December 25, 2004

Saucy Pork Chops

  • Pork chops or steak (4-6); de-bone if you like
  • 1 medium union - sliced
  • 1 can cream of chicken soup
  • 1/4 cup catsup
  • 2-3 tsp. worcestershire sauce

Brown meat (in small amount of oil). Drain, season with salt & pepper. Combine soup, catsup, worc. sauce. Pour over chops & onions. Cover. Simmer 45-60 min (til tender) or crock pot for day on low.

Freezes well.

Posted by Dave at 02:44 PM | TrackBack

December 20, 2004

fun words




redonkulous (and its spoonerism cousin: deronkulous)


any sort of spoonerism (look it up)

Posted by Dave at 01:02 AM | TrackBack

December 15, 2004


It's so easy to find distraction when you don't want to read and study.

I had accounting yesterday which went fine, bus160 (lame!) was finished yesterday too when i turned in my "personal career plan". Today and tomorrow are nothing (they don't exist in any form). thursday is my religion final, for which i have to catch up a lot in readings. my compiler (a CS course project) and its corresponding paper are due any time before grades are due, but I hope to finish it up by thursday or friday.

i'll go home thursday, with the intention of sleeping a whole lot the next few days. after that, i'll go in to CSI and talk to them about work and such, dentist appt on Wed., hang out with Brian, Carrie, and other friends, and probably go visit Cherith that week too. following that we have the classic family gatherings (oh, darn that reminds me, i have to buy presents still!) and then our immediate family (plus Cherith!) will vacation to Puerto Rico.

for interim I'm taking AI (artificial intelligence). don't get excited, the very first lecture is about how AI isn't that cool and it's power is relative to your perspiration in developing the system.

Posted by Dave at 12:04 AM | TrackBack

December 06, 2004

Survey results

A couple of days ago I posted a short survey. This was to use as some anecdotal evidence in a paper for my class on the Doctrine of Revelation. The paper is focused around skeptic David Hume's arguments against miracles occurring, based on the probability of the miracle occuring and the probability that the testimonies given are false. Lots of people have argued about it and the arguments often get into logic and math debates. I argued that people don't think like that at all, so it doesn't matter. This was well-supported by the survey responses I got; mathematical incoherence, misunderstood questions, and difficulty in assigning probabilities were exactly what I wanted :-) If anyone's interested in this more, feel free to email me for a copy of my paper, or whatever. Hume's Abject Failure by Earman was one of my main sources.

Posted by Dave at 10:56 PM | TrackBack


My wishlist has been update for the holiday season :-)

Posted by Dave at 10:48 PM | TrackBack

December 01, 2004

An odd request...

I need some participants in an informal survery. Please send me an email with answers to these questions (consider each one seperately):

  • Suppose someone came up to you and said their name was Al Plackman. What percent probablity would you believe that to be true? (you know nothing else about this person).
  • What is the probability that this person's name is actually Al Plackman?
  • What is the probability that he is lying to you about his name?
  • Do you believe Christ was resurrected from the dead?
  • In your own words, why do you believe that?
  • What is the probability of this miracle occurring?
  • What is the probability that the witnesses to the resurrection are decieved or are decieving?

Thanks!!! I'll follow this up later with an explanation of what I'm trying to achieve.

Posted by Dave at 09:06 PM | TrackBack