Monday, December 22, 2008
Crepusculo
So, I went ot the library to get the book.
Only, the didn't have any copies in stock, and had a gazillion holds on every copy that was checked out. But, they did have a Spanish copy in stock. It had been a while since I read a Spanish book, but I figured a teenage fiction book wouldn't be too hard. (And it helped that I had already seen the movie!) It was actually a pretty easy read. I had to grab the dictionary for a few words. (And then it seemed those words were used over and over again.)
After reading the book, it seems that both leads were horribly miscast. In the movie, Bella was way too cute, and Edward was not nearly cute enough.
The script, however, seemed to do a good job of distilling the essence of the book in two hours. It somehow managed to also include just about all the key scenes from the book. (Though this probably led to the jumpiness in the movie - if you don't pay attention to minute details, you wont catch what's happening unless you have read the book.)
The book itself, I found somewhat tedious. It seemed to be overly repetitive. (Not necessarily in plot, but in the the way that things were explained.)
The vampire lore and the characters of Carlisle and Alice seemed to have a lot of potential to be explored in greater detail. Even more history of Edward could have really helped add to the book.
College football: Pac-10 vs Mountain West
*(1) Utah > (3) Oregon State
(3) BYU > (8) UCLA
(3) BYU > (10) Washington
*(5) Arizona > (3) BYU
*(6) UNLV > (6) Arizona State
*(7) New Mexico > (5) Arizona
(2) TCU > (7) Stanford
*(4) Cal > (5) Colorado State
Comparing the teams by conference standings yields similar results:
(1) usc > utah
USC has done great in big games, but let its guard down a bit in the 'easy ones'. Utah has managed to pull off some 'last minute miracles' against the two best teams it has played. If they played in Salt Lake, Utah would have a chance. Otherwise, it would likely be a USC blowout.
(2) oregon < tcu
Both teams have two losses to to 10 BCS teams. Oregon also has a loss to Cal.
(3) oregon state = byu
At the start of the season, BYU had a clear edge. During the late middle season, the edge was OSU. At the end, they both came off bad rivalry loses. Both lost at Utah, though Oregon State was closer. Both blew out UCLA, though BYU had a wider margin.
(4) Cal > Air Force
Tough one to call. Both have only lost to teams with winning records. Both are 8-4. However, Cal beat Colorado State by wider margin. Cal also had a good win over Oregon, while Air Force's best win was against Houston.
(5) Arizona = Colorado State
Another tough one to call. Both had some bad losses, but have been finishing strong with a bowl wins over higher rated opponents (both of which had BCS aspirations at the season's start.) Colorado State handily beat New Mexico, got blown out by Cal, and narrowly lost to BYU. Arizona lost to New Mexico, got beat handily by Cal and beat BYU.
(6) Arizona State < UNLV
UNLV beat ASU in the regular season
(7) Stanford > New Mexico
Both had some good wins and some bad losses. Head to head, Stanford lost badly to TCU, and narrowly beat Arizona. New Mexico beat Arizona by a decent margin, and lost badly to TCU. Stanford did have a nice win versus Oregon State, so that gives them the edge.
(8) UCLA = Wyoming
Both beat Tennessee. When UCLA won at the start of a season, it was a sign of how good UCLA was. When Wyoming did at the end, it was a sign of how bad Tennessee was. Both were also shut out by BYU. Neither beat a 1A team with a winning record.
(9) Washington State < San Diego State
Washington State's victories were against winless Washington and a IAA team with a losing record (Portland State). San Diego State actually showed some signs of life at the end of the season by beating UNLV (and keeping them out of a bowl). Their other victory was against a 2 win Idaho team.
(10) Washington < Nobody
Washington is so bad, the Mountain West gets credit by not having a 10th team.
Pac10 3
MWC 4
Draw 3
By both measures, the MWC is slightly better than the Pac-10, though it comes down mostly to the Pac-10 having some really pathetic teams in Washington.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Drive through transit
And to make things worse, the parking office is on the edge of campus, next to, well you guessed it, a big parking lot.
The campus shuttles don't stop near the parking office, though they do stop only a couple of blocks away. However, there is no crosswalk or sidewalk connecting the route from the bus stop to the parking office. I guess you can just chalk it up to another half-hearted effort to accommodate transit without hurting cars.
It's all about when you lose
Alabama, TCU, and Oklahoma State show there is one exception: it is ok to lose after your signature win as long as the team is ranked above you. TCU is a nice example. Their Oklahoma loss dropped them from the rankings. Then their BYU victory propelled them back up. The loss to Utah had them fall a little - though they seemed to recover most of the fall.
1. Oklahoma 12-1
L: #3 Texas
W: #7 Texas Tech
#13 Oklahoma State
#21 Missouri
2. Florida 12-1
L: #25 Mississippi
W: #15 Georgia
#4 Alabama
#26 Florida State
3. Texas 11-1
L: #7 Texas Tech
W: 7-5 Kansas
4. Alabama 12-1
L: #2 Florida
5. USC 11-1
L: #27 Oregon State
W: #17 Oregon
6. Utah 12-0
W: #11 TCU
#16 BYU
#27 Oregon State
7. Texas Tech 11-1
L: #1 Oklahoma
8. Penn State 11-1
L: 8-4 Iowa
W: #18 Michigan State
9. Boise State 12-0
W: #17 Oregon
10. Ohio State 10-2
L: #8 Penn State
W: #23 Northwestern
11. TCU 10-2
L: #6 Utah
W: 8-4 Air Force
12. Cincinnati 11-2
L: 7-5 Connecticut
W: #20 Pittsburgh
13. Oklahoma State 9-3
L #3 Oklahoma
14. Georgia Tech 9-3
L: 8-4 North Carolina
W: #15 Georgia
Monday, December 08, 2008
How close did the BCS get
The table below shows how the top 27 BCS teams did against other teams in the BCS rankings. (#26 Florida State and #27 Oregon State since they showed up frequently and seemed to be before a big drop off in points.) Only wins against the top 27 are counted, while all losses are shown. The other loses of ranked teams are also shown.
If a team lost to a lower ranked team, they were docked their highest ranked win (x). Extra credit is given for nonconference wins (*). If a team lost to more teams than it has good wins, then it gets multiple x's. Teams playing in BCS bowls are marked with (+).
Oklahoma looks like a clear bet as the best team. Even after docking their best win (due to the Texas loss), they still have 4 wins over top 27 teams, including two wins over non-conference teams. There are five teams with 2 non-docked wins. Texas Tech beat the best teams. Even if they were to move up to 2nd, they could still keep both wins. However, moved there, Texas wouldn't be penalized for the loss, and would move ahead. A solution would be to take next-in line Utah. They are also have the highest quality wins that include a non-conference opponent. Florida does have a quality nonconference win, but they don't appear until after Utah. Statistically, Oklahoma vs. Utah would be the best championship game. However, Oklahoma vs. Florida is not too far off.
As for BCS bowl participants, having 6 games would make things clearer. There seems to be a pretty clear separation between the top 12 and the remainder. Since there are only 10 teams, the simple formula is to take all schools, order them by number of non-docked wins. In each group, order those with non-conference wins first, then in each subgroup, order the teams by highest ranked wins. If a reordering would cause a team to drop, then we go back to the BCS rating. (In this case, Texas is before Texas Tech - if Texas Tech were moved ahead, Texas would no longer be docked for its Texas Tech loss, and would thus moved ahead, which would cause it to be docked again... Similarly, Ohio State would move in to the 'two win' category, ahead of USC. However, by doing so, it would be docked its best win, and USC would get a good non-conference win, and move ahead.) The teams that got 'shortchanged' from the BCS were all non-traditional powers: Boise State, TCU and Texas Tech. The 'rules' give the spots to less deserving conference champions (Cincy and Virginia Tech) while excluding Texas Tech. Pure politics denied TCU and Boise State the spot going to Ohio State.
Team Rank of 'undocked' victories
------------- ----------------------------
+Oklahoma: *11,*12, 13, 21
+Utah: 11,*27
+Florida: 15,*26
+Penn State: 18,*27
+Texas: 13, 21
Texas Tech: 3, 13
Boise State: *17
+Alabama: 15
TCU: 16
+USC: 17
-------------------------------
+Ohio State: 18, 23
Oklahoma State: 21
+Cincinnati:
Georgia Tech:
Georgia:
BYU:
Oregon:
Michigan State:
+Virginia Tech: xx
Pittsburgh: xx
Missouri: x
Ball State: x
Northwestern: x
Boston College:
Mississippi: xx
Florida State:
Oregon State:
Complete details
1. Oklahoma
W: x#7 Texas Tech
*#11 TCU (other loss to #6 Utah)
*#12 Cincinnati (other loss to 7-5 Conecticut)
#13 Oklahoma State (Other losses to #3, #7)
#21 Missouri (others, #3, #13, 7-5 Kansas)
L: #3 Texas
2. Florida
W: x#4 Alabama
#15 Georgia (other losses: #14 Georgia Tech, #4 Alabama)
*#26 Florida State (7-5 Wake Forest, #24 Boston College, #14 Georgia Tech)
L: #25 Mississippi
3. Texas
W: x#1 Oklahoma
#13 Oklahoma State (#1, #7)
#21 Missouri (#3, #13, 7-5)
L: #7 Texas Tech
4. Alabama
W: x#15 Georgia (#2, #14)
L: #2 Florida
5. USC
W: x*#10 Ohio State (#8 Penn State)
#17 Oregon (#9 Boise State, 8-4 California)
L: #27 Oregon State (#6 Utah, #8 Penn State, 5-7 Stanford)
6. Utah
W: #11 TCU (#1 Oklahoma)
#16 BYU (#11 TCU)
*#27 Oregon State (#5, #8, 5-7 Stanford)
7. Texas Tech
W: #3 Texas
#13 Oklahoma State (#1, #3)
L: #1 Oklahoma
8. Penn State
W: x#10 Ohio State (#5 USC)
#18 Michigan State (#10 Ohio State, 8-4 California)
*#27 Oregon State (#5,#6, 5-7 Stanford)
L: 8-4 Iowa
9. Boise State
W: *#17 Oregon (#5, 8-4 California)
10. Ohio State
W: #18 Michigan State (#8, 8-4 California)
#23 Northwestern (#18, 3-9 Indiana)
L: #8 Penn State
#5 USC
11. TCU
W: #16 BYU (#6 Utah)
L: #1 Oklahoma
#6 Utah
12. Cincinnati
W: x#20 Pittsburgh (7-5 Rutgers, 6-6 Bowling Green)
L: #1 Oklahoma
7-5 Connecticut
13. Oklahoma State
W: #21 Missouri (#1, #3, 7-5)
L: #1 Oklahoma
#3 Texas
#7 Texas Tech
14. Georgia Tech
W: x#15 Georgia
x#24 Boston College
x#26 Florida State
L: #19 Virginia Tech
5-7 Virginia
8-4 North Carolina (#28)
15. Georgia
W:
L: #2 Florida
#4 Alabama
#14 Georgia Tech
16. BYU
L: #6 Utah
#11 TCU
17. Oregon
W: x#27 Oregon State
L: #5 USC
#9 Boise State
8-4 California
18. Michigan State
W: x#23 Northwestern
L: #8 Penn State
#10 Ohio State
8-4 California
19. Virginia Tech
W: x#24 Boston College
x#14 Georgia Tech
xx
L: #26 Florida State
9-4 East Carolina
#24 Boston College
7-5 Miami
20. Pittsburgh
W: xx
L: 7-5 Rutgers
6-6 Bowling Green
#12 Cincinatti
21. Missouri
W: x
L: #1 Oklahoma
#3 Texas
#13 Oklahoma State
7-5 Kansas
22. Ball State
W: x
L: 8-5 Buffalo
23. Northwestern
W: x
L: #18 Michigan State
#10 Ohio State
3-9 Indiana
24. Boston College
W: x#19 Georgia Tech
x#26 Florida State
L: #14 Georgia Tech
#19 Virginia Tech
7-5 Clemson
8-4 North Carolina
25. Mississippi
W: x#2 Florida
xx
L: 6-6 Vanderbilt
7-5 Wake Forest
#4 Alabama
7-5 South Carolina
26. Florida State
W: x#19 Virginia Tech
L: #2 Florida
#14 Georgia Tech
#24 Boston College
7-5 Wake Forest
27. Oregon State
W: x#5 USC
L: #8 Penn State
#6 Utah
#17 Oregon
7-5 Stanford
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Is the internet making us dumb?
It was funny, that I even found the article itself to be much longer than a typical internet read. It sounds like he is right on. Google is in fact making us stupid - while at the same time augmenting our intelligence in other areas, just as writing and publishing have done earlier.
The scariest part about this is the strong interdependence. With more and more dependent on the net, we find it difficult to function without it. I've seen an office pretty much shut down when the internet connection goes down. What work can you do without the net? I remember 10 years ago finding it a real challenge to work when the company had blocked outgoing internet connections. And that was back when offices were not nearly so net-dependent. Attempts to serve as a company gatekeepers can be a challenge both to productivity and morale. But, the lack of connectivity can be devastating. And even more worrisome is the central 'google' gatekeeper. It seems search results have been getting worse - probably as a result of more junk out there. But other times, the junk filtering eliminates the valuable results that you are in fact looking for. Will we one day have a great index tied in to our brains? By that time the computers may just decide they've had enough of this 'slavery'...
Monday, December 01, 2008
BCS rankings, November 30, 2008
For at large teams, the loser of the SEC championship game should be a fairly sure bet, as should Oklahoma. The last spot could be more interesting. For the last spot, Ohio State, Boise State, Georgia Tech, TCU, Ball State and Boston College are all eligible for at-large selection. Boston College is probably out of the mix - if they win the ACC championship, they'll be in, while if they lose, they'll likely fall out of the at large range. Georgia Tech is a possibility. However two of their 9 wins came against IAA teams. Would this even count? This leaves 3 non-BCS teams and Ohio State. OSU is slightly ahead of BSU (do primarily to higher US News score), and thus should get the bid.
Last week's ranking
Rank | Team | Harris | US News | Computer | BCS Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Texas | 0.9115 | 0.2885 | 0.9400 | 0.7133 |
2 | USC | 0.8418 | 0.5577 | 0.7300 | 0.7098 |
3 | Florida | 0.9271 | 0.2692 | 0.8200 | 0.6721 |
4 | Alabama | 0.9965 | 0.0000 | 0.9200 | 0.6388 |
5 | Oklahoma | 0.9094 | 0.0000 | 0.9800 | 0.6298 |
6 | Penn State | 0.7706 | 0.2885 | 0.6700 | 0.5764 |
7 | Texas Tech | 0.7398 | 0.0000 | 0.8700 | 0.5366 |
8 | Utah | 0.7473 | 0.0000 | 0.8500 | 0.5324 |
9 | Ohio State | 0.6570 | 0.1923 | 0.5900 | 0.4798 |
10 | Boise State | 0.6857 | 0.0000 | 0.7400 | 0.4752 |
11 | Georgia Tech | 0.3770 | 0.3846 | 0.4500 | 0.4039 |
12 | TCU | 0.5317 | 0.0000 | 0.6100 | 0.3806 |
13 | Ball State | 0.5402 | 0.0000 | 0.5500 | 0.3634 |
14 | Boston College | 0.2952 | 0.4038 | 0.3800 | 0.3597 |
15 | Northwestern | 0.1465 | 0.8654 | 0.0000 | 0.3373 |
16 | Stanford | 0.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.3333 |
17 | Cincinnati | 0.5044 | 0.0000 | 0.4400 | 0.3148 |
18 | Duke | 0.0000 | 0.9231 | 0.0000 | 0.3077 |
19 | Georgia | 0.2949 | 0.1731 | 0.4100 | 0.2927 |
20 | Rice | 0.0042 | 0.7308 | 0.0000 | 0.2450 |
21 | Vanderbilt | 0.0000 | 0.7115 | 0.0000 | 0.2372 |
21 | Notre Dame | 0.0000 | 0.7115 | 0.0000 | 0.2372 |
23 | California | 0.0064 | 0.6731 | 0.0000 | 0.2265 |
24 | BYU | 0.3504 | 0.0000 | 0.2900 | 0.2135 |
25 | Virginia | 0.0000 | 0.6154 | 0.0000 | 0.2051 |
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Who should play in BCS bowl games?
Who should fill the final spot? One simple metric is to look at the quality of teams they have beating (as well as the ones they have lost to.) Simply looking at bowl eligible teams, Boise State has beating 8 teams that can go to the post season, and has no loses. Florida has also beaten 8, but would have two loses (1 to an unranked Mississippi, and another if it loses the SEC title game.) If Alabama loses the SEC title game, they would be next in line with 6 wins (and a loss to a top 4 team). Texas would be next with 6 wins, and a loss to a top 7 team. That would take care of the three at-large picks. (Boise State, the SEC loser and Texas)
Of course, looking at most predictions, it looks like Ohio State is likely to grab the spot from Boise State. After all, its all about money, rather than performance. One way to twist it around would be to give the top 12 teams 50% of BCS payout, and then give the other 50% to the actual participants. At least it would equalize the money, and those that don't play in the game could still earn a nice paycheck.
Another interesting note: if Florida beats Alabama, none of the possible at-large teams will have any loses to teams outside the BCS top 10. On the other hand, all of the conference champions (except Oklahoma) would have loses to teams outside the BCS top 10. Do we really want to keep the automatic conference champion qualification?
Quality wins of at large teams:
Boise State: 8 bowl eligible
Oregon: 9-3
Hawaii: 7-5
Nevada: 7-5
Louisiana Tech: 7-5
Freson State: 7-5
Bowling Green: 6-6
San Jose State: 6-6
Southern Miss: 6-6
Florida: 8 bowl eligible (loss: unranked)
Georgia: 9-3
Florida State: 8-4
Hawaii: 7-5
Miami: 7-5
LSU: 7-5
South Carolina: 7-5
Kentucky: 6-6
Vanderbilt: 6-6
Tennessee: 5-7
Arkansas: 5-7
Alabama: 6 bowl elgible
Georgia: 9-3
Mississippi: 8-4
Clemson: 7-5
LSU: 7-5
Kentucky: 6-6
Arkansas State: 6-5
Arkansas: 5-7
Tennessee: 5-7
Auburn: 5-7
Texas: 6 bowl eligible (loss: #7)
Oklahoma: 11-1
Missouri: 9-3
Oklahoma State: 9-3
Rice: 9-3
Kansas: 7-5
Florida Atlantic: 6-6
UTEP: 5-7
Arkansas: 5-7
Colorado: 5-7
Texas Tech: 5 bowl eligible (loss: #2)
Texas: 11-1
Oklahoma State: 9-3
Nebraska: 8-4
Kansas: 7-5
Nevada: 7-5
Kansas State: 5-7
Ball State: 4 bowl eligible
Western Michigan: 9-3
Central Michigan: 8-4
Navy: 7-4
Northern illinois: 6-6
Akron: 5-7
Ohio State: 4 bowl eligible (loses: #5, #8)
Northwestern: 9-3
Troy : 7-4
Minnesota : 7-5
Wisconsin: 7-5
Illinois: 5-7
TCU: 3 bowl eligible (loses: #2, #6)
BYU: 10-2
Air Force: 8-4
Colorado State: 6-6
UNLV: 5-7
Stanford: 5-7
Oklahoma State: 3 bowl eligible (loses: #2, #3, #7)
Houston: 7-5
Troy: 7-4
Missouri: 9-3
Colorado: 5-7
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Interesting maps
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Re: Corn consumption
http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2008/05/food-consumption-around-world.html
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
New BCS poll released
For at large teams, the loser of the SEC championship game should be a fairly sure bet, as should Oklahoma. The final spot will probably go to Ohio State.
Rank | Team | Harris | US News | Computer | BCS Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Texas | 0.9042 | 0.2885 | 0.9600 | 0.7176 |
2 | USC | 0.8375 | 0.5577 | 0.7100 | 0.7017 |
3 | Florida | 0.9277 | 0.2692 | 0.7800 | 0.6590 |
4 | Alabama | 0.9961 | 0.0000 | 0.9700 | 0.6554 |
5 | Oklahoma | 0.9116 | 0.0000 | 0.9000 | 0.6039 |
6 | Penn State | 0.7674 | 0.2885 | 0.7300 | 0.5953 |
7 | Texas Tech | 0.7432 | 0.0000 | 0.8900 | 0.5444 |
8 | Utah | 0.7414 | 0.0000 | 0.8600 | 0.5338 |
9 | Georgia | 0.5639 | 0.1731 | 0.6900 | 0.4757 |
10 | Ohio State | 0.6411 | 0.1923 | 0.5700 | 0.4678 |
11 | Boise State | 0.6670 | 0.0000 | 0.6300 | 0.4323 |
12 | Oklahoma State | 0.5688 | 0.0000 | 0.5800 | 0.3829 |
13 | Missouri | 0.5691 | 0.0000 | 0.5200 | 0.3630 |
14 | Northwestern | 0.1158 | 0.8654 | 0.0200 | 0.3337 |
15 | Stanford | 0.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.3333 |
16 | TCU | 0.4449 | 0.0000 | 0.5100 | 0.3183 |
17 | Duke | 0.0000 | 0.9231 | 0.0000 | 0.3077 |
18 | Ball State | 0.4723 | 0.0000 | 0.4000 | 0.2908 |
19 | Cincinnati | 0.3863 | 0.0000 | 0.4300 | 0.2721 |
20 | Boston College | 0.1884 | 0.4038 | 0.1800 | 0.2574 |
21 | Georgia Tech | 0.1456 | 0.3846 | 0.2400 | 0.2567 |
22 | Rice | 0.0004 | 0.7308 | 0.0000 | 0.2437 |
23 | Vanderbilt | 0.0000 | 0.7115 | 0.0000 | 0.2372 |
23 | Notre Dame | 0.0000 | 0.7115 | 0.0000 | 0.2372 |
25 | California | 0.0158 | 0.6731 | 0.0000 | 0.2296 |
Monday, November 24, 2008
BCS changes selection criteria
In response to the situation, BCS coordinator John Swofford announced that the US News and World Report "Best National Colleges and Universities" rankings will be used in place of the coaches rankings. "US News does a good job of ranking our nation's colleges. We think it will be a great opportunity to show that academics really do play an important role in collegiate athletics." These rankings will make up one third of the BCS selection criteria, just as the coaches poll had previously.
Shortly after the change was announced, some conference realignments were announced. Jim Delany announced that "effective in the academic year 2009-2010, University of Chicago will resume playing football in the Big-10. They were one of the charter members of the Big-10's predecessor conference. After they dropped football in the pre-war days, we had lost track of them. We have recently discovered that they had been playing Division III ball. It was just unfair to have them playing at a lower level, so we invited them back to the Big-10"
University of Chicago president Robert Zimmer announced on his web site that the University had received a "significant sum of money" in return for having their football program resume play in the Big-10. "Big-10 commissioner Jim Delany said we would be a shoe-in for an at-large BCS bowl with our high US News Ranking. They offered us an endowed chair in the physics department as well as additional library funding in exchange for allowing the big-10 to share in some of the BCS money."
The Big-12, perhaps in response to the big-10 becoming another "big-12" announced its own expansion. Commissioner Dan Bebee said "we had always wanted Rice to be a member of the Big-12. We just didn't another team in the north division to balance the conference. Now that Washington University in St. Louis has joined the conference, those problems are allayed." He also announced that the conference would be renamed Big-14, because "unlike other conferences, we know how to count."
There have been rumors of further realignment. An Emory University spokesman reported that they had received requests from both the SEC and ACC to join their conferences. However "I will reiterate, that Emory does not have a football program, and has no intention of starting one." Rumor has it that the SEC is still on the lookout for additional member, but is not very hopeful. According to an anonymous source "This brains thing really got us. After all, we're in the southeast, where football is king, and academics, well, they'll take a back seat. We do have Vandy, but after that, there is not a whole lot to pick from. We're thinking of sending a few thugs out to help get people to vote Florida in the top 25."
Not all conferences are thinking expansion. Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen stated that the Pac-10 has no intentions of expanding. "With Stanford, Cal, UCLA and USC the Pac-10 already has 4 of the top 5 west coast schools. And Caltech dropped football 15 years ago." The ACC is also content with their standings. "We have Duke and Virginia in the top 25 with USA Today. We figure, every other team has made it in the top-25 of the coaches poll, so this will only further add to the parity of the conference."
Notably silent has been the Big East. According to some anonymous tipsters, they are attempting negotiations to merge with the Ivy league. However, they have had major hangups on how to integrate the non-basketball schools. The Ivy league is also contemplating a switch to the Football Bowl Division on their own. The return of the "Harvard-Yale" national championship games does seem appealing to some. Though others would prefer the Ivy League just remain to itself.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Boise State's long odds
Florida State beats Florida
Georgia Tech beats Georgia
Auburn beats Alabama
Alabama beats Florida
Oklahoma State beats Oklahoma
Maryland beats Boston College
Virginia beats Virginia Tech
Florida State beats Georgia Tech
Oregon beats Oregon State
Texas Tech, Texas, USC, Boise State, Missouri, Ball State, Cincinnati win out
1. Texas
2. USC
3. Utah
4. Texas Tech
5. Alabama
6. Penn State
7. Oklahoma
8. Boise State
9. Oklahoma State
10. Ohio State
11. TCU
12. Florida State
13. Ball State
14. Cincinnati
15. Florida
16. Missouri
17. BYU
Texas, USC
Alabama, Penn State, Florida State, Cincinnati
Utah, Texas Tech
Ohio State, Boise State
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Microsoft offering free security software
Microsoft security software, will pretty much only set the baseline for hackers to work around. Windows is supposedly 'secure', yet hackers have been finding holes and vulnerabilities for years. An extra layer of Microsoft software will only create another layer to hop through. If it becomes widely used it could make the computing world much less secure. Uniformity and ubiquitousness makes things easier of hackers. Also, if it is 'too secure', it will often be bypassed to enable comfortable computer usage. If it is not secure enough, it will not prevent basic attacks.
The computer world could learn from agriculture. Large monocultures are highly susceptible to pests and diseases. An organism that attacks corn would find a heyday in acres of Iowa corn fields. Some extreme weather can also ruin crops all around. To counter this, large amounts of pesticide and other means are used to help fight the problem. And even these means are limited, as pests can evolve resistance.
On the other end, small scale organic cooperative farms are much less vulnerable, even without pesticide. Should the corn pest be in the vicinity, it may not even make it to the farm's corn crop. And even if it does, it would only impact a small portion of the farm (instead of wiping everything out.)
A computer culture with a diversity of platforms is much less vulnerable to widespread attacks. There are very few reports of Mac or Linux attacks. Are those platforms inherently more secure? Well, they may have some security advantages that make them more challenging to attack. But, a dedicated hacker could overcome them if they really wanted to. There main advantage is lack of monoculture. Linux and MAC platforms make up a much smaller share of the computing ecosystem. And even in that share, there are many different versions of the mac and linux operating systems. It would take a much greater effort to create a virus that could successfully attack these systems. And once created, propagation would be more difficult, because there are so many Windows 'dead ends'. It is much easier to create a bug to attack the dominant monoculture.
In the windows monoculture, a variety of 'pesticides' can help prevent spreading of bugs. If everyone used the same security software, then it would be simple matter of creating 'resistant' bugs that could overcome them. If there are a variety of different security systems, then the bug would have to be able to bypass all of them - a much more difficult task.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Three BCS teams from the Big12?
Suppose Tech beats Oklahoma and Baylor and goes to the Big-12 championship game undefeated. Alabama, looking forward to Florida, lets its guard down and loses to Auburn. The end of season standing would look something like this:
1) Tech
2) Texas
3) Florida
4) USC
5) Alabama
6) Utah
7) Oklahoma
So, we come to the championship games. Alabama's 'preparation' pays off, and they beat Florida. Missouri comes alive and nips Tech. Missouri gets the big-12 championship, and tech falls down to #2 in the BCS rankings. This leaves the championship game as a rematch between Tech and Texas. But wait, the champion of the Big-12 is also guaranteed a spot in the Fiesta bowl. So, Missouri would end up there.
Another interesting scenario would be Oklahoma beating Tech coupled with some rivalry losses, leaving three Big-12 south teams in the top 3. If one loses the championship game, they would likely be 'stuck' with three BCS teams.
Still it requires a lot of things to fall right this season, though nothing that is too far fetched.
The Big-10, however, is almost set up for it. With each team not playing two other teams each season, there could be a possibility that 3 teams end up undefeated in conference play. There if they never played each other, the team that scheduled the fewest number of IAA teams would get the Rose Bowl birth. So suppose, Penn State and Ohio State finished undefeated, but each schedule one IAA team. Northwestern managed to go undefeated in conference play, but scheduled all IA nonconference teams - and lost them all. They would still get the Rose Bowl - even if the other two were ranked one and two.
College for Free
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/nov2007/
pi20071113_819956.htm
The http://www.geekstack.com blog has a link to a similar post, that
took a slightly different approach (looking at conventional 'pay'
colleges that had ways of going free.)
I wonder how many "free" opportunities will survive this economic
downturn. It actually seems that many schools use school as a
measure of pride. (I recall hearing a story that Northwestern was
seen as an 'average' school until they bumped up tuition.) And with
financial age, tuition really only impacts the upper middle class.
(For the wealthy, the cost is peanuts. For the middle class,
financial aid will cover most of the difference - with many of the
elite schools moving towards mostly grant-based aid.) However, it is
still nice to schools actually encouraging academic achievement.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Non-BCs: Hope for OSU loss
The Pac-10 is more worrisome. If USC gets upset, then they will be out of there. Their remaining games are rivalry matches against UCLA and Notre Dame, so there will be some intensity. However, those two teams are clearly overmatched by USC. Should Oregon State win out in its next two games, they will get the Pac-10 spot, and USC will surely get the at-large spot.
If there is a second at-large spot, it looks like the BCS representatives would be the BYU-Utah winner and Boise State. Ball State has slipped out of the top-14 (due to a fall in computer rankings). However, their next two games against solid MAC opponents should bolster those rankings (if they win.) TCU has a game remaining against a solid Air Force team, so they may have a chance at sneaking up to the top 14 (and like Ball State, have never played in a BCS game. Should Utah win, they could get the pick over Boise State.)
As it stands now, one non-BCS team will definately playing in a BCS bowl. Utah and BYU both have just their rivalry game remaining, and the winner will surely be in the top-16 and above the highest ranked ACC or big east team.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The ACC and bowl games
Why do college football rankings change?
BCS bowls for the non-BCS
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Presidential vegetables
aversion to beets. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/
first_family_food) Why do presidents always pick on my favorite
vegetables?
Just so no to auto industry bailout
trouble? Perhaps the current financial crisis is a sign that its not
good to let companies get too big. (Unfortunately, the result is the
opposite, with big banks swallowing up other 'sick' big banks.) At
least with banks, the government has been willing to let some fail.
If we really want to bailout the auto industry, we should declare a
"Bear Stearns", "Washington Mutual" and "Lehman Brothers". After we
let those go away, we could start bailing out other automakers. So,
lets see, how 'bout we let GM, Ford, and Chrysler all go belly up.
Then we can bail out Tesla.
American auto companies lost their way a while ago, as the foreigners
have produced better cars, and built better labor relations in the
US. Sure, they employ lots of people. But, they have also laid off a
lot of people. If one were to shut down, would that make much of a
dent in the past decade's overall layoff count?
We should let the dinosaurs go. In the short term, our auto needs
could easily be filled by the Japanese and European carmakers. They
could probably even buy off some of the better Big-3 plants and
convert them over. In the long wrong, new, more nimble transportation
providers will evolve. Cars as we currently know it are on their way
out. We might as well let the companies that build them go that way
also.
Open Street Map
NavTeq maps in mapquest/google/yahoo land. By providing the data in
the public domain it should allow for a plethora of new applications
(such as bike routing). However, its only as good as the data
provided. Luckily the Bay area is filled with techie geeks!
Why do we have public schools?
Education still remains the primary "acceptable" reason for public schools. Most debates usually find some way to tie things to education, even when seeking other goals. Any possible education 'side effect' will be given primary focus to make the goal more palatable.
Property values is one argument that is also fairly acceptable to make in the open. The reputation of a school and schools district can have a significant impact on property values. Reputation can also be a virtuous circle. Schools with a good reputation are more likely to attract families that care a lot about education. This in turn will produce high performing schools, which will further improve the reputation. In urban areas, reputation can make a significant difference in property values. In Sunnyvale, a house in the Cupertino district may sell for a a few hundred thousand dollars more than a similar house a block away in the Sunnyvale school district. This occurs even in cases where both schools' performance are similar. (And in spite of the fact that both school s feed in to the same high school district.) Cupertino simply has a better reputation and all of its schools exceed state standards. Sunnyvale's reputation is 'ok', with some schools exceeding state standards and some schools falling way behind. (The quality of the schools is more a reflection of the population demographics than education, with the more poorer schools primarily being in low-income areas.) The reputation of the Cupertino district makes it more desirable, driving up housing prices. The reputation of the 'good' schools in the Sunnyvale correlates with higher property values than in the areas with bad schools (though not as high as the Cupertino district.) This may serve as a 'feedback' loop to encourage the continued economic segregation.
Though how much do the schools themselves really impact property values? As long as a school in a high-value area is 'adequate', the reputation will continue to attract good students, and the test scores will continue to look good. A school would have to be exceptionally good or exceptionally bad to break out of the trend. Thus, education and property values diverge significantly. From a property values perspective, the main goal is to minimize risk. Bold education moves may make teachers unhappy, or harm scores. Running schools in uniform way, and throwing extra dollars at it to minimize murmuring will keep everyone happy.
Community stabilization seems to come out as an excuse for other arguments. People don't want their local school closed, in part because they worry about property values. Or teachers don't want vouchers or charter schools because they worry about jobs. "Neighborhood" schools are, alas, an endangered species. In urban areas, school choice, charter schools, magnet schools, racial balancing, and a host of other factors have lead to a reduction in true neighborhood schools. In suburban areas, it is often distance and consolidation that play the leads. Its cheaper to build one larger school. And if everyone will be driving their children to school, it is just as easy to go to a magnet school of choice. Past experiences in forced integration often drove the wealthy out of public schools (either by moving, or choosing private schools.) The results may have been slightly more integrated schools - but much less integrated districts. A key side-effect was the decline in the influence of schools as a community pillar.
And that brings us to the jobs program. The prime proponent of this argument is the teachers' union. Often the public assume that the union's goal is to improve education. The union is willing to play along with this belief for the political benefits. However, its fiduciary duty is to the union and its members. The union would be successful if nobody learned anything in schools - as long as the teachers had fulfilling secure careers. However, the union is unlikely to go to this extreme. Teaching is more satisfying when students are learning. In general teachers want what they think is best for their students' education. However, teaching remains for most, a job. Working conditions and job security are of key importance.
For the union, stable membership is also important. Though a college professor would be more than qualified to teach a high school AP course, in most states they would not be qualified to teach. They have to go through a teacher training program and pass a certification test. It probably doesn't do much to improve teaching ability, but it would make them more committed to public education (and thus to the union.) In California, even private school teachers have to go through the certification process. Most states also dictate minimum instructional hours and curriculum to be taught in schools. This makes moving from job to job more straightforward. A tenure and seniority process, on the other hand, encourages teachers to stay (while also limited the ability of districts to dismiss teachers.) The barriers to entry help to prevent too much competition in the field, while the relative standardization allow for many different job opportunities. Since schools are located just about everywhere, this is an ideal job program.
An ideal job program should not be confused with an ideal educational program. The need for public school teaching credentials is commonly accepted, though there are plenty of people opposed. As a policy, it probably does a good job keeping most total idiots out of public schools. On the negative side, it probably prevents a lot of really great teachers from becoming public school teachers. The seeming homogenization of teachers allows schools to be more like assembly lines. Once qualified, a teacher can be plugged in as a cog on the education line. The union makes sure the salaries do not dip too low, while the standardization prevents salaries from rising too high. This also reduces the application of creative energies. (Thus creativity in education is often shown by classroom decorations rather than innovative teaching plans.) This encourages greater equality, but reduces the possible areas for innovation (or even custom adaptation).
As an entity, it is unions' duty to fight against competition. Compulsory education laws with high dropout age help to keep the target audience intact. Mandatory curriculum and days of instruction help limit competing schools. Mandatory teacher credentials for private schools makes it even more difficult for other schools to appear. School vouchers must be attacked - though they may allow more money per student in the public schools - put it would also lead to elimination of public teaching jobs (and be an indictment of the quality of public education). And besides, if public education is that bad, you can probably find a rich foundation that will subsidize students - allowing them to leave the schools without any loss of revenue. (Washington D.C. schools have announced an attack on tenure, noting that public school tenure only benefits adults. Attacking a job program during an economic downturn may seem odd - but D.C. schools do have a really bad reputation. And the plan is also an "opt in" plan that gives huge raises - funded by a foundation - in exchange for giving up some tenure rights.) Finally, it is also important to grow the membership by encouraging policies such as class size reduction and public preschool.
Preschool brings us to the daycare argument. Public schools watch children during the day, allowing parents to work. The schools are a cheaper alternative to daycare, and provide learning to boot. After-school programs help to fill out the day. This argument is not as common as the others - probably due to conflicts. (If a goal is daycare, shouldn't school days match working days? Are students up to days that long? And who would work all that time? Would that help or hinder education?)
In the end, the multiple competing interests have produced a decidedly average public education system. Students get a good (but not great) education. Teachers have good (but not great) jobs. Property values are maintained at a consistent level, and parents get a partial day break from their children. Is this what we want in public education?
Being cheap vs. Being Green
However, there are also cases where cheapness and greenness are on opposite sides. Imported produce may be cheaper than local organic produce, but much more damaging to the environment. There is also a large murky middle ground. A hybrid car may be more expensive and "less green" to manufacture. However, it is cheaper and more green to operate. The lower operating costs could increase driving, thereby negating any green or cost benefits. Or, if a heavy driver retains the constant driving habits, it could be more green and more economical. Or if driving distance is already low, the savings may never exceed the purchase premium. However, the premium could be seen as a "green investment" in an improved technology.
The difference between "cheapness" and "greenness" can be identified by sorting out the true costs of goods. On basic level, most everything has a "raw material" and a "labor" cost involved. Sort out the two, and get a true cost from the "raw material" cost. But labor itself also involves raw materials. Perhaps a cleaner way would be to separate "energy" and "markup". The energy cost can further be separated in to "renewable" and "nonrenewable" categories. Markup can include basic profit margins, as well as taxes, subsidies, and other "rent seeking" behavior in the production.
Research and development can also be considered part of the markup. R&D, however, does not necessarily green in itself. Often it leads to improvements that reduce the amount of energy inputs needed. However, at other times, it may increase the inputs (while at the same time increasing selling prices.) Costs are also not uniformly applied. Drug companies, for instance, may sell the same drug at very different costs in different countries, even though manufacturing and research remain unchanged.
Economic analysis can also lead to distortions. A time-discounted method could render future energy savings moot. A short term value of time could also lead to consumption of heavily processed foods, in spite of the health and cost disadvantages. However, with a thorough analysis, the economic view should end up similar to the 'green' view for most commodity items.
With non-commodities, social impacts and desires can make a difference. On an individual level, the decision to not own a car, and walk or bike everywhere is a more green behavior. However, it could also be argued that not everybody is willing to do that now. Buying a fuel-efficient hybrid is a way to help support auto-industry improvements that will allow everyone else to be more green. However, these improvements may allow others to drive longer, delaying the point when they give up their car. Perhaps a personal long term 'cheapness' analysis is the best way to remain green.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
What makes a good school?
AP test scores are the measure preferred by US News. These do a good job of measuring the advanced work that the schools do in preparing students. However, there are still plenty of ways these could be misleading. A school with many smart kids may have lots of AP test takers, even if instruction is subpar. It can also show institutional bias. A school that offers a lot of AP classes will perform better school that doesn't push AP tests. It also only does a good job with the top students. And, it is only applicable to the upper grades of high school.
In the same vein as AP test, college admissions could be used. This is, after all, a common end goal for high school. A school that sends lots of students to your college of choice may be ideal. But, it tells little about the quality of instruction.
Unfortunately all of these measure achievement, but provide little clue of the actual quality of instruction. An ideal metric would take the "inputs" in to account also. How could that be done? The income of the families in the district could be used as a guage. Unfortunately, this can be difficult to accomplish. Using district-wide median income may skew results (especially for large districts). Using school-area income may be reasonable for neighborhood schools with no out-of-area transfers. However, isolating the appropriate area, and finding the data could be challenging. And finding schools that don't have any out of area transfers could eliminate a great number of schools.
There is also the question of what data to collect. Income seems like a straightforward one. However, the comparison range must be taken in to account. A high-income area in South Dakota might have a lower income than a lower-income area in Silicon Valley. The reduced and free lunch statistics may be useful. But, they only account for extremes. Education levels of parents, race, English ability, and parents status are all factors that can be taken in to account. A good measure can try to create an equal base and compare how performance compares to expected performance. This may identify some exceptionally performing schools. However, especially at the "high parent involvement" end, this wont tell much. (Parents and tutors may compensate for poor education.)
Is there a good way to quantify school quality? Do we have a lot of really bad schools that appear to be good simply because parents care?
Stupid Car Tricks
cars stopped in the right turn lane. The right turn is signed "No
turn on red". So the cars were acting appropriately and waiting for
the green light. Finally the left turn signal turns green. They
remain properly waiting until halfway through the phase, one car in
the back just lays on its horn. Apparently, it if you can see some
green, it must not be red, right? The car in front was patient
enough to wait the two seconds for the light to turn green.
This pails in comparison to the Foothill Arastradero exit. It has a
left-hand through lane, and a right hand right turn lane, with a big
sign indicating "no left turn". One day a car just decided to
disregard this, and make a left turn from the left lane. Another day,
a little sports car must have decided, "Oh that just means no left
turn from the left lane. I guess it must be ok from the right lane"
And proceeded to turn left across a couple lanes of traffic once the
light turned green. (Hey if your going to be fragrant about laws, why
not just ignore the red light also?)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Too rich to eat properly
He probably has it right on the dot. But how do we fix it? And how did we get here in the first place? (Alas, he mentioned that America is already off the deep end... But maybe we can still survive.) There seem to be a near infinite number of 'culprits'. Urbanization disassociates people from their food sources. It's not far to see what people eat being disassociated from food. Or perhaps the problem is feminism. Women wanted to do everything that men traditionally did. Unfortunately, men didn't want to do everything that women traditionally did. This led to the 'outsourcing' of traditional domestic tasks (cooking) to McDonalds. And need I mention the car? The symbol of laziness also allows people to work further and further away from home. Too far to come home for lunch, so you must go out. And since your spending so much time in the car, might as well just get more food on the run. (Don't want to waste any time eating.) The list can go on and on...
The fixes? Well, one suggestion he had was doing more "cooking training". That could help people go beyond pressing a few buttons on the microwave. Its a shame that 'homec' classes have disappeared from high schools. While scoring well on math and reading tests may help a school to "look good", scoring well on cooking can actually help people to live. I heard an NPR bit a few years ago about a big name chef who was cooking lunches at a school. As I recall, he received rave reviews for cooking healthy, nutritious, varied meals at the school, while involving the students. Perhaps school lunch could be a nutritional training ground instead of a USDA excess goods disposal location.
What about taxes? Governments love to tax. Prepared foods could be an easy target. The markup is already so high, that a few extra cents would probably go unnoticed. You can buy a 3oz microwavable "pasta alfredo" that cooks in 5 minutes for $3. Or, for around the same price, you can buy a pound of pasta and a jar of alfredo sauce. Spend about 15 minutes cooking the pasta, and you could easily get enough 'pasta alfredos' to last all week (and then some.) Spend a little more time to actually make the Alfredo sauce and the cost is even lower. (And you can eliminate a lot of the strange chemicals added.) By packing the noodles in a microwavable package, the company has been able to charge a premium of at least 600% on the raw food costs. Who would notice a few cents more? Perhaps the government could even use it to subsidize local organic farms to bring fresh produce in tot he picture.
Safari developer tools
firefox. They are included with Safari, but you have to jump through
a few hoops to enable them:
On a MAC, with Safari shut down, type:
defaults write com.apple.Safari IncludeDebugMenu 1
(And make sure you are on your local system! My first attempt
failed. Then I noticed it was because I was logged in to a Solaris box!)
After starting Safari, a "develop" option will appear on the menu bar.
However, that is just the start. My favorite feature is the "right-
click" inspect feature. Similar to firebug. Though with some extra
features and notable shortcomings. (It bring it up in a separate
window, and makes it extremely clear what the element being inspected
is. However, it doesn't allow you to tweak the CSS.)
The error console is also nice - Safari always seems to be more
strict than Firefox, so it helps to more easily find what the real
problems are.
I've also found the network tab to be a little more accurate than the
NET tab in firebug.
Now if MS could just make a halfway decent debugging tool for IE...
A good splitscreen view for firefox
Umm.. The election was last week
I'd imagine these 'protests' are primarily for the benefit of the protesters. (They would probably be out celebrating if their side had won.) As far as impact on others, it is probably doing more harm than good. (Attacking religions only confirms to the religious that the 'no on 8' people have no respect for their beliefs.) The courts would be a much more appropriate place to go. The California supreme courts already found a way to grant gay marriage once. They would probably be willing to find some ground to do it again. (Though they should try to keep it out of the U.S. supreme court, where the current conservative strict-constructionist majority would easily strike down gay marriage.)
What is also striking about these post-election protesters is that they seem to be predominantly young, white people. And they are protesting against a group of racial minorities, religious minorities, and older people. Perhaps this is just the first sign of the future of the 'majority-minority' state.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Racial profiling and dentists
The dentist case presents a similar case of 'guilty and proven innocent'. A dentist potentially loses his freedom and livelihood, all because of one accuser. The defense is next to impossible: "yes, he fondled me". "No I did not". Even witnesses could be problematic: "I did not see him do it"... "Well, he might have done it when I wasn't there." What is scary is that this looks very similar to a case in Davis. There a woman reported that the dentist had touched her inappropriately on multiple times. This poses a few questions: (why did she keep going back? How was it inappropriate? (Or was it inappropriate - could the patient just have been uncomfortable with the procedure?) What is also scary is that the accuser can remain totally anonymous, while the accused has his name dragged in public. (Recall the false accusations in the Duke Lacrosse case.) While it is important to prevent crimes from happening and encourage victims to come forth, anonymity also can lead to false accusations with little fear of negative consequences. Ideally, the dentist case should be resolved with a simple discussion. If he truly is a Seinfeld-type dentist, that continues with the behavior, then charges are warranted. If he was performing actions in the best interest of the patient, there may be was to do it in a less offensive manner, or even give the suggestion with concerns made apparent, only only perform it at the patient's insistence. Or they may squash privacy by setting up cameras to monitor every action.
If you don't get your way, complain
And then there are boycotts. Lets see. Boycott Utah because a lot of people their contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign. That does seem a little harsh - after all there were many people there that were against the measure, and most were probably neutral. But the boycott is geared primarily towards the Sundance film festival and the Park City ski industry. Both are bastions of liberalness in Utah, and among the most gay friendly areas. Many of the prop.8 supporters in Utah would probably even be welcome to joining in the boycott.
A good analysis is in this blog. Lost in the debate is some real attempt at reconciliation. The gay rights campaign is, after all, primarily about acceptance. "Marriage" does not provide many significant state legal benefit for same-sex couples. However, it does appear to provide them greater 'acceptance' in society. However, if this 'acceptance' is forced unwillingly on others, it will only create more deep-seeded tensions.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
The law of unintended consequences
However, as more people owned cars, some problems started to appear. Congestion slowed traffic. The simple solution was 'limited access roads'. However, this ability to drive greater distances on freeways was no use unless there was a place to park. So, minimum parking requirements were put in place. Things were still somewhat manageable. Kids would walk to school, and come home at play. Most households had just one worker, so one car was enough.
However, these old neighborhoods were still a little too dense for optimal car use; and nobody wanted to live on a busy street. So, new neighborhoods were built with more space for cars, and often with 'fences' facing the busy streets. These 'fence streets' were miserable to walk on, but most everybody was expected to stay in their neighborhood. Some parents started driving their children to school. It seemed to be faster. As more households had both parents working, a daycare "drop off" on the way to work became more of a norm. Dropping off at school just seemed to be a natural extension. Since houses were further apart (and family sizes smaller), neighborhood schools began shutting down. Initially some bus service could be provided. But this was much slower than driving kids, so most parents opted to drive. Soon, driving to school became the norm. School districts then begin to offer special magnet programs at various schools. The parents are expected to drive. This all goes to create more traffic, and make it even more difficult for children to walk to school. The benefit some parents initial gained from driving kids to school, eventually became a loss to kids that actually wanted to safely walk to their neighborhood school.
These loses extended to other areas. The initial benefit of low-cost super-stores resulted in the loss of neighborhood stores. Sure, the Wal*Mart had things much cheaper than the neighborhood store. But, it required an up-front purchase of a car, and additional ongoing costs of owning and operating the vehicle, as well as taxes for the roads. (If Walmart opened with a $20000 initiation fee, and $2000 in annual dues, nobody would go there. However, by externalizing that cost in to a 'necessity', it became more palatable.) The price of low-cost also destroyed some local community institutions. Would Wal*Mart support the little league team? Would Home Depot provide the nuances of how to fix the obscure electrical outlets in your neighborhood? Probably not. But they would sell you the wrong receptacle for 20% less.
The gradual elimination of transit and scattered development seemed good at first. There was no need to funnel all traffic on trains to a central location. In theory, homes and workplaces could form a fine mesh, where nobody has to travel too far and no road is too congested. Problem is, things don't work this way. People don't want to live near retail or industrial. Businesses like to be near other similar businesses. The big-box phenomenon was affecting companies as well, through consolidation, and formation of large offices. Zoning comes in to the picture to make things even worse. So today we have a model where there are many residential, industrial, commercial and retail clusters. The clusters are large enough to cause huge traffic jams. However, they are too spread out to really enable an effective transit solution. Even the few that provide adequate clusters for transit often provide just a drop in the bucket of the overall travel demand.
And finally pollution. We have replaced horse manure with carbon monoxide, ozone, and a host of other air pollutants. Noise pollution has also become a serious problem. And, as another unintended consequence, water pollution has become a serious problems as farmers use excess chemical fertilizers on their farms. Perhaps horse manure wasn't so bad after all.
More BCS football randomness
It's also interesting to look at the difference between human polls and computers. The humans love Florida, but the computers are pretty that Texas is 3rd. (Interesting - the computers don't realize that UT's only loss was a last minute squeaker to the now number 1 team - while Florida's loss was to a currently unranked team.) Utah is also not getting much love, showing up as 8 and 7 in the human polls, though 4th in the computers. (Sure they did seem to get a little lucky against TCU, but a win is a win. Penn State on the other hand seems to be overranked by the humans - Is the loss really that bad of a loss? On the other hand, Oklahoma State seemed to fall too much. Sure they were mauled - but it was one of the top ranked teams, not a lowly Iowa.
USC is a couple notches higher by the humans. This seems somewhat justified. They have been doing some serious mauling of some of their opponents - something that would not show up in the computers. (Though the most recent game against Cal did not look that great.) The computers also seem to like Georgia and the ACC much better than the humans. Perhaps they should allow some score-differential algorithms in, to balance out the rankings. (Even better yet - some that penalize for home blowouts of IAA schools.)
Friday, November 07, 2008
Why are college coaches paid so much?
With bankers in New York, at least there are plenty of amenities to suck money away (uber-expensive real estate, posh private schools, exclusive clubs, charities, and more.) But in Lubbock? Or College Station? or Bloomington? There are just so many cars, electronics and whatnot you can buy before you make a total fool of yourself. Maybe a few vacation condos? Again, its probably not near enough to hang with the super rich, but way to much for anyone in a college town. (Don't confuse Manhattan, Kansas with Manhattan, New York.) The college coach is often the most famous person in town. I guess it just seems logical to make sure his paw dwarfs everyone else.
Stanford, is, ironically, one of the few schools that could justify a large salary. After all, the low-end in Palo Alto exceeds the high end in most any place else. Just to provide a comparable standard of living, Stanford would have to pony up a lot. Only they don't do it, and tend to be in the low end of the salary range. And even with the large pay, they would still play second fiddle to many other big name CEOs, sports stars and other celebrities. I guess having the "farm" in a city does have its benefits.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Can we finally put BART out of its misery?
If the choice were between adding new freeways and building BART, I would surely be in the BART camp. Only its not that way. 50 years ago, Santa Clara county decided that 'expressways' were a much better choice than BART. More recently, raising taxes to build Highway 85 seemed to be the way to go. "Upgrading" 237 and 87 to freeways also appeared to be wise ideas. Only now, after building all the roadways, it is finally dawning on people that "hey, maybe some people might actually like to take transit". Problem is that most development is geared towards cars. The further south, the worse it gets (just check out South San Jose - with residential 6 lane divided streets, where you have to walk over a mile just to get to your neighbor across the street.)
In this climate, who would take BART? Primarily people that take transit already. It might save a little time. (No getting stuck in traffic on the express bus). Though it would probably cost them more. New riders? Well, a few that were afraid of buses. But VTA already has an extensive light rail system that hardly anybody rides. Why should they? The stations are set in the middle of the freeway. "Hmm. traffic's light. I guess I'll just drive in". They also go a a circuitous route to finally get to their destinations. The end result is that they almost always take much longer than driving. (Often even longer than biking!) And this to arrive at a destination that is horribly pedestrian unfriendly. And links between transit systems? Hah! the light rail passes right over an Amtrak/ACE station - but the light rail station is half a mile away! Why make it easy for people to connect between transit systems?
For $5 billion dollars, perhaps we could actually build transit systems and development in a that they would actually be used. Now that would be innovative. Transit for moving people. And VTA just thought it was for providing union jobs.
Could a MAC team make it to the BCS?
Only hurting 'special' people is bad?
Monday, November 03, 2008
Measure B - Can anything be sold with the letters BART?
Even though building the extension is lightly to consume way too much money - money that could be spent on actually providing transportation that people use - this measure is not about that. This measure is about taxing ourselves to provide money for operating this beast. Apparently, it will have so few riders, that a huge subsidy is in order. (Perhaps they have realized that all recent BART extensions have come in over budget and under estimated ridership.) And this is for something that only serves a brief section of the county. (Though VTA somehow justifies this because it connects to caltrain. (They most not realize that Caltrain already connects with BART at Millbrae - in the last 'white elephant' adventure in BART construction.)
The audacity of this is that they sell it as a way to "reduce traffic congestion." And its unfortunate that most people buy this. Though, they figure that congestion will be reduced by 'other people' taking transit, thus leaving more space on the road for them. Unfortunately, the building environment is still such that their are limited destinations easily accessible from transit. The parking lots at BART stations attest to that. Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco are the only reasonable destinations. And these are a long ways away; and for most people, caltrain would still be faster.
If we were really serious about transit, we should actually start building pedestrian-friendly development near existing transit lines. With some of the money being talking about for train lines, why not pay people not to drive? It would likely be cheaper, and lead to greater reduction in traffic congestion.