The fictional woman who appears in most of my dreams

I almost never talk about people who appear in my dreams, since, with some exceptions, most people who appear in my dreams are fictional people. However, one fictional woman appears in my dreams quite often, and I do want to talk about her.

The fictional woman who appears in my dreams more often than any other fictional or real-life person is a young woman named Karen Maismueller. She’s not a real-life person, but she is a fictional person who appears in many of my dreams. All of my dreams that involve fictional people are set on a fictional continent called Usonia, which is loosely based on the real-life contiguous United States and southern Canada, which is located on a fictional planet called Atlas.

Here’s some of Maismueller’s physical attributes:

• She has light skin, but is not albino
• She is 193 centimeters (approximately 6 feet, 4 inches) in height
• She has a somewhat muscular build
• She has hazel eyes and straight, neck-length, dark brown hair
• She is 1 year, 10 months, and 10 days younger than me
• She is fully ambidextrous

Maismueller has a lot of tattoos and piercings:

• Maismueller has 22 tattoos:
  • One tattoo immediately below the front side of her neck, the design of which is the astrological sign for Ophiuchus, which, in the fictional universe where my dreams and nightmares are set, is a galaxy (the real-life Ophiuchus is a constellation)
  • One tattoo immediately below her right clavicle, the design of which is based on olive branches
  • One tattoo immediately below her left clavicle, the design of which is based on arrows
  • Two tattoos on her right arm, the first of which is located on the right side of her right upper arm, and the second of which is on her right lower arm stretching from just above her right wrist to just below her right elbow; the design of her right upper arm tattoo is based on a sycamore tree, and the design of her right lower arm tattoo is a rainbow-colored tribal design
  • Two tattoos on her left arm, the first of which is located on the left side of her left upper arm, and the second of which is on her left lower arm stretching from just above her left wrist to just below her left elbow; the design of her left upper arm tattoo is based on a red oak tree, and the design of her left lower arm tattoo is a tribal design that incorporates many different shades of pink and purple
  • Three tattoos on her abdomen, the first of which is a large tattoo below her chest and covering the upper half of her abdomen, the second of which is below and to the right of her navel, and the third of which is below and to the left of her navel; the design of her upper abdomen tattoo is based on grapevines, the design of her lower right abdomen tattoo is based on an Adonis Blue butterfly, and the design of her lower left abdomen tattoo is based on a Palmer’s Metalmark butterfly
  • Two tattoos on her back, the first of which is a tattoo immediately below the back of her neck, and the second of which is a large tattoo covering the lower half of her back; the design of her upper back tattoo is based on a triskelion, and the design of her lower back tattoo is based on a collection of various species of flowers
  • One tattoo on her right side extending from just below her right armpit to just above her right hip, the design of which is an Usonian language sentence that, when translated into English, means “A strong woman treats others with respect.” (the Usonian language is a fictional language that is spoken in my dreams)
  • One tattoo on her left side extending from just below her left armpit to just above her right hip, the design of which is an Usonian language sentence that, when translated into English, means “A strong woman cares about others.”
  • One tattoo on her right hip, the design of which is based on an azalea
  • One tattoo on her left hip, the design of which is based on a rose
  • One tattoo on the left side of her right thigh, the design of which is an Usonian language sentence that, when translated into English, means “I was born in a blizzard.”
  • One tattoo on the right side of her left thigh, the design of which is an Usonian language sentence that, when translated into English, means either “Consent be sexy.” or “Consent is sexy.”
  • One tattoo on the right side of her right lower leg, the design of which is based on a covered bridge
  • One tattoo on the left side of her left lower leg, the design of which is based on a quarter horse
  • One tattoo on the top of her right foot stretching from just above her toes to just below her ankle, the design of which is a tribal design incorporating various blue shades of color
  • One tattoo on the top of her left foot stretching from just above her toes to just below her ankle, the design of which is a tribal design incorporating various red shades of color
• Maismueller has 26 piercings
  • Seven piercings in each ear, for a total of fourteen ear piercings; she has an industrial ear piercing, circular barbell helix, rook, tragus, anti-tragus, and conch piercings, and dangle lobe piercings in each ear
  • One barbell eyebrow piercing in each eyebrow, for a total of two eyebrow piercings
  • One nostril screw nose piercing in each nostril, for a total of two nose piercings
  • Three lip piercings, one of which is a medusa piercing of the upper lip, and the other two of which are labret piercings of the lower lip on each side of the center of the lower lip
  • One tongue piercing in the center of the tongue
  • Four navel piercings, one each through the top of her navel, the bottom of her navel, the right side of her navel, and the left side of her navel

Here’s some of Maismueller’s personality traits and other facts about her:

• She is a strong-willed and stubborn-headed, but nice and caring, person
• She is very talkative
• She enjoys meeting with, and hanging out with, people
• She can speak six different languages: English, French, Spanish, German, Usonian, and Lakota (Usonian is her primary language)
• She is openly bisexual
• She is atheist

Here’s some of Maismueller’s interests:

• Exercising
• Riding her bicycle
• Sports, especially motorsports, golf, tennis, curling, cycling, bobsledding, swimming, track and field athletics, water polo, tenpin bowling, volleyball, weightlifting, and skiing
• Comedy and action movies and television shows
• Many different kinds of music
• Dancing
• Politics (she’s very liberal with a prairie populist bent)
• Rural life
• Massages
• Technology
• Science
• Outer space

As you can tell, I have dreams about a very interesting person.

It’s time for Bernie to run an effective attack ad against Hillary

As much as I admire Bernie Sanders for having (so far) stuck to a campaign promise not to run negative campaign ads in his campaign for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, I think that it’s past time for Bernie to run a damn good attack ad against Hillary Clinton and the Clinton political machine.

If I were running Bernie’s campaign, here’s how I would draw it up (please note that this is NOT an actual campaign ad):

Narrator: While Hillary Clinton represented New York State in the U.S. Senate, she took campaign cash from a guy who said this about millions of Americans…

(clip of Donald Trump “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists.” quote)

Narrator: Donald Trump, now a Republican presidential candidate, gave campaign contributions to then-U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton. What is now-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton saying about Trump’s offensive remarks about the American people?

(clip of Hillary Clinton “I’m going to let him live in his alternate reality. I’m not going to respond.” quote)

Narrator: If nominated by the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders isn’t going to let Donald Trump’s offensive rhetoric about the majority of Americans go unchallenged, and he certainly isn’t going to take Donald Trump’s money.

Bernie Sanders: I’m Bernie Sanders, and I approve this message.

Yes, Hillary took campaign cash from Trump when she was a U.S. Senator. It’s true. It’s damn true. More importantly, there’s absolutely nothing that Hillary and her supporters can do to hide the fact that Hillary took campaign contributions for a far-right bigot who has a penchant for offensive rhetoric.

There are times where it is necessary for a politician to go against his or her own principles to do a bold thing to move closer to making America a far better place to live. In this case, the bold thing for Bernie to do is run such an effective attack ad against Hillary, nobody is going to forget it.

Explaining the syllabic character system I’ll use for featured images of blog posts, starting in 2016

AUTHOR’S NOTE: This blog post is a living blog post, meaning that more information will be added by the author in the coming days.

---

Starting in 2016, when a blog post that I write on The Progressive Midwesterner uses a featured image, it will be in the form of a drawing of mine that utilizes a set of syllabic characters that I’ve devised. Not all blog posts will use featured images, and multiple blog posts may use the same featured image.

Here’s the letters of the syllabic characters that I will use for featured images of blog posts, starting in 2016:

Letter-by-letter guide to syllabic characters (image created by the author using Trimble SketchUp Make)

However, it’s worth noting that, for a few letters (specifically, H, K, Q, and R), I intended to use different letter designs to represent those letters. Here’s the original system of letters in the syllabic character system that I devised (which I will not use):

Original draft of letters of the syllabic character system (image created by author using Microsoft Paint)

Here’s some basic terminology associated with the syllabic character system:

• Character – Representation of a syllable in the syllabic character system
• Inner line – See Syllabic line
• Inside (1) – The right side of an upperline letter
• Inside (2) – The left side of a lowerline letter
• Inside quarterline – A horizontal line in the part of the letter that is halfway between the median and the syllabic line
• Letter – Representation of an individual letter in the syllabic character system
• Long space – A space, used between words, that is one-half of the width of a letter
• Lowercase – The status of the first letter in a syllable being lowerline
• Lower line – Below the syllabic line
• Median – A horizontal line in the center of a letter
• Meridian – A vertical line in the center of a letter
• Outer line – A horizontal line in the part of a letter that is furthest away from the syllabic line
• Outside (1) – The left side of an upperline letter
• Outside (2) – The right side of a lowerline letter
• Outside quarterline – A horizontal line in the part of the letter that is halfway between the outer line and the median
• Short space – A space, used between syllables within a word, that is one-quarter of the width of a letter
• Stub – The short section of the syllable line that is one-quarter of a letter in width and located on each end of the character
• Syllabic Character System – The system of syllabic characters
• Syllabic characters – See Syllabic Character System
• Syllable – Unit of pronunciation in a word
• Syllable line – The center horizontal line that separates lowerline and upperline letters
• Tie – A short section of the syllable line that is one-quarter of a letter in width and located between letters within a syllable
• Uppercase – The status of the first letter in a syllable being upperline
• Upperline – Above the syllabic line

Here’s how I classify each letter:

• Outside vertical line letters (B, C, D, E, F, H, J, K, L, and R) – These letters all share a common trait: They all feature a full vertical line along the left-hand side for a letter above the syllable line and a full vertical line along the right-hand side for a letter below the syllable line.
• Median letters (I and T) – Both of these letters feature a vertical line running through the center of the letter.
• Full box letters (M, N, and O) – All three of these letters feature vertical lines on both sides of the letter and a horizontal line on the edge of the letter that is furthest away from the syllable line.
• Half box letters (G, P, Q, and Y) – All four of these letters feature a horizontal line halfway between the syllable line and the outermost part of the letter.
• Triangular letters (A, U, V, and W) – All four of these letters feature a triangular shape.
• Inside connection letters (S and Z) – Both of these letters connect to the syllable line on the right-hand side for a letter above the syllable line and the left-hand side for a letter below the syllable line.
• Letter isolate (X) – This letter does not neatly fit into the above categories.

Here’s some basic rules for syllabic characters:

• Syllabic characters are read from left to right, with a zig-zag pattern in multi-letter syllables.
• If the first letter in a syllable should be uppercase (first syllable of proper nouns, the article “I”, etc.), the syllable begins with a letter above the syllable line (i.e., an upperline letter).
• If the first letter in a syllable should be lowercase, the syllable begins with a letter below the syllable line (i.e., a lowerline letter).
• The first letter is written with the left edge of the letter being one-quarter of a letter width from
• The second letter of a syllable is written with the left edge of the second letter being one-quarter of a letter width from the right edge of the first letter, and the second letter is written on the other side of the syllable line from the first letter.
• The third letter of a syllable is written with the left edge of the third letter being one-quarter of a letter width from the right edge of the second letter, and the third letter is written on the same side of the syllable line as the first letter.
• Fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. letters of syllables alternate sides of the syllable line.
• The syllable line extends from one-quarter of a letter width to the left of the first letter within the syllable to one-quarter of a letter width to the right of the last letter within the syllable. Should a syllable only consist of one letter, the lone letter counts as both the first letter and the last letter for this purpose.
• Between syllables within a word, a short space of one-quarter of a letter width is used.
• Between words, a long space of one-half of a letter width is used.
• Letters are never written directly above or below each other, with one exception: Acronyms are treated as a single syllable (even if not pronounced as a single syllable), and each letter of the acronym is written both above and below the syllable line (i.e., a double letter), with each double letter being read as a single letter.
• Although a non-standard use of the syllabic characters, writing all letters in a syllable above the syllable line can be used to represent shouting, and writing all letters in a syllable below the syllable line can be used to represent whispering.

My proposed projected scoring system for projecting golf scores in stroke play tournaments

AUTHOR’S NOTE #1: The blog post includes underlined numbers to indicate that the numbers that are underlined are repeating decimals.

AUTHOR’S NOTE #2: The projected scoring system described below is not to be confused with the “most likely score” method that is part of the U.S. Golf Association (USGA) handicap system and designed mainly for recreational golf.

---

Unlike most sports, it’s not fair to end a round of a stroke-play golf tournament early because of bad weather or some other condition that prevents the round from being completed on its scheduled day. That’s because it wouldn’t be fair to allow one golfer to play fewer holes than another golfer in the same tournament, as, depending on the scores being set by the golfers playing the entire course, it would either be a huge advantage or disadvantage to the golfer playing fewer holes. Also, because each round of a stroke-play golf tournament is usually scheduled for most of the available daylight hours on a given day, and golf courses don’t have artificial lighting of any kind to allow for nighttime play, any suspension of play for a significant length of time will invariably result in golfers who were among the last to tee off not being able to complete their rounds before darkness.

However, a projected scoring system, in which a mathematical formula is used to project an full-round score for a golfer who is unable to complete the full round due to the suspension of play, would eliminate the unfairness associated with ending a round of a stroke-play golf tournament early. At least one sport that I know of, cricket, uses a projected scoring system for some events. In One Day International (ODI) and List A limited-overs cricket matches, the Duckworth-Lewis method, a mathematical formula that produces a projected result if the second team to bat cannot complete their innings due to bad weather, darkness, or some other reason, can be employed in certain situations.

In order to speed up stroke-play golf tournaments (most, but not all, professional golf tournaments use the stroke-play format) that are affected by bad weather or other conditions resulting in play being suspended before the completion of a round, I’m proposing a projected scoring system that can be used if a round is suspended after all golfers have completed at least 12 holes on an 18-hole golf course (at least 6 holes played by all players for 9-hole courses), but before all golfers complete the round, and play cannot be restarted later in the day.

If a golfer had completed a hole other than the final hole he or she was scheduled to play, but had not yet hit his or her tee shot on the next hole, at the time of suspension of play, the formula used to calculate a golfer’s projected score is p/f = s/c, in which p is the projected score relative to par for the round, f is the number of holes in a full round (this is universally 18 for professional tournaments), s is the score relative to par for the holes completed, and c is the number of holes completed. Since p is the variable, one must solve for p in order to get a projected score relative to par. Should p be a number with one or more decimal places, it shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. Should p be a non-whole number ending in .5 or greater, it should be rounded away from zero (i.e., 1.67 is rounded to 2, while -1.67 is rounded to -2). Should p be a non-whole number ending in anything less than .5, it should be rounded towards zero (i.e., 1.33 is rounded to 1, while -1.33 is rounded to -1).

After the projected score relative to par is calculated, the second step involves assigning projected birdies or projected bogeys to holes that the golfer did not play because of the suspension of play. The formula used to determine how many projected birdies or projected bogeys should be assigned is |p| – |s| = b, in which |p| is the absolute value of the projected score relative to par, as rounded per the rounding rules that I described in the previous paragraph, |s| is the absolute value of the score relative to par for the holes completed, and b is the number of projected birdies or projected bogeys to be assigned. The variable in this formula is b, and whether or not p is positive or negative, not |p|, is used to determine whether to assign projected birdies or projected bogeys.

Here’s how the assignment of projected birdies and projected bogeys for each golfer would be conducted:

• Should b be zero, projected pars shall be assigned to all holes that the golfer did not play prior to the suspension of play.
• Should p be a negative number, b be a non-zero number, and the number of birdies to be assigned is less than the number of holes the golfer did not play (i.e., b < (f – c)), a number of projected birdies equal to b shall be assigned to the easiest b holes that the golfer did play, and projected pars shall be assigned on all other holes that the golfer did not play.
• Should p be a positive number, b be a non-zero number, and b < (f – c), a number of projected bogeys equal to b shall be assigned to the most difficult b holes that the golfer did not play, and projected pars shall be assigned to all other holes that the golfer did not play.
• Should p be a negative number, b be a non-zero number, and the number of birdies to be assigned is equal to number of holes the golfer did not play (i.e., b = f – c), projected birdies shall be assigned to all holes that the golfer did not play. Should p be a negative number, b be a non-zero number, and b > (f – c) but 2b < (f – c), a number of projected eagles equal to b – (f – c) shall be assigned to the easiest b – (f – c) holes that the golfer did not play, and projected birdies shall be assigned to all other holes that the golfer did not play. Should p be a negative number, b be a non-zero number, and the number of birdies to be assigned is twice the number of holes the golfer did not play (i.e., 2b = (f – c)), projected eagles shall be assigned to all holes that the golfer did not play.
• Should p be a positive number, b be a non-zero number, and the number of bogeys to be assigned is equal to number of holes the golfer did not play (i.e., b = f – c), projected bogeys shall be assigned to all holes that the golfer did not play. Should p be a positive number, b be a non-zero number, and b > (f – c) but 2b < (f – c), a number of projected double bogeys equal to b – (f – c) shall be assigned to the most difficult b – (f – c) holes that the golfer did not play, and projected bogeys shall be assigned to all other holes that the golfer did not play. Should p be a positive number, b be a non-zero number, and the number of bogeys to be assigned is twice the number of holes the golfer did not play (i.e., 2b = (f – c)), projected double bogeys shall be assigned to all holes that the golfer did not play.
• Should p be a negative number, b be a non-zero number, and the number of birdies to be assigned is more than twice the number of holes the golfer did not play, one shall use the formula a = b/(f – c), in which a is the number of projected strokes under par divided by the number of holes the golfer did not play, to calculate how many strokes under par should be assigned to each hole. Should a be a whole number, the number of strokes that shall be assigned to each hole that the golfer did not play shall be the par of the hole minus a. Should a be a fraction, a shall be rendered as an improper fraction in which the denominator shall equal (f – c), the numerator shall be divided by the denominator in order to yield a quotient with a remainder, the number of projected strokes on the easiest number of unplayed holes equal to the remainder shall be the par of the hole minus the sum of a rounded down to the nearest whole number and one, and the number of projected strokes on all other unplayed holes shall be the par of the hole minus a rounded down to the nearest whole number.
• Should p be a positive number, b be a non-zero number, and the number of bogeys to be assigned is more than twice the number of holes the golfer did not play, one shall use the formula a = b/(f – c), in which a is the number of projected strokes over par divided by the number of holes the golfer did not play, to calculate how many strokes over par should be assigned to each hole. Should a be a whole number, the number of strokes that shall be assigned to each hole that the golfer did not play shall be the par of the hole plus a. Should a be a fraction, a shall be rendered as an improper fraction in which the denominator shall equal (f – c), the numerator shall be divided by the denominator in order to yield a quotient with a remainder, the number of projected strokes on the most difficult number of unplayed holes equal to the remainder shall be the par of the hole plus the sum of a rounded down to the nearest whole number and one, and the number of projected strokes on all other unplayed holes shall be the par of the hole plus a rounded down to the nearest whole number.

To determine which holes projected birdies and bogeys are to be assigned, either average scores relative to par for each hole (counting only those who completed their round and if at least eight players completed their rounds prior to suspension of play), each hole’s handicap rating, or the lengths of the holes can be used.

For golfers who were playing a hole at the time of suspension of play, two separate projected score calculations are made. The first calculation, called the calculation for completed holes, treats the golfer as if he or she did not tee off on the hole he or she was playing at the time of suspension of play. The second calculation, called the calculation for played holes, treats the golfer as if he or she recorded a score of the number of strokes he or she made on the hole he or she was playing at the time of suspension of play, plus one stroke. The calculation that results in the higher score relative to par is the calculation used for the projected score for a golfer who was playing a hole at the time of suspension of play, then the calculation and assignment of projected birdies and bogies is done using the projected score calculation that results in the higher score relative to par.

Had this system been in use in the 2005 PGA Championship at the par-70 Lower Course at Baltusrol Golf Club in Springfield, New Jersey, the final round would have been not restarted on Monday (as it was in real-life), projected scores would have been used for several golfers who did not complete their rounds on Sunday due to play being suspended, and the tournament would have been declared over on Sunday. This is because all golfers had played at least 12 holes (in fact, all golfers played at least 13 holes) prior to play being suspended on Sunday. I’ll use two real-life examples from that tournament in order to explain how the projected score system works.

In the 2005 PGA Championship, Steve Elkington (who finished in a tie for second place with Thomas Bjorn in real-life with a final round of 1-over-par 71 and four-round tournament score of 3-under-par 277) had finished the 15th hole and was one over par for the round at the time final round play was suspended on Sunday. Had projected scores instead of Monday play been used to determine the outcome of the 2005 PGA Championship, here’s how Elkington’s projected score would have been determined:

p/18 = 1/15
p = 1.16, rounded to 1
|1| – |1| = 0
Projected pars on all holes not played by Elkington prior to suspension of play
Projected final round score of 1-over-par 71 for Elkington
Projected tournament score of 3-under-par 277 for Elkington

In the 2005 PGA Championship, Phil Mickelson (who won the tournament in real-life with a final round of 2-over-par 72 and four-round tournament score of 4-under-par 276) had made three strokes on the par-4 14th hole, but had not yet holed out on the 14th hole, and was two over par for the round, and four under par for the entire tournament, at the time final round play was suspended on Sunday. Had projected scores instead of Monday play been used to determine the outcome of the 2005 PGA Championship, here’s how Mickelson’s projected score would have been calculated:

Calculation for completed holes
p/18 = 2/13
p=2.769230, rounded to 3

Calculation for played holes
p/18 = 2/14
p=2.571428, rounded to 3

Calculation for completed holes used to project Mickelson’s score
|3| – |2| = 1
Projected bogey on hardest hole not completed by Mickelson prior to suspension of play
Projected par on other four holes not completed by Mickelson prior to suspension of play
Projected final round score of 3-over-par 73 for Mickelson
Projected tournament score of 3-under-par 277 for Mickelson

The next example that I’ll give is a completely fictional example that takes place on a fictional par-72 golf course in the first round of a stroke-play tournament. Because of a late-afternoon thunderstorm that hit the golf course after Bogey McSandtrap (the name of the fictional golfer) finished the 12th hole of his round (McSandtrap began his round at the 1st hole), and all players in the first round were able to complete at least 12 holes prior to the suspension of play due to the thunderstorm, projected scores were used to determine first-round scores for McSandtrap and the other golfers who did not finish their rounds. The fictional golf course has a total of 16 par-4 holes, a par-3 8th hole, and a par-5 12th hole. McSandtrap did extremely poorly in the 12 holes that he played, taking a whopping 104 strokes to complete the first 12 holes of the golf course, or 56 over par. Based on average scores for each hole relative to par among those who completed their rounds prior to the suspension of play, of holes 13-18 (all par-4 holes), 18 was the most difficult (average score of 4.74), followed by 14 (average score of 4.38), 17 (average score of 4.33), 13 (average score of 4.04), 16 (average score of 3.85), and 15 (average score of 3.72). Here’s how McSandtrap’s projected score would be calculated under this fictional example:

p/18 = 56/12
p=81
|81| – |56| = 25
25/(18 – 12) = 25/6 = 4 R 1
Projected quintuple bogey (five-over-par for the hole) on hole 18 for McSandtrap
Projected quadruple bogey (four-over-par for the hole) on holes 13-17 for McSandtrap
Projected first-round score of 81-over-par 153 for McSandtrap

My projected score method cannot be used in all situations. A notable example of an instance where my projected score method couldn’t have been used was the second round of the 2015 Open Championship at the Old Course at the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, Scotland, which was suspended twice on Friday (first suspension due to heavy rain; second suspension due to darkness) and once on Saturday (due to high winds), with play being suspended on Saturday for nearly 10 1/2 hours! However, in regards to the second suspension of play, projected scores couldn’t have been used in that scenario since a number of golfers were waiting to play the 11th hole at the time play was suspended. However, if play has to be suspended for any reason after all players have completed at least 12 holes of a round of golf, and the round can’t be resumed later in the day, using my projected scoring system is a great alternative to finishing the round on another day.

Cool invention: A new kind of water quality monitoring device

Eric Compas, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, and his wife, Lori Compas, have developed Current, a water quality data gathering device that the Compases bill as less expensive and easier to use than other types of water monitoring devices designed for use in lakes, rivers, and other bodies of water that are currently on the market:

While Eric is the only one who speaks on camera, it sounds to me that the narrator whose voice is heard at the beginning and end of the video is Lori, but I’ve not been able to confirm that. Additionally, where Eric is clearly the primary inventor of the device, both Eric and Lori have been actively involved with its development, so I’m going to credit both of them for their invention.

The Compases have recognized three main problems that they see with current water quality monitoring devices: First, water quality monitoring devices currently on the market are overly expensive. Second, the data that water quality monitoring devices currently on the market provide are not easy for even some experts to interpret. Third, with water quality monitoring devices currently on the market, it takes a lot of effort to gather data.

With Current, water quality data can be gathered from a canoe, kayak, or other similar type of boat, or, alternatively, from a fixed location in a body of water. A mobile phone app is used to guide the user of the device through the data-gathering process and upload the data to a server. Current maintains a cloud service that people can subscribe to and access data that has been gathered by users of the device, state government agencies, and federal government agencies. The data also includes maps and charts that illustrate the water quality data gathered.

I hope that this new water quality data gathering device is used widely and makes it easier to monitor the quality of the sources of water that we use to drink, bathe with, swim in, clean with, and so on. More importantly, I’d love to see federal, state, and local government agencies start using this device on a large scale, especially if it saves taxpayers money and makes it easier for public officials and the general public to understand water quality better.