The Profit of Doom

Fantasy Baseball - common issues

2009-03-16T18:02:00.003-05:00

It's about that time when we start having those fantasy baseball drafts. One issue that always comes up is the question of which categories are most appropriate. A couple points below...

1) Fantasy baseball can a) try to imitate real baseball, or b) not try to imitate real baseball.

2) If the league organizer chooses a), they are choosing technical stats like OPS, OBPA... things that are difficult to keep track of and hard to find posted on websites or in newspapers. (Moneyball freaks or nerdy sabermetricians might be love these categories however)

3) If b) is chosen, the common stats like W, R, HR, RBI, ERA are chosen. These are easy to keep track of but not particularly great predictors of baseball success. Fantasy baseball resembles more of a game, possible even gambling, than real baseball.

So which is the correct one? I actually prefer the common stats. They make it more fun. Also, for the stats nerds out there, you can still do a statistical analysis of sorts to maximize your season points, though you might just end up with the ESPN or Yahoo rankings. However, I am in a league where I purposely boot stolen bases. I standardized several of the variables and got some new rankings, so was able to pick up some good players (except stolen bases) at a bargain.

Dunkin' Donuts Review, Evanston IL

2009-03-16T17:36:00.002-05:00

I have been going to this place for almost 4 years now. Here's some interesting things I've noticed.

1) 2 notable employees - an Indian guy and an Eastern European guy.
The Indian guy is a clever businessman. When I fractured my ankle, he'd see me approaching the store before I even entered the building. Once he found out I liked jelly doughnuts and medium coffees, he'd prepare them before I even hobbled in through the door. It was kind of difficult to change from ordering doughnuts to chocolate doughnuts or zero doughnuts. I'd have to trick him by parking far away and hobbling in faster than he could prepare my order.

The Russian guy loves it when me and my friends come to buy coffee or doughnuts from him. He also once asked me about my nationality and for some reason decided to make all the other employees guess what nationality I was too. I think if the Indian guy were there he might have guessed right. He also sometimes says "I have a special treat for you" and then gives us some random coupon.

2) Coffee rating... 9.5/10. Never tastes like dishwater (dining hall) or charred rat feces (Starbucks) and never contains lumps of curdled half and half (McDonald's).

3) Atmosphere... great for dates... NOT.

DemoCRAP

2008-02-29T04:33:00.002-06:00

McCain may have something more than mountain-fresh snow-colored hair going for him with the current policies of the Democrats. Thanks to Greg Mankiw's blog, we get valuable insights and links to articles:

Article 1: Democrats don't like NAFTA

Article 2: Obama does not like NAFTA or Wal-Mart

Article 3: "If the Patriot Employer Act is anything to go by, we are in trouble if Obama wins."

Article 4: Apparently Ethanol sucks but certain candidates continue to pursue it.

Article 5: Mexico and Canada disapprove of the Democrats. (NAFTA again)

I should also mention this highly credible site documenting certain sinister tendencies of the Clintster.

Alright, so where does this leave us? I believe this leaves us in excrement-hole, because Probability(latrines)=0.54+0.11=>65% as of February 20th.

"Dan Bear Always Gets Shit On": A Character Study

2008-02-07T11:48:00.000-06:00

I was there when the pigeon pooped on Dan Bear’s forehead. Though he denies it, I can say with absolute certainty that his first reaction was to throw his head back, his palms raised towards the sky, and then scream “Why Me?” Does this reaction seem like too much of a cliché to take seriously? Maybe. But it is the very cliché itself which is worth our examination. Let me try to explain.

For all practical purposes, there are two Dan Bears. The first Dan Bear is the “Real” Dan Bear. He goes to Harvard, and is interested in Biology, the Red Sox and the Patriots. The second Dan Bear, however, sometimes overshadows the first; he is Dan Bear the Myth, who lives in the imagination of his closest friends from high school. Somewhere in the back of our minds, we know the two are distinct entities, but with a wink we can overlook that detail. The Mythic Dan Bear is stereotypically cranky, geriatric, bookish, and down on his luck; in short, a perennial loser. Before we knew him for even a year, already we could describe by heart the time Dan Bear was at an IMAX theater, and the person sitting one row behind threw up all over the back of his head. We all loved to recite the story Dan told us about his first whale watch. He was looking out over the railing on the first level when a sea-sick passenger atop the second level vomited over the deck, directly on to poor Dan’s 9-year-old head. These stories helped give shape and substance to that nebulous myth of Dan Bear, still forming in our minds. As Nambew frequently reminisces, “Dan Bear always gets shit on.” He then eagerly reminds us that he means “shit on” to be taken both literally and figuratively (thanks for the help, Nambew). So, on that fateful walk between Comm. Ave and the Fenway Train Station, where the pigeon pooped on Dan’s forehead, there were already several anecdotal precedents.

At the very moment that fateful globule of aviary excrement impacted Dan’s cranium, undoubtedly the same thought ran through both our minds: this story would soon headline the canon of Dan Bearisms; irrefutable examples of his terrible luck. Suddenly, his “friends” had more ammunition to use against him. Of course, this stereotype was that of the Mythic Dan Bear, and not the "Real" Dan Bear, but for this one sublime moment, the two lives intersected. The “Real” Dan Bear suddenly became the Mythic Dan Bear; their identities conflated. Rather than try to deny it, Dan embraced the role, throwing his head back and screaming to the fates: “Why Me?!” For a brief moment, Dan embodied the myth itself. He had no other choice. Thus, like Oedipus’s futile attempts to outrun his fate, Dan Bear’s rebellion against his own caricature indeed had the effect of cementing his status. The Myth, Dan Bear’s blessing and curse, would not soon disappear.

Great Ideas

2007-12-26T11:40:00.000-06:00

A few Ideas to improve the world:

1. The automobile apology light: This is device could cure road rage as we know it. All I propose is to add a simple light (any kind of signal works, though) to the top of the car that when lit, indicates an apology. Imagine you accidentally cut somebody off, and you realize you were at fault. Instead of exchanging honks and profanities, the entire dispute could be resolved with the easy pressing of a button. This invention may sound trivial, but it could save lives. According to Wikipedia, 300 road rage-related altercations result in serious injury or death.Now, you may be thinking that in really serious traffic disputes, neither party is willing to accept blame. Maybe the invention won't really save lives, but it might at least make the world a friendlier place.

2. Treadmill Power Generator: Every day, millions of Americans climb atop a treadmill or elliptical machine or exercise bike, and try to burn calories. These machines convert calories into mechanical energy, but this energy doesn't really ever do anything. If there were some way to harness this power, just imagine the possibilities. American is a country obsessed with exercise, but it is also an overweight nation. That means that there are billions and billions of fat calories out there that we could be burning. As long as out-of-shape people are willing to slog away for 45 minutes on an exercise bike, we should have some way to harness that energy. We could literally convert our fat into power.

Thar be Giants here

2007-12-24T22:53:00.000-06:00

There was a time when giants roamed the Earth. Intellectual supermen like Isaac Newton, William Shakespeare, and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart cast shadows that tend to obscure the accomplishments of individual latter-day artists, scientists, and thinkers. “Where are the Shakespeares and Mozarts of today?” aficionados sometimes ask. Were these men’s talents so rare that they may never again to be matched?

These men were certainly of transcendent genius; transcendent in the sense that their prodigious creative power either surpassed the limits of their professions, or redefined them in a radical way. Leonardo Da Vinci, a prototypical “Renaissance Man” was simultaneously an inventor, artist, and philosopher. To his contemporaries, Isaac Newton was simply a “Natural Philosopher.” Were he alive today, however, he would be considered a chemist, physicist, mathematician, and theologian. Moreover, the creative strides these men took were gargantuan. Today, even highly intelligent researchers are lucky if their names are transcribed in the footnote of a textbook, whereas Charles Darwin managed to radically redefine the entire field of biology with the publication of a single book.

Logic and probability tells us that men of equal brilliance must still walk the earth today. Where, then, are their monumental accomplishments? The sciences and the arts continue to progress, but advances increasingly resemble a steady shuffle of baby steps, instead of the leaps and bounds of a giant.

The geniuses have not changed; their environments have. During the Enlightenment, the potential gains to be made were enormous. Moreover, the pursuit of scientific progress today requires a degree of specialization that thinkers like Newton simply never needed. Science had not yet become delineated into thousands of subfields. This rule applies to the arts as well as the sciences. The advent of music theory, for example, allowed truly brilliant artists like Mozart to venture far into the unexplored depths of his artistic medium. Composers today have to watch carefully not to tread where Mozart has already set foot.

Stephen J. Gould makes a similar argument to explain, among other things, why legendary baseball player Ted Williams was probably no more talented than Alex Rodriguez, despite putting up much better numbers. Conservative baseball fans cling to the notion that Ted William’s accomplishments surpass those of modern players, but logic tells us that the increased average excellence of play in major league baseball imposes a more confining ceiling on the limits of human ability. An exceptionally talented baseball player in the 1940s might bat .400, while in the 1990s, bat only .350. Likewise, there are undoubtedly men as gifted as Shakespeare alive today whose work cannot match that of Shakespeare simply because of the difficulty of avoiding treading on the toes of past authors.

Thus, the reign of the giants seems to be ending. Nowadays, scientific knowledge advances incrementally, and progress within established artistic genres is likewise slow and often retrograde. Art differs from science, however, since the innovation of a new medium can create new avenues for creative expression and critical discussion. There will never be another Mozart who writes classical music because the genre is almost exhausted. Brilliant directors like Ingmar Bergmann and Stanley Kubrick, however, have only just begun to explore the potential of cinema. Likewise, popular music has attracted some true visionaries, from the Beatles to Pink Floyd to Radiohead. Conservative critics will be tempted to dismiss these newer genres as inferior to established ones like literature or classical music, but who is to say whether cinema and music may not be scrutinized some day with the same vigor we reserve for Dante or Milton. The next Shakespeare will likely not be a playwright; he may well be a director, screen-writer, or, god-forbid, a rock musician. The ways we communicate today are changing in profound ways, and giants always roam the frontiers of artistic progress. We should therefore keep open our eyes, lest we miss one.

Is Bush Demon of the Underworld?

2007-11-26T01:30:00.000-06:00

Ok, it's probably an exaggeration to say that Bush is the anti-Christ. But maybe we can blame him for being one of those lesser demons of the underworld, perhaps of similar nature to the Nambew.

Upon reading two articles spotted by my economics professor and my favorite economics blog, I can no longer take the optimistic stance that Bush isn't so bad. According a column by Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate, Bush's crimes include widening of the inequality gap, vastly increasing the budget deficit and debt, being at the root of the increase in bankruptcies and mortgage problems, not to mention the little Iraq problem. Ultimately, as asserted by Larry Summers of Harvard, the economy is headed for recession next year and "there is the risk that the adverse impacts will be felt for the rest of this decade and beyond," consistent with Stiglitz's even more dismal claims. I highly recommend reading the Stiglitz article; it's very comprehensive and interesting, but also demoralizing.

By the way, I don't read Vanity Fair.

Mike Lowell: To Sign or not to Sign?

2007-10-30T23:39:00.000-05:00

[In honor of the Red Sox winning the World Series, my next few posts will be related to baseball’s latest World Champions]

Amid the champagne showers and the celebrations and the accolades for his clutch performance during the regular season and the post season, Mike Lowell must be feeling a twinge of anxiety. His contract ends this season, and his future with the Boston Red Sox is at this point unknown.

In the euphoria of victory, many fans have loudly expressed their desire to see Mike Lowell re-signed. Their argument is persuasive; Mike Lowell had a career year in 2007. He was the 2007 World Series MVP, and he led the Red Sox in RBI. He also batted .324. Clearly, he is a good ballplayer. He is also a good defensive third basemen, and an invaluable clubhouse presence; a composed veteran fluent in both English and Spanish.

Mike Lowell is also 34, and it will probably take at least a 4 year deal to sign him. Will Boston really want Mike Lowell manning third when he’s 38? 39? 2007 was something of a career year for Mike Lowell, so his stat line for 2008 will probably reflect his career averages; envision a .280 batting average, with 20 home runs, and 80 RBI. Further, expect not only his offensive production, but his defense, to decline in subsequent years. Despite this, I still say sign him.

Here is the most compelling reason for Boston to sign Mike Lowell: if they don’t, the Yankees will. Brian Cashman threatened that he would not try to resign Alex Rodriguez if he opted out of his contract, which, to the delight of Yankees-haters everywhere, he did. Assuming the Yankees hold true to their word, they will have a gaping hole at third base. If Mike Lowell, the only other attractive option at third base, is available, they will quickly snatch him up.

Boston has a unique opportunity to severely handicap the Yankees for 2008. If Boston resigns Lowell, the Yankees will have few remaining options. After Lowell and Rodriguez, the best free agent third baseman is Mike Lamb, a 33 year old who in 2004 hit a career high 58 RBI. New York would have difficulty finding a solid third baseman through a trade, and to do so, they would probably have to give up at least one of their prized prospects. Finally, the Yankees have no notable prospects waiting in wing to take over third base. In short, they will be in a no-win situation.

Losing Alex Rodriguez was a huge blow to the Yankees. His WARP-1, a sabermetric statistic describing the number of wins a certain player is worth over a replacement player, was 11.1. Mike Lamb, as a point of comparison, had a WARP-1 last season of 2.5. If the 2007 Yankees had started Mike Lamb at third instead of Alex Rodriguez, they would have won between 85 and 86 games; not 94. That’s how bad they look to be if they lose A-Rod. Mike Lowell last season had a WARP-1 of 7.0. If the 2007 Yankees had started Lowell at third instead of Rodriguez, they would have won 90 games; just enough to snag the Wild Card. Do us a favor, Theo Epstein, and keep the Yankees out of the playoffs; re-sign Mike Lowell.

I can haz immortality now?

2007-10-16T01:32:00.000-05:00

So recently, I've been thinking of immortality and how I can achieve it. Naturally, when attempting anything, it's usually prudent to look into historical precedents for insight and guidance. However, I didn't have much to go on, except for human literary works and mythologies. While reading these, I came across something that really bothered me:

In these works involving immortal beings, so many of the immortals want nothing more than to be able to die. This strikes me as incredibly strange. The main contention seems to be that if you were immortal, you would exhaust all the interesting things to do in the world, or otherwise accumulate so much sadness from people close to you dying, to the point that you'd no longer want to live.

Are you serious? Sick and tired of the world? In an unchanging one, maybe, but just think of how the world has changed in even the last 20 years. In 20 years, could you have exhausted all there was to do in the world? There are things to do now you couldn't do 20 years ago, and things you could do 20 years ago that you can't do now. I find it impossible to believe there is so little to do in the world that diminishing marginal utility actually results in no further gains for any possible activity. People that would get bored need to loosen up and learn how to make their own fun.

As for the other claim that you'd get tired of befriending people and losing them to death, I personally think friendship is one good thing you can never have too much of. If you make friends and lose them, you had some happiness and some sadness. If you don't make friends, you're just sad (in multiple senses of the word). Why stop seeking happiness?

Faced with these silly portrayals of pathetic immortals, I can only conclude one of two things: either the creators of these characters were suffering from jealousy, and made their characters miserable to compensate, or none of the characters that were granted immortality were smart enough to appreciate it. Since the first scenario would only occur with fictional characters... whoever it is out there that goes around granting immortality, you can stop wasting your gift on the ungrateful -- I've got just the right person for you right here.

LOTR vs. HP

2007-10-10T23:04:00.000-05:00

Here’s a long-standing debate that I’ve been meaning to throw my 2 cents into for a while. The Lord of the Rings vs. Harry Potter. The stalwart cornerstone of a genre vs. the young hot upstart. In terms of popularity, there should be no contest. To date, the Harry Potter books have sold more than 350 million copies world wide in the span of a decade. The Lord of the Rings series, in contrast, has sold roughly 100 million since the first publication in 1954. Indeed, Harry Potter has sold more than three times as many copies as The Lord of the Rings in less than one-fifth the time. Further, there should be no doubt that Harry Potter is here to stay. Though its days as a cultish cultural phenomenon are coming to a close, the Harry Potter series is all but assured of enjoying a long shelf-life as a staple of childhood reading.

Believe it or not, I have done some research on this debate. If you google some variant of the phrase ‘Lord of the Rings vs. Harry Potter’ as I did, you will find the sites of many bloggers who have tackled the exact same question. They break into two camps; the Harry Potter camp, and The Lord of the Rings camp.

Each side tends to parrot one of the following arguments. The Lord of the Rings fans contend that the Middle Earth universe is far more comprehensive Harry Potter’s. The meticulous mind of JRR Tolkien imagined every detail in the Middle Earth universe; he even wrote an extensive back story in the Silmarillion. Harry Potter, on the other hand, is riddled with inconsistencies and plot holes that tend to be repaired by magical technicalities, and a heavy reliance upon the Deus Ex Machina technique. Lord of the Rings fans also allude, somewhat mysteriously, to their series’ depth, which apparently far exceeds that of Harry Potter.

Harry Potter fans counter that at least Harry Potter is exciting. A valid point, considering the Lord of the Rings can be somewhat dull in comparison. They also argue that Harry Potter is not shallow because of the historical parallels to World War II. The rise of the Death Eaters is easily analogous to real historical movements like Nazism. Lord Voldemort, with his infatuation with blood purity, sounds a lot like Adolf Hitler. This, they assert, constitutes depth and complexity.

Clearly, depth must be an important status-marker, since both sides invoke it to justify their allegiance. Many bloggers throw the word around, but few actually explain what makes the books deep. Lord of the Rings fans refer to the overwhelming detail in books’ mythology, but they seem to confuse detail with depth. To actually understand the depth of the Lord of the Rings, we should look to the early 20^th century, when the series was first conceived.

The Lord of the Rings universe was forged in the trenches of World War I, where Tolkien served as a communications officer. JRR Tolkien actually witnessed the Battle of Sommes, one of the truly horrifying events of European History. Upon becoming ill (disease actually accounted for the majority of deaths in WWI) he left the frontlines to recover. The war that killed an entire generation of young European men took Tolkien’s three closest childhood friends as well. It also utterly shattered Europe’s intellectual traditions, and seemed to reveal the violent, irrational nature that lied beneath nationalism, technology, and modernity itself. To all those it affected, World War I represented a failure of Enlightenment thinking and Western Civilization as a whole.

Tolkien began to elaborate upon the Lord of the Rings universe in the dark years that followed World War I. On a personal level, it was an escapist fantasy that was easier for him to face than everyday life. On a more universal level, The Lord of the Rings was his attempt to grapple with and re-imagine a destroyed European consciousness. If the Enlightenment had failed, what was the solution? What could replace Western Civilization? These are the questions Tolkien wrestled with.

The War for the Ring is not a direct allegory for World War I or II, as Tolkien warns us. Instead, we should view it as a more general representation of the violence and cultural shock of the early 20^th century. The war between Orcs and Men is a fight for the modern world. Would the new world be characterized by greed, fear, darkness, and duplicity, which the armies of Sauron represent? Or could a new era of prosperity be built from the ashes of a ruined heritage, much like the fallen race of Numenor?

Tolkien was not the only author to struggle with these questions. Tolkien is actually writing in the same vein as TS Eliot. Both writers believed that Western Civilization had failed. But what would replace it? In The Wasteland, Eliot seems to say we ought to look towards Eastern Philosophy. Tolkien, on the other hand, seems to say that Europe’s salvation lies in its distant past.

The Lord of the Rings is written in the style of Beowulf, the 9^th century epic of a mythical war hero. By deciding to write in this antiquated trope, Tolkien seems to be saying that Europe must look deep into its own past in order to escape from its devastating malaise. Look beyond the Enlightenment, beyond even the Renaissance, and start from scratch, Tolkien commands us. In order to revive Western civilization, we must return to its very foundation.

Our readers who are familiar with the series may notice that there are many avenues wide open for interpretation that I merely glazed over. This is precisely what makes the Lord of the Rings a deep novel. There are innumerable levels of allusion and historical relevancy that simply do not exist in Harry Potter. Rowling’s allusions to World War II are largely extraneous, and further no greater purpose within the novel. Often times, it seems Rowling alludes to World War II to give her novels a sense of depth without too much serious consideration.

I will try not to overstate my case. Harry Potter is a wildly entertaining and engaging series, and likewise it is very possible to enjoy the Lord of the Rings even on a superficial level. Further, I don’t want to elevate The Lord of the Rings to the same level as The Wasteland, a work of unrelenting complexity and beauty. I just want to settle the debate once and for all: Harry Potter is fun reading, but in terms of literary merit, it cannot stand up to the Lord of the Rings.

Jon Lee Becomes an Economist

2007-10-05T01:15:00.000-05:00

I've been recently receiving these very interesting economics related articles from Jon Lee. While Jon's transformation into a practicing economist may be rational thing to do, the implications for Jon's moral code seem unsettling.

The first article Jon sends me describes how one should safely avoid speeding tickets (reasoning based on allocation of police resources). I presume that he'll reason that he can sidestep other heinous crimes, like stealing puppies and hunting bald eagles too.

The second article describes how once Jon makes a 500k dollars a year in hedge funds (Jon will change his career from engineering to business), Jon's strategic plan for relationships will be to lease his girlfriends while they are still attractive because they are depreciating assets, while his money will only appreciate in the future.

Word of the Day - Cougar Hunting

2007-09-27T18:45:00.000-05:00

Urban Dictionary defines cougar hunting to be when "younger men go prowling for older women." The reason for this terminology is due to the implicit dangers of cougar hunting, such as getting a wine bottle reamed up one's rear or being clobbered with a chair. The question is obviously: Why face these risks when the cougar isn't even very desirable to begin with?

Enter into the world of Ray Bradbury's The Most Dangerous Game. In it we find that it is not the cape buffalo, the grizzly bear, or the liger that is the most deadly animal, but the human. General Zaroff, after hunting every known dangerous animal, gets bored and only when a renowned hunter, by the name of Sanger Rainsford, is marooned on his remote jungle island does Zaroff meet his match.

Therefore, it makes sense that when one gets bored of the usual prowling, one traverses into the realm of cougar hunting, the most dangerous game.

Book Review - Children of Hurin

2007-09-21T02:17:00.000-05:00

Hear ye hear ye, Lord of the Rings fans; important information on The Children of Hurin, a tale begun by J.R.R Tolkien and just recently completed by his son, Christopher. Let me give you some advice that will give you a good idea of whether or not to read this book.

Tally up the number for the things you can say yes to below. If you get 5 or more points, this book is for you.

1. (2 points) You are fond of stories by Edgar Allan Poe.
2. (3 points) You like it when evil shows its supremacy over good.
3. (5 points) You have an Oedipus complex, except switch mom with sister.
4. (2 point) You like disquieting endings.
5. (1 point) You don't mind if the narration distances you from the main character.

Games are Good for You

2007-09-04T14:15:00.000-05:00

Today I'm going to put a shameless plug out for the Nintendo DS, and more specifically, Phoenix Wright. In the Phoenix Wright games, you take on the role of Phoenix Wright, a bright but inexperienced defense lawyer. Through investigations, you uncover witnesses and evidence that you use in court to untangle the web of lies spun by the prosecution and reveal the truth. This is just one of many games for the DS that aren't just a time passer. Games like Phoenix Wright and Hotel Dusk teach you to notice details and be aware of possible repercussions when dealing with people. Brain Age keeps your mind from becoming sluggish. Cooking Mama teaches you recipes for food! Don't believe that games can apply to real life? Here's a real-life situation saved by Phoenix Wright, with names and times edited for confidentiality, and embellishments added for drama.

The situation: Two days ago, you got into an accident while driving a rental car. You thought you were covered by the rental company's insurance policy at the time, but as you return the car, you are told that you were not covered and need to pay the cost of damages. What do you do? Pull out your training from Phoenix Wright!

Rental Agent: You've signed two contracts here, one with insurance and one without. The second contract without insurance supersedes the terms of the first one.
You: Objection! If you look closely at the contracts, both of them are timestamped 8:43am! Thus, there is no way to determine which contract supersedes the other!
Rental Agent: Uhh, well, there's a timestamped record kept in the computer of all changes made to a contract.
You: Please include this in your testimony.
*Contract History added to Court Record*
Rental Agent: I haven't checked myself, but if you look at the records, you'll find that the contract with insurance added came first, but you changed your mind and signed the second contract without insurance before you left that morning.
You: Objection! Take a close look at the Contract History, if you please.
...
Contract Opened    9/1/2007 9:02am
Insurance Added    9/1/2007 9:03am
Contract Printed   9/1/2007 9:03am
Insurance Deleted  9/1/2007 2:30pm
Contract Printed   9/1/2007 2:30pm
Car Swapped        9/1/2007 2:34pm
Contract Printed   9/1/2007 2:35pm
...
Rental Agent: ...!
You: You've noticed, haven't you? Only ONE contract was printed in the morning when we took out the car, and it included the insurance policy. The accident occurred around 1:43pm. Afterwards, the insurance on the car was removed, and the modified agreement was signed when we swapped the car. Clearly, then, we were still covered by your insurance policy at the time of the accident!
Rental Agent: ...You're right. I might lose my job over this, but it looks like they haven't been playing fair with you guys, and that really irritates me. I'll make sure you guys are covered in the report.

*CASE CLOSED*

Lesson learned: Cover your ass. Another victory for gaming!

Attack of the Malthus

2007-08-31T04:30:00.000-05:00

Malthus, the pessimistic economist of 200 years ago, has made a comeback, this time haunting Africa. Malthus, the man famous for his “human population exponentially grows until the land can’t sustain them, at which point they starve, die of disease, or kill each other” theory, is temporarily out of the red-zone on the Idiot Meter.

Note this *article* mentioned in Greg Mankiw’s Blog.

So if we give financial aid to Africa (or medicines), it’ll get stuck in a Malthusian Trap. That’s right, temporary aid will boost the birth rate higher than the death rate (money to raise more kids, buy more medicines and food, etc.), but since Africa hasn’t had an industrial revolution, Mother Nature won’t support this – carrying capacity exceeded!, return to subsistence it is.

This reminds me of the inhabitants of Rapa Nui/Easter Island. These scantily clad islanders became too many; they cut down all their trees, ran out of food, made war upon each other, and then became cannibals, falling prey to the deadly scourge of the pre-industrialized society, Malthus.

Dun dun dun Malthus strikes again!

A World of Warcrafted Downfall

2007-08-29T16:59:00.002-05:00

The downfall of mankind will not arise from the destructive clashes between ultra-nationalistic superpowers, but rather, the clash between two new breeds of mankind, the Neo-Nerds and the Neo-Jocks. Contrary to the old stereotypes, Neo-Nerds are characterized solely by their addiction to online computer games, rather than dweebish appearance. On the other hand, the Neo-Jocks are united by their refusal to live in a self-imposed matrix rather than a love for booze, football, and weight-lifting. As history has shown, the only result of such polarization is civil war; i.e. the apocalypse.

Witness the catastrophic rise of the recent and very popular MMOGs, massively multi-player online games, which not only provide the Neo-Nerds with vivid new worlds, but new social hubs, and ultimately an alternative life to the "dull" reality outside of the computer.

Signs that MMOGs are spawning Neo-Nerds:
1) The blurring of the distinction between virtual money and real money.
2) Online behavior that mirrors real life behavior - epidemiologists and other social scientists even exploit this characteristic of the virtual world in researching the real world (see this article in The Economist).
3) The fast growing popularity of MMOGs (see graphs here and more info here). If all the active-playing Neo-Nerds (13 million) currently had their own country, they would be roughly the 70th largest country in the world from a population standpoint and last year the growth rate in number of active MMOG gamers has been just over 20 percent; the average for the world is 1.2%. Combine these two facts and the Neo-Nerd population will double every three and a half years, jumping up the rankings to about 25th largest in 7 years.

Smiting the Orcs

2007-08-27T19:13:00.000-05:00

Glamdring, the mighty sword of Middle Earth, had a magical blue shimmer that gave the fell orcs headaches, nausea, fatigue, and sensitivity to light and noise. However, for those too poor to afford said glamorous sword, there is hope. You can accomplish the same feats by gettin' smashed and trashed with the orcs. Upon waking up in the morning, these unlucky orcs face headaches caused by the diuretic effects of ethanol; fatigue and troubles concentrating caused by the failure of the liver to replenish the supply of glucose to the brain; sensitivity to light and noise caused by the removal of the depressant effects of the alcohol; and nausea caused by disruption of the stomach lining. To achieve the effects of Glamdring on steroids, use home-brewed dark-colored liquors, which are likely to contain fusel oils, byproducts of alcohol fermentation not found high quality vodka. Find out the details or learn more.

BP: Friend or Foe?

2007-08-26T19:20:00.000-05:00

I was recently forwarded a petition alerting me to energy giant BP's plan to dump more than 6,500 lbs a day of industrial waste into Lake Michigan. Alarmed, I searched the BP corporate website, and my suspicions were immediately corroborated: this is indeed the work of America's sworn enemy, Great Britain. BP, it turns out, is a thinly veiled acronym for BRITISH PETROLEUM. More quick research confirmed my worst fears; it was the British who were responsible for the Stamp Act of 1765, The Intolerable Acts of 1774, and the British Invasion of the 1960s. The British, it appears, fought directly against America in not one, but TWO major wars; The War of 1812 AND The American Revolution (not to be confused with Chevrolet). In historical context, this latest ploy is clearly nothing other than an insidious plot to undermine our freedom.

Britain is a monarchy, a dark contrast to our bright republic. It is ruled by a mysterious "Queen" to whom all Britons must swear allegiance.Further, Britain has a long history of brutal Imperialism. Ireland, a country cursed with the misfortune of neighboring Britain, has long suffered at the hands of its British oppressors. Prominent British spokesmen Jonathan Swift once suggested that, in order to control the population growth of the Irish, the Irish children be cannibalized. Surely, we should consider ourselves lucky that British have decided only to poison us with ammonia and industrial solids, instead of to eat our children.

They covet our lakes, our democracy, our freedom. I encourage all three of this blog's readers to sign this petition to stave off the British, if only for now.

Don't Eat Shark Fin Soup

2007-08-23T02:47:00.000-05:00

It will get you screwed up. The mean level of mercury concentration in shark is 8.4 times that of canned light tuna (the stuff you get at the grocery store). Furthermore, you can't eat any of the cool fish like swordfish, or king mackerel because of high mercury concentrations. Also, avoid any tuna that doesn't come pink and shredded in can, because your mercury concentrations will approximately triple. If you're pregnant or a little kid, you're recommended no more than one 6 oz can of canned light tuna per week. Since I'm strong and mighty, I'll chance it with 7. Check it out: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html

Creation: A Game Theoretic View

2007-08-21T12:10:00.000-05:00

I understand it to be a fact that God knows the future. Riddle me this: Does God take any risks? Since the future is known, from a game theoretic point of view, there are no risks involved in any of God’s decisions, that is, the outcomes of all decisions are known. So then, what satisfaction does God receive from anything we humans do, be it praise, prayer, helping others, or whatever, if God knows that he will receive or witness these things eons before they occur? Furthermore, must there not be something exceedingly special about the current structure of the universe for God to have selected this outcome over the infinitely many other creation outcomes available? I feel that if God receives satisfaction from humans, it must be in a way that we cannot fathom, probably outside the realm of time.

RE: Cure for Short-term Depression

2007-08-21T01:41:00.000-05:00

So after reading Glamdring's challenge below, I decided to find out just how hard it is to break one of these cans by doing some field research. No, not on my own head. But before any of you go off and lose some brain cells, consider this:

Presented here are my experimental results for crushing an aluminum can. You can clearly see a point at which the can crumples and loses the majority of its strength. Once this initial barrier is overcome, finishing off the can is child's play. So how much force do you need to exert on the can to crush it? Well, 0.876 ksi (or 876 pounds per square inch) of pressure is the maximum strength of the can in question. With a can radius of 1.3" and wall thickness of 0.02" (arbitrary value, can someone find me a real number?), that comes out to 143 lbs of force you need to apply in order to crush an aluminum can. If you can do that with your head, you probably don't have depression.

"But Seraph, that's only if you hit an intact can straight-on without using your hands to help!" Well, isn't that the point? Sure, using your hands to squeeze the can greatly decreases the strength of the can greatly -- these things are built to withstand vertical force, not horizontal. But you know what we call that in most circles? Fighting a handicapped opponent at best, cheating at worst. Go find a better way to massage your low self-esteem.

Seraph out.

Cure for Short-term Depression

2007-08-21T00:36:00.000-05:00

Meet the knucklehead challenge. If you have the guts, it will work. 5 steps are involved. 1) Chug a can of Mountain Dew (beer if you’re above 21) 2) Grab the bottom of the can with your hand. 3) Accelerate your hand upwards towards your forehead, very rapidly. 4) At the moment of impact, using the tips of your fingers and thumbs, squeeze the sides of the can to create weak points in the cylindrical structure to initiate the collapse of the can. 5) After crushing the can, invigorate yourself with a mighty roar and show your friends for an added self-esteem boost.

Welcome

2007-06-30T01:57:00.000-05:00

As the very first post, welcome to our blog. We hope you find something of interest here.