Thursday, March 27, 2008
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Tolkien Rules
Seriously folks. And it's more than just The Lord of the Rings. Read The Silmarillion and read The Children of Hurin. You will not be disappointed!
Monday, June 26, 2006
back to school
so i'm back in school. it had been 4 years since i had been in a class, but i finally made it to graduate school. school pretty much feels like it always did. it's weird to actually have to do something outside of work. aside from work you can pretty much let just about any activity slide and not feel too much ill effects. it's all good, though. at least now i get to walk around with a backpack and not feel like a goon. it's just like undergrad when walking around with a backpack makes you feel like you have a purpose. although, i must admit, after 4 years without one, i don't feel the same purposelessness when i am without a backpack.
one thing that has not changed at all is the textbooks. of course the editions have changed, so they can get you for more money every year, but the readability hasn't changed at all.they are lame as all get out. mind-wandering is inevitable. what would happen in the world if someone actually started writing textbooks that weren't completely dry and boring? i think it could be a revolution of knowledge. to paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, "They can land a man on the moon, but they can't make a mildly interesting textbook?" what if there was a textbook that was a total page-turner?
Person A:"You read the first couple chapters yet? How are they?
Person B: "Oh yeah, and then some, I can't put it down! This textbook is completely habit forming, I'm totally addicted. I'm enjoying it so much I'm afraid the surgeon general will soon discover that it is hazardous to my health."
People wonder why the United States has lost intellectual credibility, why Japan and Europe are passing us up in Math and Science, and I'm certain it's because of the textbooks. If we start making interesting textbooks we will sure turn the tide on declining learning among our youth.
(also posted @ www.myspace.com/nerdyasafanclub )
one thing that has not changed at all is the textbooks. of course the editions have changed, so they can get you for more money every year, but the readability hasn't changed at all.they are lame as all get out. mind-wandering is inevitable. what would happen in the world if someone actually started writing textbooks that weren't completely dry and boring? i think it could be a revolution of knowledge. to paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, "They can land a man on the moon, but they can't make a mildly interesting textbook?" what if there was a textbook that was a total page-turner?
Person A:"You read the first couple chapters yet? How are they?
Person B: "Oh yeah, and then some, I can't put it down! This textbook is completely habit forming, I'm totally addicted. I'm enjoying it so much I'm afraid the surgeon general will soon discover that it is hazardous to my health."
People wonder why the United States has lost intellectual credibility, why Japan and Europe are passing us up in Math and Science, and I'm certain it's because of the textbooks. If we start making interesting textbooks we will sure turn the tide on declining learning among our youth.
(also posted @ www.myspace.com/nerdyasafanclub )
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Common Sense On T.O.
After the big fight between the various network anchor teams in the movie Anchorman, Ron Burgundy remarked "Boy that escalated quickly...I mean, that really got out of hand fast!" That's pretty much how I feel about the whole Terrell Owens situation. A week ago Owens was probably the best receiver in the NFL, who also happened to have the biggest mouth. As I write this the Eagles have decided that they don't want T.O. to play for them for the rest of the year.
Many have said that the Eagles knew what they were getting into when they signed Owens, but still just about everybody directs all the blame in Owens' direction. This just doesn't jibe with me. If you're the Eagles, you have to make sure that you keep T.O. happy. If you know what T.O. is all about, and that is just to say that he's a loudmouth who will say stupid stuff, why be so surprised and take it so seriously when he does that? When T.O. told Graham Bensinger that he agreed that the Eagles would be undefeated if they had Brett Favre at QB, he wasn't saying that the country of Israel should be destroyed. He was just T.O. being T.O. And the Eagles decided that they'd be better off saving face, taking the moral, and T-E-A-M high ground and LOSING the best playmaker that they have, than turning the other cheek and being a Super Bowl contender. Like Lauryn Hill says, "You might win some, but you just lost one."
The sports world is a fantasy world. We all work with jerks with big mouths, that will say stupid stuff. The difference between normal people that work jobs in the real world and the Eagles is that we just put up with these people. People in the real world need to make their situation work, and they take crap from an unruly co-worker when necessary to accomplish what needs to be done. To put it in 7 Habits lingo, sometimes you have to be on the wrong end of a win-lose to achieve a win-win. Sure, T.O. is a child, and maybe he even is a locker room cancer, but Eagles' management and super-sensitive Donovan McNabb are babies to let him get to them. So, it's a lose-lose, and that doesn't bother me too much, I'm a Bears fan.
Many have said that the Eagles knew what they were getting into when they signed Owens, but still just about everybody directs all the blame in Owens' direction. This just doesn't jibe with me. If you're the Eagles, you have to make sure that you keep T.O. happy. If you know what T.O. is all about, and that is just to say that he's a loudmouth who will say stupid stuff, why be so surprised and take it so seriously when he does that? When T.O. told Graham Bensinger that he agreed that the Eagles would be undefeated if they had Brett Favre at QB, he wasn't saying that the country of Israel should be destroyed. He was just T.O. being T.O. And the Eagles decided that they'd be better off saving face, taking the moral, and T-E-A-M high ground and LOSING the best playmaker that they have, than turning the other cheek and being a Super Bowl contender. Like Lauryn Hill says, "You might win some, but you just lost one."
The sports world is a fantasy world. We all work with jerks with big mouths, that will say stupid stuff. The difference between normal people that work jobs in the real world and the Eagles is that we just put up with these people. People in the real world need to make their situation work, and they take crap from an unruly co-worker when necessary to accomplish what needs to be done. To put it in 7 Habits lingo, sometimes you have to be on the wrong end of a win-lose to achieve a win-win. Sure, T.O. is a child, and maybe he even is a locker room cancer, but Eagles' management and super-sensitive Donovan McNabb are babies to let him get to them. So, it's a lose-lose, and that doesn't bother me too much, I'm a Bears fan.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
No Love for the Haters
Hey it's NBA basketball season again! Opening day is upon us, and who amongst us saw it coming? The opening night of the NBA season is almost as inconspicuous as the opening night of the NHL season. I'll start paying serious attention when February rolls around, and there is no more football to occupy my time.
One thought though, how come nobody thinks the Chicago Bulls will be Eastern Conference contenders? The Bulls were 47-35 last year, which was the 3rd best record in the East. I have not seen anybody predict that they will even make the playoffs this year.
Ok, I can agree that Indiana, Miami, and Detroit will be better than the Bulls this year. I cannot agree that Cleveland, New Jersey, New York, Milwaukee, or Washington will be better than the Bulls. You cannot argue that the Bulls will fall out of the playoffs because of the loss of Eddy Curry. The Bulls actually played better last year when he was off the floor. Sure, Eddy was a big man with good offensive skills, and the Bulls hadn't had a center with good offensive skills in their history.But Eddy just didn't completely gel with what this team was trying to do. His defense and rebounding skills were marginal at best, making him a liability with the Bulls streaky-shooting guards, Kirk Hinrich and Ben Gordon. So I'm just not convinced that the Bulls will lose any ground.
Remember, the Bulls started 0-9 last year, there is no way they will be so flat at the beginning of this year. I'm counting on solid play from Hinrich, Gordon, Chandler, and Nocioni. I also think they'll be able to get minutes, rebounds, and put-back scores from Tim Thomas, Othella Harrington, and Michael Sweetney - anything more than mediocrity from these three would be gravy. I think the real x-factor is Luol Deng. He showed flashes of greatness last year, if he can be a little more consistent, and improve to 15 points per game, and around 8 rebounds, people will be saying "Eddy who?"
I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that the Bulls can pick up five wins compared to last year to go 52-30. It'll be interesting to see how Curry performs for the Knicks, I wish him good health, but not necessarily good play.
One thought though, how come nobody thinks the Chicago Bulls will be Eastern Conference contenders? The Bulls were 47-35 last year, which was the 3rd best record in the East. I have not seen anybody predict that they will even make the playoffs this year.
Ok, I can agree that Indiana, Miami, and Detroit will be better than the Bulls this year. I cannot agree that Cleveland, New Jersey, New York, Milwaukee, or Washington will be better than the Bulls. You cannot argue that the Bulls will fall out of the playoffs because of the loss of Eddy Curry. The Bulls actually played better last year when he was off the floor. Sure, Eddy was a big man with good offensive skills, and the Bulls hadn't had a center with good offensive skills in their history.But Eddy just didn't completely gel with what this team was trying to do. His defense and rebounding skills were marginal at best, making him a liability with the Bulls streaky-shooting guards, Kirk Hinrich and Ben Gordon. So I'm just not convinced that the Bulls will lose any ground.
Remember, the Bulls started 0-9 last year, there is no way they will be so flat at the beginning of this year. I'm counting on solid play from Hinrich, Gordon, Chandler, and Nocioni. I also think they'll be able to get minutes, rebounds, and put-back scores from Tim Thomas, Othella Harrington, and Michael Sweetney - anything more than mediocrity from these three would be gravy. I think the real x-factor is Luol Deng. He showed flashes of greatness last year, if he can be a little more consistent, and improve to 15 points per game, and around 8 rebounds, people will be saying "Eddy who?"
I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that the Bulls can pick up five wins compared to last year to go 52-30. It'll be interesting to see how Curry performs for the Knicks, I wish him good health, but not necessarily good play.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Bayless at it again
I'm ashamed to say that I once agreed with Skip Bayless . Bayless totally went off on the Texas Longhorns' football team in his ESPN Page 2 article . Here's some snippets followed by my rebuttals:
"Why has the BCS formula suddenly decided Texas is slightly better than USC? The Trojans, who wield the most difficult to defend offense in NCAA history, would beat Texas by two touchdowns on a neutral field. Maybe three."
Skip, USC barely squeaked by Notre Dame, and Notre Dame's defense is ranked 97th in the country. Texas' defense is ranked 6th in the country. Do you really think that the Trojans would be able to put up more than thirty-four points on the Longhorns? Think about Skip, the 2nd most prolific offense just rolled into Austin, and they went home with their tails between their legs and only seventeen points on the board. So where is this three touchdown margin coming from Skip? USC's 44th ranked defense? More on defense...
"Ohio State couldn't recover from that loss in time to survive the dam -- or damn! -- that burst on the Buckeyes when they visited reborn Penn State. Yet Ohio State would give USC a better neutral-field test than Texas, because Ohio State has a better defense and better overall team speed than Texas"
It's true, Ohio State is ranked 3rd in total defense, and Texas is ranked 6th. So Ohio State has a slightly better defense than the Horns. But better overall team speed than Texas? I'm sure Skip took the time to track down the 40 speeds of both squads before he made this enlightened point. Yeah, right. Skip was too busy conjuring up 1980s movie and television references to mess around with actual facts.
"And that's why a USC-Texas title game would look something like when Michael Vick and Virginia Tech played Florida State for the 2000 championship. Vick made some holy-cow plays early -- as would Young. But Florida State slowly asserted its superiority and won, 46-29.
That's about what would happen to Texas against USC.
This year's Virginia Tech could keep it a little closer. Ohio State could keep it a lot closer."
Now he must just be joking with us. Could he actually believe that? And even if he does, what is he basing it on? The comparison of this Texas team with Vick's Virginia Tech team even seems a little racist to me. I guess it all just goes to show that Bayless is a tool, who will surely get his comeuppance.
"Why has the BCS formula suddenly decided Texas is slightly better than USC? The Trojans, who wield the most difficult to defend offense in NCAA history, would beat Texas by two touchdowns on a neutral field. Maybe three."
Skip, USC barely squeaked by Notre Dame, and Notre Dame's defense is ranked 97th in the country. Texas' defense is ranked 6th in the country. Do you really think that the Trojans would be able to put up more than thirty-four points on the Longhorns? Think about Skip, the 2nd most prolific offense just rolled into Austin, and they went home with their tails between their legs and only seventeen points on the board. So where is this three touchdown margin coming from Skip? USC's 44th ranked defense? More on defense...
"Ohio State couldn't recover from that loss in time to survive the dam -- or damn! -- that burst on the Buckeyes when they visited reborn Penn State. Yet Ohio State would give USC a better neutral-field test than Texas, because Ohio State has a better defense and better overall team speed than Texas"
It's true, Ohio State is ranked 3rd in total defense, and Texas is ranked 6th. So Ohio State has a slightly better defense than the Horns. But better overall team speed than Texas? I'm sure Skip took the time to track down the 40 speeds of both squads before he made this enlightened point. Yeah, right. Skip was too busy conjuring up 1980s movie and television references to mess around with actual facts.
"And that's why a USC-Texas title game would look something like when Michael Vick and Virginia Tech played Florida State for the 2000 championship. Vick made some holy-cow plays early -- as would Young. But Florida State slowly asserted its superiority and won, 46-29.
That's about what would happen to Texas against USC.
This year's Virginia Tech could keep it a little closer. Ohio State could keep it a lot closer."
Now he must just be joking with us. Could he actually believe that? And even if he does, what is he basing it on? The comparison of this Texas team with Vick's Virginia Tech team even seems a little racist to me. I guess it all just goes to show that Bayless is a tool, who will surely get his comeuppance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
