Category Archives: Bunn

Crayola Has At Least 16 Different Names For What Most of Us Would Call ‘Orange’

Image: The-Tim

You probably grew up envying the kid who had the big box of crayons. He had colors you had never even heard of. Tamborine Green? Razzle Dazzle Rose? You weren’t sure what to color with those colors, but you wanted them anyway.

Crayola is the master of colors. Sort of. In fact, what they’re actually the master of is color naming, and renaming. This list of Crayola colors has 745 entries. But it doesn’t actually have 745 different colors. Instead, it’s a great lesson in marketing.

Take black, for example. How many different names for black are there? If you’re Crayola, a lot. There’s Kitty Cat Black, Leather Jacket, Licorice, Black Hole, Muscle Shell Black (Black), New Sneakers, Starry Night, Storm Cloud Black, Cosmic Black, Shades of Black, Allen Iverson’s favorite – black, Illinois Abe Lincoln’s Hat, Cleaner Coal Black, Eerie Black, Carbon Black.

But they’re all the same color—what an average person would call…well, Black.

And it’s not just black either. Here are the names for basic blue:

Birdie Blue, Blueberry, New Car, Blustery Blue, Deep Sea, Galaxy Blue, Hetty the Duck Blue, Mole Blue, Overalls Blue, Bell-Bottom Blue, Derrick Coleman’s favorite – blue, Matt Harpring’s favorite – blue, Speedy Claxton’s favorite – blue, iron man blue, liberty blue, Blue Cheese, Bushkill Blue, America the Blue-tiful, Clearwater Blue

And for orange:

Jack “O” Lantern Orange, Tulip, Cyberspace Orange, Grandma’s Perfume, Huggable Bear Orange, Jupiter Orange, Shrimp (Orange), Solar Flare (Orange),Damone Brown’s favorite – orange, Jack-O-Lantern Orange, go O’s, Dreamy Creamy Orange, Orange you glad you’re in America?, Evolution Orange, Orange Soda, Smashed Pumpkin

And for brown:

Van Dyke Brown, Bunny Brown, Chocolate, Mouse Brown, Asteroid Brown, Ocean Floor (Brown), Pet Shop, Whoo Brown, Woodstock Mud, Chock-A-Lot Shake, Portobello, Mississippi Mud Pie, Brown Sugar, Mother Earth Brown, Sweet Brown

A lot of what Crayola does is take classic colors, give them fun names and remarket them in different combinations. Even Burnt Sienna has pseudonyms like Baseball Mitt and Massachusetts Boston Tea Party.

Some colors tell us a little bit about culture and social change, too. The light pink crayon, for example, is no longer called “Flesh.” In 1962 they changed the name to “Peach,” to acknowledge that there are in fact more flesh tones than pink, and now it’s possible to buy a special set of “multicultural crayons.” In 1999, Crayola renamed “India Red” to ensure that kids didn’t think it referred to the skin color of Native Americans. (In fact, the color was named after a pigment that originated in India.)

And clearly their marketing of a million colors has worked. In 2011, Smarty Pants ranked Crayola as the top brand among mothers, and in the top 20 among kids. According to a Yale study, a box of crayons is the 18th most recognizable smell to American adults.

But at least you can now feel a little bit better about being the kid that didn’t have the 64-color crayon set, since while those crayons had fancier names, they were really just the same colors you had.

More from Smithsonian.com:

The Colors of Childhood
Colorful Kindergarten Lessons Throw Color-Blind Kids Off Their Game

See original article – 

Crayola Has At Least 16 Different Names For What Most of Us Would Call ‘Orange’

Posted in Bunn, FF, GE, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Crayola Has At Least 16 Different Names For What Most of Us Would Call ‘Orange’

BUNN 32130.0000 3.0-Liter Lever-Action Airpot, Stainless Steel

[amzn_product_post]

Posted in Bunn, green energy | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on BUNN 32130.0000 3.0-Liter Lever-Action Airpot, Stainless Steel

VIDEO: 97% of Climate Scientists Can’t Be Wrong

The biggest survey of climate research to date finds that scientists are more united than ever. Telling Americans that scientists don’t agree is the classic climate denial strategy. It’s been over a decade since consultant Frank Luntz famously furnished the GOP with strategies to kill climate action during the Bush years, recommending in a leaked memo [PDF]: ”you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue.” Oh yeah, and avoid truth: “A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth.” It seems to have worked: only a minority of Americans believes global warming is caused by humans: 42 percent, according to a 2012 Pew study. That “consensus gap”, as it’s known, has proven fertile ground in which to sow resistance to climate action, says John Cook, a climate communications researcher from the University of Queensland in Australia. He has led the most extensive survey of peer reviewed literature in almost a decade (published online this week in Environmental Research Letters). And what he found, just as in other attempts to survey the field, is that scientists are near unanimous. A group of 24 researchers signed up to the challenge via Cook’s website, Skeptical Science (the go-to website for debunking climate denial myths), and collected and analyzed almost 12,000 scientific papers from the past 20 years. Of the some 4000 of those abstracts that expressed some view on the evidence for global warming, more than 97 percent endorsed the consensus that climate change is happening, and it’s caused by humans. His team pulled work written by 29,083 authors in nearly 2000 journals across two decades. ”People who say there must be some conspiracy to keep climate deniers out of the peer reviewed literature, that is one hell of a conspiracy,” he said via Skype from Australia (watch the video above). That would make the moon landing cover-up look, ”like an amateur conspiracy compared to the scale involved here.” Cook is hoping to capitalize on the simplicity of his findings: ”All people need to understand is that 97 out of 100 climate scientists agree. All they need to know is that one number: 97 percent.” View post:  VIDEO: 97% of Climate Scientists Can’t Be Wrong ; ;Related ArticlesIt Doesn’t Matter If We Never Run Out of Oil: We Won’t Want to Burn It AnymoreOne Family’s Great EscapeWe Just Passed the Climate’s “Grim Milestone” ;

Source:  

VIDEO: 97% of Climate Scientists Can’t Be Wrong

Posted in Bunn, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, green energy, Monterey, ONA, oven, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on VIDEO: 97% of Climate Scientists Can’t Be Wrong

Which States Use the Most Green Energy?

green4us

A wave of ALEC-backed bills could stall bringing more states up to snuff. California and Texas might be leading the nation’s rollout of solar and wind power, respectively, but Washington, where hydroelectric dams provide over 60 percent of the state’s energy, was the country’s biggest user of renewable power in 2011, according to new statistics released last week by the federal Energy Information Administration. Hydro continued to be the overwhelmingly dominant source of renewable power consumed nationwide, accounting for 67 percent of the total, followed by wind with 25 percent, geothermal with 4.5 percent, and solar with 3.5 percent. The new EIA data is the latest official snapshot of how states nationwide make use of renewable power, from industrial-scale generation to rooftop solar panels, and reveals an incredible gulf between leaders like Washington, California, and Oregon, and states like Rhode Island and Mississippi that use hardly any. The gap is partly explained by the relative size of states’ energy markets, but not entirely: Washington uses less power overall than New York, for example, but far outstrips it on renewables (the exact proportions won’t be available until EIA releases total state consumption figures later this month). Still, the actual availability of resources—how much sun shines or wind blows—is far less important than the marching orders passed down from statehouses to electric utilities, says Rhone Resch, head of the Solar Energy Industries Association. “Without some carrot or stick, there’s little reason to pick [renewables] up” in many states, he says; even given the quickly falling price of clean energy technology, natural gas made cheap by fracking is still an attractive option for many utilities. More than half of the 29 states that require utilities to purchase renewable power are currently considering legislation to pare back those mandates, in many cases pushed by (surprise, suprise) the American Legislative Exchange Council. “We’re opposed to these mandates, and 2013 will be the most active year ever in terms of efforts to repeal them,” ALEC energy task force director Todd Wynn recently told Bloomberg. But so far the tide seems to be turning against that campaign: This week the Minnesota legislature will consider two versions of a bill passed by the House and Senate that would require utilities to get 1-4 percent of their power from solar by 2025 (solar made up less than one percent of Minnesota’s renewable power in 2011); last month North Carolina, the same state that outlawed talking about sea level rise, surprised green energy advocates by voting down a proposal to ax the state’s renewable mandates, followed a few days later by a vote in Colorado to increase rural communities’ access to renewables. But challenges remain ahead in some of the very states that already rank relatively low for renewables consumption, including Connecticut, Missouri, and Ohio. Karin Wadsack, director of a Northern Arizona University-based project to monitor these legislative battles, says the time is now for states to start mixing in more clean energy. “If you have all these utilities sticking with gas, coal, and nuclear, then you create a situation where 20 years from now they aren’t prepared to deal with the increased climate risk,” she says. “Electricity is a huge piece of the climate puzzle, so [utilities] need to be learning what to do with renewables.” There’s always the option that Congress could set a renewables standard on the national level—a group of senators took a failed stab at one in 2010 only a few months after Republicans killed the infamous cap-and-trade bill. But don’t hold your breath, Wadsack says: “I don’t know that I would call it a pipe dream. But I wouldn’t see it happening in our current set of national priorities.”

See more here: 

Which States Use the Most Green Energy?

Related Posts

Can You Have Too Much Solar Energy?
Charts: The Smart Money is on Renewable Energy
Climate Desk Live: A Conversation With Climate Scientist Michael Mann
EXCLUSIVE: State Dept. Hid Contractor’s Ties to Keystone XL Pipeline Company
CHART: Withering Drought Still Plaguing Half of America

Share this:

Source: 

Which States Use the Most Green Energy?

Posted in ATTRA, Bunn, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, green energy, Monterey, ONA, PUR, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Which States Use the Most Green Energy?

BUNN 36725.0000 3.8-Liter Lever-Action Airpot, Stainless Steel

[amzn_product_post]

Posted in Bunn | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on BUNN 36725.0000 3.8-Liter Lever-Action Airpot, Stainless Steel

BUNN 32130.0000 3.0-Liter Lever-Action Airpot, Stainless Steel

[amzn_product_post]

Posted in Bunn | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on BUNN 32130.0000 3.0-Liter Lever-Action Airpot, Stainless Steel

It’s Not You, It’s the Dishes (originally published as Spousonomics) – Paula Szuchman & Jenny Anderson

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

It’s Not You, It’s the Dishes (originally published as Spousonomics)

How to Minimize Conflict and Maximize Happiness in Your Relationship

Paula Szuchman & Jenny Anderson

Genre: Self-Improvement

Price: $0.99

Publish Date: February 8, 2011

Publisher: Random House Publishing Group

Seller: Random House Digital, Inc. (Books)


Your marriage is fine, right? Sure, there are showdowns over who unloads more dishes, and some simmering discontent over who drives more car pools, cleans more dust bunnies, and keeps the social wheels of your existence greased. The sex is good, though you can’t remember when you last had it. Come to think of it, you’re plagued by a nagging sense that marriage used to be so much more fun. Marriage can be a mysterious, often irrational business. But the key, propose Paula Szuchman and Jenny Anderson in this incomparable and engaging book, is to think like an economist. We all have limited time, money, and energy, but we must allocate these resources efficiently. It’s Not You, It’s the Dishes is a clear-eyed, rational route to demystifying your disagreements and improving your relationship. Smart, funny, deeply researched, and refreshingly realistic, It’s Not You, It’s the Dishes cuts through the noise of emotions, egos, and tired relationship clichés to solve the age-old riddle of a happy, healthy marriage. Originally published as Spousonomics

Link:  

It’s Not You, It’s the Dishes (originally published as Spousonomics) – Paula Szuchman & Jenny Anderson

Posted in alo, Bunn, FF, GE, ONA, Pines, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s Not You, It’s the Dishes (originally published as Spousonomics) – Paula Szuchman & Jenny Anderson

BUNN 36725.0000 3.8-Liter Lever-Action Airpot, Stainless Steel

[amzn_product_post]

Posted in Bunn | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on BUNN 36725.0000 3.8-Liter Lever-Action Airpot, Stainless Steel

BUNN 32130.0000 3.0-Liter Lever-Action Airpot, Stainless Steel

[amzn_product_post]

Posted in Bunn | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on BUNN 32130.0000 3.0-Liter Lever-Action Airpot, Stainless Steel

Anti-climate House Science committee now worried about the critical threat of asteroids

Anti-climate House Science committee now worried about the critical threat of asteroids

At some point, as has happened in the past, a huge asteroid will be headed for Earth, threatening the planet with indescribable damage. That point could come within days or it could take centuries. And Hollywood theorizing aside, it’s not clear what we might do about it.

aloha75

Rep. Smith owns at this game

Last week’s meteor over Russia and the larger asteroid later that day spurred the normally laconic House Science committee to action. Newly elected committee chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) suggested that the event was “a stark reminder of the need to invest in space science.” From a committee statement:

[Smith said:] “Developing technology and research that enable us to track objects like Asteroid 2012 DA14 is critical to our future. We should continue to invest in systems that identify threatening asteroids and develop contingencies, if needed, to change the course of an asteroid headed toward Earth.” …

The Science, Space, and Technology Committee will hold a hearing in the coming weeks to examine ways to better identify and address asteroids that pose a potential threat to Earth.

It probably goes without saying that this is the same “science” committee that has excelled at downplaying and ignoring the science of another, less science-fictiony threat: climate change.

When he assumed the committee chairmanship, Smith — who once gave media outlets an ironic award for ignoring “dissenting opinions” on global warming — suggested that the committee would shortly hold hearings on climate change to “focus on the facts.” Meaning, obviously, to let those “dissenting opinions” have a seat at a table in the Capitol and question climate science.

Now, I understand that movies about asteroids threatening Earth star people like Morgan Freeman, Bruce Willis, and Ben Affleck, and that the one climate change movie starred (sigh) Dennis Quaid and (siiiiiiigh) Jake Gyllenhall, but I would nonetheless offer that science research and funding should 1) not be a function of trendiness and 2) should maybe reflect actual scientific threats. An extinction-level asteroid rolls around every billion years, and one hit in the Yucatan only 66 million years ago. Climate change on the other hand? Happening currently.

So why focus on the infinitesimal risk of asteroid strike and ignore the very real risk of climate change, a risk cited as “high” by the Government Accountability Office last week? Well, because Smith is a Republican, and because Smith is from Texas, and because of which industries each of those issues affects.

Respecting the science of climate change means tackling the oil and gas industry, an industry that has contributed half a million dollars to Smith over his career. While such donations don’t necessarily result in votes (they really don’t, guys), they are a very good way to track relationships. Smith has friends in the oil industry; he could hardly be a Congressmember from Texas if he did not. Asteroid fighting, on the other hand, means directing shitloads of money to the defense and aerospace industries — an industry which sends billions to Smith’s home state and which is always a safe bet for Republican obeisance.

If Lamar Smith had his way, the government would spend millions over the next few decades developing new systems for asteroid detection and annihilation which would float above our heads for centuries, ready just in case. Meanwhile, the Texas coast (and the New York coast and the Florida coast and the Louisiana coast and so on) will move a few hundred meters inland, and the state of Texas will see increased, more drastic droughts, according to Smith’s employer.

The National Review‘s Andrew Stuttaford neatly summarized Smith’s approach to science (as spotted by Mother Jones‘ Kevin Drum):

We waste a fortune on measures (that will have no impact for decades, if ever) to tamper with the climate. Some of that money would be better spent on asteroid insurance.

Just don’t ask better for whom.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Taken from: 

Anti-climate House Science committee now worried about the critical threat of asteroids

Posted in Bunn, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Anti-climate House Science committee now worried about the critical threat of asteroids