- This is very interesting, but it’s really, really incomplete. I’d like to see breakouts by team, and some controlling for other factors (opponent, weather, W/L, etc.). Oh, and I guess I’m old: I’d never even heard of Webkinz.
- I have to say, I really rather dislike John C. Reilly. I think he’s this generation’s Gene Hackman — an extremely limited character actor who benefits greatly from some zeitgeisty hipsters-plus-white-populists identification issues. Though I did think he was surprisingly good in Chicago (the only good thing at all about that wretched film, in fact).
- But that doesn’t even begin to approach the disdain I have for Keira Knightley. In fact, I think the Audrey Hepburn parallel is entirely appropriate — unskilled waifs (waives?) with negative screen presence.
- This is cute, but when did Calcaterra start trafficking in moralistic twaddle?
- Euphemism: Cork hurling
- Natures abhors a Newt
- This really does sound like a great setup in need of a remake.
You can keep your god-damn baseball cards, College Boy: DLD 102609 86
86 thoughts on “You can keep your god-damn baseball cards, College Boy: DLD 102609”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Yikes… Reilly, ok, I don’t particularly like that guy, especially since nowadays he seems always to be hanging around a certain very evil compatriot. But you don’t like Hackman? He is great… Deserves every bit of praise, and I would definitely not say that he lacks range.
I’m gonna go watch Charade.
And I don’t much care for The Conversation.
The Conversation + The French Connection = not a character actor.
Holy shit. So, seriously, this article is a bunch of holy shit.
Pardon me for my ignorance, but wouldn’t “Christianity’s most enduring and impressive foe” be … Satan?
(I guess the implied equivalence is intentional.)
Depends upon whether we’ve figured out how to nuke hell and steal its oil.
Re 4: I guarantee you that Calcaterra would never admit publicly to past, unprovable, wrongdoing that he was still subject to prosecution for.
Nicely put.
Re 6: “I want to see an alternate Republican Party,” Gingrich said, “not an opposition Republican Party.” Don’t we all. Of course, it isn’t like he’s contributed any ideas himself…
Not that I care in the least about the NFL, but, boy, would I love it if the Raiders and their outfield-mulching impositions decamped once again for LA. Of course, the Niners doing so would be funnier.
If the Raiders leave, does that make a new baseball only field in the parking lot dramatically more likely? It feels like it should, but I’d love a ruling from someone who knows what they’re talking about.
Ditto all that.
Ahhhhhhhhh, now I see: ** is a remake of a French film.
Speaking of remakes, this is actually not a bad idea at all (setting it in Baghdad would be very good), but that casting? Eeeeeeyuck.
Why Dicaprio keeps getting cast in potentially good movies is one of the great mysteries of our time.
Well… lack of alternatives partly.
The fate of Cinema in the early 21st century rests in the hands of a couple thousand Japanese schoolgirls.
Because he’s a good actor.
I have no thoughts on Kiera Knightly, but I ADORE Audrey Hepburn. There, I said it. Charade, How to Steal a Million, Funny Face, Roman Holiday, Breakfast at Tiffany’s…I love her in all those movies.
4. I wonder if McGwire will work his hitting magic with Holliday again.
Since someone else mentioned Kiera Knightly, I would be remiss in not linking to this (long) LICD story.
I’m listening to a lecture about entropy right now, so for my metaphor I will say that Ostler has degenerated into a lukewarm puddle of drool.
Ostler clearly wasn’t beaten enough as a child.
Judging by your comment, you want to become edu-ma-cated in basic science. If you’re still at Cal, I highly recommend Rich Muller’s “Physics for Future Presidents” class (Physics 10, I believe). My wife TA’s a very early incarnation of that course, and it has since grown to be one of the most popular on campus. I’m pretty sure all the lectures are webcast these days. I thought the goal – giving non-scientists a grounding in the basic science they need to know as citizens and policy makers – was pretty cool.
Prof: Yes, you in the back.
Student: Is it possible, given the laws of physics as we currently understand them for me to go back in time and stop Dylan and Tiffany from taking those drunken photos of me last night and blackmailing me 20 years in the future?
In 20 years there will be drunken photos of everyone, and no one will care.
You heard it here first.
Nope. Rule 6.
I don’t believe a single word in there. WTF was up with that parable of the super-intelligent trees?
The point is you can’t just zip from one place to another without getting there somehow, whether you are zipping from place to place to time to time.
Hat tip to Rush in Rule 5? “it would gobble you up and grow slightly more corpulent in the process.”
STOP FOLLOWING ME!
I am more interested in very non-basic (or very basic) science particularly concerning time (the subject of lecture I was listening to) and what to make of quantum mechanics, which subjects have variable levels of scrutability for those who don’t understand the math (and also variable levels of scrutability as to the question of whether I am able to figure out whether I can make progress or just become hopelessly confused without the math). My favorite class in college by far was Philosophy of Space and Time. I’m much less interested in mediumcro-scopic science offers much less brain-titillation (which is what I’m after) relative to the time investment. I like watching video lectures and probably some of those that you mention would be along the lines of what I’m after.
The most challenging (in a good way) class I took was about quantum computing. Of course, the takeaway is that they’d be very very cool but won’t ever be built with any kind of minimal processing power.
My sense is that people think they will very likely be built at some point not too far off.
As a practical matter I sort of hope not.
Certainly that wasn’t the line 5 years ago (they’d built the equivalent of 3-bit ones, but couldn’t even think about scaling up).
The thing about actually building one is that all computer systems immediately become insecure. I’m not enough of a crypto-nerd to know if there’s a solution, but I know any schlub with a QC would immediately be able to access just about any encrypted data anywhere on the internet.
What is wrong with that? It really is not fair for the German government to keep the recipe for perfect kraut under lock and key.
I have a friend whose research is in that area (using SQUIDs), and from what I understand it’s still a pretty hot field.
But we’re still a long way from “any schlub” being able to break encryption. For one thing, what people can build only exists in carefully controlled lab settings (and very close to absolute zero). For another, in quantum computing there can be practical difficulties in scaling up algorithms even though they theoretically run in polynomial time. So your 128-bit keys are probably safe for a while longer.
Right. Basically because QCs “won’t ever be built with any kind of minimal processing power” in a way that the schlub could use them.
I should admit that “ever” is hyperbole. They may well be built some day.
Data and logistics in the A’s new SJ stadium will be powered by QC.
Pffsssh. “Some point not too far off.” Not soon enough for me! I’m off to freeze myself so I experience the advent more quickly.
You’re already ahead of all the rubes who gambol about in the sunlight unaware that they are shortening the length of their experienced lives.
I will never understand the non-scientist’s fascination with quantum mechanics.
It’s simple, really. It’s really weird, and promises cool things. Does it matter that I once could do “simple” equations with bras and kets? No.
It’s not just promising, it’s delivering. Tons of stuff utilize QM.
I guess my confusion is that most people I meet who are “quantum-mechanics-is-soooo-cool” are interested in the paradoxes and thought experiments, and not the concrete applications that come from exploiting things like localized surface plasmons. But I’m coming around to the fact that it’s a shortcoming of my linear thinking…
I start to lose interest when I see the words “applied” or “applications.”
I can understand the confusion.
I think the answer, at least for me, is that fully harnessing QM would be such an utter game-changer (rather than an incrementally-improving “march of science”) that it’s exciting in a vague way. The thought experiments are pretty cool and pretty accessible. Localized surface plasmons, however, are emphatically not accessible to me.
Maybe you should walk over to Max Tegmark’s office and ask him.
What’s the break-even point for quantum base stealing?
Schrodinger’s Brussels sprouts
Schrodinger’s duck
You really need to follow the link. Today.
love the geocities version today.
Yep. He pretty much nailed it, which is why I couldn’t bring myself to just dump the strip over here.
Any thoughts on these three as speakers, and whether or not this would be interesting to us non-scientists?
No idea, but I bet green star oakland knows about these speakers.
I think we’ve discussed this before.
Special relativity, on the other hand, also leads to all kinds of interesting thought experiments (many related to what is/isn’t possible in “time travel”) and is actually really fucking simple mathematically. I’d recommend Taylor&Wheeler’s Spacetime Physics, though it may be stuff that mikeA already knows.
Special relativity is nice for being relatively much easier to grasp than a lot of other stuff. I’m not sure I could achieve a lay understanding of quantum mechanics that would be worth much. Although I do understand it well enough to quickly recognize most of the silly nonsense that you allude to in that link, and I am semi-frequently annoyed by the weird analogies that people try to make, especially the free will stuff…
5. Yet More Euphemism: A Gaelic Bleg
JP Ricciardi, underside of the bus. Underside of the bus, JP Ricciardi.
“J.P. performed less efficiently with more money than he did with less money.”
So would – wait for it – ANYONE. The thing you do with more money is buy free agents. The least efficient thing you can do is buy free agents.
Sigh.
No, not true. Apparently the least efficient thing you can do as an MLB GM is to spend lots of money on a time machine to go into the past to undo onerous financial commitments.
Unless, of course, your name begins with a Z. Then that actually works.
True. And I guess that the Betancourt trade can only be explained by quantum mechanics.
Disbarment, Texas-style.
We live in exciting times. The second coming is upon us.
Would have been more appropriate before they played the Falcons.
What would? The change? (I disagree completely, pre-Falcons Hill was looking able to win games) My comment? (Maybe, we’re 1 GB and 3-0 in division. Plus, none of the other teams are world-beaters)
Your comment
Slouching Towards Fremont
More like Slouching towards Santa Clara… amirite?
where’s the gyre? Who the hell’s got the gyre?!
BTW, I took an entire class on Yeats. It sucked. I mean it. I couldn’t even bring myself to write a term paper. I just copied and pasted like parts of seven different ones and it was not at all cohesive. He ended up giving me a B, and I’m thinking he didn’t even read it.
Ah. Touche. My knowledge of bird-related poetry does not include Falcons. Only Ravens.
OK, I really need to start my Xian pr0n business.
You’ll be much better off if you stick to not pr0n
Webkinz are stuffed animals that also have an on-line life. Kids buy the toy and then log on to the webkinz site where they use a special code to ID their cyber-friend and play with them. You can also take care of the animals on-line by building them homes, clothes, food toys when you play games on the website. My son has about a half dozen of the critters.
Meanwhile… I find myself feeding, watering and cleaning up after my wife’s two cats more and more often. I’m not sure if that makes me some kind of symbolic embodiment of on-line pet care or just a sucker.
Hey! grover!
As a similarly afflicted person (although the she-does-litterbox deal is still holding for me), I recommend the cat water fountains. They hold a LOT of water, so you almost never have to deal with that. Plus, cats like ’em -> drink more water -> don’t have kidney issues.
Cat water fountains…
My only concern is that my wife might mistake that suggestion as me actually caring about her animals. I’d allow that misconception to foster if I thought it would lead to more sex, but I highly doubt that possibility.
Your call. I’m just saying it makes watering a once/week (at most) thing.
Thanks for the idea.
That depends: do the cats laugh at you behind your back or are they appreciative of your efforts?
One cat believes its sleeping place is on my pillow. The other likes to run under my feet when I go down the stairs. My guess is they are subversives trying to end me. But my wife thinks they’re cute and loving and after all I’ve got a quarter million dollar life insurance policy.
it’s time to plot back, m’man. You feed them. I don’t need to say more.
c/b analysis: grover is worth more dead than alive, the cats are worth more alive than dead. OTOH, we should probably calculate their respective VORg and VORP. (Yes, that p stands for what you think it does. I guess maybe that’s a different calculation, eh?)
At least I’m getting one thing I want out of this post season.