Review of Skydiving at Skydive Orange! with pictures

A video of my, and 4 of my friends', tandem skydiving adventure! I remixed our individual tapes into one video.

So we decided to go skydiving/parachuting! The closest (or rather, best known) drop zone to Washington, D.C. is Skydive Orange, located in Orange County, Virginia. From Fairfax / Northern Virginia, it's about a 1.75 hour drive. We reserved noon as our time to arrive so I expected to take the class and that we'd jump by 2 PM, tops. We arrived at noon, signed our lives away on their legal waivers, took a short 10 MINUTE class on how we would jump tandem, and then waited until 7:30 PM to jump!

/RANT

That was not a typo. We did not jump for seven and a half hours after our arrival. And this place is out in the sticks so there was nothing to do there. Literally. There were some wheeled carts laying around, so we rolled around the pavement like idiots for seven-odd hours, while the other people waiting sat and laughed at our antics.

It was especially aggravating because several people who came with, or after us, went and jumped before us. They were also tandem jumpers, so I didn't understand why we were put so far back in the schedule. We repeatedly asked the front desk when we might jump, or if we could just get an idea of our jump window so we could drive around and maybe get some food, but we were just told curtly each time that we would know when to jump when we saw our names on the whiteboard. Keep in mind that the jump was a healthy $255 - I'm not expecting the world, but just a little consideration of our situation would have been appreciated.

In any case, we ended up jumping just around sunset. It was gorgeous and nearly made me forget the wait of the previous seven hours. However, my pictures, which cost $125, all came out black. If we had gone earlier, when there was sunlight, my pictures would have come out much better. Actually, my friends got great pictures - it was just that my photographer messed up some settings on his camera so they just all came out bad. So the pictures I have posted here are either taken from my friends, who had decent photographers, or heavily edited versions of my severely-underexposed pictures. My skydving video, however, came out pretty nice.

To be fair, I wrote an email to Skydive Orange with a complaint about the wait and the uselessness of my photo package, and a request of at least a partial refund on the pictures, and they wrote back apologizing for the long wait, and offered a refund on my photos.

/The Jump

But the jump was so fantastic! Here are my observations on how it felt to go skydiving, and some pictures of us skydiving.

We went up in a twin-engine plane, and halfway up, the instructor strapped me into his harness, as he was the one wearing the parachute. In the plane we were squeezed in with 21 other people like sardines. There were some solo jumpers who sat up front and they jumped at around 8,000 feet - watching them jump and perform flips in the air made all of us even more excited about our own upcoming jumps.



We went up to 13,500 feet (about 2.5 miles in the air) when one of the instructors opened the bay door. I was the first one on the bench so my instructor stood up and started inching me toward the open door, and when I reached it, he began a count:

1. leaned me out slightly
2. leaned back in
3. vaulted out







It's was not a slow three-second count; all three counts occured within a single second!

I've been told, and have read on other websites about skydiving experiences, when asked "how does it feel to go skydiving?", that it would feel like a cushion of air when I first left the plane. Not quite! The sensation was that of falling at full speed, like a rock, and it was just the craziest feeling because the idea of jumping out of a speeding plane is so counter-intuitive. When you jump, you're falling fast, and you know it! The sensation was like nothing I could have imagined.



They also told us that in the first few seconds out of the plane we would need to take deep breaths, but it was really hard to breathe. The air was cold and was just rushing by, and in those first few seconds, I honestly felt as though I had forgotten how to breathe, and that my heart had stopped beating. The feeling was so exhilarating, of being completely disconnected from the world, of having nothing to hold on to, and nothing to hold on to me.

I wanted to scream at first, but I couldn't at first - nobody did! At least not until 15 seconds or so into the jump when I finally started taking "normal" breaths, and finally realized what was happening! Then I just let it all out and started screaming at the top of my lungs, only I couldn't even hear myself over the rushing wind around me.





Just under a minute went by when the chute opened up. I've read that you don't actually move up when this happens, but in any case, I felt like I was being pulled up by like god or something, or maybe the feeling of a rock that has just fallen from the sky and has smashed into a pool of water.

We then floated for about 4 minutes. The instructor pulled on his parachute a few times, making us speed from side to side. Again, being suspended in the air just gliding down, experiencing the sunset from a mile in the sky was just indescribable. It was serene and I felt so at peace with everything.



The landing was surprisingly soft. We were still moving very fast as we approached the ground, and we started moving much more horizontally than before. The grass continued zipping past us, and finally the instructor landed - tandem skydivers stick their feet out forward at this point, so I ended up landing by sitting on the grass. It was all very gentle and not at all what I had imagined.

Although I'm a little bit leery about going to Skydive Orange again, I would definitely go skydiving again. If the price weren't so high, I'd proabably go do it every weekend. It was just so liberating to be disconnected from the world, even if only for 5 minutes.

Total Cost: $255 (tandem jump) + $125 (picture/video package) = $380.00 for 5 minutes of total liberation

2008 Honda Accord Coupe LX-S, Pictures, part 2

A few pictures from the interior of the 2008 Honda Accord Coupe. A continuation from the first part of the Review, found at: http://bobbypd.blogspot.com/2008/05/review-of-2008-honda-accord-coupe-lx.html.



Unlike the Civic (which used mostly LEDS), the Accord uses actual dials on its instrumentation panel.



You've heard it before probably, but the Accord has a lot of buttons on the center instrument panel. After a while it grows on you, but I still take a while before finding the exact button I'm looking for - not fun when I'm driving!

The space in front of the clock is a perfect place to stick a GPS unit on (you can see the cradle for my Garmin 360 in this picture). The CD player has room for 6-cds. The steering wheel has buttons for radio/CD station, volume control, and cruise control.



The space in the back is quite limited in the Honda Accord Coupe. The rear windows are also small and really hard to see out of while driving. This is the Ivory-colored cloth interior.

Was this post helpful? Interesting? Not? Leave a comment, ask a question, or rate this post using the star control below!

Las Vegas - Day Two: the Glass Skywalk at Grand Canyon West

A review with pictures. In short, it was huge rip-off. At every single stage of the trip to the Hualapai glass skywalk (and thus, Grand Canyon West), the operators charged the most eye-popping, exorbitant fees that tested the very limits of shamelessness. If you go, prepare to feel violated!

The trip began with a drive down US-93 (passing the Hoover Dam) for 70 miles from Las Vegas. Then Pierce Ferry Road for 30 miles, and then finally onto the mostly-unpaved Diamond Bar Road for the remainder, 20 or so miles. The directions were easy enough, but we nearly missed both turns because the roads were not really marked until we reached the very intersection we had to turn in to.

As always, click the image to see it full-size.


I hope you like driving through dust clouds.

This dirt "road" spanned 14 miles. It's raked, but it's still just gravel and sand, and is quite bumpy. There are winding, very sharp turns, and two-way traffic. Thankfully, there wasn't much traffic, but at points, tour buses zoomed passed us and at one particularly sharp downhill turn, a speeding bus nearly smashed into us, despite the fact that we had pre-emptively pulled into the ditch on the side. When following cars, as in the above picture, we were enveloped in a thick dust cloud and had lots of little rocks striking our car (I'm glad we got a rental!). In some spots, the gravel was a little looser than usual, which made for moments when my sister-in-law lost control of the rear wheels - a 4x4 would have been good for this drive. This path lasted about 40 minutes.


Joshua Tree Forest on the way.

However, the rest of the drive was scenic, and the 2.5 hours from Vegas passed quickly.

When we got to the visitor's center/helipad/landing strip, we paid $20 to park our car. We also had to pay $29.95 per person (25% off for kids) for the 5 minute bus ride (the driver also expected gratuities!) to the first point of the canyon. This was the spot with the Glass Skywalk, which cost another $29.95 per person (children ages 4 and up have to pay full price) to enter. We had to place all our bags - and cameras - in lockers.


The Skywalk is not really that impressive.

Cameras are prohibited on the Glass Skywalk, ostensibly to prevent damage to the glass floor. This was obviously BS because the skywalk is advertised to be able to withstand the weight of 71 Million Pounds; to demonstrate the strength of the glass to skeptical visitors, one of the attendants jumped up and down on the glass! If you think that I'm merely whining, consider this: would you really be allowed to walk on a structure that would be damaged from the tiny force of a .5 pound camera falling 2-3 feet? Would you want to walk on such a weak thing? I suspect the real reason that cameras are forbidden is so they can sell their own pictures, for the bargain price of $30 for one single print, or $99 for six prints and the pictures on a flash drive. Alas, we gave in and bought one print.

The glass skywalk itself was unremarkable. After slipping on a pair of disposable shoe slippers, we walked onto the glass. It was a weekday afternoon, so there were only about two dozen visitors, and generally, people fell into one of two categories: those who walked on the clear glass (it's clear, but even at one year old, the glass is already slightly scuffed), and those who clung onto the railing and walked along the sides. I was unimpressed by the view, which was not any better than the view from the edge of the cliffs. As for the glass floor, it was also unimpressive. The skywalk itself cast a shadow on the canyon, and in any case, there was nothing particularly interesting to see below the glass - no, the experience didn't make me feel like I was "walking where the eagles soar". The skywalk is also a lot smaller and narrower than you might imagine - I could walk from one end to the other in about 15 seconds at a normal pace. It is also advertised as being able to hold 120 visitors at once - this is extraordinarily unrealistic; the 24 visitors on the bridge with me were already causing some trouble in moving around the bridge. What's more, the attendants trying to take group pictures frequently asked people to stop or to move out of the view of the camera - so I really don't know how 120 people could be on the bridge at once.

After getting off the glass skywalk, my sister-in-law really wanted pictures (besides the few that the "pros" took for us), so she suggested that she and the kids might get back on the glass while I stepped outside to take some pictures. One of the cashiers told us that would not be possible unless we were going to pay for those pictures...so we just plonked down $30 for one of the ones they took: my sister-in-law figured that since she had already paid so much that she might as well pay some more for the memory.


Walk where the eagles soar...

So really, the Hualapai glass skywalk is mostly a tourist trap and the tagline of "walk the sky" is a fluffy marketing gimmick.

We took the next bus to the second point on the canyon, Guano Point, where the views were much better. Seriously, don't waste your money on the glass skywalk, just skip it, and take the bus right to Guano Point - it doesn't cost extra and the view is gorgeous. Well, you still have to pay for parking and that outrageous bus ride, but I guess after the skywalk, I couldn't complain for someone that wasn't extra. It really is lovely, and the experience of standing atop the mound at Guano Point was, as a fellow visitor uttered, majestic.


Save your money; go directly to Guano Point.

see also:
Flickr Album - Las Vegas Shenanigans
Las Vegas - A Guide
Las Vegas - Day One: Lake Mead and Hoover Dam
Las Vegas - Day Two: Glass Skywalk at Grand Canyon West
Las Vegas - Day Three: Red Rock Canyon

Was this review helpful? Not Helpful? Leave a comment/rate this post using the star control below!

A Review of the 2008 Honda Accord Coupe LX, with Pictures

This is a review of the 2008 Honda Accord LX-S Coupe, 4-Cylinder, Automatic Transmission (Eighth Generation). I bought this car just over a month ago and have put about 1000 miles on it to date. For comparison purposes: I am 6'1" and about 200 lbs. My previous car was a 2007 Honda Civic Coupe, a review of which is here.

more images at part 2 of this review: http://bobbypd.blogspot.com/2008/06/2008-honda-accord-coupe-lx-s-pictures.html

In the time I've had the car, I've filled up 5 times, averaging 21 MPG as my actual real MPG, with about 75% city driving. I use the recommended 87 octane regular unleaded, usually from Sunoco and Exxon. (For comparison, the average MPG of my old Civic was 26 MPG). My lowest MPG has been 17.8 (the first fill-up, mostly city miles) and my highest 24.3 (with 100% highway driving that particular fill-up), giving me a somewhat disappointing MPG. This is definitely not the 21/31 MPG that Honda has advertised - I understand that no car gets its advertised mileage, but still...I wasn't expecting my mileage to be right at their lowest estimate. The 2008 Honda Accord gas tank has a capacity of 18.5 gallons.







phrawr. click to see full-size image.

Everyone I drive by stops and gawks, and I get lots of compliments, so there is no denying that this coupe is a real winner in the looks department (especially this belize blue pearl color) - but you don't need me to tell you - this thing is sexy! I definitely prefer the look of the coupe to the sedan, but that's up to you, though personally, I feel that the 2008 Accord sedan is a real step backward in the looks department from previous generations - it really looks like a Hyundai. So I'm really glad that Honda made the 2008 Accord coupe look radically different from its four-door sibling.

Driving

I feel confident passing cars at highway speeds, and the 4-cylinder, 190-horsepower engine is more than enough for everyday driving. Normal highway speeds keep the engine in the low-2000 RPM range. I sometimes feel like I should have gotten the v6, BUT really, with gas at around $3.80, I'm glad I didn't. And really, the performance of the I4 engine is more than ample for city driving or highway cruising.

The coupe is hard to see around, however. I cannot see down the hood of my car, nor can I see my trunk that well. And really, there's a lot of junk in the trunk, so I'm always concerned about hitting something when backing up. Seeing around the sides of the car is also a challenge, since the curtain airbags take up a lot of space along the sides, reducing the rear side windows to tiny triangles – just barely of any use, and because the sides are quite high.

I'm a tall person and this car fits me perfectly (this was an issue with my Civic). A friend who drives a large SUV said that he somehow feels that my car is more spacious feeling than his - at least in the front seats. The back seats are ok, but headroom is significantly reduced due to the dramatically raked roof, and the legroom is very minimal. I’d suggest only children and/or shorter people should sit back there for long rides. Specs from Honda, Two Door, 2008 Honda Accord Coupe LX:

Interior Measurements
Headroom (in., front/rear): 39.1 / 35.9
Legroom (in., front/rear): 42.2 / 33.1
Shoulder Room (in., front/rear): 58.4 / 54.5
Hiproom (in., front/rear): 56.4 / 46.3

Exterior Measurements
Wheelbase (in.): 107.9
Length (in.): 190.9
Height (in.): 56.4
Width (in.): 72.8
Track (in., front/rear): 62.2 / 62.2
Curb Weight (lbs., MT/AT): 3221 / 3283

Other Stuff:


Fresh from a wash and wax. Phrawr!

This is the 2008 Honda Accord, LX model, so there is no moonroof. This is something I sometimes wish I got, but thinking back to my Civic, I was a little bit concerned about the headroom that it would take up - I'm much happier with so much headroom. The seats are firm, but comfortable, and controlled manually. The LX model comes with 2 power outlets, and an aux jack for iPods, etc, with a 160-watt audio system. The audio system is noticeably weaker than the 270-watt system I had in my Civic, but it's fine. FM reception can be a little bit spotty at times, and I'm not sure why because I didn't have this issue in my Civic; however, most of the time it gets good reception.

Both the driver and passenger have lighted-vanity mirrors, and powered windows and rear-view mirrors. The trunk space is sufficient to "fit in at least two dead bodies", according to the dealer. It really is spacious; however, the rear seats do not fold flat so don't expect to use the 2008 Honda Accord Coupe to haul cargo. The rear seats do fold down, but leave about a 30 degree angle, not flat, and the pass through between the trunk and rear seats is only a square in the middle, maybe large enough for skis, or maybe lumber, to be accommodated.

2008 Honda Accord Coupe, Automatic Transmission, 4-Cyl

Pros: Beautiful, beautiful car; peppy acceleration
Cons: Rather low mileage
The Bottom Line: Good performance, sexy styling, cool extras. Some visibility issues, but nothing you can't get used to.

Was this review helpful? Not helpful? Take a moment to leave a comment.

Comparison of Various Mango Juice Brands

The first in a series of posts reviewing, of all things, Mango juice/Mango drinks. A result of both too much free time, and a surprisingly well-stocked international foods section at nearby grocery stores. Enjoy!

*****

Tropical Grove by Allen's
"Mango Flavored Juice Drink"

Product of Canada

Each Serving:
Cost - $0.25
Size - 8fl oz / Calories - 120 / Fat - 0g / Sodium - 5g / Sugars - 28g

Composition:
15% Juice. Water, Liquid Invert Sugar, Concentrated (Orange, Apple, Grape, Pear, Mango) Juice. Less than 0.5% of Citric Acid, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Yellows #5 & #6.

Taste & Texture:
A thin, orange-yellow colored liquid. It tastes more like a (bad tasting) fruit punch dominated more by pears and grapes than mangoes; even though it's not listed in the ingredients, it also tastes like artificial peach. I can't actually taste any mango, which is not surprising given that of the various fruit concentrates going into this drink, mango is listed last. It's cloyingly sweet and leaves a sour aftertaste. Cheap, but tastes terrible. F. Pass.

*****

Mira
"Mango Premium Tropical Nectar"

Product of Egypt

Each Serving:
Cost - $0.57
Size - 8fl oz / Calories - 130 / Fat - 0g / Sodium - 40mg / Sugars - 31g

Composition:
23% Juice. Water, Mango Puree, Sugar, Pectin, Citric Acid, Ascorbic Acid, Microcrystalline Cellulose, Calcium Chloride, Natural Colors (Annatto).

Taste & Texture:
A thick yellow-orange liquid. Actually tastes like mango, and is nice and sweet. There is a hint of something bitter or "industrial" tasting (for lack of a better word) in this drink. It's not unpleasant, but it's just noticeable after the initial sweet flavor. The drink finishes cleanly with no lingering aftertaste. Kinda pricey, but it's alright. C+. Try.

*****

Jumex
"Mango Nectar from Concentrate"

Product of Mexico

Each Serving:
Cost - $0.38
Size - 8fl oz / Calories - 140 / Fat - 0g / Sodium - 40mg / Sugars - 32g

Composition:
30% Juice. Water, Mango Puree from Concentrate, Sugar and/or HFCS, Pectin, Citric Acid, Ascorbic Acid, Beta Carotene.

Taste & Texture:
A thick yellow-orange liquid. Tastes sort of like mango, but no cigar. It's not sweet enough; actually, it's a little on the sour side - like underripe mangoes were used. Leaves a slight sour taste in the mouth. C-. Pass.

*****

Goya
"Mango Nectar"

Product of Canada

Each Serving:
Cost - $0.48
Size - 8fl oz / Calories - 140 / Fat - 0g / Sodium - 5mg / Sugars - 35 g

Composition:
23% Juice. Water, Mango Puree, Liquid Invert Sugar, Modified Corn Starch, Citric Acid, Natural Flavor, Ascorbic Acid.

Taste & Texture:
A thick-ish yellow-orange liquid. Of this group of four drinks, tastes the most like mango. It also has a nice mango-ey aroma to it. Nice and sweet, and it has just a right amount of tanginess to it. B+. Buy.

*****

Flag icons from jacorre.com.

2007 Honda Civic EX Review

This is a review of the 2007 Honda Civic EX Coupe Automatic (Eighth Generation - same as the 2008 Civic). I bought this car two months ago and I still have mixed feelings about it. I have put just over 2000 miles on it to date. For comparison purposes: I am 6'1" and about 200 lbs. My previous car was a 1997 Nissan Sentra.

In the two months I've had the car, I've filled up 9 times, averaging 26 MPG as my actual MPG, with about 75% highway driving. I use 87 octane regular unleaded from Sunoco and Exxon. (For comparison, the average MPG of my old Sentra for the previous 9 fill-ups was 27.6). My lowest MPG has been 25 and my highest 27, giving me a consistent, if somewhat disappointing, MPG. This is definitely not the 30/40 MPG advertised - I understand that no car gets its advertised mileage, but my commute consists 75% of a straight road without traffic, traveling at a constant 60 MPH, and the best MPG I've had so far is 27.



Everyone I drive by stops and gawks, so there is no denying that this coupe is a real winner in the looks department - but you don't need me to tell you - this thing is sexy! I definitely prefer the look of the coupe to the sedan, but that's up to you. The extras that the EX provide are nice, especially the moonroof. It has about a 50% tint, and lets you either tilt the back open about 10 degrees up for ventilation, or slides back to open fully. It is "one touch" which lets it slide all the way open with one click.

I feel confident passing cars at highway speeds, and the 4-cylinder engine is more than enough for everyday driving. Normal highway cruising speeds keep the engine at about 2500 RPMS. There is a split-second hesitation before the engine kicks in if I accelerate too fast from a stop sign or red light.



The coupe is hard to see around, however. I cannot see down the hood of my car, nor can I see my trunk. The deck lid spoiler doesn’t help that much in locating it. Seeing around the sides of the car is also a challenge, since the curtain airbags take up a lot of space along the sides, reducing the rear side windows to tiny triangles – just barely of any use.

If you are a tall person, the 2007 Honda Civic Coupe may not be right for you. During my 10 minute test drive, I felt fine, but as the first week went on, I felt less and less "at home" in the car. The legroom for me is just alright, but my concern is the headroom - I am 6'1", and I cannot sit fully upright in the car, nor can I find a seating arrangement that works very well for me. I think this has to do with the moonroof - it does take up about 1" of the ceiling. So having the moonroof is a mixed bag – perhaps the model without it would have suited me better. The seats are quite uncomfortable because they are stiff and do not have effective lumbar support. After more than just a short trip, my lower back is in pain. I wish they had put in lumbar adjustments into this car, but a small pillow does help a little. I seriously considered returning this otherwise great car because of how uncomfortable I was in it. A triangle wedge seat pillow with a hole for the coccyx relieved a great deal of the pain, so I kept the car. The downside is that sitting on the pillow makes me sit even closer to the roof, so it’s a stopgap solution at best.

I’ve not tried the rear seats for any real amount of time, but when I’ve tried to, I’ve had quite a hard time squeezing in. The roof seems a lot lower, too, and the legroom is very minimal. I’d suggest only children and/or shorter people should sit back there for any trip over a few minutes. The plus side is that the floor is flat all the way across.

Overall, I'd say if you are less than 5'11", there is no major reason you should not get this car. It's sexy, performs great, and is a pretty good value. My mileage isn’t that great, but I'm hoping it goes up – maybe 26 MPG is pretty good for some people, I don’t know. But if you are taller than 6', I'd strongly suggest you look at a bigger car, or spend more time test driving it to see if it really fits you. Or get the DX/LX model without the cool moonroof.

Pros: Beautiful, beautiful car; EX comes with fun extras; peppy acceleration
Cons: Car roof is too low for taller people; somewhat uncomfortable seats; blindspots; rather low mileage
The Bottom Line: Good performance, sexy styling, cool extras. Some visibility, headroom, and seating issues - test it for a while before you buy.

My review posted at epinions: http://www.epinions.com/content_332733386372

Was this review helpful? Not helpful? Take a moment to rate it using the star control below, or by leaving a comment.





UPDATE 24 May 2008/ I ended up selling the Civic in the summer of 2007 (on Craigslist! it worked out pretty well, too). The decision was based mainly on the fact that I was moving up to New York City and decided that I didn't need a car. However, if the car had been more comfortable, I just might have taken it.

I've since purchased a 2008 Honda Accord Coupe (my review can be found here) that is significantly more comfortable and roomy than the Civic. Both the 2007 Civic and 2008 Accord coupes are excellent cars, but definitely make sure you feel at home in the car before signing any papers!

Ruth's Chris Steakhouse: The $159 Mistake

A reivew of the Ruth's Chris Steakhouse in Fairfax, Virginia.

My friend Stevie came to stay a few days this past weekend. We went to see the Smithsonian, Charles Town Races, Leesburg, Tysons, and the movies Zodiac and 300. On the last night, yesterday, I had a $100 gift card so I took him to Ruth's Chris Steakhouse. I had been so excited about going.

The reviews on epinions.com were almost uniformly excellent (the location on the site says Chicago, but that's just incidental), so I was looking forward to (fine?) dining.


ohmagaw. instant coronary!

I thought that we'd have to dress up nicely, so I was worried that jeans and a shirt (sweater for me) might be a little too casual. But my worries turned out to be foolish because there were several groups in the restaurant dressed equally, if not less, formally than we were.

It was a Monday night at 7:15 pm, so the restaurant was only moderately busy.

I was impressed by the dark wood decor and the muted lighting. The staff were appropriately dressed; the host was brooding or snobby, I couldn't tell. Actually, I recognized him as someone I went to high school with.

The Service

After we were seated, the waiter came up and asked us if we would care for wine, spring water or mineral water. He did not offer plain water and I got the distinct impression that, while affable, our waiter would look down on us if I requested plain water. So I accepted the first choice of "still" water he offered - I figured that since I so seldom eat out at such an upscale restaurant that I should soak it all in.

The busgirl with him showed us the bottle, popped the lid, and poured the water for us. After that, Steve tried to order, but the waiter stopped him, and said that he would be back to tell us the specials in a moment. So we waited.

After a few minutes, our waiter came back and did his spiel about the specials. None of it appealed to me since it was all seafood. We both ordered the caesar salad, the T-Bone done medium well, au Gratin potatoes, and the bread pudding with whiskey sauce (the waiter, with a raised eyebrow, asked us if it was to share). The waiter said that he'd hold off on the bread pudding and confirm with us after we had eaten our meal.

At this point, the busgirl came by to refill our glassed of water. But she filled it from the pitcher of ice water instead of from our bottle of "Acqua Panna" from Tuscany.

True, I was unable to tell the difference between the two, but it was the principle of the thing. If If I am coerced into buying a $9 bottle of water, I want to at least know that I am getting my money's worth.

She apologized and ran to the kitchen with our bottle and came back with a new bottle.

Only it wasn't.

We were both sure it was the same bottle, and she had just filled it under the tap, especially since she didn't pop the top in front of us. The best part was when the bill came, the waiter assured me the second bottle was "on the house" because of the mistake. Yeah, thanks for the free tap water! Or as we called it: "Acqua Municipal del Fairfax County."

I guess I should not complain. That was the only time beside the initial pouring that we had our water served to us. The rest of the time, we poured our own water. Not that I would normally mind, but again, it was a $9 bottle of water, and I think it should have come with at least some service.

The Food

Caesar Salad:
$6.75 each

The leaves of lettuce were whole, and each were slightly coated with dressing. Presented on a square plate with three cherry tomato halves along the bottom. It was a novel experience having to cut the lettuce as I ate. Overall, it looked and tasted quite nice. Recommended.

T-Bone Steak, Medium Well:
$44.95 each

Both our steaks came out sizzling on the 500 degree plate, and remained hot and juicy to the end of the meal. These were massive portions of meat and smelled great with the butter on it. Steve's steak was perfectly prepared - pink all the way to the bone. Mine was slightly off: the thinner, outer parts were pink, but halfway to the bone, the meat was dark pink, and finally the meat around the bone was red. The parts that I did eat were quite good, however. Mixed bag.

Au Gratin Potato
$8.25

Diced, not sliced. And covered with a molten mess of cheese instead of a cheese sauce. I thought it was trashy and tacky but Steve liked it. Mixed bag.

Bread Pudding with Whiskey Sauce:
$9.45

Ah, the highlight of the meal. While the waiter had originally told us he'd confirm this order with us after we ate our meat, he finally just assumed we wanted it and informed us it was on our way. We had actually decided after our meal to forgo dessert, but since it was already prepared, we decided to try it. And I'm glad I did! The pudding was moist and soft, and the sweet whiskey sauce was divine! Highly recommended.

The Bill

After we finished the bread pudding, there was a long wait of about 10 minutes before the waiter brought us our bill. These long periods of waiting were common throughout the meal; Stevie suggested that it was intentional, to allow people to conduct business or enjoy conversation without constant interruption. I can see that point, but then again, lots of restaurants have staff who are able to check up on diners without interrupting them too much.

The meal for two came out to $135.50 for a bottle of water, two caesar salads, two T-Bone steaks, potatoes au gratin, and the whiskey bread pudding. I paid with my $100 gift card and put the balance on my credit card. Steve said that the waiter eyed the cards as he left, but to my relief, gave me no snide look. When he came back, he thanked us and walked away slowly.

The bill on my credit card came out to $35.50, but I tipped for the entire balance of course. I usually tip 15-18%, and last night was no exception, even though Steve thought 18% was entirely too much for the non-service we received. But whatever. After we left, Steve saw the waiter gallop for our check; I was moderately insulted - I felt like the waiter assumed that I only tipped on the $35.50 charged to me, and wanted to find out right away. Steve told me also that when I was back at the table calculating the tip, the waiter was staring quite intently at me, "like a pedophile at an elementary school playground."

So I went into Ruth's Chris Steakhouse with high expectations of fine dining, excellent service, and in general, a taste of the good life. It was exciting going in and just being in the ambiance of a fine restaurant. But the food and service left something to be desired. Much to be desired.

Oh well, Morton's next time, I think.

Was this review helpful? Not helpful? Take a moment to rate it using the star control below, or by leaving a comment.

Kiva: Loans that Change Lives

My neighbors are really nice people and they do a lot of charity work - something that is absolutely commendable. When they've sent out their letters requesting donations to the various causes they support, I usually haven't had a problem forking over a Jackson or so. I don't know if it's just because they feel that I'm a reliable donor or if they hit everyone with the same frequency, but it feels like every other week I receive a letter from them asking for more money. That is just too often, especially for a soon-to-be-jobless college student like me!

I'm not saying I'm hard up on cash, but, maybe it's...donor fatigue?

However, that said, I still "donate" monthly to Kiva, a microcredit lender. Microcredit was big news last year because Muhammad Yunus, the founder of a major microcredit institution in Bangladesh, won the Nobel Prize for his efforts. The idea is that you provide a small sum of cash (interest-free) to entrepreneurs in third-world countries. While the sum of cash is rather insignificant to us, when pooled with other small sums from other people, it can really help people in poorer countries get up on their own feet. For Kiva, the time horizon of these loans are usually about 1 to 1.5 years, at which time, you can withdraw you money or, as most people do, re-loan the funds to another entrepreneur. Again, these loans do not pay interest, and do carry a significant threat of default. But the amount, starting from $25, is so insignificant, you can basically write it off as charity.

That, however, is not to say you should expect default; Kiva loans have had a historically high rate of repayment. This is so much different than charity (which does have it's place, too) because it helps people in poorer countries break their dependence on the largess of developed countries. These loans allow people to start their own businesses or expand existing ones, giving them a sense of accomplishment and responsibility. This in turn creates long-term benefits for both the loan recipients and their local economies.

Here is my lender page at Kiva: https://www.kiva.org/lender/bobby2759

Here is a stock letter from Kiva for you to peruse, if you are still interested:

I wanted to let you know about Kiva (http://www.kiva.org/), a non-profit that allows you to lend as little as $25 to a specific low-income entrepreneur in the developing world. You choose who to lend to - whether a baker in Afghanistan, a goat herder in Uganda, a farmer in Peru, a restaurateur in Cambodia, or a tailor in Iraq - and as they repay their loan, you get your money back. It’s a powerful and sustainable way to empower someone right now to lift themselves out of poverty.

If you need more "reputable" validation than my recommendation, know that they have received great press in publications ranging from The Wall Street Journal to NPR to BusinessWeek. Thanks for reading!

Digicom?

I took an unusually careful look at my credit card statement last week, and, unfortunately, noticed an unusual charge:

DIGICOM 866 569 101 OF 01866-5691010

for $50. Then after looking back several dozen entries, I noticed two smaller charges, from the same company. Since I buy a lot of stuff online, at first I thought it was just an weird billing name for something I had bought. But more careful research brought me to this website: http://www.digicom.com/digicombilling.html

It seems that I'm not the only one who has been defrauded. Apparently, this is such an issue for this similar-sounding company, that they had create a webpage telling people that, no, they are not the company that had charged them, and that they did not know why this company was using their name. So I called the number (imagine that, the number is 1-866-569-1010 - I felt silly for not figuring that out).

On my second try, I was able to reach a live person. She told me that the smaller charge was a test trial, and that the $50 was for an "unlimited long-distance calling card", whatever that means. I told her that it was absolutely impossible that I would have approved such a charge.

"Aha! But it's not impossible sir!" Apparently, I did agree to this charge, and to future charges, and she had the month-old recorded telephone conversation to prove it! So she clicked a few buttons, and voila: what played back was what I had thought was a phone survey. Back a month ago, a lady called telling me that my credit card company had partnered with them in a new viral-marketing scheme, and that I had been selected to participate. I would be asked to listen to three test advertisements, and would then be asked to rate how appealing the ads were. Also, for my trouble, I would be given three $25 gift certificates to Target/Costco/other stores, courtesy of my credit card company.

Since I didn't have to give up any personal information, I saw no problem with participating. Naive Bobby! They asked me if I understood that this was just a survey, and that I should decline all three mock offers. I gave them an "uh-huh" and then the ads started. That seems to be what they took as approval to charge my credit card. So I demanded that she cancel those charges, which she very grudgingly accepted, but only after scolding me for having "accepted" in the first place. Then I called my CC company, and told them to make sure those charges were cancelled, and that I wanted my credit card cancelled and then re-issued. I also wanted to know why this company had my credit card number in the first place, but they assured me that they would never give away any information to third parties. So that leaves me with the question of how they got my full credit card number, name, and address, since I certainly did not provide that information. Gah!

Review: Canon PowerShot S500

A review of Canon's Powershot s500.

I was shopping at Best Buy with my friend, who decided on the SD110, the smallest in the ELPH series. However, after a little research, I found that the s500 is only marginally larger than its smaller sibling. Even so, this marvel can slip into my front pocket easily and takes superb pictures. The s500 also has the distinction of having 5 megapixels--fully 2 more than the SD110, and 1 more than the cheaper s410. I'm thinking if I'm already going to be spending so much money ($500 with an additional battery pack), I might as well go all out for the best, or just stick to a cheap $200 camera. Right? And who wants to buy cheap electronics? :-P

I also have the Canon A70 and the Sony Cybershot U40. While the A70 was my trusty workhorse last year, it is rather homely and bulky. While not *very* large, there would have been no way to slip that brick into my pocket, with it's protruding grip and lens. Also it is only 3.2 megapixels. From looking at the pictures I took today on the s500's "shakedown" around the neighborhood, I can already tell that it takes far more detailed, sharper images than the A70, which suffered from a minor "softness" in the pictures it took. Also, the s500 is less a camera than it is a work of art in it of itself. When off, the camera has a slim, elegant look. It has an nostalgic air of Art Deco about it. From the front, the highly polished silver and handsome gold rings around the lens will catch anybodys' eye immediately--a breathtakingly beautiful machine to take breathtakingly beautiful pictures.

On the other hand, this camera is not nearly as small as the Sony U40, which was about the size of my index and middle fingers put together. However, that had no zoom and took only marginally acceptable images (2 MP and rather grainy)--I bought it primarily so I'd have a throwaround camera. In any case, the s500 is not *as* small, but it still fits into my pocket without any hassle (you'll know it's there, but it won't bother you), and the optical zoom and high image quality more than make up for it.

Again, the image quality is superb, and all in such a portable package.

Manual controls are light. There is AUTO, Manual, Panorama, and Video mode. In Manual, you can control the ISO and F stops, but they are not readily available, and require fiddling with the menu to access. I don't care, personally. I bought the camera for it's portability and ease of use when I want to snap pictures. I leave the wheel on AUTO and I am perfectly content with the images I get--for the average picture taker, too, I'd imagine.

The movie mode is decent. This is a camera and not a camcorder, it's still part of the package, but I'll not put it into consideration when rating this camera. Subpar. My A70 could take 640x480s at 15 frames/second while the s500 only takes a sluggish 10. It's is quite choppy, but bearable. The s500 can have 15 frames a second under the two smaller video resolutions, but they still do not look as good as the videos I captured with my A70. There is just an element of choppiness that I do not like. Perhaps the increased megapixelage necessitates a decrease in smoothness, I don't know. However, the movie mode is just an additional nicety in this otherwise superb piece of machinery, and it decent, acceptable, just not as good as I know it could be, for Canons, but I know this feature is important for many people considering digital cameras.
The proprietary battery is also something that I do not like (I prefer AAs) but I suppose there have to be some trade-offs--I'd suggest getting a spare, since it's theoretically supposed to last only about 2 hours per charge. I'd also suggest getting the skin-tight leather cover for this cam, since you can still fit it in your pocket while keeping that lovely luster intact, away from the coarseness of your pockets.

I'd also suggest getting a CF that has as high a write speed as possible. When taking pictures at maximum size(2592x1944) and maximum resolution (super-fine), my card took about 1-3 seconds to finish recording. I could continue taking more pictures almost immediately afterward, but I would still have to wait for the images to finish writing before turning off the camera. I did not notice this when I took superfine photos at the Medium size settings. Speaking of CF, I'd also suggest getting as big a card as possible. This monster takes pictures at 1-3 Mb each which means about 100-200 picture for me--my 256Mb card doesn't seem so adequate anymore. But it's fine.

So definately a great buy. It takes wonderful, superb pictures, and decent movies. By itself, it is a work of art, and truly is a handsome camera. All this, and is still compact enough to throw in your pocket or for the ladies, purse. There are slightly smaller and cheaper ELPHs, the sd110 and s410, but you will already be spending so much, and if you are, you might as well spring for the full 5 megapixel goodness that the s500 offers--3 megapixel cameras belong back in 2003. And there are other brands to choose from, but I honestly have not seen a more handsome camera that takes such spectacular images, and I think if you are considering this camera at such a price, that surely, you will be considering the aesthetic value of what you are buying. This camera is sure to please.

Was this post helpful? Interesting? Not? Leave a comment, ask a question, or rate this post using the star control below!

Review: Sony DCRHC20 MiniDV Digital Handycam

My actual first post for this blog is here: http://bobbypd.blogspot.com/2008/01/first-post.html

A review of Sony's DCRHC20 Camcorder.

This is a great little camcorder. It feels sturdy, is lightweight, and I can hold it in one hand securely. The video is also quite excellent.

I was debating whether to buy this or one of the Canon ZRs. Even though I was not sure if I would be shooting a lot indoors or not, I like knowing that I can, especially with the Sony's infrared light. The reduced zoom compared to the Canons was a minor issue for me, but I thought that the improved low-light quality of the Sony compensated for it.

The touch screen only functionality of this cam took some getting used to, but as this was my first camcorder, I was not used to any other system. It does not appear that LCD-only buttons is a major drawback, and in fact, I got used to it quite quickly. Also, I can appreciate that there are fewer buttons on the body itself to add to a cluttered appearance.

The built-in lens cover is quite nice as there is no losing it, and also, I think, could be useful for quick manual transitions when shooting. The camera itself is very compact, and slim. About 2" thick, I can slip this baby into my pocket and go, albiet, large pocket, but it's still amazingly small.

The zoom is very rapid, and the rocker allows variable-speed zooms.

The photo function is nice to have, but I wish that the 7-second audio with each picture was variable, or could be turned off altogether, but as with all camcorders, the photo function is just a nicety, and serious photos should be taken with a real camera, not a video camcorder.
All in all, this is a great miniDV camcorder. I have no basis for reference as this is my first, but I love it, and have no regrets in spending $460 of my limited college-student budget =) on this. I recall three years ago my friend and I were making a film for science class with his hi-8 camcorder, especially the pain of having to manually control a VCR to tranfer the film onto a regular VHS tape. But no more, with miniDV, I can edit and output a film in just a few minutes. WIth the help of a firewire cord (sold separately), on the first day I was able to import the film onto my computer and make a short film clip using Windows Movie Maker. It worked beautifully, so I didn't bother installing the software that came with the cam, since I've heard that it is useless.

PROS:Lightweight and compact. Excellent film quality. Infrared Lamp. Bright, functional LCD

MINOR CONS:Constrained still-photo function. Relatively short zoom

Was this post helpful? Interesting? Not? Leave a comment, ask a question, or rate this post using the star control below!