This will be a two-subject post. With many rabbit trails along the way. Enjoy!

Firstly, and less importantly, I hit upon a genius idea for saving the economy, reducing the number of auto accidents, increasing driver skill, and increasing speed of travel, all with one fell swoop. Sounds impossible? I have two words for you: Manual Transmission. Yes, that wonderful piece of engineering that an absurdly small amount of cars sold today (in the U.S.) have. I was attempting to navigate traffic on S. Tunnel tonight whilst leaving work, and was getting increasingly agitated at the idiocy of my fellow drivers. I have (OK, I drive...) a 1985 Ford Ranger. Tan, Carb 2.8L V6, 4x4, 5-speed manual. The automatic choke plays up when it gets cold, and it has a rather crappy response time coming off idle. You hit the acclerator, and absolutely nothing happens for a good second or two. So you also have to remember to hold the clutch in for a bit until the engine picks up, or else it bogs down/lunges forward, depending when it engaged. This can [sort-of] be remedied by jamming a cloth inside the air intake, which (I assume) confuses the ECU and changes the fuel/air ratio. It also completely saps what little power there is. So, back to the story. On a slight hill, two stoplights away from Tunnel, which is only 2 more stoplights away from I-240W. Every twit behind and in front of me was driving an auto. How could I tell? Other than the fact that more than half of them were SUVs (I've seen precisely one manual-equipped SUV in my life. Gen 1 Ford Explorer.), nobody was rolling backwards when taking off. And they were taking off entirely too smoothly for the average driver. People with autos forget that not everyone can creep forward (which is pointless anyway - ooh, there's 3 feet between the next car and myself. Better close the gap) and stop constantly. Truck clutches are rather heavy buggers, which tends to wear your left foot out. That, and my cold, carbureted engine means I had to keep the engine at a very fast idle while simultaneously holding in the brake and clutch (that's three pedals with two feet, for those of you not paying attention), and then feathering the throttle and clutch when I launch, while gradually letting off the brake to avoid rolling into the idiot whose nose is kissing my bumper. Not fun. So, um... my idea. Right.

Force everyone to learn to drive manual transmissions. Many European countries require it before granting you your license. I see no reason why we should be any different. Knowing how to drive an auto forces you to learn more about your car, it teaches you more about proper vehicle control, and you gain a few mpg in fuel economy. (automatic transmissions have a fluid coupling via the torque converter, which wastes energy. Overdrive locks the shafts mechanically, however)

So how does this accomplish my claims? By forcing people to learn how to drive a stick, those who fail (obviously crappy drivers) are no longer driving. Those who pass are better drivers. Less drivers + existing drivers skills increased = less accidents. Also, we can increase the speed limits (or remove them entirely) on open highway and interstate since the overall skill level has increased. This 60 MPH crap has to stop. 75 MPH isn't bad, but when the road is entirely straight, there's no reason to not go 85+.

So, any dissidents? I thought not. It's brilliant, brilliant, brilliant, I tell you! Genius, I say!

And now, for something completely different.

Soulmates. Merriam-Webster says "a person temperamentally suited to another". Dictionary.com retorts with "One of two persons compatible with each other in disposition, point of view, or sensitivity." Finally, Wikipedia claims that is "is a term sometimes used to designate someone with whom one has a feeling of deep affinity, friendship, love, strong intimacy or compatibility."

Let's break this down into numbers first, shall we? I love numbers. They make everything easy. Actual facts bolded. Comments left plain. (The following is entirely derived from the simultaneously frightening and wonderful CIA World Factbook)

There are 6,446,131,400 people in the world, circa July 2005. But that's only an estimate. It seems they missed poor old Mr. Smothers in Buckingham, bringing the grand total up to 6,446,131,401. Oh, nevermind. He just died.

64.9% of these are of marrigeable (well, age 15-64. Best I could do) age. There is a roughly 50/50 male/female split, with males having an approximate 50 million lead.

There is 57,500,000 km^2 of land on this earth. That works out to about 112 people per square mile. Or of marrigeable age, about 73 per square mile. The population density is obviously much higher in much smaller zones in reality, but this is an average of the entire globe.

Now then... there are two definitions of soul mates that I've heard. One is religious (usually Christian) based. The other is Mystic/New Age based. The former believes that due to God's omniscience and micro-management skills, there is precisely one person in the world for you to marry. The latter just believes that there is someone or someones with whom you click. I don't really have a problem with that. I think that there are obviously some people you'll get along with better than others, due to personality types, likes and dislikes, and such. However, the religious explanation blows my mind. One in 6.4/4.2 (64.9% marrigable age, remember) billion? Crazy. And why is it that these supposed soul mates almost always live very near to you, like what you like, speak your language, and usually (from what I've seen) have your skin color? The obvious explanation (other than the skin color - that's just stupid) is that, *gasp*, they click. You move somewhere, someone catches your eye, you get to talking, and hey, you like each other. So you pray fervently, convince yourself it's God's will, and next thing you know, you're married. Better results than courtship, I suppose. I'm not even getting into that.