Just finished watching Season 3 of Walking Dead, from my Netflix DVD queue, and I found it refreshing, compared to Season 2. It renewed my interest in WD, whereas at the end of the second season I was ready to drop the show.
Last season, every other person had a five minute soliloquy to deliver, and lots of seemingly sane people did the dumbest things. This season, the soliloquy has been limited to a minute, and the most-annoying (but humane) character, ironically, is Andrea. Ironic, because she replaced Dale as the most-annoying (but humane) character, who saved Andrea at the end of Season 1 from committing suicide, only to end Season 3...well, you know how these writers work. "All I wanted to do was save everyone" Andrea got a lot of people killed.
That's being a little harsh I suppose. Andrea took over Dale and sought to maintain the soul of humanity, only to be fooled by the facade of Woodbury's normal life. Whereas Rick doesn't trust anyone, Andrea trusted everybody. Hershel seems like the most balanced person, excepting Season 2's reality check of his not-so-bright idea of keeping walking dead kin in a barn.
I do have two suggestions for the show: Bring Glenn's twisted humor back, and get a better FX house. Glenn's character was indispensable because of his rote humor in the constant face of death. Nobody buys into Hershel's leg -- you can still see it, and can tell that they green-screen / rotoscoped it out.
Best new character: Michonne the kick-ass swordswoman.
Most likely to save the world: Judith, Rick's baby girl.
The you-can-be-my-wing-guy-any-day guy: Daryl.
You can trust me (no you can't): The Governor.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Friday, August 30, 2013
Why do you need foolproof evidence of blame in Syria's chemical weapons?
A lot of people are demanding foolproof evidence that the Syrian government was at fault for the chemical weapon attacks. I wonder though, how necessary is it to show that the Syrian government did it?
The Obama Administration has indicated that it is planning to use force to go after those weapons. This is a key point in using force; the US is not trying to displace Assad directly, after all.
If the rebels were snatching chemical weapons from government sites, then using them on their own people to garner press and outside involvement, it might as well be a pro-Syrian goal to remove as much of these weapons as possible from the region, making it that much harder for the rebels to grab them. It comes down to logic: If Syria doesn't plan on using these WMDs, why keep them, only to have them fall into the hands of rebels who would use them for propaganda purposes?
So you see, it doesn't matter who used them, because the goal here is to remove chemical weapons from the war and the region altogether. The fewer WMDs in Syria, the fewer casualties from WMDs caused by either side.
PS. This doesn't mean that the US strike unilaterally, now.
What the US could do, is demand that the UN be allowed to go in and destroy (or remove) all chemical weapons on both sides, and quickly. Without agreement, the US will therefore have a green light to unilaterally take out those chemical weapons.
The Obama Administration has indicated that it is planning to use force to go after those weapons. This is a key point in using force; the US is not trying to displace Assad directly, after all.
If the rebels were snatching chemical weapons from government sites, then using them on their own people to garner press and outside involvement, it might as well be a pro-Syrian goal to remove as much of these weapons as possible from the region, making it that much harder for the rebels to grab them. It comes down to logic: If Syria doesn't plan on using these WMDs, why keep them, only to have them fall into the hands of rebels who would use them for propaganda purposes?
So you see, it doesn't matter who used them, because the goal here is to remove chemical weapons from the war and the region altogether. The fewer WMDs in Syria, the fewer casualties from WMDs caused by either side.
PS. This doesn't mean that the US strike unilaterally, now.
What the US could do, is demand that the UN be allowed to go in and destroy (or remove) all chemical weapons on both sides, and quickly. Without agreement, the US will therefore have a green light to unilaterally take out those chemical weapons.
USC 30 - Hawaii 13
If you like defense, this was a great game. If you like offense, this was more of a head-scratcher. After the first 19 minutes of the game, the score was 5 - 3.
I think Lane Kiffin was expecting one of the two quarterbacks to stand out from the other, but neither showed to be necessarily better than the other. Kessler was obviously uptight and nervous from the start, and even though he settled in, the offense wasn't all that good. Wittek looked a lot sharper and better focused than last year, but he was very slow to get going. It didn't help that Marqise Lee dropped a couple of deep throws from Wittek.
On the other hand, we saw a great true freshman runner in Justin Davis and an equally tough and great runner in sophomore Tre Madden. When you add in DJ Morgan and Silas Redd, the quarterbacks should not feel all that much pressure, right?
On defense, we realized that Monte Kiffin wasn't geared for the college game, because Clancy Pendergast's defense was all over the place with 4 interceptions and 7 sacks. They were flying around and getting into the back field, rotating heavily with the full roster, I think. Heck, even Kevin Greene, Marquis Simmons and Jabari Ruffin were in there for a good number of snaps. These guys looked good. First interception went to true freshman Su'a Craven; dude's gonna be All-American all four years, it seems. And it was great to see Devon Kennard back from a torn pectoral muscle, who was all over the place and in the face of Hawai'i quarterback Taylor Graham.
Now just imagine if Morgan Breslin had played. Yeah, this defense f'ing rocks!
It's early, but I predict that USC will play both quarterbacks once again next week against WSU. And I also suspect that USC's defense is going to carry the offense all year long, in a good way.
I think Lane Kiffin was expecting one of the two quarterbacks to stand out from the other, but neither showed to be necessarily better than the other. Kessler was obviously uptight and nervous from the start, and even though he settled in, the offense wasn't all that good. Wittek looked a lot sharper and better focused than last year, but he was very slow to get going. It didn't help that Marqise Lee dropped a couple of deep throws from Wittek.
On the other hand, we saw a great true freshman runner in Justin Davis and an equally tough and great runner in sophomore Tre Madden. When you add in DJ Morgan and Silas Redd, the quarterbacks should not feel all that much pressure, right?
On defense, we realized that Monte Kiffin wasn't geared for the college game, because Clancy Pendergast's defense was all over the place with 4 interceptions and 7 sacks. They were flying around and getting into the back field, rotating heavily with the full roster, I think. Heck, even Kevin Greene, Marquis Simmons and Jabari Ruffin were in there for a good number of snaps. These guys looked good. First interception went to true freshman Su'a Craven; dude's gonna be All-American all four years, it seems. And it was great to see Devon Kennard back from a torn pectoral muscle, who was all over the place and in the face of Hawai'i quarterback Taylor Graham.
Now just imagine if Morgan Breslin had played. Yeah, this defense f'ing rocks!
It's early, but I predict that USC will play both quarterbacks once again next week against WSU. And I also suspect that USC's defense is going to carry the offense all year long, in a good way.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Ethics, Morals and More: Syrian Intervention.
Just a quick post.
Ethics being of written laws and morals being of social laws, it my be ethically wrong for an outside nation to launch an attack into Syria, even if that attack was directed towards chemical weapons facilities, as there is no written actionable rule within the UN International Law. But it's probably immoral to stand by and let people suffer from chemical weapons attacks, when one has the power and means to limit them.
Of late, people have written that intervention of any sort may be ironic, should it lead to more deaths at the hands of the Assad regime. Well then, suffice to say the American military's "leave no man behind" dogma must therefore too, be thrown out. Far more deaths and casualties resulted from sending in the 442nd to save Texas' Lost Battalion in World War II, than the lives saved.
I bet if your father was a member of the Lost Battalion, you're probably thankful that the 442nd was sent in. Conversely if you lost your father who was a member of the 442nd, resulting from the campaign to save the Lost Battalion, you might be a little less sanguine.
Ethics being of written laws and morals being of social laws, it my be ethically wrong for an outside nation to launch an attack into Syria, even if that attack was directed towards chemical weapons facilities, as there is no written actionable rule within the UN International Law. But it's probably immoral to stand by and let people suffer from chemical weapons attacks, when one has the power and means to limit them.
Of late, people have written that intervention of any sort may be ironic, should it lead to more deaths at the hands of the Assad regime. Well then, suffice to say the American military's "leave no man behind" dogma must therefore too, be thrown out. Far more deaths and casualties resulted from sending in the 442nd to save Texas' Lost Battalion in World War II, than the lives saved.
I bet if your father was a member of the Lost Battalion, you're probably thankful that the 442nd was sent in. Conversely if you lost your father who was a member of the 442nd, resulting from the campaign to save the Lost Battalion, you might be a little less sanguine.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Manziel: NCAA burning with hypocrisy.
Call it for what it is: The NCAA is the lesser dog of the SEC. I don't think we've ever seen a clear-cut case of bias as the NCAA has shown, the last five years.
The NCAA came to an agreement with Texas A&M to suspend Johnny Manziel for 30 minutes in their first game. This despite the public showing of proof that Manziel took the money for his autographs.
So we now have two SEC cases (Manziel and Newton) where the NCAA has moved swiftly to excuse players, but then we have the NCAA's willingness to wait for several years in the Reggie Bush case. Heck, they took two years to grind through the Oregon case.
The lesson learned: If you want to avoid sanctions, join the SEC. (Or leave the NCAA.)
The NCAA came to an agreement with Texas A&M to suspend Johnny Manziel for 30 minutes in their first game. This despite the public showing of proof that Manziel took the money for his autographs.
So we now have two SEC cases (Manziel and Newton) where the NCAA has moved swiftly to excuse players, but then we have the NCAA's willingness to wait for several years in the Reggie Bush case. Heck, they took two years to grind through the Oregon case.
The lesson learned: If you want to avoid sanctions, join the SEC. (Or leave the NCAA.)
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Desktop notifications via Chrome.
While online with my Chrome browser, I had the pleasure this afternoon, to see a desktop notification pop up to let me know that my phone was ringing, a split second before my phone started ringing.
If I didn't have my phone next to me, it would have been pure awesome, but I was already expecting a phone call so I already had it within my reach. Still, I've had this happen to me often lately, where I left my phone on the charger and missed calls while on my computer. It obviously has to do with Chromecasting my music and not hearing the phone ring.
Oh, and there was an Android 4.3 update (JWR66Y) to my Nexus 7 tablet this morning...multi-user sign in controls it said.
If I didn't have my phone next to me, it would have been pure awesome, but I was already expecting a phone call so I already had it within my reach. Still, I've had this happen to me often lately, where I left my phone on the charger and missed calls while on my computer. It obviously has to do with Chromecasting my music and not hearing the phone ring.
Oh, and there was an Android 4.3 update (JWR66Y) to my Nexus 7 tablet this morning...multi-user sign in controls it said.
Dealing with cognitive dissonance over Syria.
There are many people who believe that the US and its allies should stay out of Syria, despite the thousands of Syrians, between two separate incidents, affected by the use of chemical weapons. I already made up my mind on what I think should be done, but it didn't come without some considerable reflection of the various arguments. However I've been shaking my head lately, as I read comments and commentary online from those folks trying to advocate for and against some sort of intervention in Syria. Most people appear to be unwilling to tackle their cognitive dissonance over Syria; many of them might know it exists, but seem to prefer to ignore it completely.
They're not our friends / we're helping our enemies
One argument has suggested that we have no reason to help out people who are not our allies. But this therefore means that some lives are inherently more important to us than others. Apparently unaware, South Korea must be a fool, therefore, for having offered aid to North Korea, following devastating floods and typhoons.
I think it's fair to say that some level of moral turpitude is involved, to devalue humans based on whether or not they're our friends or who they support. Do you not stop to offer help to a total stranger, or do you first inquire about their background before deciding whether or not to help? For all you know, the person you're helping could be a wanted murderer!
If you're going to state unequivocally that the US should not get involved, you must conscientiously review then state that you're okay with not helping people that you find disagreeable. I will most certainly help Rush Limbaugh in a car accident; I will absolutely help people out of a burning jail.
Does not affect us
This is the clearest sign of attempting to alleviate one's cognitive dissonance, by removing morality from the equation altogether. I can use this excuse whenever I want: I don't need to donate money, because it doesn't affect me; torturing people is okay because I'm not a suspected terrorist. Sorry, but as the case was with Milgram's experiment, it's too easy to simply remove morality by excusing yourself from personal responsibility of your actions or inaction.
But does this disconnected argument even apply?
Nonintervention is not an inconsequential path. Not getting involved may increasingly shut America out of the Middle-East's future and influence, and degrade America's moral standing as a beacon of freedom. It's a weak argument to state that the US can remain a beacon of freedom, but not support others seeking our help to be free while trying our best to keep out immigrants; we thus look to others as elitist jerks who talk big but do nothing to support that rhetoric. Do you still think that it doesn't affect us?
Complicity / no moral standing
As I wrote previously, you cannot simply state that because the US stood by during the Iran-Iraq War, the US therefore has no moral standing, and was complicit to the use of chemical weapons. And the fact of the matter is, if you ignore Syria's use of chemical weapons, you'd be undermining your own argument that the US was complicit with Iraq's use of chemical weapons, because you're demanding that the US continue to be complicit in the use of chemical weapons.
Not doing the right thing in the 80s, does not mean that we are excused from doing the right thing in Syria, either. As the proverb / idiom states, two wrongs don't make a right.
Can you live with yourself?
There are competing views on whether or not the US should get involved. I have a clear path on how to get involved and how to escalate that involvement, but it comes from having spent a lot of time examining my conscience. For others, ignorance is bliss. You are free to remain ignorant, but if you are going to bring up arguments that attempt to bypass your cognitive dissonance, I will not let you get away that easily!
They're not our friends / we're helping our enemies
One argument has suggested that we have no reason to help out people who are not our allies. But this therefore means that some lives are inherently more important to us than others. Apparently unaware, South Korea must be a fool, therefore, for having offered aid to North Korea, following devastating floods and typhoons.
I think it's fair to say that some level of moral turpitude is involved, to devalue humans based on whether or not they're our friends or who they support. Do you not stop to offer help to a total stranger, or do you first inquire about their background before deciding whether or not to help? For all you know, the person you're helping could be a wanted murderer!
If you're going to state unequivocally that the US should not get involved, you must conscientiously review then state that you're okay with not helping people that you find disagreeable. I will most certainly help Rush Limbaugh in a car accident; I will absolutely help people out of a burning jail.
Does not affect us
This is the clearest sign of attempting to alleviate one's cognitive dissonance, by removing morality from the equation altogether. I can use this excuse whenever I want: I don't need to donate money, because it doesn't affect me; torturing people is okay because I'm not a suspected terrorist. Sorry, but as the case was with Milgram's experiment, it's too easy to simply remove morality by excusing yourself from personal responsibility of your actions or inaction.
But does this disconnected argument even apply?
Nonintervention is not an inconsequential path. Not getting involved may increasingly shut America out of the Middle-East's future and influence, and degrade America's moral standing as a beacon of freedom. It's a weak argument to state that the US can remain a beacon of freedom, but not support others seeking our help to be free while trying our best to keep out immigrants; we thus look to others as elitist jerks who talk big but do nothing to support that rhetoric. Do you still think that it doesn't affect us?
Complicity / no moral standing
As I wrote previously, you cannot simply state that because the US stood by during the Iran-Iraq War, the US therefore has no moral standing, and was complicit to the use of chemical weapons. And the fact of the matter is, if you ignore Syria's use of chemical weapons, you'd be undermining your own argument that the US was complicit with Iraq's use of chemical weapons, because you're demanding that the US continue to be complicit in the use of chemical weapons.
Not doing the right thing in the 80s, does not mean that we are excused from doing the right thing in Syria, either. As the proverb / idiom states, two wrongs don't make a right.
Can you live with yourself?
There are competing views on whether or not the US should get involved. I have a clear path on how to get involved and how to escalate that involvement, but it comes from having spent a lot of time examining my conscience. For others, ignorance is bliss. You are free to remain ignorant, but if you are going to bring up arguments that attempt to bypass your cognitive dissonance, I will not let you get away that easily!
The false logic behind non-intervention in Syria's use of chemical weapons.
I've been reading many outlets suggesting that, rather than intervene in Syria as a result of Bashar al Assad's use of chemical weapons, the US should alternatively spend money on finding a malaria vaccine. I've also read that the US is being hypocritical for pushing to intervene in Syria while it stood by during the Iran-Iraq War of the 80s, or that it was complicit (and therefore has no moral standing) in the usage of chemical weapons during that war. But it doesn't make sense.
Firstly, if only finding a malaria vaccine were just a matter of more money, then we should have already found a vaccine. In this case, it feels more like a fundraiser telling you that they're close to their goal, but just need your money to make it happen...and then next year you get that same phone call explaining how close they are to their goal. Look at HIV. Annually the US spends tens of billions in support and research for HIV / AIDS, and while we're inching closer to a full understanding and a vaccine, there is no timetable or dollar amount that will get us to the goal posts.
Secondly, what one did or didn't do 30 years ago, has little bearing on the moral standing of the current generation or the current nation's identity. Further, what you do NOW is more important that dwelling on what you did or didn't do, before. History is there to teach us what to do in the future, not to admonish us about our past sins for forever.
Thirdly, if we were complicit in Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians in the 80s because we looked the other way, then we'd be no less complicit today, by looking the other way as Syrians die from chemical weapon attacks.
Fourthly -- and this is where history informs us about what we should do -- we know now from the Iran-Iraq War, that if you stand by and do nothing, it will be taken as a green light to do anything. I think China is learning this lesson as well, with North Korea.
Now separately, I've previously written about the complications of intervention. It still holds true that if you give one side an advantage, all you're really doing is enabling on extreme group to win over the other. With Hezbollah on one side and Al Qaeda on the other, this is not necessarily a war that one wants to dictate an outcome, nor should we. But the use of chemical weapons is insidious and a strong signal must be sent to all countries throughout the world that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. And ultimately there needs to be a solution of safe-keeping for those who have no alliance to either extreme group.
The ultimatum you give is this: Give up your chemical weapons immediately, or we will destroy them for you, immediately; if you retaliate, we will find and chop off the head of the tiger for you and split off a portion of your country to form a protected, safe-haven for all refugees, which will be turned into its own sovereign nation.
Firstly, if only finding a malaria vaccine were just a matter of more money, then we should have already found a vaccine. In this case, it feels more like a fundraiser telling you that they're close to their goal, but just need your money to make it happen...and then next year you get that same phone call explaining how close they are to their goal. Look at HIV. Annually the US spends tens of billions in support and research for HIV / AIDS, and while we're inching closer to a full understanding and a vaccine, there is no timetable or dollar amount that will get us to the goal posts.
Secondly, what one did or didn't do 30 years ago, has little bearing on the moral standing of the current generation or the current nation's identity. Further, what you do NOW is more important that dwelling on what you did or didn't do, before. History is there to teach us what to do in the future, not to admonish us about our past sins for forever.
Thirdly, if we were complicit in Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians in the 80s because we looked the other way, then we'd be no less complicit today, by looking the other way as Syrians die from chemical weapon attacks.
Fourthly -- and this is where history informs us about what we should do -- we know now from the Iran-Iraq War, that if you stand by and do nothing, it will be taken as a green light to do anything. I think China is learning this lesson as well, with North Korea.
Now separately, I've previously written about the complications of intervention. It still holds true that if you give one side an advantage, all you're really doing is enabling on extreme group to win over the other. With Hezbollah on one side and Al Qaeda on the other, this is not necessarily a war that one wants to dictate an outcome, nor should we. But the use of chemical weapons is insidious and a strong signal must be sent to all countries throughout the world that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. And ultimately there needs to be a solution of safe-keeping for those who have no alliance to either extreme group.
The ultimatum you give is this: Give up your chemical weapons immediately, or we will destroy them for you, immediately; if you retaliate, we will find and chop off the head of the tiger for you and split off a portion of your country to form a protected, safe-haven for all refugees, which will be turned into its own sovereign nation.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Took the Metro Mile plunge. (Updated)
That's bull crap.
So I switched. And with my super low driving mileage, the cost savings is about 60% (depending upon how much I drive, with each mile costing $0.03 and a monthly base charge of about $25). I also get roadside assistance included, which is double-savings after dropping AAA:
- Car has broken down and needs to be towed
- Flat tire needs to be changed
- Battery is dead and needs a jump start
- Locked out of car
I'm not all fawning on them yet, but there's no mistaking the incredible bargain that Metro Mile is, for low-mileage drivers such as myself.
Now mind you, State Farms has a program similar to Metro Mile, which uses a dongle to track your miles driven in real-time, allowing you to lower your rates. But it was an extremely meager discount, it required years of enrollment to reach the highest discount rate, and tracked all things from your braking to speed to acceleration to time of day you drove, to calculate your qualification for the discount. Earlier this year when I spoke with my SF rep, she said that very few people had enrolled in it, and I suspect the reason why is because it was intrusively tracking your driving habits.
AFAIK, Metro Mile doesn't track those things. You can turn GPS tracking on or off.
So, I hope it all turns out well, because I really want to see this sort of pay-go insurance spread (currently it's only available in Oregon), minus the intrusive nature of State Farm's program, that is. Ultimately it is an incentive to carefully watch one's own use of driving and grouping trips together, which also lowers one's own carbon output.
Update:
Thought I should post that MetroMile's website makes it clear, "The amount you pay doesn't change based on when, where, or how you drive – just the number of miles you go." Again, superior to all the others because they track your driving habits, including braking and acceleration.
Also, they have the coolest data interface, allowing you to track your use, if you wish. Love, love, love this data stuff.
Yep, that's me. I don't drive often -- 3 days of driving and 6 days of complete inactivity. I set my goal conservatively too, at 250 miles a month (does not affect how much I pay; just for personal goals), and there's no way I'm going to hit 250 miles unless I go on a short road trip.
So yeah, MetroMile is pretty darn cool.
2014 Farmer's Almanac: Nice Winter (to me) in the Northwest.
Saw the prediction for Winter 2014 from the just-released Farmer's Almanac, and it says that it'll be cold and dry in the Pacific Northwest. Or, exactly as I like Winter to be!
There's nothing better than a dry Winter day with the sun out and in the teens; smiles all around.
There's nothing better than a dry Winter day with the sun out and in the teens; smiles all around.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
A GIF to show the size of the Rim Fire.
It took a little bit of effort, but after seeing the size of the Rim Fire near Yosemite National Park, I thought it worth animating in a GIF to illustrate just how rapidly this wildfire grew, and how massive it is. The fire, which started on the 17th of this month (August), is shown in a timeline of the fire line from the 19th through the 24th. At the end, I added the last posted fire line to two regions -- Bay Area, SF and Portland (OR) Metro area -- to show some scale.
Mind you, the fire is just 7% contained.
Mind you, the fire is just 7% contained.
LA Times speculation: Oakland interested in Barkley?
I just read LA Times' Sam Farmer speculate whether Oakland Raiders might pursue Matt Barkley, now that Matt Flynn has proven incapable of starting and Terrelle Pryor, raw. And if it actually does happen, I'll be very amused.
You see, that's more or less what I said when he got drafted in April:
You see, that's more or less what I said when he got drafted in April:
"Either he gets traded away during the Summer, or gets dropped during preseason, then picked up as a free agent...say Oakland, Arizona or San Diego?"I still think CK's really holding out for Marcus Mariota in the 2014 draft. Foles is a better overall quarterback than Vick, but I think Mariota is a step up. The guy has confidence, humility and mad skills. Oh, and he's the kid that CK chose to start over the more-experienced Bryan Bennett.
Thoughts on the USC Trojans QB race (and the co-starter thing).
After the debacle that was the end of the season where USC fell into the Sun Bowl where they lost to Georgia Tech, I think most everyone was thinking, "anybody but Max Wittek". He was awful, had no rhythm and was frequently far off his target.
In his two games as starter, it was a disaster. The offense had zero ability to move the length of the field and score.
Come Fall camp and everyone was excited to see if the spanking new recruit Max Browne could take command and win the spot, considering that he was a Gatorade Player of the Year on offence. No dice. He got cut from the competition after halfway through Fall camp.
So then, all hopes rested on Cody Kessler because, well, like I said, following the ending of last season the motto became, "anybody but Max Wittek". And according to USCFootball.com's final total QBR number, Kessler indeed was ahead by a slight margin.
Good. All that is needed then, is for coach Lane Kiffin to name Kessler the starter. But it didn't happen; instead, both Kessler and Wittek will play in the Hawai'i game.
"D'oh!" -- The collective cry from Los Angeles could be heard all around the world, I think.
But look, I don't think Kiffin was necessarily wrong. The numbers were close, but as far as I can tell from compiling the sack numbers from USCFootball's observations during Fall camp, Kessler got sacked 37 times to Wittek's 28 times. Now, while USCFootball counts a sack as an incomplete pass in their total QBR rating, the fact of the matter is, a sack is worse than throwing the ball away.
Sure, Kessler's numbers by way of accuracy, scoring and interceptions were better than Wittek's, but those sacks, especially the surge at the end of camp, were disconcerting. At the end of camp you're supposed to be getting better, not worse.
In other words, Kessler didn't fully seize the starting role like he should have, and Wittek made a late-camp surge to narrow the gap.
While I don't generally like the idea of split reps in a regular season game, in this case, at least both quarterbacks get a chance to seize the position on the field. For Wittek it could be a game of redemption given his terrible performance in his last two games, and the opportunity to show that what we see as silent dejection is actually quiet confidence. For Kessler, it's a chance to take command of the huddle and become a vocal leader as Mark Sanchez and Matt Barkley have been, while avoiding all those sacks.
The game will be on CBS, so you know, it could help Wittek close the chapter of his terrible Sun Bowl performance on the same channel.
In his two games as starter, it was a disaster. The offense had zero ability to move the length of the field and score.
| Att | Comp | Int | Yards | TD | Sacked | |
| ND | 23 | 14 | 2 | 186 | 1 | 2 |
| GTech | 37 | 14 | 3 | 107 | 1 | 0 |
| Totals | 60 | 28 | 5 | 293 | 2 | 2 |
Come Fall camp and everyone was excited to see if the spanking new recruit Max Browne could take command and win the spot, considering that he was a Gatorade Player of the Year on offence. No dice. He got cut from the competition after halfway through Fall camp.
So then, all hopes rested on Cody Kessler because, well, like I said, following the ending of last season the motto became, "anybody but Max Wittek". And according to USCFootball.com's final total QBR number, Kessler indeed was ahead by a slight margin.
Good. All that is needed then, is for coach Lane Kiffin to name Kessler the starter. But it didn't happen; instead, both Kessler and Wittek will play in the Hawai'i game.
"D'oh!" -- The collective cry from Los Angeles could be heard all around the world, I think.
But look, I don't think Kiffin was necessarily wrong. The numbers were close, but as far as I can tell from compiling the sack numbers from USCFootball's observations during Fall camp, Kessler got sacked 37 times to Wittek's 28 times. Now, while USCFootball counts a sack as an incomplete pass in their total QBR rating, the fact of the matter is, a sack is worse than throwing the ball away.
Sure, Kessler's numbers by way of accuracy, scoring and interceptions were better than Wittek's, but those sacks, especially the surge at the end of camp, were disconcerting. At the end of camp you're supposed to be getting better, not worse.
In other words, Kessler didn't fully seize the starting role like he should have, and Wittek made a late-camp surge to narrow the gap.
While I don't generally like the idea of split reps in a regular season game, in this case, at least both quarterbacks get a chance to seize the position on the field. For Wittek it could be a game of redemption given his terrible performance in his last two games, and the opportunity to show that what we see as silent dejection is actually quiet confidence. For Kessler, it's a chance to take command of the huddle and become a vocal leader as Mark Sanchez and Matt Barkley have been, while avoiding all those sacks.
The game will be on CBS, so you know, it could help Wittek close the chapter of his terrible Sun Bowl performance on the same channel.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Ballmer resigns and people get their signals crossed. (Updated)
Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft since 2000, announced that he would resign in the next 12 months, once a hiring committee found a suitable replacement. Immediately, MSFT jumped 9% within the first half-hour of his announcement.
First Irony -- mismatched expectations
Ostensibly, the markets shot up, anticipating the benefits of change at Microsoft. But consider: Ballmer just a month earlier announced -- yet another -- shakeup and realignment of the company. In his resignation letter, he specifically signaled that he (and the board) had set their direction going forward:
Second Irony -- mismatched solutions
Back to that letter and that organization shakeup. In his push for a "transformation to a devices and services company", Windows has been subverted. They will no longer be a software company, but a devices and services company. Yet, the biggest problem for Microsoft wasn't hardware, but one of software.
Nokia's hardware is excellent, but what they've primarily done is to displace other Windows Phone manufacturers, who now seem intent on ignoring the WP platform. Likewise, Microsoft has been dramatically cutting prices on WOA (Surface RT) tablets, then tying them to Bing, to get rid of excess stock. No one would dispute that the solid block of magnesium alloy that is the shell of Surface RT is nice, and that WOA has everything, hardware-wise, that you'd want and need in a tablet. But those folks in Redmond just can't admit that the problem of WOA is software. So while Ballmer signaled that Windows will be the backdrop to quality devices, the market is really signalling that Windows is sick, not the devices themselves.
Third Irony -- mismatched support
This push to support devices by subverting the operating system, further kills the Wintel PC market. OEM PC makers can see the smoke signals, that at some point in the future Microsoft will buy out Nokia to further its conquest towards becoming a devices company. The devices companies out there seem to be fleeing Windows for the open arms of Android and ChromeOS, only further reducing Windows' market. Remember, Ballmer and Gates remain two of the largest shareholders, and as such have considerable influence over the future of Microsoft. In other words, those folks expecting change are delusional.
What if...things were different in 2010
Then there's this report that Ballmer had been wanting to resign since 2010. One year after Windows 7, 2010 was the same year that Microsoft released its first Windows Phone. Preceding the 2013 organization shakeup, if the board had granted Ballmer's wish in 2010, would Microsoft have avoided the desktop OS / WOA tablet debacle?
No.
By nature, Microsoft's board is conservative, and by extension their company is conservative. The company's culture had been set in the last decade under Ballmer, whether it was the stack ranking system or the repeated efforts to kill experimentation such as the Courier concept. To emphasize the desire to kill experimentation, last month's reorganization communique relayed the goal of a "single strategy as one company". By opposite extremes, Google's actions are scattershot, looking to experiment in order to find other streams of income and innovation, and by extension, new core products. Google Fiber, Glass, Project Loon, driverless vehicles, Chromecast, Google+, Hangouts, Latitude, Maps, Street View...all expansions from Google's core: Search and Ads.
But what if...things are different in 2014
Surely though, with change comes new opportunities to change direction and bring a new culture, right? Of course not! Didn't you pay attention to what I wrote? Microsoft's leadership doesn't want to be Google; they don't want to be a company that spends money on crazy experiments. They're intent on carrying out the strategy they had set just one month ago.
Therein lies the best part of the announcement: Pundits and markets expect big changes for Microsoft, even while Microsoft has signaled intention to stay the course.
Update: Well, there you go. As reported in Bloomberg Businessweek:
First Irony -- mismatched expectations
Ostensibly, the markets shot up, anticipating the benefits of change at Microsoft. But consider: Ballmer just a month earlier announced -- yet another -- shakeup and realignment of the company. In his resignation letter, he specifically signaled that he (and the board) had set their direction going forward:
"My original thoughts on timing would have had my retirement happen in the middle of our transformation to a devices and services company focused on empowering customers in the activities they value most. We need a CEO who will be here longer term for this new direction...We cannot and will not miss a beat in these transitions."If the markets and people were expecting big changes, it seems that the company was looking for stability; they really do believe in the direction they're headed. Conversely, if markets were excited about stability, they would degrade Microsoft's stock for introducing an unknown: change in CEO.
Second Irony -- mismatched solutions
Back to that letter and that organization shakeup. In his push for a "transformation to a devices and services company", Windows has been subverted. They will no longer be a software company, but a devices and services company. Yet, the biggest problem for Microsoft wasn't hardware, but one of software.
Nokia's hardware is excellent, but what they've primarily done is to displace other Windows Phone manufacturers, who now seem intent on ignoring the WP platform. Likewise, Microsoft has been dramatically cutting prices on WOA (Surface RT) tablets, then tying them to Bing, to get rid of excess stock. No one would dispute that the solid block of magnesium alloy that is the shell of Surface RT is nice, and that WOA has everything, hardware-wise, that you'd want and need in a tablet. But those folks in Redmond just can't admit that the problem of WOA is software. So while Ballmer signaled that Windows will be the backdrop to quality devices, the market is really signalling that Windows is sick, not the devices themselves.
Third Irony -- mismatched support
This push to support devices by subverting the operating system, further kills the Wintel PC market. OEM PC makers can see the smoke signals, that at some point in the future Microsoft will buy out Nokia to further its conquest towards becoming a devices company. The devices companies out there seem to be fleeing Windows for the open arms of Android and ChromeOS, only further reducing Windows' market. Remember, Ballmer and Gates remain two of the largest shareholders, and as such have considerable influence over the future of Microsoft. In other words, those folks expecting change are delusional.
What if...things were different in 2010
Then there's this report that Ballmer had been wanting to resign since 2010. One year after Windows 7, 2010 was the same year that Microsoft released its first Windows Phone. Preceding the 2013 organization shakeup, if the board had granted Ballmer's wish in 2010, would Microsoft have avoided the desktop OS / WOA tablet debacle?
No.
By nature, Microsoft's board is conservative, and by extension their company is conservative. The company's culture had been set in the last decade under Ballmer, whether it was the stack ranking system or the repeated efforts to kill experimentation such as the Courier concept. To emphasize the desire to kill experimentation, last month's reorganization communique relayed the goal of a "single strategy as one company". By opposite extremes, Google's actions are scattershot, looking to experiment in order to find other streams of income and innovation, and by extension, new core products. Google Fiber, Glass, Project Loon, driverless vehicles, Chromecast, Google+, Hangouts, Latitude, Maps, Street View...all expansions from Google's core: Search and Ads.
But what if...things are different in 2014
Surely though, with change comes new opportunities to change direction and bring a new culture, right? Of course not! Didn't you pay attention to what I wrote? Microsoft's leadership doesn't want to be Google; they don't want to be a company that spends money on crazy experiments. They're intent on carrying out the strategy they had set just one month ago.
Therein lies the best part of the announcement: Pundits and markets expect big changes for Microsoft, even while Microsoft has signaled intention to stay the course.
Update: Well, there you go. As reported in Bloomberg Businessweek:
"Microsoft Corp is telling employees that a reorganization plan by departing Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer will go ahead, seeking to reassure senior managers who are concerned that the search for a successor will throw turnaround efforts into disarray."Or as I said, people have mistaken the signals coming out of Redmond, if they thought Microsoft was looking for big changes. They are not going to change, or rather, they've already determined what their direction is, and don't want to veer off that path.
Friday, August 23, 2013
CG or real?
Renderings are getting better every year. Via Core77, here's a tough visual test of 14 images. This time, I messed up on two of the 14 images...I should have gotten 13 of the 14, but I outsmarted myself by doubting my intuition. :P
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Yikes. Chrome beta channel update issues.
In a span of about an hour, things went haywire. I closed my Chrome browser, reopened it 20 minutes later, only to discover issues of scrolling and rendering. If I picked on something in a web page, it'd result in freezing of that page rendering. A refresh didn't help, either.
I ran through all sorts of things, and nothing worked. I was planning of uninstalling and reinstalling to the stable channel (I'm on the beta channel), when I made one last decision: I reset all of the Chrome experiments under chrome://flags/.
Worked like a charm and everything is back to normal. Whew!
I ran through all sorts of things, and nothing worked. I was planning of uninstalling and reinstalling to the stable channel (I'm on the beta channel), when I made one last decision: I reset all of the Chrome experiments under chrome://flags/.
Worked like a charm and everything is back to normal. Whew!
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Must read: Murderer explains why firearms control is necessary.
The Atlantic's got a super read, written by a convicted murderer, that should give some great insight into why so many guns are sold in America:
"My last month of freedom was chaos. Home invasions, robberies, murder -- at the center of it all were guns: They would be disposed of, tossed after shoot-outs, then bought again. Easily. And I always bought new guns."In other words, the gun lobby is really working for criminals, to help them avoid getting caught.
Over two years after Fukushima, is it really safe?
I initially started this post four months ago, in response to an online thread that referred to this WHO report as proof of limited risk to Fukushima residents. But then, life intruded and so I put it off, plus, I thought that maybe some new information might surface to make my point stronger.
Since last April, Tepco has announced that three of the seven radioactive waste water pits are leaking into the ground; that something as simple as an electrocuted rat had caused a temporary power failure that stopped the cooling mechanism; that workers installing traps to keep rats out, accidentally tripped the cooling mechanism's circuit, thus shutting it down; and it just doesn't look good that they'll stop those pesky radiation leaks anytime soon.
Within the last month we've seen leaks expand with overflow of contaminated water into the soil, streams and into the ocean, and an admission that these leaks have probably been ongoing since the beginning of the disaster. We've had reports of workers covered with highly radioactive dust, and young people finding out that they have cancer. The latest leaks have prompted Japan to raise the alert level at the Fukushima plant.
I'm frankly disappointed at the apologists who suggest that Fukushima presents a low-risk radiation poisoning case, and I've read many "experts" claim that outside of the exclusionary zone, it is safe. This is simply untrue. Greenpeace's field surveys and monitoring posts provide some insight into all this. When you look at the data, keep in mind that most of the monitoring posts are far outside of the exclusionary zone:
While there is no updated data for this year, there are three points to make here:
The fact that cancer rates are much higher in developed (northern) nations, should inform you that banana equivalent dose is a terrible means of measuring cancer risks. Yes, I am aware that (inverse) correlation does not equate to causality necessarily. However, before BED can be asserted as a viable metric of radiation exposure and cancer risk, it must first be proven using data of its causal relationship; since I have shown that in fact the inverse may apply, BED has insufficient support to be used.
If radiation-danger deniers had their way, we'd eat our daily dose of radiation. For example, see conservative tool Ann Coulter, who actually believes that radiation is something that wards off cancer.
All I can say is, if these people really believe in their BS, they should sell whatever they can and buy land in and near contaminated areas around the world....Chernobyl, Fukushima, or closer to home, at Hanford. Heck, why not drink some of that radioactive water daily?
Since last April, Tepco has announced that three of the seven radioactive waste water pits are leaking into the ground; that something as simple as an electrocuted rat had caused a temporary power failure that stopped the cooling mechanism; that workers installing traps to keep rats out, accidentally tripped the cooling mechanism's circuit, thus shutting it down; and it just doesn't look good that they'll stop those pesky radiation leaks anytime soon.
Within the last month we've seen leaks expand with overflow of contaminated water into the soil, streams and into the ocean, and an admission that these leaks have probably been ongoing since the beginning of the disaster. We've had reports of workers covered with highly radioactive dust, and young people finding out that they have cancer. The latest leaks have prompted Japan to raise the alert level at the Fukushima plant.
I'm frankly disappointed at the apologists who suggest that Fukushima presents a low-risk radiation poisoning case, and I've read many "experts" claim that outside of the exclusionary zone, it is safe. This is simply untrue. Greenpeace's field surveys and monitoring posts provide some insight into all this. When you look at the data, keep in mind that most of the monitoring posts are far outside of the exclusionary zone:
| Latitude | Longitude | dose rate 1m (uSv/h) | dose rate 0.5m (uSv/h) | dose rate 0.1m (uSv/h) |
| 37.6612200 | 140.7230490 | 13.7 | 20.9 | 46.0 |
| 37.7187210 | 140.7133220 | 12.8 | 22.5 | 31.2 |
| 37.7182180 | 140.7132460 | 12.8 | 16.0 | 25.0 |
| 37.6926670 | 140.7502240 | 12.0 | 21.0 | 48.0 |
| 37.7198340 | 140.7135160 | 9.4 | 15.7 | 38.0 |
| 37.7188190 | 140.7134670 | 8.2 | 12.3 | 20.4 |
| 37.7186640 | 140.7132350 | 7.9 | 10.9 | 20.5 |
| 37.6457560 | 140.7464180 | 7.8 | 12.0 | 41.0 |
| 37.7188560 | 140.7135740 | 7.1 | 11.6 | 35.1 |
| 37.6948230 | 140.6976210 | 7.1 | 10.8 | 21.8 |
| 37.7199450 | 140.7133990 | 7.0 | 8.5 | 14.0 |
| 37.6939610 | 140.6989700 | 6.2 | 12.1 | 25.1 |
| 37.7183360 | 140.7134870 | 6.0 | 7.5 | 10.5 |
| 37.6450120 | 140.7469170 | 5.8 | 7.9 | 10.7 |
| 37.6949620 | 140.6976830 | 5.5 | 10.6 | 23.4 |
| 37.6957020 | 140.7484970 | 5.4 | 9.4 | 19.4 |
| 37.6612900 | 140.7231860 | 5.4 | 8.7 | 22.0 |
| 37.6452340 | 140.7467940 | 5.4 | 6.1 | 7.4 |
| 37.7186120 | 140.7144640 | 5.2 | 6.3 | 8.2 |
| 37.7185540 | 140.7137270 | 5.0 | 5.9 | 7.4 |
| 37.6457820 | 140.7465040 | 5.0 | 5.9 | 6.2 |
While there is no updated data for this year, there are three points to make here:
- The monitoring stations are extremely limited, and cannot trace and track all of the radiation contamination out there. But just because no one is tracking it, does not mean that it -- the radiation -- doesn't exist in higher concentrations in the areas that weren't explored and tracked. To the contrary, the percentage of highly-contaminated areas should be presumed to match the ratio of monitoring stations with high levels of radiation, with the conclusion that 25 miles outside of the exclusionary zone, a quarter of all lands are highly contaminated.
- You can't see radiation. While it stands to reason that your overall exposure may be low in any given area, what happens if you step on some mud that was contaminated with radiation that gave you over 100 uSv/hr, and it stuck to the bottom of your shoes? You wouldn't know it until you got very sick.
- If you think this is bad, it's even worse in the Pacific Ocean. Many have determined that, because of the volume of water in the Pacific Ocean, the radiation will become diluted. Well, this is just wrong, and we have specific proof of this. Bottom-feeders are at highest risk of contamination. In a way, we have parallels in the Portland (Oregon) Harbor, where years of contamination from manufacturing, have resulted in most of this toxic waste settling to the bottom, affecting bottom feeders first, then moving its way up the food chain. If you eat fish caught in Portland Harbor, you risk consuming high levels of lead, mercury and other pollutants.
Now, one of the worst apologists is Tim Worstall, a Forbes contributor. (Frankly, he's constantly posting the most ridiculous conservative arguments that conveniently ignore some facts, only to find himself backtracking.) The easiest way to demonstrate his terribly misguided writing (and even-worse logic), is the fact that he uses what is referred to as the "Banana Equivalent Dose" of radiation. The moment someone brings up BED, they lose all credibility, in my view. To start with, not all radioactive materials are equal. Biologically speaking, the radiation in bananas is discarded rapidly and therefore not dangerous. And it's fairly easy to prove, without delving into the science behind why the EPA does not consider radiation from bananas worthy of tracking.
If high-consumption of bananas or simply working with large amounts of bananas were dangerous, then the regions between the tropic belts should have the highest cancer rates, given that they have both the highest per-capita consumption and cultivation of bananas.
Yet that's not what you see:
| 1 | Denmark | 326.1 |
| 2 | Ireland | 317.0 |
| 3 | Australia | 314.1 |
| 4 | New Zealand | 309.2 |
| 5 | Belgium | 306.8 |
| 6 | France (metropolitan) | 300.4 |
| 7 | United States of America | 300.2 |
| 8 | Norway | 299.1 |
| 9 | Canada | 296.6 |
| 10 | Czech Republic | 295.0 |
| 11 | Israel | 288.3 |
| 12 | The Netherlands | 286.8 |
| 13 | Luxembourg | 284.0 |
| 14 | Hungary | 282.9 |
| 15 | Iceland | 282.2 |
| 16 | Germany | 282.1 |
| 17 | Uruguay | 280.3 |
| 18 | Italy | 274.3 |
| 19 | French Polynesia | 269.6 |
| 20 | Switzerland | 269.3 |
The fact that cancer rates are much higher in developed (northern) nations, should inform you that banana equivalent dose is a terrible means of measuring cancer risks. Yes, I am aware that (inverse) correlation does not equate to causality necessarily. However, before BED can be asserted as a viable metric of radiation exposure and cancer risk, it must first be proven using data of its causal relationship; since I have shown that in fact the inverse may apply, BED has insufficient support to be used.
If radiation-danger deniers had their way, we'd eat our daily dose of radiation. For example, see conservative tool Ann Coulter, who actually believes that radiation is something that wards off cancer.
All I can say is, if these people really believe in their BS, they should sell whatever they can and buy land in and near contaminated areas around the world....Chernobyl, Fukushima, or closer to home, at Hanford. Heck, why not drink some of that radioactive water daily?
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Why Obamacare will be popular.
Obamacare won't save you from making dumb decisions and it won't save you from dying when your time is up.
But with its subsidy, it does make healthcare insurance awfully cheap. Forget COBRA; if you get laid off, you'll want to ignore COBRA and simply sign up for a healthcare exchange plan with its subsidies...well, unless you enjoy paying more than double on lower (unemployment insurance compensation) income.
Of course if you can find cheaper health insurance on the open market, you're not required to buy via the healthcare exchanges. However, you should be able to find cheaper rates on the exchanges anyway, since the exchange creates a centralized point to compare prices, apples to apples. If you try that today on the free market, I say good luck.
I get it, though. If it was a perfect solution, why mandate that everyone earning over $10,000 (individual) / $20,000 (families) buy insurance, on their own or via the healthcare exchanges -- why use a stick when you just need a carrot? For one, the carrot works better with the stick, but more importantly, fewer uncovered patients means slower insurance premium cost growth. (Technically speaking, you just need to be covered 9 continuous months out of each year to avoid penalties, if you want to be really cheap.)
Once people find that their out-of-pocket costs (on the Bronze level) are so low that it'll only require them to cut out one lunch outing a week, they'll be angry that Republicans have been pouring all their energy into blocking Obamacare.
But with its subsidy, it does make healthcare insurance awfully cheap. Forget COBRA; if you get laid off, you'll want to ignore COBRA and simply sign up for a healthcare exchange plan with its subsidies...well, unless you enjoy paying more than double on lower (unemployment insurance compensation) income.
Of course if you can find cheaper health insurance on the open market, you're not required to buy via the healthcare exchanges. However, you should be able to find cheaper rates on the exchanges anyway, since the exchange creates a centralized point to compare prices, apples to apples. If you try that today on the free market, I say good luck.
I get it, though. If it was a perfect solution, why mandate that everyone earning over $10,000 (individual) / $20,000 (families) buy insurance, on their own or via the healthcare exchanges -- why use a stick when you just need a carrot? For one, the carrot works better with the stick, but more importantly, fewer uncovered patients means slower insurance premium cost growth. (Technically speaking, you just need to be covered 9 continuous months out of each year to avoid penalties, if you want to be really cheap.)
Once people find that their out-of-pocket costs (on the Bronze level) are so low that it'll only require them to cut out one lunch outing a week, they'll be angry that Republicans have been pouring all their energy into blocking Obamacare.
Awesome quote re: creative people.
"Creative people’s most important resource is their time—particularly big chunks of uninterrupted time—and their biggest enemies are those who try to nibble away at it with e-mails or meetings."
The Economist, "In Praise of Laziness"
Note: It's not that creative people aren't driven to procrastination, and therefore enjoy distractions, but that when the work of designing begins, distractions prove disastrous to completing an idea.
The Economist, "In Praise of Laziness"
Note: It's not that creative people aren't driven to procrastination, and therefore enjoy distractions, but that when the work of designing begins, distractions prove disastrous to completing an idea.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Crazy Amazon shipping.
I bought this SoundBot SB240 Red Bluetooth Headset
on Amazon because the price suddenly dropped from $25 to $1, to test out and back up my Motorola S305.
Anyway, when going through the motions of Amazon checkout, what was supposed to be free shipping, appeared as $4.95, all because I switched my shipping address to my PO Box and not my home address. I switched it back, and voila I got my free shipping back.
Then this morning I got a shipping confirmation email, and had to laugh. You see, instead of using UPS or FedEx, the seller used USPS. Instead of getting charged $4.95 to have it shipped via USPS to my PO Box, I got free USPS shipping to my home address.
Whatever.
on Amazon because the price suddenly dropped from $25 to $1, to test out and back up my Motorola S305.Anyway, when going through the motions of Amazon checkout, what was supposed to be free shipping, appeared as $4.95, all because I switched my shipping address to my PO Box and not my home address. I switched it back, and voila I got my free shipping back.
Then this morning I got a shipping confirmation email, and had to laugh. You see, instead of using UPS or FedEx, the seller used USPS. Instead of getting charged $4.95 to have it shipped via USPS to my PO Box, I got free USPS shipping to my home address.
Whatever.
Friday, August 16, 2013
High coffee consumption does NOT lead to higher risk of early death.
The media generally has low ability or minimal willingness to judge information they receive, before deciding to pass it on to the public. Really. Today's reports over a study that associates high coffee consumption with higher risks of early death is one such case.
That's not quite what the study says, and frankly, the media missed out on a lot of things within the study, that should raise some eyebrows.
First, the study's own hazard ratio tables are all over the place.
Look very closely at the chart, and I will guide you to four of its most amusing parts.
Or rather, as most in the media have reported, causation has been established between premature death and copious coffee consumption.
That's not quite what the study says, and frankly, the media missed out on a lot of things within the study, that should raise some eyebrows.
First, the study's own hazard ratio tables are all over the place.
- According to their own models, women who drink 1-7 cups/wk, and 15-21 cups/wk actually have a lower risk of premature death, than those who didn't drink coffee, with and without regards to other factors.
- And while men who drank 15-28 cups/wk had a slightly higher risk of death compared to those who didn't drink coffee, the risk association was significantly lower than those who drank 8-14 cups/wk.
- Women who drank >28 cups/wk of coffee, had the lowest risk of cardiovascular disease, especially compared to those who didn't drink coffee!
- Men who drank 1-28 cups/wk, taking into consideration smoking, BMI and other risk factors, showed no statistically significant risk of cardiovascular disease.
Now, here's where the CVD risk levels become critical to judging the value of this study: What the media has reported, is that if you drink a lot of coffee, you have a much higher risk of death, but that's all causes of death, meaning you could have been shot dead or fallen off a roller coaster and your death would count as associated with higher coffee consumption.
Therefore, in order for the all-causes death risk to be useful, you would want to see it mirrored in isolated causes of death, particularly in CVD, but not limited to CVD. And in fact, there are several other studies showing that high coffee consumption is good for you. Heck, this study itself shows that high coffee consumption is associated with lower CVD risk in women!
So for instance, this study posted just last month shows a significantly lower risk of suicide with higher coffee consumption, once smoking is factored out.
And this European study showed a modest risk reduction of prostate cancer incidence, with more coffee that was consumed, while this American study could not exclude the possibility of lower risk of incidence of prostate cancer due to high coffee consumption, but there was no statistically significant risk associated with prostate cancer and high coffee consumption.
Better yet, this Journal of Nutrition study shows that there is a strong inverse association between caffeine (coffee / tea) and mortality, " in a multiethnic urban population".
Bottom line: If there's anything you should take away from this study, it is that high coffee consumption is associated with lower risk for cardiovascular disease in women, not that high coffee consumption leads to higher risk of early death.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
You must absolutely check out Getty Museum's online images.
The Getty Museum has made much of their collection available online to view, download and use freely. If you choose to download the full-resolution images, they're big, as in a dozen or two megabytes. Fortunately they have this great viewer online to zoom in and out (see screen captures below).
This is one heck of a collection The Getty Museum is putting up, and deserve a lot of credit for making it easily accessible.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Meteors before and after the Perseid peak.
Sunday was the peak of the Perseid meteor shower, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't pay attention to the sky.
Nearly two weeks ago, I saw one really brilliant meteor streak over downtown Portland, a very bright ball of fire that grew quickly, but was a short streak.
Then tonight around 9:10 or so, I was staring up to see if the ISS was passing overhead while I was walking outside, then out of the corner of my eye I thought I saw a low-flying plane's bright lights, but it turned out to be a very low flying meteor that lasted for a couple of seconds, and had a very distinctive tail with the rippling stream. That was the first time I'd ever seen a fiery tail rippling, that close. Previously, I'd just seen those high-flying streaks that lasted less than a second.
Very cool stuff.
I only wish I had my camera out for the show...but like lightning, very hard to catch.
In China, a battle between rich and poor: Man builds home ontop of condominium.
This is such a weird story, that it's gone viral since this morning. Look at the funny picture first, and what's the first thing that comes to mind? Pile of poop, right?
A rich guy in China somehow got a permit to build his penthouse home on the roof of a high-rise condominium. Then, without a permit, he built up landscaping below and around his home, complete with fake rocks (shotcrete?).
It finally all caught up with him, and he has been ordered to provide documentation that it is structurally sound, or else tear it down. Seems to me, in China it's all just a matter of more government officials looking for a payout, though. I mean really, you waited until after he finished building it, to demand that he provide documentation? No one builds a mountain of poop on the top of a building without people asking questions and complaining to authorities, so a whole lotta folks are looking for pay day in Beijing.
A rich guy in China somehow got a permit to build his penthouse home on the roof of a high-rise condominium. Then, without a permit, he built up landscaping below and around his home, complete with fake rocks (shotcrete?).
It finally all caught up with him, and he has been ordered to provide documentation that it is structurally sound, or else tear it down. Seems to me, in China it's all just a matter of more government officials looking for a payout, though. I mean really, you waited until after he finished building it, to demand that he provide documentation? No one builds a mountain of poop on the top of a building without people asking questions and complaining to authorities, so a whole lotta folks are looking for pay day in Beijing.
Busy working.
If it seems that I've been slowing down lately, it's because I've been jamming on designs, and the only breaks are when I get stuck on something and feel that I need to take time out and let the brain relax and absorb other things, music especially.
 |
| Current design work (crossing fingers it gets built as designed) |
Chromecasting: My YouTube techno to chill mix.
Ah...Summer time, and the temps are hot. And like Summer, one needs the beats to go with the hot days, and something a little chill to cool off at night. My YouTube playlist, called, "Techno and beats, transition to chill techno."
38 videos, about 2 1/2 hours, that start with Underworld's King of Snake, and ends with Dusted's Always Remember to Respect and Honour Your Mother.
38 videos, about 2 1/2 hours, that start with Underworld's King of Snake, and ends with Dusted's Always Remember to Respect and Honour Your Mother.
Free Market Nimbyism.
It was an odd thing today, to see the DoJ step in and oppose the merger of US Airways and American Airlines; after all, many airlines have come and gone in the US, and it's got to be at least a little amusing that the regional airliners are now gobbling up the international ones.
But a closer look revealed that it was reddish states attorney generals -- Texas, Arizona, Florida, Tennessee, Virginia and Pennsylvania -- who joined the DoJ lawsuit.
It turns out, reddish states are only interested in free markets creatively destroying economies of bluish states, but not their own. Hence, the protectionism of Arizona and Texas, the homes of US Airways and American, respectively, knowing that any merger will result in huge cutbacks in employment, and termination of overlapping routes.
That the push for a lawsuit to block the merger isn't exactly news, either. Members of Congress have been upset since the announcement of the merger, that their closest airport -- Reagan National -- would be adversely affected, with the new entity controlling 2/3rds of all flights from Reagan National. So naturally, Congress pushed for the DoJ to step in.
And there you have it: Republicans are supporters of free markets when they're not the ones negatively affected by it, but are supporters of regulated markets when they're the ones negatively affected by free markets.
But a closer look revealed that it was reddish states attorney generals -- Texas, Arizona, Florida, Tennessee, Virginia and Pennsylvania -- who joined the DoJ lawsuit.
It turns out, reddish states are only interested in free markets creatively destroying economies of bluish states, but not their own. Hence, the protectionism of Arizona and Texas, the homes of US Airways and American, respectively, knowing that any merger will result in huge cutbacks in employment, and termination of overlapping routes.
That the push for a lawsuit to block the merger isn't exactly news, either. Members of Congress have been upset since the announcement of the merger, that their closest airport -- Reagan National -- would be adversely affected, with the new entity controlling 2/3rds of all flights from Reagan National. So naturally, Congress pushed for the DoJ to step in.
And there you have it: Republicans are supporters of free markets when they're not the ones negatively affected by it, but are supporters of regulated markets when they're the ones negatively affected by free markets.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Chromecasting: Dance like it's the 80s
Still doing more Chromecasting, and I'm still building more music video playlists on YouTube. This weekend, it's my, "Dance like it's the 80s" playlist.
It's 64 videos good for 4 hours or so, of the sort of dance music I grew up dancing to...music that brought a smile to my face. Fair warning though: Dance music transitioned from happy dance in the early 80s to an R&B / rap dance; it's more or less a timeline of that transition.
It starts and ends with the B52s: Rock Lobster and Love Shack.
Yeah, it's missing Prince, but that's because Prince doesn't want anything to do with YouTube, to the point that he took down a mother's video of her child running around with "Let's Go Crazy" playing in the background on the radio...only to back off, after she sued. So uh, no Prince. Sorry.
It's 64 videos good for 4 hours or so, of the sort of dance music I grew up dancing to...music that brought a smile to my face. Fair warning though: Dance music transitioned from happy dance in the early 80s to an R&B / rap dance; it's more or less a timeline of that transition.
It starts and ends with the B52s: Rock Lobster and Love Shack.
Yeah, it's missing Prince, but that's because Prince doesn't want anything to do with YouTube, to the point that he took down a mother's video of her child running around with "Let's Go Crazy" playing in the background on the radio...only to back off, after she sued. So uh, no Prince. Sorry.
Friday, August 9, 2013
Chromecasting: 70s memories music.
Because I'm doing so much Chromecasting, I've decided to build up new YouTube playlists that I can cast as background video and music while working.
Just finished building a 5+ hour playlist that I call, "My memory of the 70s". 81 videos / songs, all of which I listened to while growing up. It's a monster list ranging from Bread to Kenny Rogers to The Bee Gees to Steely Dan. I'm pretty sure this'll become one of my favorite playlists.
Oh, and if you're wondering, most of my playlists are "unlisted", which means that, so long as you have the link, you'll find it, otherwise it's not there to be searched and discovered on YouTube.
Just finished building a 5+ hour playlist that I call, "My memory of the 70s". 81 videos / songs, all of which I listened to while growing up. It's a monster list ranging from Bread to Kenny Rogers to The Bee Gees to Steely Dan. I'm pretty sure this'll become one of my favorite playlists.
Oh, and if you're wondering, most of my playlists are "unlisted", which means that, so long as you have the link, you'll find it, otherwise it's not there to be searched and discovered on YouTube.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
ISS in the sky tonight.
OMG. I was outside watching (yet again) the International Space Station fly overhead (-3.3 mag), when I was surprised. I saw a much fainter object (0.9 mag) trailing the ISS. Aha, it had to be a cargo ship! Sure enough, I checked and the HTV-4 was getting ready to dock.
Talk about freaking awesome!!!
Talk about freaking awesome!!!
 |
| ISS -- the big dot in the middle. HTV-4 -- the smaller one in the upper-right. |
NCAA's repeated hypocrisy over the Reggie Bush case gets worse. (Updated)
Let's review the NCAA's past hypocrisies over the Reggie Bush case, shall we?
Update: Apparently it was all too much hypocrisy for the NCAA. They officially announced that they would shut down sales of items tied to individuals.
It brings up a separate question, though: For now, the NCAA continues to sell Junior Seau jerseys -- see below -- even though he's dead (suicide, suffering from the effects of repeated head trauma); have they ever donated a portion of the proceeds to his children?
- Paul Dee, head of the COI stated unequivocally that USC either knew of should have known that Reggie Bush's family had taken money from an agent. Then it turns out years later, that under Paul Dee's watch at the University of Miami, a massive scandal had been going on, right under his nose.
- The NCAA repeatedly said that its COI had a transparent process (heck, they even had a dog and pony show), but it wasn't until they had a court order (from the Todd McNair lawsuit) to turn over internal emails, did the court first discover that the COI had been violating its own process and rules regarding investigations.
- Speaking of rules and the lack of following them, the COI also violated its own rules when they disallowed USC representatives from sitting in on witness interviews.
- And about this so-called fairness at the COI? One of the members who adjudicated the claims against USC and Todd McNair, was a former long-time employee of Notre Dame, a major rival.
There were many instances of hypocrisy, but these were the most egregious examples...until yesterday.
Via Larry Brown Sports, we found out yesterday that the NCAA's own paraphernalia sales website -- shopNCAAsports.com -- was selling autographed photos of Reggie Bush from the 2005 Orange Bowl where USC completely destroyed Oklahoma. Of course, the offending item was removed once it became public. You know what precipitated all this, of course: The NCAA was profiting from Johnny Football on its website, and Jay Bilas pointed out that Manziel couldn't personally receive compensation for the use of his image and signature, but the NCAA could.
So, while the NCAA demanded that USC disassociate itself from Reggie Bush, the NCAA not only maintained its ties to Reggie Bush, but also made money off him!
How disgusting.
 |
| NCAA selling Bush memorabilia, via Larry Brown Sports |
Update: Apparently it was all too much hypocrisy for the NCAA. They officially announced that they would shut down sales of items tied to individuals.
It brings up a separate question, though: For now, the NCAA continues to sell Junior Seau jerseys -- see below -- even though he's dead (suicide, suffering from the effects of repeated head trauma); have they ever donated a portion of the proceeds to his children?
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
comScore US smartphone June 2013 market share: Apple still growing.
comScore released its June 2013 US smartphone market share report, and it shows Apple continues to grow, even as Apple's worldwide total phone sales have declined. Interesting.
So what we see is:
| Top Smartphone Platforms 3 Month Avg. Ending Jun. 2013 vs. 3 Month Avg. Ending Mar. 2013 Total U.S. Smartphone Subscribers Age 13+ Source: comScore MobiLens | |||
| Share (%) of Smartphone Subscribers | |||
| Mar-13 | Jun-13 | Point Change | |
| Total Smartphone Subscribers | 100.0% | 100.0% | N/A |
| Android | 52.0% | 52.0% | 0.0 |
| Apple | 39.0% | 39.9% | 0.9 |
| BlackBerry | 5.2% | 4.4% | -0.8 |
| Microsoft | 3.0% | 3.1% | 0.1 |
So what we see is:
- Android has plateaued...for now. If you're like me, you're waiting for Android 5.0 to be released, or the next big thing, which might be Moto X. Right now the full price of a Moto X phone hasn't been revealed, but there is a suggestion that Google could sell it at a healthy margin at just $300 to start. This would be a revolution in sales, if you can get a customized phone with a kevlar shell, for $300 without contracts.
- The iPhone is still growing...in the US at least. We already know from their quarterly earnings report that their sales have dropped in two, straight, sequential quarters. Curious, isn't it? Never count out Apple, though. Everyone expects this to drop in the next several months though, as people await the next iPhone iterations.
- Blackberry is still losing market share...no bottom yet. You can see that it's almost ready to hit bottom and do something, but alas, the platform seems destined to die if nothing dramatic occurs...as in licensing of the Blackberry OS.
- Windows Phone has definitely hit bottom...and just sits there. Worse, it's still sitting below Blackberry's market share in the US. How weird is that? Windows Phone is now on its third major iteration (7.0, 7.5 and 8.0) and it still hasn't moved upwards in any significant way. This is Microsoft's home, and yet it can't compete head-to-head.
Love, love, love those folks at comScore, by the way. Without all of their reliable data porn, life would be boring.
A heads-up: Google Play Store has Computer Arts for $19.99/yr.
I don't know if it's a too-good-to-be-true deal, but the Google Play Store now has the Computer Arts digital magazine for $19.99 a year. Normally, the price is about $65 a year ($5/issue), so this is a massive bargain!
Note that, if you look at the page, it says you can buy individual issues for $6.99, or subscribe for $5.99, none of which makes any sense, because if you click, the subscription price for 13 issues shows up at $19.99. Don't ask me why.
I subscribed to it, and so far it seems just as advertised: 13 issues a year for $19.99. It's just too good of a deal to pass up on, even if it's only good for this first year, because I really dig Computer Arts, if mostly just for the eye candy -- I'm all about the eye candy.
Note that, if you look at the page, it says you can buy individual issues for $6.99, or subscribe for $5.99, none of which makes any sense, because if you click, the subscription price for 13 issues shows up at $19.99. Don't ask me why.
I subscribed to it, and so far it seems just as advertised: 13 issues a year for $19.99. It's just too good of a deal to pass up on, even if it's only good for this first year, because I really dig Computer Arts, if mostly just for the eye candy -- I'm all about the eye candy.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Just say "NO" to eliminating Fannie and Freddie.
I have no idea where President Obama is coming from, but getting rid of Fannie and Freddie is a truly idiotic move, in the same way getting rid of Glass-Steagall was for former President Clinton.
Fannie and Freddie are backstops to business cycles in the housing industry; if you get rid of them, the swings of the housing market will be wider, not narrower. The worst part of his idea is to rely on the securitization (i.e. the REAL reason why we had a mortgage and housing bubble) of mortgages.
Did we not learn anything about Republicans in Congress, these past several years? Not only are they willing to eliminate Freddie and Fannie, but they're also going to inevitably deregulate the housing / mortgage markets altogether, eliminating oversight of the securitization process. When the Franken Amendment to Dodd-Frank passed, it did so with 4/5ths of Republicans voting against ending the pay-to-play scheme of the ratings agencies, whose role in giving rosy ratings to securitized mortgages was central to the bubble explosion.
And anyway, they'll have repaid their entire bailout to the government by the end of this year, and start making tons of money for the government. Why would you destroy a massive money-maker, just as it is coming back?
The only thing that needs tossing out, is Edward DeMarco, the guy in charge at Freddie, who gave a poor excuse of why Freddie couldn't mark down mortgages to market value, thus reducing debt overhang and bringing homeowners back from the brink of solvency.
Once the bailout has been paid back in full, instead of winding them down, the government should simply release Fannie and Freddie back to the market place with stricter rules requiring separate ratings of securitized mortgages that it purchases.
Update: I couldn't believe when I read that Obama thinks that, by privatization of mortgages, they'll be able to clear out the underwater mortgages faster. Looking back at the last three years, you'd have to be a fool to believe that banks were quick to mark down mortgages to market value and clear out underwater mortgages. The criticism is all about Ed DeMarco's unwillingness to mark down mortgages, but like I said, just get rid of him and the problem is solved.
Obama says that privatization will push risks onto investors. Lemme tell you, banks and their investors don't take your risk; they raise your costs to pay for insurance (both mortgage insurance and credit default swaps) against your risk, or they simply refuse to loan money to you. This is going to be very bad for the middle and lower-middle income folks, and everyone else with existing mortgages, as fees will shoot up.
TBNT.
Fannie and Freddie are backstops to business cycles in the housing industry; if you get rid of them, the swings of the housing market will be wider, not narrower. The worst part of his idea is to rely on the securitization (i.e. the REAL reason why we had a mortgage and housing bubble) of mortgages.
Did we not learn anything about Republicans in Congress, these past several years? Not only are they willing to eliminate Freddie and Fannie, but they're also going to inevitably deregulate the housing / mortgage markets altogether, eliminating oversight of the securitization process. When the Franken Amendment to Dodd-Frank passed, it did so with 4/5ths of Republicans voting against ending the pay-to-play scheme of the ratings agencies, whose role in giving rosy ratings to securitized mortgages was central to the bubble explosion.
And anyway, they'll have repaid their entire bailout to the government by the end of this year, and start making tons of money for the government. Why would you destroy a massive money-maker, just as it is coming back?
The only thing that needs tossing out, is Edward DeMarco, the guy in charge at Freddie, who gave a poor excuse of why Freddie couldn't mark down mortgages to market value, thus reducing debt overhang and bringing homeowners back from the brink of solvency.
Once the bailout has been paid back in full, instead of winding them down, the government should simply release Fannie and Freddie back to the market place with stricter rules requiring separate ratings of securitized mortgages that it purchases.
Update: I couldn't believe when I read that Obama thinks that, by privatization of mortgages, they'll be able to clear out the underwater mortgages faster. Looking back at the last three years, you'd have to be a fool to believe that banks were quick to mark down mortgages to market value and clear out underwater mortgages. The criticism is all about Ed DeMarco's unwillingness to mark down mortgages, but like I said, just get rid of him and the problem is solved.
Obama says that privatization will push risks onto investors. Lemme tell you, banks and their investors don't take your risk; they raise your costs to pay for insurance (both mortgage insurance and credit default swaps) against your risk, or they simply refuse to loan money to you. This is going to be very bad for the middle and lower-middle income folks, and everyone else with existing mortgages, as fees will shoot up.
TBNT.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Stem cell burgers brings up an interesting question.
You might have heard / read about the beef burger grown from stem cells. It cost over $300K to make, but that price will eventually drop to consumer-friendly levels. If you think about it, it makes sense: No need to worry about the inhumane treatment of cows or the amount of waste -- methane and manure -- that pollutes the planet. If you ask me, they really should create hot dogs from stem cells, considering the sort of junk that goes in them right now, kosher hot dogs excepted.
But here's the interesting question:
Is it immoral, and might it be unethical, to eat human protein burgers grown from human stem cells?
Tough one to answer. You're not killing anyone, and you're not actually eating a part that came from a real human, but that stem cell nonetheless carries the DNA of a real human.
But here's the interesting question:
Is it immoral, and might it be unethical, to eat human protein burgers grown from human stem cells?
Tough one to answer. You're not killing anyone, and you're not actually eating a part that came from a real human, but that stem cell nonetheless carries the DNA of a real human.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)