Debbi and I were quite pleased with Robin William's movie adaptation of Isaac Asimov's Hugo-winning 1976 short story. I'm sorry it was released this year because it really deserves a Hugo itself, but probably won't be able to compete against Star Wars: Episode 1. I was disappointed to see various movie critics giving it such poor reviews, and they missed the biggest problems with the movie! Robin Williams completely disregarded the Three Laws of Robotics whenever they became inconvenient to his plot. And he totally missed the point of the original short story that Andrew could only become human by dying as a robot. It was a great, wonderful, feel-good emotional ending, but it missed that last ironic twist that made Asimov's story worthy of being considered in the same league as those classic explorations of the nature of humanity, Frankenstein and Pinochio. I will give him the dramatic license for the sake of translating the story into the motion picture medium because it was an excellent movie.

Starfire, by Charles Sheffield. This is the sequel to Aftermath (1998), where the nearest star to the Sun exploded in a Supernova in 2026. This novel takes place in 2053, when the wave of ionized particles moving at 10% of the speed of light is about to reach Earth, an event which is considered to be likely more destructive than the intense heat and radiation bombardment from the supernova that reached Earth in 2026. The novel is mostly intrigue, political infighting, and a murder mystery, with good guys, bad guys, and guys in between. It does offer an explanation as to why Alpha Centauri exploded in a supernova when it is of a stellar type that theory predicts just won't do that (e.g., this type of star has never been seen to go supernova). A vast shield has been constructed in space, but only a month before the wave is due to hit, probes find that the particle wave is different from what was expected, and the shield won't be effective! A new design is conceived, and a month of frantic effort is made in an attempt to implement it. Suffice to say for now, there is room for a sequel.

Re: "dark sky" stuff (Avery). As a professed Libertarian, I can understand your concern that new regulations on quality of outdoor lighting may impose burdensome and expensive regulations on private individuals. I agree that any such regulations must demonstrate a compelling need. And I think you are wise to seek information to support my opinion that the case made by the International Dark-Sky Association IDA is compelling.

Let's look at how outdoor lighting quality affects "real problems like safety, health or honesty in product presentation." Unshielded lighting produces glare, and glare reduces visibility. This is especially true for older people, when aging eyesight becomes more vulnerable to glare. Debbi and I both find driving in Tucson at night so much easier and safer than in other cities because all of the streetlights here use full-cutoff shielded fixtures. Literature from IDA recounts many studies showing how glare reduces safety, especially for "security lighting". An unshielded and poorly installed fixture produces glare which gives the effect of deepened shadows, creating places for assailants to hide. The glaring (pardon the pun) dishonesty in product presentation is that so many light fixtures promoted as "security lights" actually reduce security because of this glare. The lighting experts tell IDA: "Rather than simply filling spaces with light, as in the past, we need lighting that takes into account the strengths and weaknesses of the human visual system."

Medical Testimony About Glare and Night Vision before the Texas State Affairs Committee

by Louis S. Binder, O.D.
Doctor of Optometry
Houston, Texas

My expertise in the eye care field makes my views on this bill very practical.

In general, we have two groups of Texas drivers.

One group is comprised of healthy individuals, free of any vision disorder. The other group has visual disorders which range from uncorrected vision to diabetes, cataracts, and age-related muscular degeneration of the eyes.

All visual disorders reduce one's ability to distinguish objects under even the best of lighting circumstances. Many of my patients cite poor night vision as their main visual complaint. It would not surprise me if even some of the committee members have shared this complaint with their eye care professionals. The glare from unshielded lights compounds these motorist and pedestrian night vision problems.

A poorly-aimed, bright light can cause glare-related problems well beyond the light's effective illumination distance. Even after the light has passed out of the field of vision, the effects of glare persist.

The human eye tries to adapt to the new brighter illumination, then must re-adapt to the normal dark conditions. During this adaptation and re-adaptation period, one's ability to distinguish objects or edges of the road is impaired.

Glare can also cause discomfort or annoyance, without necessarily interfering with visual performance. As one drives along the highway, the glare from a continuous string of lights can strain or fatigue the eyes that are constantly adjusting to lighting conditions. For our population 55 and up with slight to significant cataracts, this problem is compounded.

Vision that has been corrected to 20/20 drops to 20/25 at night. A slight tint in the windshield drops the vision at night to 20/30. Once vision has reached 20/40, Texas statutes require an eye exam or the issuance of a restricted drivers license.

Imagine a 57 year old driver with corrected vision and a slight cataract. When faced with glare of any sort, vision is impaired to the point where this driver could no longer pass a drivers license test.

There are many people in this condition driving cars, trucks, busses, and 18 wheelers full of hazardous materials. Thus a majority of motorists have an even greater difficulty with glare than you might think.

I urge you to support HB 916 in order to make our roadways safer.

Let's try another tack, and employ what I think of as the "Golden Rule" of Libertarianism, the old saying that goes: "You have a right to swing your fist, but your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." In other words, a free man may do whatever he pleases as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. For example, to use this on the issue of second hand smoke, paraphrase it as follows: "You have a right to smoke your cigarette, but your right to smoke your cigarette ends at my nose." If this makes sense, then the conclusion is that second-hand smoke is a form of assault. Now, let's try this on lighting: "You have a right to shine your light, but your right to shine your light ends at my eyes." This indicates that lighting can be a form of trespass, and sometimes is also a form of assault. So, I am with you in being apprehensive about government regulation of what a private individual may do to light his own property. I just think it is reasonable to set standards for how much light is allowed to trespass onto the property of others.

The argument above is frequently moot because much of IDA's efforts go into convincing government entities to use quality lighting. That is, asking government to regulate itself, not the public. This is especially true of prison lighting. And experts have been asked: experts in lighting in the form of professional standards from the Illumination Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) and the International Commission on Illumination (CIE).

As for experts in night vision devices, remember that I work for a company that (among other things) is the largest single manufacturer of night vision devices in the world. And remember what Cadillac says of the night vision device, made by my employer, that they are now advertising on TV as an available option: You can see things three times further away than with headlights. But, I am glad for your suggestion to "ask security personnel their opinion." I am going to suggest that our marketing people try to develop a market for night vision devices at prisons.

Also, I wonder if you would explain your remark about being a "semi-libertarian". I take it that this means you have some reservations about libertarian philosophy. Have you read a book that explains libertarianism? I recently read David Bergland's book, Libertarianism in One Lesson (seventh edition 1997). This is a very straightforward description of libertarian philosophy and how it would logically be applied to today's issues and problems. I would be very interested in just where you disagree with this philosophy and its application.

RE: chiropractic stuff (Debbi). One of the reasons I wanted to write about Chiropractic is that people have very strong feelings about it, for or against. First, there is quite a bit of scientific research and trials, some proven by MRI, but not much in the popular press, other industries being rather powerful. Did you notice all the press lately about medical mistakes? That doesn't even count people who die from "properly" prescribed drugs, due to allergies or drug interactions. That's why non-drug solutions should be investigated first.

I don't know any chiropractors who work with osteopaths. If some do, they are not trained in true chiropractic. That iris stuff, along with hair analysis, etc, also has nothing to do with chiropractic. If a DC does that stuff, I'd stay away too! As with any health professional, some are more thorough than others. Anyone who has symptoms or family history of a disease should monitor for it. Any health professional should have time to talk to you about any concerns. The main thing to remember is there are mediocre and excellent members of any profession. Telling them apart is the trick. However, don't trash the whole profession. I've been to dentists and gynecologists who ripped me off, but now I have terrific professionals here in Tucson. Get recommendations, and trust your instincts. Just remember that the human body is capable of doing a lot of self-healing if it isn't stymied by too many foreign substances.

Re: Renaissance Faire (Avery). The Arizona RenFest is much closer to Phoenix that to Tucson, which is one reason we passed it up last year (another is the fact that Debbi used to work RenFests and has seen enough to last her the rest of her life). I'm sorry you didn't get to see the birds fly. Recently, we did get to see a flying demonstration of Harris Hawks at the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum. I (Debbi) got to hold a Cara-Cara once, at Fantasy Faire, perhaps?

RAYTHEON IN THE NEWS
Raytheon Presented with Two Design and Engineering Awards

LEXINGTON, Mass., (Dec. 7, 1999) - Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTNA, RTNB) has been presented with two Design and Engineering Awards 2000 by Popular Mechanics magazine. These awards honor achievements in engineering, design and innovation.

Raytheon received awards for the company's Night Vision system and Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS).

Daniel P. Burnham, Raytheon's chairman and chief executive officer, accepted the awards on behalf of the company.

Raytheon's Night Vision, a thermal imaging system, allows drivers to see up to five times the range of conventional headlights and enhances a driver's ability to detect dangerous situations, such as a disabled motorist or animal in the road. Raytheon's infrared technology is also utilized in the fields of law enforcement, fire-fighting, marine safety, security and industrial manufacturing.

Raytheon's JLENS, developed in cooperation with the U.S. Army, provides lightweight, advanced technology, three-dimensional surveillance and precision track and illumination radars for the detection of low flying cruise missiles, other airborne and ballistic missile targets, and surface moving targets. JLENS will support U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine units.

"It is rare for any organization to be the recipient of two awards in the same year," said Joe Oldham, editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics.

Raytheon is featured with the other recipients of the Design and Engineering Awards 2000 in the December 1999 edition of Popular Mechanics.

Raytheon Company is a global technology leader that provides products and services in the areas of commercial and defense electronics, engineering and construction, and business and special mission aircraft. Raytheon has operations throughout the United States and serves customers in more than 80 countries.

For more information, see the Popular Mechanics Website
http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/elect/9912TUDEAWARDSM.html

Cadillac's newest model, the 2000 DeVille, is a rolling technological tour-de-force. From its powerhouse Northstar V8 engine to its passenger cabin with three-zone climate control and available rear-seat airbags, the DeVille is leading Cadillac's charge into the next century as the once-again standard of the world. DeVille is unique among production vehicles in that it can see in the dark, thanks to a night vision system developed jointly by General Motors and Raytheon. The hardware fits unobtrusively in the nose of the sleek DeVille and brings to the driver an advantage long available to our military forces: the ability to see what's out there in the darkness, even through fog. Coupled with the breakthrough OnStar navigation/driver concierge system, an advanced obstacle proximity warning system that activates when the car is backing up, WOLF dynamic balance system and all the leather-encased luxury you could wish for, the Cadillac DeVille is a world-class way for five people to hustle down a highway.