Things like this are why we can honestly say that nerds have the best fun...
(H/T Threedonia)
Monday, March 7, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Spin the Wheel
Really nothing to say about Charlie Sheen that Robbie Robertson didn't say back in 1987 about some other famous messed-up people to whom the fame machine donated the fuel and the matches so the ghouls could watch them burn:
Take the boy and put him in a mansion; paint the windows black.
Give him all the women that he wants, put a monkey on his back.
All of your so-called friends, take you where the sidewalk ends, I said.
Can't sleep at night, no, can't sleep at night...
Lord please save his soul; he was the king of rock and roll.
American roulette, stake your life upon it,
American roulette, same eyes, same eyes.
American roulette.
"American Roulette" -- Robbie Robertson
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Your Attention, Please...
Ohio State and Auburn Universities and the National Collegiate Athletic Association: This is how it's done. Create any code you like. Make it strict, make it lax, make it ordinary, make it weird. Make them read it, make them sign it, paint it on the wall or whatever else you think needs doing. But when someone crosses whatever line you've drawn, follow through with it.
No, "We'll suspend them at the start of next season, after the bowl game." No, "Well, his dad was shopping him around to different schools but he didn't know anything about it." No lame excuses, no ethical and logical contortions that would make Plastic Man wince, just because a bowl win or a national title may be on the line.
Lord knows, according to a couple of different books out these days, not many colleges teach kids all that much anyway. It'd be nice if somebody thought about teaching them what it means to be an adult and accept the consequences of your own actions.
No, "We'll suspend them at the start of next season, after the bowl game." No, "Well, his dad was shopping him around to different schools but he didn't know anything about it." No lame excuses, no ethical and logical contortions that would make Plastic Man wince, just because a bowl win or a national title may be on the line.
Lord knows, according to a couple of different books out these days, not many colleges teach kids all that much anyway. It'd be nice if somebody thought about teaching them what it means to be an adult and accept the consequences of your own actions.
Friday, March 4, 2011
TV Execs Defy Description, Part 43
If you are tired of how many times I am a Firefly fanboy geek on my blog, I cannot help you. But this particular bit showcases the current absence of clues required to help run a television network.
Yes, according to the person who was responsible for canceling the show, the basic act of airing its episodes in order had no real impact on its ratings. See the pilot first? The show that sets up the premise for the series and introduces three fairly pivotal characters to the good ship Serenity that will drive a good bit of the overall story arc? Nah, why bother. Won't make a difference. Just show any of 'em and then shrug and go "Beats me" when someone asks why the ratings are so low the show has to be canceled.
Couple of posts ago I said it was technically impossible to have a brainless idea, because all ideas have corresponding neurological activity in the brain.
Kudos to Ms. Berman for working so hard to prove me wrong.
And this is this blog's 900th post! Can I run my mouth or what?
Yes, according to the person who was responsible for canceling the show, the basic act of airing its episodes in order had no real impact on its ratings. See the pilot first? The show that sets up the premise for the series and introduces three fairly pivotal characters to the good ship Serenity that will drive a good bit of the overall story arc? Nah, why bother. Won't make a difference. Just show any of 'em and then shrug and go "Beats me" when someone asks why the ratings are so low the show has to be canceled.
Couple of posts ago I said it was technically impossible to have a brainless idea, because all ideas have corresponding neurological activity in the brain.
Kudos to Ms. Berman for working so hard to prove me wrong.
And this is this blog's 900th post! Can I run my mouth or what?
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Another "Duh"
I had no idea, but apparently one of the factors that backers use to get people on board with a bid to host the Olympics is that it will improve fitness amongst their countrymen and increase participation in sports.
The good folks of England are proving it ain't necessarily so. London's winning bid for the2014 2012 Olympic Games was supposed to spur people to get out and do more, specifically more in some of the sports involved in the Olympics. By the time those games arrived in 2014 2012, a million more Englishmen and women would be out and about, getting themselves fit. But now, organizers are finding, the rate of increased activity amongst the gentry puts the one-million mark on the calendar not in 2014 2012, but more like 2024.
Our "duh" moment comes in two ways. One, the use of the Olympics as some kind of additional incentive to the usual nagging of people to get out and exercise more just sounds silly. "Hey, mate, put down the pint, get your mug out of the chips and let's go throw a javelin or two, like they're going to do in the Olympics!" The first javelin will be thrown through someone's foot so that the thrower can return to his pint and his fried potatoes in peace.
And as the story notes, the Olympics don't spur that kind of response and, according to statistics, never have. This makes sense too: Maybe little kids see Michael Phelps and get the bug to swim competitively, but grownups not so much. Although I am given to understand by female friends and family that the site of Mr. Phelps' broad-shouldered physique is pleasurable to contemplate, said ladies are not thus moved to don swimsuits themselves and try racing through the water as he did (according to one: "I know where the end of the race is and I can wait for him there.")
I like the Olympics and I like watching athletes from around the world compete in them. I like the stories of the single-minded devotion of folks from out back of beyond who dedicate their lives to gaining one chance at the Olympic stage, to wear their countries' flags in front of the whole world no matter where they may place in their particular event. But the idea that there will be some kind of long-term benefit beyond some beefed-up infrastructure or fond nostalgia gets sillier and sillier every time someone tries to pile another supposed plus on top of the ones that already have been shown not to exist.
(H/T The Sports Economist)
(Edited to correct date of London games, thanks to a note from a reader. I know! Who'd believe I have readers?)
The good folks of England are proving it ain't necessarily so. London's winning bid for the
Our "duh" moment comes in two ways. One, the use of the Olympics as some kind of additional incentive to the usual nagging of people to get out and exercise more just sounds silly. "Hey, mate, put down the pint, get your mug out of the chips and let's go throw a javelin or two, like they're going to do in the Olympics!" The first javelin will be thrown through someone's foot so that the thrower can return to his pint and his fried potatoes in peace.
And as the story notes, the Olympics don't spur that kind of response and, according to statistics, never have. This makes sense too: Maybe little kids see Michael Phelps and get the bug to swim competitively, but grownups not so much. Although I am given to understand by female friends and family that the site of Mr. Phelps' broad-shouldered physique is pleasurable to contemplate, said ladies are not thus moved to don swimsuits themselves and try racing through the water as he did (according to one: "I know where the end of the race is and I can wait for him there.")
I like the Olympics and I like watching athletes from around the world compete in them. I like the stories of the single-minded devotion of folks from out back of beyond who dedicate their lives to gaining one chance at the Olympic stage, to wear their countries' flags in front of the whole world no matter where they may place in their particular event. But the idea that there will be some kind of long-term benefit beyond some beefed-up infrastructure or fond nostalgia gets sillier and sillier every time someone tries to pile another supposed plus on top of the ones that already have been shown not to exist.
(H/T The Sports Economist)
(Edited to correct date of London games, thanks to a note from a reader. I know! Who'd believe I have readers?)
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Tennis? Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?
I have elsewhere noted that my alma mater, in addition to being the primary bastion of defense against the advance of Illini-led communism, was also a egg-headed liberal arts school that taught us about old poetry and literature and stuff.
But not all of us were tweedy types who spent hours trying to figure out how to create the perfect collegiate Shakespearean sonnet (hint: Fourteen lines, a-b-a-b, c-d-c-d, e-f-e-f, g-g rhyme structure and includes references to pizza, beer and "Louie, Louie"). Some of us were the classic kind of nerds that thought of just about everything in terms of scientific experiments and mathematical formulae. And at least one of us was the kind of language snob who insists on using proper Latinate plural forms of certain words.
Anyway, one of those classic nerds (we actually called them "weens," which is another story for another time) turned his attention to the sport of tennis. Filippo Radicchi, a researcher at Northwestern and tennis fan, decided to apply something called network analysis to try to rank male tennis players. According to the story, he used an algorithm, or special kind of equation, like the one Google uses to rank web pages. The algorithm increased a player's ranking, for example, if he had more wins over other higher-ranking players. Thus, a single victory over say, Björn Borg, would be of more value than a bunch of wins over Dominik Hrbaty. Or me.
And so, according to the algorithm, the greatest player of "all time" is Jimmy Connors. "All time" is in quotes because Radicchi's study only included players with one Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) match played between 1968 and 2010. Radicchi points out that Connors rates so high because his long career (20-plus years of playing tournament-level tennis) gave him the chance to earn victories over several top opponents, and that current players who might very well have bested Connors in his prime are ranked lower because they're still playing and accumulating value in the algorithm.
On the one hand, serious nerd-ism, to be sure. On the other hand, Radicchi is my favorite kind of specialist -- someone who takes his or her specific field of study and applies it to an area he or she enjoys in the real world, both just for fun and to try to learn something.
But not all of us were tweedy types who spent hours trying to figure out how to create the perfect collegiate Shakespearean sonnet (hint: Fourteen lines, a-b-a-b, c-d-c-d, e-f-e-f, g-g rhyme structure and includes references to pizza, beer and "Louie, Louie"). Some of us were the classic kind of nerds that thought of just about everything in terms of scientific experiments and mathematical formulae. And at least one of us was the kind of language snob who insists on using proper Latinate plural forms of certain words.
Anyway, one of those classic nerds (we actually called them "weens," which is another story for another time) turned his attention to the sport of tennis. Filippo Radicchi, a researcher at Northwestern and tennis fan, decided to apply something called network analysis to try to rank male tennis players. According to the story, he used an algorithm, or special kind of equation, like the one Google uses to rank web pages. The algorithm increased a player's ranking, for example, if he had more wins over other higher-ranking players. Thus, a single victory over say, Björn Borg, would be of more value than a bunch of wins over Dominik Hrbaty. Or me.
And so, according to the algorithm, the greatest player of "all time" is Jimmy Connors. "All time" is in quotes because Radicchi's study only included players with one Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) match played between 1968 and 2010. Radicchi points out that Connors rates so high because his long career (20-plus years of playing tournament-level tennis) gave him the chance to earn victories over several top opponents, and that current players who might very well have bested Connors in his prime are ranked lower because they're still playing and accumulating value in the algorithm.
On the one hand, serious nerd-ism, to be sure. On the other hand, Radicchi is my favorite kind of specialist -- someone who takes his or her specific field of study and applies it to an area he or she enjoys in the real world, both just for fun and to try to learn something.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Therefore, Am I? I Think...
A fellow named Raymond Tallis -- a doctor and a humanist philosopher named Raymond Tallis, I should say -- reviews a couple of books about the emerging science of consciousness and comes away unimpressed.
If you've not run across the idea of the science of consciousness before, it seems to stem from the idea that a lot of the things we think go on in our heads actually go on in our brains, too. That is, things like ideas, wishes, feelings and such have been found to correspond with actual neural activity in the brain. This means that technically, it's impossible for someone to have a "brainless idea," Jersey Shore and the Wisconsin State Senate as evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
"Consciousness" in this kind of discussion usually boils down to some kind of talk about how people are aware they're people, and how they think about that. Sometimes. In other words, squirrels spend zero time thinking about what makes a good squirrel or about whether or not they've achieved that status. Dogs may be concerned with whether or not we tell them that they're good dogs, but that has more to do with them worrying about whether or not we'll kick them out of the pack than it does with formulating their own ideas about what good dogs are. A "science of consciousness" tries, among other things, to explain all those thoughts and feelings, as well as art, music and nearly everything else, in terms of neural activity in the brain.
The books Dr. Tallis reviews suggest that our human consciousness also has some sort of biological function, or else we wouldn't have it. Just like long claws and sharp teeth serve the lion, strong leg muscles and lightweight build serve the antelope and the ability to stink serves the skunk, our consciousness must also serve us, giving us some biological edge over our competitors. Dr. Tallis is unconvinced -- his own understanding suggests that whatever biological edges we may gain from consciousness could have been gained without it.
I'm unconvinced too. There are lots of life forms that thrive without consciousness, like roaches or (insert cheap joke about pop culture celebrity, politician or other person you'd like to take a dig at here). Consciousness isn't biologically necessary, even if it is helpful to be able to build spears and clubs when you're slow, small, climb poorly and have short teeth and claws. Now, Dr. Tallis is, as far as I can tell, an atheist, which means he wouldn't track with me beyond this point. For me, consciousness is an evidence of God's presence: Life does not need consciousness to exist, but it does need consciousness to know God.
That's one of the reasons I don't much sweat the idea of life evolving over time like some of my fellow believers do, although I cast no stones their way over their preferences. I have no problem with the idea that God created the universe pretty much according to what modern cosmology, archaeology and biology tell us about it. And if God did so that way, then to me the presence of beings in that universe who can wonder about God, the universe and themselves is a sign of God's reality. Not proof, because I'd be assuming as true the thing I was trying to prove was true, which you can't do in the proof game.
Just a sign.
If you've not run across the idea of the science of consciousness before, it seems to stem from the idea that a lot of the things we think go on in our heads actually go on in our brains, too. That is, things like ideas, wishes, feelings and such have been found to correspond with actual neural activity in the brain. This means that technically, it's impossible for someone to have a "brainless idea," Jersey Shore and the Wisconsin State Senate as evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
"Consciousness" in this kind of discussion usually boils down to some kind of talk about how people are aware they're people, and how they think about that. Sometimes. In other words, squirrels spend zero time thinking about what makes a good squirrel or about whether or not they've achieved that status. Dogs may be concerned with whether or not we tell them that they're good dogs, but that has more to do with them worrying about whether or not we'll kick them out of the pack than it does with formulating their own ideas about what good dogs are. A "science of consciousness" tries, among other things, to explain all those thoughts and feelings, as well as art, music and nearly everything else, in terms of neural activity in the brain.
The books Dr. Tallis reviews suggest that our human consciousness also has some sort of biological function, or else we wouldn't have it. Just like long claws and sharp teeth serve the lion, strong leg muscles and lightweight build serve the antelope and the ability to stink serves the skunk, our consciousness must also serve us, giving us some biological edge over our competitors. Dr. Tallis is unconvinced -- his own understanding suggests that whatever biological edges we may gain from consciousness could have been gained without it.
I'm unconvinced too. There are lots of life forms that thrive without consciousness, like roaches or (insert cheap joke about pop culture celebrity, politician or other person you'd like to take a dig at here). Consciousness isn't biologically necessary, even if it is helpful to be able to build spears and clubs when you're slow, small, climb poorly and have short teeth and claws. Now, Dr. Tallis is, as far as I can tell, an atheist, which means he wouldn't track with me beyond this point. For me, consciousness is an evidence of God's presence: Life does not need consciousness to exist, but it does need consciousness to know God.
That's one of the reasons I don't much sweat the idea of life evolving over time like some of my fellow believers do, although I cast no stones their way over their preferences. I have no problem with the idea that God created the universe pretty much according to what modern cosmology, archaeology and biology tell us about it. And if God did so that way, then to me the presence of beings in that universe who can wonder about God, the universe and themselves is a sign of God's reality. Not proof, because I'd be assuming as true the thing I was trying to prove was true, which you can't do in the proof game.
Just a sign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)