the hops had been steeping in there the whole time.

I taste-tested when I took my hydrometer reading, and it was sweet, but then the aftertaste hit with a bitter, sharp coffee-like tang. I had steeped all of the tannins outta the hops over three hours. FYI: Don't screw up like this. Separate your wort from the hops ASAP after the boil. Use two hop bags, one for boiling, one for finishing.
Began rehydrating a packet Nottingham yeast for 25 mins; the Wyeast liquid yeast had pillowed up nicely over two days. Racked into two corneys about 3/4 full (had lost about 3 gallons during the boil), added the yeast to each, and took a reading: 1035 at 85°. Put it in the fridge set at 65° -68°.

Four days later, I turned the temp down to 40° -- when the co2 releasing had lost its oomph. Perfect timing: I carbonated at 32 lbs.for 3 and a half days, then tested it as I racked the yeast offa the bottom. The Nottingham corney came in at about 1010, and the Wyeast at 1020. Only one (guess which?) had that coffee bitter aftertaste from the hops. Not bad.

I let it condition for three weeks. By then, the bitter coffee aftertaste was gone from both, maybe because of the honey.
Any fallout from the hops oversteeping? None to speak of. The honey, I think, smoothed everything over at the three week mark. Just the right amount of bitterness for a brown. I started with a low HBU with only 2 oz of the Fuggles at 4.2%, so it's all the same.
Results of the yeast competition: when asked, taste-testers seemed undecided (about 50/50) between the two. The Nottingham seemed drier; those who know beer liked the Wyeast. The Wyeast took longer to flocculate out. All in all, go figure. The two took 1st (Wyeast) and 2nd (Nottingham) places.

Maybe the bottom line is this: the Nottingham is 50¢ a pack with no smack-time; compared to $4.00 for the Wyeast. Although the Nottingham runs through the beer faster and leaves a dry, highly alcoholic emptiness in its wake, if you don't let it overferment, or ferment too quickly, it's a hearty, no-frills no-spills yeast.

Flame On.

One of the problems with the internet is that it's always open season for
the thin-skinned to take offense. Jokes are interpreted as affronts, friendly ribbing is a stab in the side. Direct criticism is punishable by electrocution.

One of the problems with a geocache rating system, the opponents argue, is that it's open to flaming. Ppl who don't like you will rate your caches into the toilet. If that's all they do, rather than actually stealing your cache containers and physically chucking them into a toilet, that's preferable, I say. But the worry is there.

I don't see why, geocaches don't care if they're winning a popularity contest. Their owners do, though. Place a cache and hover over it like a proud parent, expecting the world to queue up and coo over your baby.

All of my (active) cache babies are available for review. Not an hour after they were up, someone [read: the only other Kern cacher with reviewable caches on the site] rated a couple of mine as lowly as possible. Granted, they're pretty sucky, but maybe not meritorious of the worst possible. Am I gonna cry? I haven't yet.

I'll take my licks at the bottom end, and try to take the best ratings with a grain of salt too. The idea is to see what's trending, what kind of caches are making ppl happy or getting just a lukewarm response. The worst, I'm predicting, will be if they get no review at all - that's mediocrity at it's uh, most mediocre.

Next up: a rubric to check before cache placement - hopefully to ensure that it's not absolutely flammable. Or, to ensure that they're the type of caches I like to find. Your opinion? Blow it out your @ss.

Geocache Rating System.

Okay, since geocaching.com won't get their act together and allow ratings, ratethiscache.com has to step in and get 'er done. Maybe if we all put ratings on our caches then the site will pony up and enter the new era. Or we can post our caches on Amazon.com and have a superior rating program at our disposal.

At the least, I'm gonna put ratings on all my caches, retro to this day and following. It's the right thing to do.