You just don't see things like this every game.
Worth remembering if you read those "expert" evaluations of NFL drafts.
The 2012 NFL Draft is the biggest reason why the Seattle Seahawks have been the best team in the league over the last two years. . . .
They drafted five players that have become a part of their core, and got many of them in the late rounds . . .
Friday was the 50th anniversary of Winston Churchill's death. Here's a fine tribute to him.
". . . [last month] the gun manufacturer announced the addition of three new offerings to its already expansive product line."
Good for him. May he live long and prosper.
A fleeing Taliban terrorist, desperate for water, was plodding through the Afghan desert when he saw something far off in the distance. Hoping to find water, he hurried toward the mirage only to find a very frail little old Jewish man standing at a small makeshift display rack - selling ties.
The Taliban terrorist asked, "Do you have water?" The Jewish man replied, "I have no water. But would you like to buy a tie? They are only $5."
The Taliban shouted hysterically, "Idiot Infidel! I do not need such an over-priced western adornment. I spit on your ties. I need water!
"Sorry, I have none, just ties - pure silk, and only $5." "Pah! A curse on your ties! I should wrap one around your scrawny little neck and choke the life out of you but . . . I must conserve my energy and find water!" "Okay," said the little old Jewish man. . . . It does not matter that you do not want to buy a tie from me, or that you hate me, threaten my life, and call me infidel. I will show you that I am bigger than any of that. If you continue over that hill to the east for about two miles, you will find a restaurant. It has the finest food and all the ice-cold water you need. Go In Peace.
Cursing him again, the desperate Taliban staggered away, over the hill. Several hours later, he crawled back, almost dead, and gasped, "They won't let me in without a tie!"
I'm unsure why anybody needs this, but if you do . . .
This is when a guy says something nice to you without asking for your consent first. Men should always ask. “Do you consent to me complimenting you?” before saying anything nice or else it’s assault. No, nonverbal cues don’t count – he still has to ask for explicit consent before offering that kind of affection.
Metaphors about how “society” should “arrange” this or that result evade the institutional reality that someone must be empowered to constrict other people’s freedom – and thus evade the need to weigh whether the expected value of the result being sought, given the chances of achieving it, is greater or less than the expected value of the loss of freedom that this effort entails.
From The Economist:
As a control, the authors combined the popularity measure with another well-known effect, related to the volatility of individual stocks. Stocks that are more volatile than the market (rising or falling 10% when the index moves 5%) are described as having a "high beta;" stocks that are less volatile than the market are "low-beta."
. . .
The authors of the new paper combined the popularity and beta characteristics. They found that popularity was by far the dominant effect: whether a stock was popular was more important when determining its return than whether it was volatile. The same was true when controlling for other factors, such as the size of the company and the starting valuation.
Interesting. But of course if it's true--a big if--the effect has probably already gone away by now.
This is true:
Fifty years ago, baby boomers adopted the edict “Never trust anyone over the age of 30,” so it’s hilarious to see youth-oriented publications form a de facto Revolutionary Tribunal and attack boomers by reprising their own credo.
So is this:
He omits a big reason for music’s current turn: the dad-rock
way—learning to play and sing well enough to record without digital editing and
pitch correction—was harder. While harder doesn't mean better, it deserves note.
Link via Michael Greenspan.
The allegedly supercool Tesla S may have some problems.
UPDATE: Link fixed now. Thanks to the commenters.
In an already distinguished career as a writer, this column is the best by Jonah Goldberg I've read yet.
I don’t dispute that Islamist terrorist attacks threaten to give Islam a bad name. (Actually, that ship probably sailed a long time ago for lots of people.) What I don’t get is why Muslims should have blanket immunity from the rules that apply to everyone else. If Israel does something bad, Jews are expected to condemn it — and they do. When a pro-lifer goes vigilante and blows up an abortion clinic, you can be damn sure that pro-life leaders are expected to denounce it — and they do. More to the point, the entire liberal establishment gets their dresses over their collective heads about the need to hold larger communities accountable. Just ask tea partiers, Evangelical Christians, gun-rights advocates, and my other fellow Legionaires of Doom.
The entire edifice of supposedly sophisticated left-wing thinking is about collective responsibility. . . .
We’re breeding generations of citizens who think attacking left-wing college administrators from the left is bold and courageous and denouncing Islamic extremism is racist. We apologize for the “root causes” that lead to actual violence, while we theorize endlessly about how ultimately we’re really to blame. Our military heroes are terroristic and the terrorists are misunderstood. That’s not merely dazzlingly idiotic; it is effulgently suicidal.
This is a great project for somebody: keep track of the Left's record on predictions.
You’ve heard the warnings: Global warming could doom humanity. Overpopulation and deforestation will destroy the planet. We’re going to run out of energy.
It isn’t happening right now, experts say, but it could happen in a few decades.
Yet, decades ago, experts warned that many catastrophes would happen now – by the year 2015. Yet they have not. FoxNews.com found five predictions that went astray.
Kyle Smith reviews The Almost Nearly Perfect People: Behind the Myth of the Scandinavian Utopia.
Smith's conclusion is consistent with other work I've seen: even if Scandinavians really were terrifically happy, they are key features of their societies that wouldn't transfer well to other countries, particularly the U.S.
From the first time I heard about the famous experiment, I thought it was baloney: the stakes were low, the situation not representative of the choices people actually face, and the sample was almost surely unrepresentative. The corollary worry that increasing choices were therefore bound to make us sad and crazy failed to recognize the significant increase in tools people now have for making choices.
So the recent failure to replicate the results is of little importance to me, but your mileage may vary.
It’s just that sometimes choice is paralyzing, and sometimes it’s liberating, and we don’t know what determines which direction it’ll go in, yet. So I don’t think we can say unequivocally that too much choice is bad, because we don’t know the limits to that.
I'd give him an A for honesty, but a D- for the scientific importance of his theory.
David Catron does a fine job smacking yet another really dopey pronouncement from Mr. Emanuel. This is especially nice:
. . . he probably doesn’t experience much cognitive dissonance when suggesting that, in order to forestall the physician shortage caused by a program he helped design, right-minded people should forego a “benefit” they were coerced to purchase.
Of course. What would you expect from a modern public school?
A Maryland middle school has sparked heated controversy by holding an end-of-day pizza party for high-performing students. As Donna St. George reported in yesterday’s Washington Post, Eastern Middle School in Silver Spring only invited straight-A students to the final period celebration, while allowing B and C students to join after school. Students with less than a C average (306 of Eastern’s 865 students) weren’t invited at all.
Bloomberg columnist Clive Crook concisely summarizes the major attacks on Piketty's work and concludes with this vicious, mostly accurate swipe at how the social sciences work:
Attention, social scientists. Don't worry about being wrong, just be wrong in a big way. Be wrong because you over-reach. Be wrong the way Marx was wrong (but maybe hope for less collateral damage).
Hoo boy, this could really shake things up. Watch Congress pass an amendment to FERPA in world-record time.
A group of Stanford students have discovered a way to access their own confidential admissions files — including comments by admissions officers, criticisms of their applications, and information about how their status as minorities, athletes, or legacies affected their applications.
I agree wholeheartedly with Veronique de Rugy:
This demands, as he puts it, that health-care policymakers discard their “Fortress” mentality and adopt a “Frontier” attitude that tolerates calculated risks and welcomes competition from diverse practitioners and disciplines. . . .
The bottom line: To fix American health care, we need a new way of thinking about it, a new focus away from the demand side – away from the provision of health insurance toward the supply side of health care.
By the way, don't be suckered by those claims that Obamacare is "working". See Michael Tanner's piece.
An editorial by Union Tribune, San Diego.
The debate in the Golden State over government pensions has been distorted for years by union-funded groups like Californians for Retirement Security and their allies. Not only do they deny pension costs are soaring, they consistently depict reformers as driven by animus toward unions and envy over a benefit they won’t get to enjoy.
But two recent U-T stories show the real reason reformers keep trying to scale back public employee retirement benefits: their immense cost.
See also "UC's Pension Fiasco".
The great middle-class fear today is that the connection between personal aspirations and societal opportunities is breaking down.
Personally, I'd ascribe that fear to an educational system that does too little and a federal government that does too much.
I like my doctors, but the more stuff I can do for myself the happier I'll be.
For example, look at the future of the general practitioner of medicine. This is considered the epitome of the high-skilled, secure, remunerative job. Four years of college! Four years of medical school! Internship! Residency! Government-protected cartel membership!
And yet, this profession is going the way of the dodo bird.
To understand why, the first thing you need to understand is that multiple studies have shown that software is better able to diagnose illnesses, with fewer misdiagnoses. Health wonks love this trend, known as evidence-based diagnosis, and medical doctors loathe it, because who cares about saving lives when you can avoid the humiliation of having a computer tell you what to do.