Bush to Iraqis: Time to get a government
1. Direct quote: "Git r done!"
2. What a douche bag.
Prosecutors: Moussaoui killed with lies
Did the headline writer have to word this like lyrics from an 80s hair band ballad? "You killed my heart! You killed my cries! You killed it all / With Your Dirty Damn Lies"
March 29, 2006
March 28, 2006
Happy Birthday, Tina!
It's my sister Tina's birthday today. To celebrate, she rode a turtle to work and then ate a mouse.
March 21, 2006
NO!!!
NO! NO! NO! NO!
This moron is completely wrong.
I hate Chloe. The only way she has "charmed" the audience is if "charmed" means "repeatedly forces me to scream to my roommate, 'WHY HAVEN'T THEY KILLED HER YET?! THEY'VE KILLED EVERYONE ELSE."
To respond to a specific passage in the article: "A large measure of Chloe's appeal (NO) is due to Rajskub, whose unenviable challenge (YES) is to humanize (IMPOSSIBLE) a character defined by her scowl (CONSTANT) and techno-jargon. And she does. (NO) Convincingly. (ABSOLUTELY NOT) "
If I ever meet Mary Lynn Rajskub on the street, I'm going to punch one of her names out. I TiVo 24 just to fast-forward through the Chloe parts. There are large parts of the plot that I have missed because Jack was talking to Chloe at the time. The only thing that would make watching Chole bearable is if the writers rename her Cholera, and replaced her head with a diseased, non-talking intestine.
This moron is completely wrong.
I hate Chloe. The only way she has "charmed" the audience is if "charmed" means "repeatedly forces me to scream to my roommate, 'WHY HAVEN'T THEY KILLED HER YET?! THEY'VE KILLED EVERYONE ELSE."
To respond to a specific passage in the article: "A large measure of Chloe's appeal (NO) is due to Rajskub, whose unenviable challenge (YES) is to humanize (IMPOSSIBLE) a character defined by her scowl (CONSTANT) and techno-jargon. And she does. (NO) Convincingly. (ABSOLUTELY NOT) "
If I ever meet Mary Lynn Rajskub on the street, I'm going to punch one of her names out. I TiVo 24 just to fast-forward through the Chloe parts. There are large parts of the plot that I have missed because Jack was talking to Chloe at the time. The only thing that would make watching Chole bearable is if the writers rename her Cholera, and replaced her head with a diseased, non-talking intestine.
March 18, 2006
Mini-headlines
Bush: U.S. must resist temptation to quit Iraq
Brokeback Mountain reference? The headline writer is having too much fun.
Brokeback Mountain reference? The headline writer is having too much fun.
NCAA Pool Update
I ended up with 25 out of 32, with only one Sweet 16 pick eliminated. Not great, but better than I usually do, and I already took a nap, so I'll share a tip I read that likely helped me.
I read this on the blog of a professional sports bettor. It's particularly good for people who know very little about college basketball, such as me.
For the first round, visit a sports betting web site and look at the point spread for each match-up. If the point spread is more than two points, pick the favored team. If the point spread is two points or less, pick the team most people are unlikely to pick (usually the lower seed, but sometimes it's a higher-seeded unknown team when they play a well-known school).
There are two ideas behind this. One, bookies know a lot more about sports than your average person. They base their livelihood on accurately approximating the chance each team has of winning. If you are unsure whether a7 seed is better than a 10 seed, look at what the odds-makers are saying. They also give odds on each team's chances of wining the tournament, which may help you picking later rounds.
Two, the point of a NCAA pool isn't to finish with as many points as you can. It's to finish with the most points, or at least close to the most depending on how the payout is structured. That requires taking some risks to separate yourself from the pack, but silly risks aren't going to help. Sure, if you pick a 14 seed that is a 8-point underdog to a 3 seed, and the 14th seed wins, you'll earn a point when most of your competition won't. But the chance of your pick winning vs. your gain (1 point that most other people won't get) makes it a bad choice in the long run.
The trick is to find situations where one team is a marginal favorite over another, but due to seeding or name recognition, people will assume that the marginal favorite is a bigger favorite than the team really is. By betting on the small underdog, you're making close to a 50/50 "bet", but since 60%+ of the people in your pool are picking the favorite, for example, you're essentially taking the same chance as everyone but getting a bigger reward (separation between more opponents).
Hence the guideline of picking the underdog when the point spread is small (2 points or less). For example:
Texas A&M (12) vs Syracuse (5).
Guess what the point spread on the match-up was? Syracuse was only favored by 1.5 points. Most people see the high seed, and recognize the name Syracuse, so they pick them. And because well more than 50% of people are going to pick Syrcause while it's essentially a 50/50 match-up, it's better to pick Texas A&M.
I would have gotten another point or two if I followed the system exactly, but I fell to the allure of the "big name school" for a few match-ups that didn't turn out well.
I know this isn't helpful now, but I wanted to try the system out to see if there was anything to it before promoting it. While this year could just be a fluke, I don't think it is because the logic behind the system makes a lot of sense. I think picking 2-points-or-less underdogs will give one an edge in an office pool. For a huge pool, like ESPN's, I would increase the guideline to 3 or 4 points because the huge number of opponents requires one to take more risks to have a shot at winning.
I read this on the blog of a professional sports bettor. It's particularly good for people who know very little about college basketball, such as me.
For the first round, visit a sports betting web site and look at the point spread for each match-up. If the point spread is more than two points, pick the favored team. If the point spread is two points or less, pick the team most people are unlikely to pick (usually the lower seed, but sometimes it's a higher-seeded unknown team when they play a well-known school).
There are two ideas behind this. One, bookies know a lot more about sports than your average person. They base their livelihood on accurately approximating the chance each team has of winning. If you are unsure whether a7 seed is better than a 10 seed, look at what the odds-makers are saying. They also give odds on each team's chances of wining the tournament, which may help you picking later rounds.
Two, the point of a NCAA pool isn't to finish with as many points as you can. It's to finish with the most points, or at least close to the most depending on how the payout is structured. That requires taking some risks to separate yourself from the pack, but silly risks aren't going to help. Sure, if you pick a 14 seed that is a 8-point underdog to a 3 seed, and the 14th seed wins, you'll earn a point when most of your competition won't. But the chance of your pick winning vs. your gain (1 point that most other people won't get) makes it a bad choice in the long run.
The trick is to find situations where one team is a marginal favorite over another, but due to seeding or name recognition, people will assume that the marginal favorite is a bigger favorite than the team really is. By betting on the small underdog, you're making close to a 50/50 "bet", but since 60%+ of the people in your pool are picking the favorite, for example, you're essentially taking the same chance as everyone but getting a bigger reward (separation between more opponents).
Hence the guideline of picking the underdog when the point spread is small (2 points or less). For example:
Texas A&M (12) vs Syracuse (5).
Guess what the point spread on the match-up was? Syracuse was only favored by 1.5 points. Most people see the high seed, and recognize the name Syracuse, so they pick them. And because well more than 50% of people are going to pick Syrcause while it's essentially a 50/50 match-up, it's better to pick Texas A&M.
I would have gotten another point or two if I followed the system exactly, but I fell to the allure of the "big name school" for a few match-ups that didn't turn out well.
I know this isn't helpful now, but I wanted to try the system out to see if there was anything to it before promoting it. While this year could just be a fluke, I don't think it is because the logic behind the system makes a lot of sense. I think picking 2-points-or-less underdogs will give one an edge in an office pool. For a huge pool, like ESPN's, I would increase the guideline to 3 or 4 points because the huge number of opponents requires one to take more risks to have a shot at winning.
March 17, 2006
NCAA Tourney Pool
1st round: 14 out of 16
When one's moment of glory will likely be brief, it must be seized, optimally for the purposes for trash-talking. IN YO' FACE, 990,042 other people in ESPN's cheap-ass NCAA pool that only gives two prizes although it has over a million entries. I'm in 10,245th place, a relative basketball-picking God compared to your slightly less impressive point totals.
If I do well tomorrow, I'll share my 1st round system that has helped me do better than usual this year. If I don't do well, I wil..I don't know. Extra nap?
Update: Well, that was quick. Now 18,366th. I might as well be last. At 10,245th, I used to be a contender. Now I'm a joke.
When one's moment of glory will likely be brief, it must be seized, optimally for the purposes for trash-talking. IN YO' FACE, 990,042 other people in ESPN's cheap-ass NCAA pool that only gives two prizes although it has over a million entries. I'm in 10,245th place, a relative basketball-picking God compared to your slightly less impressive point totals.
If I do well tomorrow, I'll share my 1st round system that has helped me do better than usual this year. If I don't do well, I wil..I don't know. Extra nap?
Update: Well, that was quick. Now 18,366th. I might as well be last. At 10,245th, I used to be a contender. Now I'm a joke.
March 13, 2006
Headlines
U.S. may reduce its defense of Iceland
Yeah, that’s real smart. Play right into the hands of Greenland. WHY DON’T WE JUST GIVE AL-QAEDA THE BOMB WHILE WE’RE AT IT!
Lance Armstrong comforts Dana Reeve's son
Then issues press release about it?
Marijuana again tied to memory problems
Wonder why they forgot their findings the first time.
Icy 'super-Earth' discovered by astronomers
A “super-Earth” wouldn’t be icy. It would be lush and green everywhere except for M&M Forest, and in that place would be all the colors of the rainbow except red, because there’s no cancer on Super Earth.
The first ten feet of the ocean is heated to 68 degrees, and you can see 150 feet to the bottom everywhere, except for Dr. Pepper Sea , which people are NOT allowed to swim in. Also, some of the trees would be ninja trees. And if Super Earth is ever attack by alien invaders, its people will be terribly frightened, at least for the 5 seconds it takes for Super Earth to switch its volcanoes from “Cotton Candy Spewing Mode” to “Instant Death Rocket Firing Mode.”
Yeah, that’s real smart. Play right into the hands of Greenland. WHY DON’T WE JUST GIVE AL-QAEDA THE BOMB WHILE WE’RE AT IT!
Lance Armstrong comforts Dana Reeve's son
Then issues press release about it?
Marijuana again tied to memory problems
Wonder why they forgot their findings the first time.
Icy 'super-Earth' discovered by astronomers
A “super-Earth” wouldn’t be icy. It would be lush and green everywhere except for M&M Forest, and in that place would be all the colors of the rainbow except red, because there’s no cancer on Super Earth.
The first ten feet of the ocean is heated to 68 degrees, and you can see 150 feet to the bottom everywhere, except for Dr. Pepper Sea , which people are NOT allowed to swim in. Also, some of the trees would be ninja trees. And if Super Earth is ever attack by alien invaders, its people will be terribly frightened, at least for the 5 seconds it takes for Super Earth to switch its volcanoes from “Cotton Candy Spewing Mode” to “Instant Death Rocket Firing Mode.”
March 09, 2006
Gotta Love the Comparison
Scientists recently discovered a bizarre, new crustacean 900 miles south of Easter Island. From the AP article (italics mine):
"Scientists said the animal, which they named Kiwa hirsuta, was so distinct from other species that they created a new family and genus for it. The animal is white and just shy of 6 inches long, about the size of a salad plate."
Great. We discover a hitherto unknown sea creature fantastical enough to merit its own classification, and our first thought is, "Will it fit on my dinner plate?"
"Scientists said the animal, which they named Kiwa hirsuta, was so distinct from other species that they created a new family and genus for it. The animal is white and just shy of 6 inches long, about the size of a salad plate."
Great. We discover a hitherto unknown sea creature fantastical enough to merit its own classification, and our first thought is, "Will it fit on my dinner plate?"
March 07, 2006
24
* How many packs a day does Keifer Sutherland smoke to shape his Code Red danger voice?
* Why is CTU the easiest place in the world to infiltrate? Every season, they have a minimum of two moles, along with at least one terrorist walking in the front door with a fake ID card he made at Kinko’s.
SECURITY GUARD: “I haven’t seen you before. Who are you?”
TERRORIST: “Pizza man.”
SECURITY GUARD: “We didn’t order any pizza.”
TERRORIST: “Um, plumber?”
SECURITY GUARD: “Finally! It’s about time someone fixed that leaky toilet next to the poorly-guarded warhead. Come on in.”
SECURITY GUARD: “Freeze! [...] Holster wrench?”
TERRORIST: “Ja.”
SECURITY GUARD: “I knew it! You plumbers are all alike. It’s cool—don’t both taking it out.”
TERRORIST: “Danke.”
SECURITY GUARD: “Oh, and in the basement, make sure you flip the left switch, not the right. That’s the light switch. The right one is the self-destruct switch. There’s usually a “NO!” sign above it, but the masking tape fell off and Edgar hasn’t had time to waddle his fat ass downstairs and replace it.”
* I’m so annoyed at the fictional President in the show that if I ever meet the actor that plays him, I’m going to punch him in the face. President Dweeby is the worst President ever. He’s so horrible that he makes George W. Bush look like George H. W. Bush, George H. W. Bush look like Prescott Bush, and Prescott Bush look like President Taft.
* Just once, I’d like a terrorist to say “Help me and I’ll let you live” and actually let the person live:
METALSMITH: “Okay. That’s the last canister. Please, don’t kill me. I won’t tell anyone, I promise. I have a wife and two kids.”
TERRORIST LEADER: [pulls out gun with silencer and aims it at man’s head] “I have two kids too.”
METALSMITH: “Noooooo!”
The metalsmith closes his eyes. After a few seconds, he open them, and the terrorists begin laughing.
TERRORIST LEADER: “Gotcha!”
METALSMITH: “You’re not going to kill me?”
TERRORIST LEADER: “Naw, dawg. We were just playin’ wit you.”
METALSMITH: “Whew! [laughs] To be honest, I was kind of assuming you’d kill me from the beginning.”
TERRORIST LEADER: “Yeah, that’s our usual M.O. But, you know, it can’t always be frowns and downs.”
March 06, 2006
Oscar Thoughts II: Revenge of Oscar Thoughts
* I'm surprised Crash won Best Picture. While it is an interesting movie and cleverly structured, it says nothing profound about race relations in America. Here's the entire movie: racism gets in the way of our natural connections with each other. The movie appears to say much more than it actually does.
* This might be total B.S. so bear with me. The Oscars are more boring now than a decade or two ago because of the information-sharing power of the Internet.
It's a generalization with flaws, but I believe the core of it is true. One reason people watch the Academy Awards is to find out who will win. The potential for surprise is what makes it fun.
But the Internet has increased both access to information and efficiency in sharing it. My theory is that, whether we seek out the information or not, it is much easier to predict the likely winners because information and trends about the Academy Award voters' views are much less confined than they used to be.
For example, Hollywood reporters gossip with voters to help them guess which movies will win. But instead of a reporter's findings getting buried in the pages of a month-old entertainment magazine, the information makes it onto the Internet. The findings of dozens of reporters and gossip-mongers are also available. The data can be aggregated, and fairly accurate trends can be teased out by newspaper reporters, for example, who can help make the trends conventional wisdom.
This might be a clearer example of the power of aggregated information. In the last Presidential election, a few web sites allowed people to bet on who would win. Odds where determined by the number of people who wanted to buy shares in a Presidential candidate. Almost everyone bet money on the candidate they were going to vote for. But even if they weren't, they were betting on the candidate they thought was most likely going to win based on the information they gathered from friends, family, the news, and their community.
Well, the percentage of shares each candidate got matched the election results almost exactly, and was more accurate than almost every poll. The effect was like a Gallup poll with 100 times the sample size.
While the pool of Academy Awards voters is much smaller than the voting public, and the information about their intentions less freely shared, the principle is the same. The Internet has helped the availability and gathering of data to make it easier to pick winners in the Academy Awards. There will still be surprises because the information available is incomplete, but the "insider information" accessible to the public that exists today is certainly more than was accessible 10 years ago. The downside to knowledge is that it conflicts with surprise.
* This might be total B.S. so bear with me. The Oscars are more boring now than a decade or two ago because of the information-sharing power of the Internet.
It's a generalization with flaws, but I believe the core of it is true. One reason people watch the Academy Awards is to find out who will win. The potential for surprise is what makes it fun.
But the Internet has increased both access to information and efficiency in sharing it. My theory is that, whether we seek out the information or not, it is much easier to predict the likely winners because information and trends about the Academy Award voters' views are much less confined than they used to be.
For example, Hollywood reporters gossip with voters to help them guess which movies will win. But instead of a reporter's findings getting buried in the pages of a month-old entertainment magazine, the information makes it onto the Internet. The findings of dozens of reporters and gossip-mongers are also available. The data can be aggregated, and fairly accurate trends can be teased out by newspaper reporters, for example, who can help make the trends conventional wisdom.
This might be a clearer example of the power of aggregated information. In the last Presidential election, a few web sites allowed people to bet on who would win. Odds where determined by the number of people who wanted to buy shares in a Presidential candidate. Almost everyone bet money on the candidate they were going to vote for. But even if they weren't, they were betting on the candidate they thought was most likely going to win based on the information they gathered from friends, family, the news, and their community.
Well, the percentage of shares each candidate got matched the election results almost exactly, and was more accurate than almost every poll. The effect was like a Gallup poll with 100 times the sample size.
While the pool of Academy Awards voters is much smaller than the voting public, and the information about their intentions less freely shared, the principle is the same. The Internet has helped the availability and gathering of data to make it easier to pick winners in the Academy Awards. There will still be surprises because the information available is incomplete, but the "insider information" accessible to the public that exists today is certainly more than was accessible 10 years ago. The downside to knowledge is that it conflicts with surprise.
March 05, 2006
Oscar Comments
I watched more of the Oscars ceremony than I have in years. But before I delve into my comments, first, a message.
Reading Pancake City on the web is a magical experience. Don't think you can get the same experience reading it on a PDA or through a RSS reader. Only HTML can capture the excitement and wonder that comes in irregular bursts from 1001words.com. Sure, you can steal Pancake City by having your friends read you my posts over the phone, but you are only stealing from yourself.
(My page views were down in 2005).
Okay, Jon Stewart saved the Oscars. Or, at least, he made it more bearable in years. His jokes and the political ad parodies made the show entertaining enough to put up with the endless montages and self-congratulations.
I have no interest in who won or didn't. Well, almost no interest. The voters who selected March of the Penguins over Murderball need to be whacked, preferably to the point of being crippled. But I've been a hermit the past few months and haven't seen most of the nominated movies.
Random thoughts:
* George Clooney is five wrinkles away of switching from cute to obnoxiously smug.
* The Oscars showed a clip of another, lesser awards ceremony. Kind of like pointing about the janitor at the annual company picnic.
* My roommate remarked that none of the performers thanked God. Which is odd, in a way, especially considering how often he appears in post-game interviews.
* On the same note, as Smirky remarked, some people criticize Hollywood for being out of touch with America. They're right. Some of the subjects in the nominated movies: gay cowboys, single moms, the disabled, racial hatred, and conformity. For the most part, I'm glad Hollywood is out of touch.
* Anyone else get an urge to download a movie off BitTorrent while watching the show? I haven't download anything illegally in months, but I wanted to do so just out of spite.
Reading Pancake City on the web is a magical experience. Don't think you can get the same experience reading it on a PDA or through a RSS reader. Only HTML can capture the excitement and wonder that comes in irregular bursts from 1001words.com. Sure, you can steal Pancake City by having your friends read you my posts over the phone, but you are only stealing from yourself.
(My page views were down in 2005).
Okay, Jon Stewart saved the Oscars. Or, at least, he made it more bearable in years. His jokes and the political ad parodies made the show entertaining enough to put up with the endless montages and self-congratulations.
I have no interest in who won or didn't. Well, almost no interest. The voters who selected March of the Penguins over Murderball need to be whacked, preferably to the point of being crippled. But I've been a hermit the past few months and haven't seen most of the nominated movies.
Random thoughts:
* George Clooney is five wrinkles away of switching from cute to obnoxiously smug.
* The Oscars showed a clip of another, lesser awards ceremony. Kind of like pointing about the janitor at the annual company picnic.
* My roommate remarked that none of the performers thanked God. Which is odd, in a way, especially considering how often he appears in post-game interviews.
* On the same note, as Smirky remarked, some people criticize Hollywood for being out of touch with America. They're right. Some of the subjects in the nominated movies: gay cowboys, single moms, the disabled, racial hatred, and conformity. For the most part, I'm glad Hollywood is out of touch.
* Anyone else get an urge to download a movie off BitTorrent while watching the show? I haven't download anything illegally in months, but I wanted to do so just out of spite.
Happy Birthday, Evan!
For your birthday, Black Cat should stop biting you for a day.
Also, his computer graffiti project is showing at "Wall Snatchers", a graffiti-themed exhibit showing in Georgetown. He's mentioned in The Washington Post review of the gallery. (Evan, I bought a copy of the paper. Although where does the reviewer get off calling it "pseudo-scientific"? Talk about pseudo-stupid.)
Also, his computer graffiti project is showing at "Wall Snatchers", a graffiti-themed exhibit showing in Georgetown. He's mentioned in The Washington Post review of the gallery. (Evan, I bought a copy of the paper. Although where does the reviewer get off calling it "pseudo-scientific"? Talk about pseudo-stupid.)
March 01, 2006
Headlines
Depression, heart disease often connected
Great. Now I’m more depressed.
Great. Now I’m more depressed.
Mmm! Fresh violence. The eggs and bacon for the news media.
I’m glad to see 2001 Bush is back. Dead or alive, beardie! Two-thousand two Bush had me worried (“I truly am not that concerned with him”).
Google Humor
I just noticed that when I enter my spam folder in Gmail, the program displays ads for spam recipes (Vinegar Span Salad, Savory Spam Crescents...). No ads for Monty Python though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)