Can't listen to a game over the Internet...unless you pay the NFL. I don't have cable. I don't have Sunday Ticket. I don't have any way of watching the Denver Broncos unless they are on one the local affiliates. Last night, the Broncos played the 49ers on ESPN. Fair enough. I mosey on over to 850 KOA the official radio home of the Denver Broncos. Instead of hearing Dave Logan and David Diaz Infante, I get some dude telling me that the game cannot be simulcast over the Internet because of some "contractual" obligations. I guess that the NFL doesn't have enough money. They want to dig even deeper into the pockets of the loyal fans.
I really appreciated the link at the bottom of the page that took me to the NFL radio page. I was told that I could get a great deal if I signed up in the pre-season. Only $29.95! If I wait, I'd have to pay like $40 bucks or something per month. What a deal. What has been free for the last billion years is now $29.95. Does that make any sense? KOA was nice enough to tell me that I could listen to the game on the radio instead of the Internet. I'm 1880 miles away. Maybe on a clear night at 3 in the morning...yeah right.
Dear Mr. NFL. You will not get a single cent out of me. I'll find a way to watch or listen to the Broncos.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Friday, June 15, 2007
The Sopranos Whacked Me!
I didn't see it coming. I got whacked! I TiVo'd the last episode of the Sopranos and finally got the chance to watch it. I watched it a second time and I watched the ending at least 3 more times. I even had my wife watch it. At first I didn't get it. Then, it hit me. The only person to get whacked at the end was me. All of the tension was there for Tony to get whacked. I know that some have said that is what happened because Tony had said in the first episode of the season that everything goes to black. The problem is that this isn't a first person narrative. We are not hearing Tony's thoughts and seeing the world through his eyes.
The audience is a part of the family. Someone who has been allowed in and has been an accomplice in the most secret of things. We were there with him while he waited for his family. We got to see everyone who came into the diner. We got to feel the tension and the paranoia. Was is the weird trucker guy? The guy who kept looking at them from the counter? Whoever it was, Tony was not the hit. It was me and the millions of others who faithfully watched the show. None of us saw it coming. Talk about closure. We don't get to see any more of that world because we are no longer a part of it.
That is my theory. If I'm right, then Chase is a genius for crafting such a brilliant ending. Brilliant because no other show has ever had such a unique ending. It was so much more than, "I didn't see that coming." The Sopranos Audience - R.I.P.
The audience is a part of the family. Someone who has been allowed in and has been an accomplice in the most secret of things. We were there with him while he waited for his family. We got to see everyone who came into the diner. We got to feel the tension and the paranoia. Was is the weird trucker guy? The guy who kept looking at them from the counter? Whoever it was, Tony was not the hit. It was me and the millions of others who faithfully watched the show. None of us saw it coming. Talk about closure. We don't get to see any more of that world because we are no longer a part of it.
That is my theory. If I'm right, then Chase is a genius for crafting such a brilliant ending. Brilliant because no other show has ever had such a unique ending. It was so much more than, "I didn't see that coming." The Sopranos Audience - R.I.P.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
15 Answers To Scientific American Nonsense
1.) The whole law versus theory thing. Go back 50-75 years and you'll find creationists that use that argument, but not today. I doubt that very many people actually use that argument today. I think that Scientific American is using a weak argument that a back woods, Bible thumper might use.
2.) I've actually never heard a creationist use the argument that survival of the fittest is circular reasoning. Maybe some have, but again I don't think you'd find modern scientists using such logic. It would be nice to have some sort of example of this argument being used in journal, philosophy paper, etc.
3.) Yes, most creationists would agree that macro-evolution takes place. The problem is that macro-evolution doesn't prove micro-evolution. We can observe small changes in birds, animals, plants, etc. None of the changes results in an increase of information which would prove evolution. All changes that are observed deal with losses in information. We are still waiting to observe the increase of information which would be observable micro-evolution.
4.) This is really a silly assertion by Scientific American. They admit that most of the papers submitted by creationists or Intelligent Design folks deal with specific and well known evolutionary problems. Our side has more people than yours...silly.
5.) This is a straw man argument. We all know that there are going to be disagreements within any community. I keep waiting for SA to give the knock-out argument, but so far it hasn't happened.
6.) Humans split off from monkeys and they both went in their evolutionary directions. I doubt this is a recent argument. If there are folks using it, then they should stop. Evolutionists should also stop using the argument about humans and chimpanzees being such close relatives. It is the same kind of argument.
7.) I think that the complaint over how life began stems from the fact that some of our ideas are being taught as fact. We can put together some basic "building blocks" in a lab, but we can't say with any assurance that it is even the most likely scenario. However, take a biology class in any high school or university and you'll be told about the primordial soup and that is that. No other options.
8.) I think that the mathematical argument is used to show the odds of life starting and not of evolution. There are so many things that would have to have been just right for it all to have started.
9.) An embryo to a baby to an adult. Solve the micro-evolution problem and then we'll talk about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
10.) If SA were being honest, they would have framed the argument in regards to the increase of genetic information. We have not found a single example of an increase in genetic information that resulted from a mutation. If there isn't an increase in genetic information, there isn't micro-evolution. There are a few cases in which advantage has resulted from mutation, but none have resulted in an increase of genetic information.
11.) This answers both 11 and 12. Speciation has always resulted within a kind. We don't have evidence of out of kind speciation. Again, where is the increase in genetic information. There are hypothesis about speciation in regards to isolation, but they are just guesses. Give us some evidence.
12.) See 11#
13.) I love the examples given of transitional forms, but SA isn't being completely honest. They bring up Archaeopteryx and then a "flock's worth" of other feathered fossil species. Are these other feathers species transitional forms of Archaeoptyeryx? We don't know. Neither does SA. We were told that we'd have the entire fossil record as evidence for evolution. We've got a few candidates for transitional species and not much more. I like how they threw in molecular biology as proof. Here is the big problem. Where is micro-evolution? There isn't any new genetic information being introduced. No new genetic information means no micro-evolution.
14.) This is for #14 & #15. Whether it be a computer program, a car, house, etc. we assume that there is a creator. We can't assume that the complexity of nature has a creator. Heavens no. We have a entire series of hypothesis that simple forms of mechanism could evolve into more complex forms if given the perfect conditions. When dealing with speciation, splitting a group of organism off and putting pressures on them to reproduce might force them to merge with another kind. We cannot prove it. It is just a guess. We also have some ideas on how light sensitive organisms might have been able to detect light, reproduce and mutate greater vision capabilities. Again, just a guess. We can easily observer mathematical patterns, symmetry, complexity in nature and yet we cannot assume a creator.
Link to the Scientific American article.
I hate reading this kind of stuff because most of the time, the writer(s) are so sanctimonious and pompous. This article was no exception. Phrases such as "far-fetched" and "nothing of intellectual value" are examples, in my opinion, of the politics of evolution. You are not allowed to hold to any other belief. If you do, you believe in fables. I love how they stated that God is an "un-proven" being. Yet, I would offer creation as proof of that creator. I can't because then I'm being unscientific. I'm sticking in my religious beliefs. Oh well. As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly.
2.) I've actually never heard a creationist use the argument that survival of the fittest is circular reasoning. Maybe some have, but again I don't think you'd find modern scientists using such logic. It would be nice to have some sort of example of this argument being used in journal, philosophy paper, etc.
3.) Yes, most creationists would agree that macro-evolution takes place. The problem is that macro-evolution doesn't prove micro-evolution. We can observe small changes in birds, animals, plants, etc. None of the changes results in an increase of information which would prove evolution. All changes that are observed deal with losses in information. We are still waiting to observe the increase of information which would be observable micro-evolution.
4.) This is really a silly assertion by Scientific American. They admit that most of the papers submitted by creationists or Intelligent Design folks deal with specific and well known evolutionary problems. Our side has more people than yours...silly.
5.) This is a straw man argument. We all know that there are going to be disagreements within any community. I keep waiting for SA to give the knock-out argument, but so far it hasn't happened.
6.) Humans split off from monkeys and they both went in their evolutionary directions. I doubt this is a recent argument. If there are folks using it, then they should stop. Evolutionists should also stop using the argument about humans and chimpanzees being such close relatives. It is the same kind of argument.
7.) I think that the complaint over how life began stems from the fact that some of our ideas are being taught as fact. We can put together some basic "building blocks" in a lab, but we can't say with any assurance that it is even the most likely scenario. However, take a biology class in any high school or university and you'll be told about the primordial soup and that is that. No other options.
8.) I think that the mathematical argument is used to show the odds of life starting and not of evolution. There are so many things that would have to have been just right for it all to have started.
9.) An embryo to a baby to an adult. Solve the micro-evolution problem and then we'll talk about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
10.) If SA were being honest, they would have framed the argument in regards to the increase of genetic information. We have not found a single example of an increase in genetic information that resulted from a mutation. If there isn't an increase in genetic information, there isn't micro-evolution. There are a few cases in which advantage has resulted from mutation, but none have resulted in an increase of genetic information.
11.) This answers both 11 and 12. Speciation has always resulted within a kind. We don't have evidence of out of kind speciation. Again, where is the increase in genetic information. There are hypothesis about speciation in regards to isolation, but they are just guesses. Give us some evidence.
12.) See 11#
13.) I love the examples given of transitional forms, but SA isn't being completely honest. They bring up Archaeopteryx and then a "flock's worth" of other feathered fossil species. Are these other feathers species transitional forms of Archaeoptyeryx? We don't know. Neither does SA. We were told that we'd have the entire fossil record as evidence for evolution. We've got a few candidates for transitional species and not much more. I like how they threw in molecular biology as proof. Here is the big problem. Where is micro-evolution? There isn't any new genetic information being introduced. No new genetic information means no micro-evolution.
14.) This is for #14 & #15. Whether it be a computer program, a car, house, etc. we assume that there is a creator. We can't assume that the complexity of nature has a creator. Heavens no. We have a entire series of hypothesis that simple forms of mechanism could evolve into more complex forms if given the perfect conditions. When dealing with speciation, splitting a group of organism off and putting pressures on them to reproduce might force them to merge with another kind. We cannot prove it. It is just a guess. We also have some ideas on how light sensitive organisms might have been able to detect light, reproduce and mutate greater vision capabilities. Again, just a guess. We can easily observer mathematical patterns, symmetry, complexity in nature and yet we cannot assume a creator.
Link to the Scientific American article.
I hate reading this kind of stuff because most of the time, the writer(s) are so sanctimonious and pompous. This article was no exception. Phrases such as "far-fetched" and "nothing of intellectual value" are examples, in my opinion, of the politics of evolution. You are not allowed to hold to any other belief. If you do, you believe in fables. I love how they stated that God is an "un-proven" being. Yet, I would offer creation as proof of that creator. I can't because then I'm being unscientific. I'm sticking in my religious beliefs. Oh well. As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Dear Kevin Rose...Digg Sucks!
Here are a few quick way to fix Digg. Block any submission to a rawstory, stinkprogress, media matters, crooks and liars, and lew rockwell. Only accept stories from primary sources. No more blogs. Most of them exist just to take in ad revenue. Make sure that a political opinion story is marked as such. There are a lot of dumb people who read opinion and believe it to be fact. Get rid of the mootbats that promote every crazy, left-wing sputum to the front page. Make it a real democracy by taking away power from the few and giving it to the many. Limit the number of Steve Jobs stories. The guy really isn't that interesting. Block any story that has your name on it. It really is kind of creepy how a story about you, usually very lame, races to the front page. Show who has buried a story and why they buried it. Allow us to respond to an individual comment and not the entire thread. Digg used to be cool...
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Top 5 TV Shows
5.) Rescue Me - The show has come close to jumping the shark a couple of times. It looks like one of the more annoying characters has been killed off. That should make this next season more interesting.
4.) The Sopranos - It isn't as good as it used to be, but it still has it's moments. I'm hoping that a few more favs get whacked before everything is said and done.
3.) The Shield - Best written...Best acted.
2.) Survivor - There are still enough twists and turns to make the show enjoyable.
1.) 24 - The show has reinvented the Cliffhanger.
NOTE: I've dropped Battlestar Galactica from the list completely. I stopped watching the show. I would have to say that the rescue at the beginning of the season was probably one of the best moments in TV. It was everything that Star Wars Episode III should have been in regards to being dark, gritty and thrilling. The boxing episode...Stupid. Apollo getting fat...What? It has turned into a Soap Opera. The characters are not very likable. I think the Cylons are more human than the humans.
4.) The Sopranos - It isn't as good as it used to be, but it still has it's moments. I'm hoping that a few more favs get whacked before everything is said and done.
3.) The Shield - Best written...Best acted.
2.) Survivor - There are still enough twists and turns to make the show enjoyable.
1.) 24 - The show has reinvented the Cliffhanger.
NOTE: I've dropped Battlestar Galactica from the list completely. I stopped watching the show. I would have to say that the rescue at the beginning of the season was probably one of the best moments in TV. It was everything that Star Wars Episode III should have been in regards to being dark, gritty and thrilling. The boxing episode...Stupid. Apollo getting fat...What? It has turned into a Soap Opera. The characters are not very likable. I think the Cylons are more human than the humans.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Bill Mahar: "I'm dumber than that Tim Robbins guy."
Come on Bill. No wonder you didn't make it in stand-up. You couldn't come up with anything original. Admit it. You "borrowed" your latest rant from Tim Robbins. I think stinky Alex Baldwin wrote something similar on the Huffington site a few months ago.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Colts...Er...Bears...I mean Colts...Bears?
I don't know who will win the game tonight. I will tell you this: It will either be the Colts or the Bears that emerge as Super Bowl Champions. I hope that helps.
Friday, February 02, 2007
DEMOCRAT!
Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901845.html
Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat
Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Classless!
Did you see the end of the game? Did you see Manning moving through the crowd to get a handshake from Mr. Classless? Bill totally dismissed him. Maybe the Chargers were right. Maybe the Patriots are lacking in class. They sure showed it tonight.I think that the Patriots have moved from being a team that is confident in themselves to being full of themselves. It was fun for a while to watch them break Manning's heart. At times tonight, it just seemed cruel and excessive. The Patriots expected that they were going to win the game. They kind of looked like they thought they deserved to win the game. Like it was their right. All things come to an end.
Blowing an 18 point lead was priceless. Mr. Classless could use a little humility. Thankfully, he got a big helping of it tonight.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Poor Marty!
So, does Marty lose his job over this one? Probably. Does he deserve to lose his job? No. All of the talk this morning surrounds his 5-13 record in the Playoffs. He's too uptight, he out coaches himself, etc. I think a big part of the problem is the fact the he is a great motivator. During the regular season, he is able to motivate his teams to play at a little higher level. They win all of the games that they are supposed to win and sneak by with a couple that they shouldn't have won. The Denver and Cinci games come to mind. Both teams decided to have a meltdown when playing the Chargers. Once you get to the Playoffs, motivation alone won't win any games. Every team has stepped up their game. San Diego looked average because they are average.
They'll fire Marty and either promote Cam Cameron or they'll find some other "hot" prospect. The first place schedule and the coaching change will leave San Diego at 7-9 next year.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Here is the Problem With Football Polls...
Polls are opinion. In everyone's opinion this year, Ohio State was the best football team in the nation. Well, everyone was wrong. Not wrong in the sense that Ohio State lost to a Florida team on botched field goal or a fumble. Wrong in the sense that Ohio State should not have been playing in the title game. Ohio State should have been the team left out of the BCS championship. They should have been in the Rose Bowl playing against USC. A rematch between Florida and LSU would have been a better game. Boise State and Florida would have been interesting too.
Terry Bowden said that Ohio State lacked emotion. Emotion accounts for the personal fouls that Ohio State had early in the game. Ohio State was supposed to be better than Florida at every position. Last night's win wasn't David vs. Goliath. It exposed how fraudulent the BCS is. If there were a 4 game playoff, Ohio State would have been out the first round. FOX has the BCS through 2010. There is nothing in their contract that prohibits the BCS from changing to a plus 1 for a 4 team playoff. FOX has paid billions for this, they should demand changes.
Terry Bowden said that Ohio State lacked emotion. Emotion accounts for the personal fouls that Ohio State had early in the game. Ohio State was supposed to be better than Florida at every position. Last night's win wasn't David vs. Goliath. It exposed how fraudulent the BCS is. If there were a 4 game playoff, Ohio State would have been out the first round. FOX has the BCS through 2010. There is nothing in their contract that prohibits the BCS from changing to a plus 1 for a 4 team playoff. FOX has paid billions for this, they should demand changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)