I am supposed to go to an Angels' game this weekend with my company. In trying to convince me to go, Jenny used the argument, "Well its the national pastime". All I have to say is why the hell do people still call it that?
It actually really bothers me. If baseball is anything it is PAST its TIME. More people in the US watch football. More kids play basketball and it is by far the most popular collegiate sport. So why is baseball still considered the National Past time. I just don't get it. For me the game is much too long, it should be closer to 2 hours than 3. It really bothers me that the players warm up for about 5 minutes before the start of each inning. I mean, do basketball players warm up between quarters or after a time out? Do the players coming of the bench get to shoot a few times at the rim before the game starts up again? In football, do they take a 5 minute break when switching between offense and defense to warm up? No. And these sports are much more grueling from a physical standpoint.
Don't get me wrong. I believe the hardest thing in sports to do is take a wooden bat and get a hit off a 95mph fastball. I would even consider myself a fan of baseball and I follow the game closelsy. But don't tell me that in general baseball players are better athletes than football or basketball players. Don't tell me that its more exciting to watch a baseball game than a football or basketball game. In terms of what people want to watch, it is hands down football. Look at the Superbowl ratings. Look at the ratings week to week. In terms of playing? It's got to be basketball. Anywhere you go there is probably a pick-up game you can get in on. There are a lot more men, at least under the age of 40 and not including softball, that play basketball than baseball.
Praise for Windows XP
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
Yes you read the title correctly. I actually have something nice to say about Windows. For those of you who know me know that I sing the praises of Linux because quite frankly it's better. However, I'm not so biased as to not give credit where credit is due. Windows XP is actually a pretty decent system. Its relatively stable and has the "slick" factor of a pretty good interface.
This weekend I had a good experience with Windows XP. However it was created by a bad experience I had so I guess the two cancel each other out. This past weekend I tried to watch a DVD on my laptop. I've done it before successfully but for some reason it wouldn't work this weekend. I tried several DVDs that I knew worked before but with no success. After much contemplation I figured out that it must have been when I updated the video driver off of Microsoft Windows Update page. Those who have read my rant know how much I hate my Sony Vaio. Well this is the perfect example. I update a driver and something doesn't work. Sony Vaios, and I guess laptops in general, can be very particular about the drivers you use for it. To make a long story short I found this very useful feature in Windows XP that basically allows you to "roll back" your driver in case something went wrong. I use this feature and everything works fine now. Wow, Microsoft did something right.
This weekend I had a good experience with Windows XP. However it was created by a bad experience I had so I guess the two cancel each other out. This past weekend I tried to watch a DVD on my laptop. I've done it before successfully but for some reason it wouldn't work this weekend. I tried several DVDs that I knew worked before but with no success. After much contemplation I figured out that it must have been when I updated the video driver off of Microsoft Windows Update page. Those who have read my rant know how much I hate my Sony Vaio. Well this is the perfect example. I update a driver and something doesn't work. Sony Vaios, and I guess laptops in general, can be very particular about the drivers you use for it. To make a long story short I found this very useful feature in Windows XP that basically allows you to "roll back" your driver in case something went wrong. I use this feature and everything works fine now. Wow, Microsoft did something right.
Pasadena Gold Line
Sunday, July 27, 2003
This weekend I rode the Pasadena Gold Line. It was quite an experience. I liken it to the opening of a big Hollywood movie. We got on the line at the Allen stop, it is the second stop on the line if you are going toward Los Angeles. You would expect to be able to get on the train if you are on the second stop but the train was quite full when we arrived on the platform. We finally did get on, I had to stand the entire way to Union Station. Most people were in a pretty good mood considering how crowded it was but some people were kind of grumpy which I didn't really understand. I guess these people have never been on a subway somewhere else because it gets a lot more crowded on the NYC subway during rush hour.
We took the red line to Pershing Square and caught Shakespeare's "The Merry Wives of Windsor" . It was given by Shakespeare Festival of LA. It was pretty good. Like all Shakespeare, I had to really pay attention to get what was gonig on but I enjoyed it nevertheless.
We took the red line to Pershing Square and caught Shakespeare's "The Merry Wives of Windsor" . It was given by Shakespeare Festival of LA. It was pretty good. Like all Shakespeare, I had to really pay attention to get what was gonig on but I enjoyed it nevertheless.
Should it Be Public
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
OK. I have gotten about a hundred hits today because people are looking for the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser. I just happen to show up in the Google rankings for it. I actually do have the information but have felt conflicted about actually trying to figure it out and further conflicted about posting the info. If you search hard enough on Google you will be able to find it.
Since I am so conflicted I will err on the side of caution and not post the site where you can find the information. However I tend to think that the information should be public. I at first agreed with the mainstream media, her information should be kept private. But after thinking about it I have jumped the fence and am now straddling the other side. Here is my reasoning. For every other crime the victim's name is public record and freely available. It doesn't matter if its a mugging, murder, whatever. Yet with rape they hide the name. The thing is, I think this just further perpetuates the stigma of rape. By hiding the name you are basically saying that the victim needs protection, that it is something they need to hide from.
I just don't see it that way. Rape shouldn't be stigmatized. The victim did nothing wrong yet by hiding her name and "respecting" her privacy you are basically saying she should hide the heinous act that happened to her.
If you are gonig to hide the name of the victim then you really should hide the name of the alleged perpetrator. If the accusations are false, how fair was that to Kobe?
Since I am so conflicted I will err on the side of caution and not post the site where you can find the information. However I tend to think that the information should be public. I at first agreed with the mainstream media, her information should be kept private. But after thinking about it I have jumped the fence and am now straddling the other side. Here is my reasoning. For every other crime the victim's name is public record and freely available. It doesn't matter if its a mugging, murder, whatever. Yet with rape they hide the name. The thing is, I think this just further perpetuates the stigma of rape. By hiding the name you are basically saying that the victim needs protection, that it is something they need to hide from.
I just don't see it that way. Rape shouldn't be stigmatized. The victim did nothing wrong yet by hiding her name and "respecting" her privacy you are basically saying she should hide the heinous act that happened to her.
If you are gonig to hide the name of the victim then you really should hide the name of the alleged perpetrator. If the accusations are false, how fair was that to Kobe?
Dating Math
Thursday, July 17, 2003
I've been reading a lot of books on interview and interview questions to get ready for the person I'm about to hire. One of the techniques is to ask questions that don't really have answers but are meant to see how the person thinks. Questions like, "How many piano tuners are in the world", or "How many cars are in Los Angeles?" So I decided to do one myself. What are the chances that you will meet the perfect person for you? Here is my thought process.
1. There are approximate 300,000,000 people in the U.S. I'm limiting myself to the U.S. because I don't really travel outside the U.S. that often.
2. 1/2 those are women. I don't plan on going the other way anytime soon
3. I find myself physically attracted to about 10% of the population.
4. I think that 1 out of 4 women are really nice and caring.
5. I need a girl who is inteligent. Probably in the top 5% of the population.
6. I need a girl who is athletic or at least keeps in good shape. This probably applies to 1 out of 4 women
7. She has to love my cat. That applies to 100% of all people. (Okay fine. Maybe only 50% since some people refuse to be cat people)
8. She has to be able to watch sports with me and not complain. That's only about 5% of the female population.
9. She has to be trustworthy. I would say that only applies to 1 out of 4 women. (Maybe worse but I'm being generous. Have you seen Cheaters and Jerry Springer?)
10. She has to be happy with herself and emotionally stable. With all these other things going for her she probably is but lets just say that I think only about 15% of women fall in this category.
11. She has be between the ages of 18 ( I know this is young but if she was all of the above who could say no?) and 35 (This is kind of old but the same logic applies). If the average age is 70 than this would apply to approximately 25% of the population.
12. She has to have not been married before and have no kids. Since I already eliminated certain age groups above lets just say that this number stands at 50% for women of ALL ages so that we can make each criteria mutually exclusive.
13. I'm going to throw in a "TILT" factor of 25% for things I've missed like, "Not a muderer, not from outer space, etc" and because I tend to be picky.
Now do the math. Let's assume that all of the above are mutually exclusive properties. This will simplify the math. This leaves me with exactly 1.37 people in the US that are perfect for me. Since I can't date a .37 of a person that leaves just 1 PERSON! What makes this problem much worse is that I will never meet all 300,000,000 People in the U.S. If I only meet lets say 25,000 of those people then my number drops to 0.0001. What's worse is that she has to
A. Like me too
B. Be single at the time
Lets just say that A is a 5% likelihood (probably worse but who knows) and B is only 1% (If she is so great chances are she's attached). I have pretty much a 0% chance of finding the right girl. This is very disturbing to me.
1. There are approximate 300,000,000 people in the U.S. I'm limiting myself to the U.S. because I don't really travel outside the U.S. that often.
2. 1/2 those are women. I don't plan on going the other way anytime soon
3. I find myself physically attracted to about 10% of the population.
4. I think that 1 out of 4 women are really nice and caring.
5. I need a girl who is inteligent. Probably in the top 5% of the population.
6. I need a girl who is athletic or at least keeps in good shape. This probably applies to 1 out of 4 women
7. She has to love my cat. That applies to 100% of all people. (Okay fine. Maybe only 50% since some people refuse to be cat people)
8. She has to be able to watch sports with me and not complain. That's only about 5% of the female population.
9. She has to be trustworthy. I would say that only applies to 1 out of 4 women. (Maybe worse but I'm being generous. Have you seen Cheaters and Jerry Springer?)
10. She has to be happy with herself and emotionally stable. With all these other things going for her she probably is but lets just say that I think only about 15% of women fall in this category.
11. She has be between the ages of 18 ( I know this is young but if she was all of the above who could say no?) and 35 (This is kind of old but the same logic applies). If the average age is 70 than this would apply to approximately 25% of the population.
12. She has to have not been married before and have no kids. Since I already eliminated certain age groups above lets just say that this number stands at 50% for women of ALL ages so that we can make each criteria mutually exclusive.
13. I'm going to throw in a "TILT" factor of 25% for things I've missed like, "Not a muderer, not from outer space, etc" and because I tend to be picky.
Now do the math. Let's assume that all of the above are mutually exclusive properties. This will simplify the math. This leaves me with exactly 1.37 people in the US that are perfect for me. Since I can't date a .37 of a person that leaves just 1 PERSON! What makes this problem much worse is that I will never meet all 300,000,000 People in the U.S. If I only meet lets say 25,000 of those people then my number drops to 0.0001. What's worse is that she has to
A. Like me too
B. Be single at the time
Lets just say that A is a 5% likelihood (probably worse but who knows) and B is only 1% (If she is so great chances are she's attached). I have pretty much a 0% chance of finding the right girl. This is very disturbing to me.
You must be joking
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
I don't understand religious conservatives sometimes. Most religious people I know are kind and compassionate so I guess its just a few of the crazys that get my attention.
Pat Robertson recently requested that his audience pray for the "removal" of three justices from the Court in the wake of its ruling that decriminalized sodomy. The three justices he refers to are of course liberal. He states, "One justice is 83-years-old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?"
I mean seriously. Whatever your beliefs are and how you feel about the ruling that is no reason to pray for the "removal" of three judges from the Supreme Court. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but he is basically asking God to do something to get rid of three sick people on the court. Do you really think God would do something like that? If that was his plan and God chose to interfere wouldn't he just not let those people on the Court in the first place? Wouldn't that have been easier than just killing them to remove them?
Pat Robertson recently requested that his audience pray for the "removal" of three justices from the Court in the wake of its ruling that decriminalized sodomy. The three justices he refers to are of course liberal. He states, "One justice is 83-years-old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?"
I mean seriously. Whatever your beliefs are and how you feel about the ruling that is no reason to pray for the "removal" of three judges from the Supreme Court. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but he is basically asking God to do something to get rid of three sick people on the court. Do you really think God would do something like that? If that was his plan and God chose to interfere wouldn't he just not let those people on the Court in the first place? Wouldn't that have been easier than just killing them to remove them?
Good news for Gum
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Singapore has finally lifted the ban they had on gum.
I have been to Singapore and have a number of friends who are from there. I always thought this was a pretty silly law. Basically, Singapore is proud that it is one of the safest and cleanest places in the world. And it really is. They have very strcit laws concerning littering, smoking, etc. A fine for littering starts at $1000 and they are very serious about it. Not only do they ban firearms but it is a captital offense to carry or import them. Remember Michael Faye and the caning. That wasn't an isolated incident. It's funny because people from Singapore love to live there. They feel so safe and they appreciate their almost pristine surroundings.
I have been to Singapore and have a number of friends who are from there. I always thought this was a pretty silly law. Basically, Singapore is proud that it is one of the safest and cleanest places in the world. And it really is. They have very strcit laws concerning littering, smoking, etc. A fine for littering starts at $1000 and they are very serious about it. Not only do they ban firearms but it is a captital offense to carry or import them. Remember Michael Faye and the caning. That wasn't an isolated incident. It's funny because people from Singapore love to live there. They feel so safe and they appreciate their almost pristine surroundings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
