Another 3-14, another Pi Day. Last year's post featured that Zoom! parody about wizards, womanizing, and of course, pi.
This year's Pi Day post will feature none other than Pi. That number, again? Nay, I speak of none other than Piao Sam, a.k.a. Pi from the CW's third installment of "Beauty and the Geek". Billed as the "only kissed one girl" geek, he and his partner Sheree (the "former Hooters waitress" beauty) were promptly the second couple sent home.
Oh, if only we could have seen more of you throwing down your Pi-like gang sign, Pi.
"Internet surfing, karaoke and poker. I almost got trampled standing in line for Playstation 3." - Paio Sam
What a waste of a Super Bowl. Besides the opening kickoff run back for a TD by Hester, the Bears blew. Ah, well...at least The Lovely Mary won some money on the squares.
It just so happens that on this date in 2003, a certain US President (out of office in just 722 days) said:
"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." -President George W. Bush
There is an enormity of "Bushisms" to be laughed at (unfortunately), and you can find lists all over the internet. PoliticalHumor.about.com has a funny one, updated frequently (again, unfortunately).
In celebration of this day, The Lovely Mary and I went to (where else) Outback Steakhouse, where I happily enjoyed a steak, a baked potato, and a salad, trying my hardest not to blurt out the occasional "G'day" or "No worries, mate", nor even a "that ain't a nyfe...this is a nyfe". In any case, add another holiday to your list of days you can celebrate for no reason other than to learn more about something (or drink, depending on your mood). Happy Australia Day!
I should start by saying I've never been a fan of college football. Check that: I like the actual football, but I can't stand the system by which the bowl games are "calculated". That's right, rankings.
Even when approached with seemingly the most scientific methods, college football ranking systems have always seemed vague and completely subjective to me (and the end of the year awards presented to individuals too for that matter). Science News recently had an article outlining how such systems' ability to produce "reasonable results" are inherently impossible.
In a paper published in a recent issue of SIAM Review, Paul K. Newton and Kamran Aslam of the University of Southern California argue against the widespread belief that it is possible, with just the right tweaking, to come up with a ranking system that yields reasonable results and eliminates logical inconsistencies—and, hence, settles all arguments, leaving everyone satisfied.
At the heart of the argument is the challenge of assumptions made when coming up with the various ranking systems. Highlighted is the assumption that "when team A is ranked higher than team B, and team B is ranked higher than team C, then team A is ranked higher than team C...seems like a reasonable requirement". This assumption is shown to be faulty, particularly when votes are part of the process.
So how do the bowl games get determined, if not by some ranking process? That's the million dollar question (not that the collegiate atheletes get any of it, at least not legally...). Well, unless another option is presented, science be damned (uh?), as the current system is what we have that works best so far.
Tangentially, this reminded me of a (not-so-recent) post on InsomniousPolitico where there was an attempt to classify various popular dichotomies (the term is used loosely) into two distinct groups; an attempt met with many vociferous comments as the ultimate goal seemed to be grouping logic, men, and conservatism against emotion, women, and liberalism (go see and decide for yourself). In this Science News article, the aforementioned faulty assumption and the example they chose to illustrate it (the selection of the top men's tennis player in 2002) is also exactly why Jaz's attempt to make two mutually exclusive groups won't work.
Let's say you have 3 groups of 2 instead of 3 individuals, groups A, B, and C. Group A may match up with group B in a particular way, and group B may match up with group C in a particular way, but that does not say anything about the relationship between group A and group C, which must be handled seperatly (particularly when the matching up of groups is as subjective as was outlined in the post). As in the tennis example, it is possible to have, even in a sample space as small as 3, a circular state of relation between the groups. Consider the following pairings:
Pairing 1
Pairing 2
Pairing 3
A1
A2
B1
B2
A1
A2
B1
B2
C1
C2
C2
C1
There are only eight possible ways the three groups can be grouped together, and all of them will go against how we defined the group pairings above in exactly one way.
Potential Group
Bad Because of
A1, B1, C1
Pairing 3
A1, B1, C2
Pairing 2
A1, B2, C1
Pairing 1
A1, B2, C2
Pairing 1
A2, B1, C1
Pairing 1
A2, B1, C2
Pairing 1
A2, B2, C1
Pairing 2
A2, B2, C2
Pairing 3
Well, you can't blame a guy for trying (to equate conservatism with logic). Anyway, sorry for what was I'm sure way too much information...I have occasional relapses into math education background. And I miss making tables.
Well, after having had a couple of days to process what happened on Sunday, I've come to grips with the Patriots loss. But now the question remains: who do I root for, if anyone, in the Super Bowl?
If this were like old-time baseball, I'd have to root for the Colts, as they are in our conference. The problem with that is, I hate the Colts; they are our #1 rival (sorry Jets fans). One could make the argument that there is a certain amount of respect due to the Colts on the part of the Patriots, much like there was to Professor Moriarty on the part of Sherlock Holmes. But then there are all those annoying Peyton Manning commercials ("cut...that...meat") that rub me the wrong way. Should I feel good about them finally making it to the Super Bowl since before they were in Indy? Should I be the gracious (fan of the) losing team? Perhaps.
Then there are the Bears. Daaa Bers. No Dit-ka now, though. They are perhaps my least favorite NFC team, and their QB, Rex Grossman, sucked it up for me the short time I had him on a fantasy team for me this year (-15 points for a QB! That's just unacceptable). They beat us in Super Bowl XX. I've rooted against them every game this postseason. I genuinely don't want them to win anything. F the Bears.
So what to do?
Figure out that there are 25 days until pitchers and catchers report to spring training. Go Red Sox.
I recently had a few hours to kill between doctors' appointments, and before I knew it I found myself in the lobby of a movie theater scanning accross titles and times looking for something (hopefully good) to watch. Ultimately, I settled on Sylvester Stallone's sixth "Rocky" movie....no, not "Rocky 6", but rather "Rocky Balboa".
Tangentially, there weren't that many options worth even my consideration, worth noting as I'm notorious in my circles for "liking everything". I guess January is a slow month.
Anyway, the tale told is a sad but idetifiable one, and ultimately there is a sense of triumph and completion. Though it's been more than a decade since watching any of the other Rocky films, I feel as though this latest installment might just be the best. A little suspension of disbelief is required, though, as Rocky comes out of retirement at the tender age of 60 to fight the undefeated heavyweight champion of the world...eh, no big deal in Rocky world.
The interrelationships between the characters take center stage for most of the movie, and the storyline was surprisingly interesting, engaging, and one with which I'm sure many can identify. The images of an old and, pardon the phrase, beaten-up Rocky in a generic sport coat spinning stories of days gone by to patrons of his restaurant are striking and a telling ones, as are the scenes of Rocky visiting the burial site of his former wife Adrian. I almost felt sorry for this character who was clinging onto his past so innocently and yet so clearly, and it was his realizing this and moving on that proved to be the actual triumph in the film (even though moving on for him meant stepping back into the ring to take a traditional Rocky beating). In addition, Rocky struggles with his relationship with his son, who struggles because he thinks he lives in his father's shadow, and of course Paulie, his brother-in-law, who reminds Rocky that everyone's got problems and sorrows and to snap out of it already.
As for Sly, what's probably been clear to many others since 1976 is now crystal clear to me: Rocky is the perfect role for Sylvester Stallone. He conveys perfectly Balboa's coming of (old) age, and not through just the thick and now famous Balboian accent (see: Lou the cop on the Simpsons). I've seen Sly in lots of other movies, with his performances ranging from the decent (Cop Land, Tango and Cash) to the self-caricatural (Over the Top, The Specialist), but this is undoubtedly his best I've seen.
I wish a very happy new year to you all, albeit a little late. Secretly I've done so in the spirit of what today is, Procrastinator's Day. It seems to be recognized primarily (if not exclusively) by the Aerican Empire as a "niftyday" to "recover from new year's". I think there must be more out there on the subject, it's just that people are really slow getting the content up.
Also and Aerican "niftyday" is tomorrow, Snappy Comebacks Day. According to their site it commemorates Oscar Wilde's quote "I have nothing to declare except my genius." (which I am assuming happened on January 3 some year).
Anyhoo, have a good yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
No, this isn't a day you should spend playing games with the heads of others. Mind Games Day is a day of mind puzzles, games and skill. Brainteasers, Rubik's cubes, puzzles, Sudoku, Kakuro, interlocking metal thingees...you get the idea.
I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid is aamznig. Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and you awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt!
Content found on The Neoteric is of no particular genre, topic, or focus, other than it was all at some point, in some way, interesting enough to me to write about.
I should start by saying I've never been a fan of college football. Check that: I like the actual football, but I can't stand the system by which the bowl games are "calculated". That's right, rankings.
