College football continued its shakeout this weekend. The list of unbeatens dropped by two, as Michigan State and Missouri fell. That ought to shut up some of the fans of the pretender teams. Unfortunately, the other pretenders won.
The media is making a big deal out of Oregon's win over a 5-2 (now 5-3) Southern Cal team. Of course, the media made a big deal out of Barack Obama, so that shows the media don't know jack.
Boise State completed another task in its cupcake schedule, beating La Tech (which is French for The Tech).
Texas Christian beat 1-6 (now 1-7) UNLV while Utah edged 5-2 (now 5-3) Air Force. Those two play on Saturday (November 6), so that'll take care of one of those.
That means that, beside eventual SEC champ Auburn (pending their thrashing of Georgia and a tight game with Alabama, plus a SEC title game win over USC), there will be three other teams that could be unbeaten at the end of the season. And only one of those gets to be the victim in the BCS title game. The other two can play each other in the Carquest Bowl or something, and lay claim to its own Fantasyland title.
SEC East
Things went as expected in the SEC East this week. Assuming wins this weekend, South Carolina and Florida's upcoming game (November 13) should decide the division. USC has Arkansas this week, while Florida plays at Vanderbilt. The only way the USC-FL game on the 13th doesn't decide the title would be for USC to beat Arkansas while Florida loses to Vanderbilt. If that happens, USC wins the East no matter what.
South Carolina is in the position of "win and we're in" the SEC title game. And so is Florida.
All the other teams have been eliminated. Yes, there are a lots of "if this team beats that team" kind of scenarios, but the fact is, the worst USC can go in the conference is 4-4. The only teams that can match that (other than Florida) are Vanderbilt and Georgia.
Any scenario with UGA leaves them out of it, since the SEC tiebreaker in a 3 or 4 team scenario eliminates them on head-to-head: 0-2 (3 team tie) or 1-2 (4 team tie).
Vanderbilt is also out. In a 4-way scenario, the head-to-head (1-2) gets them. In a 3-way, they lose on the second tie-breaker, division wins (3-2, if they win out, to Florida's 4-1).
So, it's USC vs Florida for the East. See how simple things can be?
SEC West
The West is not as simple.
If Alabama (LSU, Mississippi State, Auburn) wins out, they win the West.
If Auburn (Georgia, Alabama) wins out, they win the West.
Everybody else needs help.
If Auburn beats Georgia on November 13, then the only other team that could win the West would be Alabama, and they'd have to win out to do that.
LSU: Can win out, but can only win outright. If they are forced to a tie-breaker scenario, they lose out to Auburn. So, LSU needs to win and and have Auburn to lose to Georgia and Alabama, due to tiebreakers.
Mississippi State: Eliminated. Even if they win out, all the tie-breakers are against them. They lose a 2-way with Auburn (head-to-head). They lose 3-way with Alabama and Auburn (division record). They lose 3-way with Auburn and LSU (head-to-head). A 3-way with Auburn and Arkansas isn't possible. And the only 4-way that's possible (with Alabama, Auburn, and LSU) leaves them out because of head-to-head (1-2).
Arkansas: Eliminated. Even if they win out, all the tie-breakers are against them. In a 2-way, they lose a head-to-head with Auburn. In a 3-way, with Auburn and Alabama, Arkansas is eliminated by head-to-head (0-2). In a 3-way with Auburn and LSU, Arkansas is eliminated by head-to-head (1-1). And, a 4-way with Auburn, Alabama, and LSU also eliminates them on head-to-head (1-2).
So, the West is down to 3 teams, but the likely scenario is Alabama-Auburn on Friday, November 26 for the SEC West.
The BCS
Really, who cares?
As we said above, it's likely that Oregon, Boise State, and the winner of TCU-Utah will go unbeaten.
Boise State's only games that, at a glance, might look tough, are division co-leader Hawaii, and 1-division-loss opponents Fresno State and Nevada. Cupcake conference.
TCU and Utah both have 1-division-loss San Diego State on the schedule. That's it. Their toughest opponent (besides each other) is a cupcake.
Oregon's only semi-tough games are against Arizona (November 26) and their state rival, Oregon State (December 4). But they're all Pac-10 schools, so it's not like they're playing a real football team. Might not be cupcakes, but no tougher than a cheese danish.
When it's all over, some pretender will get to face an SEC team (probably Auburn, but Alabama or LSU could jump back in if they take the West and the SEC title game).
You know that a playoff would make a lot more sense than all of this, right?
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Accepting mediocrity
Got a new Chick Magnet this week: a Droid X phone.
So far, I like it. But it's a battery suck.
Seriously, it'll kill a battery by lunch.
And, when I mentioned this to a Droid user, he said, "Yeah, that's just how it is. You'll get used to it."
"But, my BlackBerry didn't do that," I protested.
I was told to change the settings so that I didn't have it monitoring email all day. Although my BlackBerry did that without a problem.
I was told to run an app that turned off all the other apps. Although my BlackBerry didn't need to do that.
I was told that the app that turns off other apps is a drain and I needed to turn it off. I was too busy getting my mind around that to even think about my BlackBerry.
Now, there are lots of things I like about the Droid. But the way it kills a battery is a problem. So far, everything about the Droid is awesome. Except the battery life. It's mediocre at best.
I'm told to accept it. If I had voted for Barack Obama, I'd have a much easier time accepting mediocrity.
But I didn't. And I don't.
So far, I like it. But it's a battery suck.
Seriously, it'll kill a battery by lunch.
And, when I mentioned this to a Droid user, he said, "Yeah, that's just how it is. You'll get used to it."
"But, my BlackBerry didn't do that," I protested.
I was told to change the settings so that I didn't have it monitoring email all day. Although my BlackBerry did that without a problem.
I was told to run an app that turned off all the other apps. Although my BlackBerry didn't need to do that.
I was told that the app that turns off other apps is a drain and I needed to turn it off. I was too busy getting my mind around that to even think about my BlackBerry.
Now, there are lots of things I like about the Droid. But the way it kills a battery is a problem. So far, everything about the Droid is awesome. Except the battery life. It's mediocre at best.
I'm told to accept it. If I had voted for Barack Obama, I'd have a much easier time accepting mediocrity.
But I didn't. And I don't.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
No viruses exist for the Mac. Unless it's a virus that targets the Mac.
One of the things that lots of people who own Macs (yes, there are people with Macs) like to say is that there are no viruses for the Mac.
And they actually believe that.
What brings this up? There is another virus for the Mac out there.
Intego (who makes Mac antivirus software) says that there's a Facebook/MySpace/Twitter virus designed to attach OS X (tip: AppleInsider):
Well, like I've been saying for some time, the way to stop getting viruses isn't to get a Mac. There are lots of other reasons to get a Mac. I got a Mac. But, I also got Windows.
If you don't want to get a virus, you need to practice smart computing. Run a good antivirus software package, and don't do stupid stuff. Like clicking on videos trying to look at boobies. There are plenty of boobies around that you can find without looking for a video.
Oh, and if someone says you should get a Mac because there aren't any viruses for the Mac, slap them. Hard. And often. Because they don't know what they're talking about and probably voted for Barack Obama.
Get a Mac for a better reason: it rocks. Or don't get a Mac. Run Windows.
Or do both. I do.
And they actually believe that.
What brings this up? There is another virus for the Mac out there.
Intego (who makes Mac antivirus software) says that there's a Facebook/MySpace/Twitter virus designed to attach OS X (tip: AppleInsider):
This threat is a Mac OS X version of the Koobface worm, which is served as part of a multi-platform attack via a malicious Java applet. The malware itself is made up of a number of elements, though in order to simplify, we will use the term “Trojan horse” to describe it. (Technically, it propagates as a worm, is installed via a Trojan Horse, and installs a rootkit, backdoor, command and control, and other elements.)What does this mean?
Well, like I've been saying for some time, the way to stop getting viruses isn't to get a Mac. There are lots of other reasons to get a Mac. I got a Mac. But, I also got Windows.
If you don't want to get a virus, you need to practice smart computing. Run a good antivirus software package, and don't do stupid stuff. Like clicking on videos trying to look at boobies. There are plenty of boobies around that you can find without looking for a video.
Oh, and if someone says you should get a Mac because there aren't any viruses for the Mac, slap them. Hard. And often. Because they don't know what they're talking about and probably voted for Barack Obama.
Get a Mac for a better reason: it rocks. Or don't get a Mac. Run Windows.
Or do both. I do.
Chick Magnet Squared
I've had a chickMagnet for some time. It's an iPad
, of course.
But now, I got another. I got a Droid X.
It's all cool and stuff. Yeah, when you're my age, the screen is sort of hard to see, but it was hard to see on the BlackBerry, too. And the Droid has a bigger screen.
I'm still learning what all it has on it and what all it does. I'll be a while.
Talk amongst yourselves.
, of course.But now, I got another. I got a Droid X.
It's all cool and stuff. Yeah, when you're my age, the screen is sort of hard to see, but it was hard to see on the BlackBerry, too. And the Droid has a bigger screen.
I'm still learning what all it has on it and what all it does. I'll be a while.
Talk amongst yourselves.
Now that we know the cause, we can fix it
They found out what causes people to be liberal. It's in the genes.
Now that they've found out what causes it, we can cure it.
I propose that we fund gene therapy projects that will get rid of that gene. Or those with it.
Sure, a bunch of pansies on the left might object to my saying that, so, let's compromise. We'll start by getting rid of those with the gene in a small sample.
What say we start with a national test group of 535. We can remove those in that sample group that have the gene, and we can do that on the first Tuesday in November. And, we can have smaller study groups at the state and local levels at the same time.
Let's try that and see how it goes. If things get better, we can then expand it to the rest of the country.
According to scientists at UC San Diego and Harvard University, "ideology is affected not just by social factors, but also by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4."The number of friends you have as a child also factors in, according to the study. Which means that if, while immature, you have influences from other immature people, you become a liberal. Which proves that liberalism is immaturity squared.
Now that they've found out what causes it, we can cure it.
I propose that we fund gene therapy projects that will get rid of that gene. Or those with it.
Sure, a bunch of pansies on the left might object to my saying that, so, let's compromise. We'll start by getting rid of those with the gene in a small sample.
What say we start with a national test group of 535. We can remove those in that sample group that have the gene, and we can do that on the first Tuesday in November. And, we can have smaller study groups at the state and local levels at the same time.
Let's try that and see how it goes. If things get better, we can then expand it to the rest of the country.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Government doesn't suck
You heard about the "Government Doesn't Suck" rally, right?
Some people who work for the government are tired of being told they suck.
And they're right: government doesn't suck.
Say it with me: government doesn't suck.
Other things that don't suck?
Some people who work for the government are tired of being told they suck.
And they're right: government doesn't suck.
Say it with me: government doesn't suck.
Other things that don't suck?
- Stubbing your toe in the middle of the night.
- Hitting your funny bone.
- California.
- Massachusetts.
- Being hit in the face with a frying pan.
- Liberals.
- Being hit in the nuts with a baseball bat.
- Barack Obama.
- Michelle Obama.
- Microsoft Windows ME.
- MS-DOS 4.
- Democrats.
- Right turns from the left lane.
- Kos.
- Spam/UCE.
- Keith Olbermann.
- Cats in the house.
- Dogs in the house.
- Phone calls during supper.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Jimmy Carter says things suck so bad, it's like it was when he was president
Okay, maybe Jimmy Carter didn't say that things suck so bad, that's it's like it was when he was president.
What he actually said was that America is no better off today than it was in the late '70s.
But he was saying how wonderful it was then.
Only, I remember it being no-so-great. I was around then. I turned in 1976, before Carter was elected. And I remember his administration through the eyes of someone out of high school, going to college, working jobs, buying groceries, putting gas in the car, and paying taxes. You know, adult things.
I was there in the 1970s. And the late '70s sucked.
So, I find that I actually agree with Jimmy Carter. At least, I agree that, today, America isn't in any better shape than it was in the late 1970s. Because, other than '70s music, the rest of the '70s pretty much sucked. And, even late '70s music had disco, so it kinda sucked at times, too.
Think about this:
Yes, I am.
But don't get too confident that changes for the better are in store. In the 1980 election, 41% of Americans voted to reelect Jimmy Carter.
See? We've had stupid people voting for a long, long time. We need more smart people voting this year. If you know any, tell them there's an election.
And, whatever you do, do not let the stupid people know about the election. They'll just screw it up. Like they did in 1976. And 2008.
What he actually said was that America is no better off today than it was in the late '70s.
But he was saying how wonderful it was then.
Only, I remember it being no-so-great. I was around then. I turned in 1976, before Carter was elected. And I remember his administration through the eyes of someone out of high school, going to college, working jobs, buying groceries, putting gas in the car, and paying taxes. You know, adult things.
I was there in the 1970s. And the late '70s sucked.
So, I find that I actually agree with Jimmy Carter. At least, I agree that, today, America isn't in any better shape than it was in the late 1970s. Because, other than '70s music, the rest of the '70s pretty much sucked. And, even late '70s music had disco, so it kinda sucked at times, too.
Think about this:
- Double-digit unemployment.
- American not respected by the world.
- Fears of running out of oil.
- A complete incompetent in the White House.
- Democrats screwing things up so badly that their majorities in Congress are in jeopardy.
Yes, I am.
But don't get too confident that changes for the better are in store. In the 1980 election, 41% of Americans voted to reelect Jimmy Carter.
See? We've had stupid people voting for a long, long time. We need more smart people voting this year. If you know any, tell them there's an election.
And, whatever you do, do not let the stupid people know about the election. They'll just screw it up. Like they did in 1976. And 2008.
More proof that Democrats and their supports aren't real Americans
There it is. I found it. In an Associated Press story. In the Washington Post. The finally admit it: people that support Democrats aren't real Americans!
The story is about a proposal in Portland, Maine, that will allow non-citizens to vote. Now, it's not proposing to allow illegal immigrants to vote. It's proposing to allow legal immigrants who are not citizens to vote.
And one of the people that the story profiled lives in Minneapolis, has lived there nearly two decades, but hasn't learned much English and still isn't a citizen. But, he sends his kids to public school and wants to vote for those on the school board.
Guess who he wants to vote for? Democrats.
No one who loves American could vote for a Democrat.
The story is about a proposal in Portland, Maine, that will allow non-citizens to vote. Now, it's not proposing to allow illegal immigrants to vote. It's proposing to allow legal immigrants who are not citizens to vote.
And one of the people that the story profiled lives in Minneapolis, has lived there nearly two decades, but hasn't learned much English and still isn't a citizen. But, he sends his kids to public school and wants to vote for those on the school board.
Guess who he wants to vote for? Democrats.
"I like the Democrats. I want to vote for Democrats, but I don't have citizenship," he said.Why isn't he a citizen? The AP story sums it up:
To become a citizen, immigrants must be a lawful permanent resident for at least five years, pass tests on English and U.S. history and government, and swear allegiance to the United States.See the problem? He'd have to swear allegiance to the United States. And there's no way he could follow through on that oath and vote for a Democrat.
No one who loves American could vote for a Democrat.
Monday, October 25, 2010
College football tries to right itself
Although it's been one crazy college football season, it appears that college football is trying to right itself.
It still has a ways to go, though.
After a weekend where everybody in the SEC that was supposed to win won -- no offense LSU, but Auburn was ranked higher; and no offense Kentucky, but in a normal world, Georgia would have been a lock to win -- things are getting a little clearer.
In the East, things are much simpler now.
South Carolina, with 2 conference losses, can take the division by winning out (Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida) and getting no help from anyone. Win and they're in ... the SEC title game.
Florida, with 3 conference losses, is in the same situation. If the Gators win out (Georgia, Vanderbilt, South Carolina), they'll win the East by virtue of a tie-breaker against USC.
Georgia also has 3 conference losses. If the Bulldogs win their remaining conference games (Florida, Auburn), they still need USC to lose 2 of their final 3 games in order to squeeze into the title game.
Vanderbilt has an even tougher time. In one weekend, they've gone from "win and you're in" to "a snowball's chance in hell" for making the SEC title game. Vandy needs to win its last 4 conference games (Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee), and get a loss each from Georgia and Florida (who play each other this coming Saturday), as well as 2 losses from the Gamecocks.
The simplest scenario is for USC and Florida to win out, and their November 13 game be for the SEC East title, and a spot in the SEC Championship Game.
The SEC West has simplified itself, too.
If Auburn wins out (Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama), they're in the SEC title game.
If Alabama wins out (LSU, Mississippi State, Auburn), they're in the SEC title game.
Everyone else needs help to make it to the title game.
LSU went from "win and you're in" to "maybe next year" with that loss to Auburn. The Tigers need to win out (Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas), and hope for two Auburn losses, in order to make the title game.
It's even harder for Mississippi State. They need to win out (Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi) ... and have LSU lose two games ... and have Auburn lose its last three SEC games.
Arkansas needs to win out (South Carolina, Mississippi State, LSU) ... and have Auburn lose all three SEC games, as well as Alabama lose its two SEC games.
The simplest scenario is for Alabama and Auburn to win out, then play for the West title on November 26.
The BCS?
It looks like the BCS might just save itself after all.
Auburn (#1 BCS, #3 AP, #3 Coaches) tops the BCS. And, if they win out, they should stay atop the BCS and play for the pretend championship in January.
Oregon (#2 BCS, #1 AP, #1 Coaches) could run the table and make the pretend title game. But, they have games against Southern California (#24 AP), Washington, California, Arizona (#15 BCS, #15 AP, #16 Coaches), and Oregon State (#33 AP).
Boise State (#3 BCS, #2 AP, #2 Coaches) may get left out. Again. Probably because they are a decent team with a cupcake schedule. They still have lots of football left to play (Louisiana Tech, Hawaii, Idaho, Fresno State, Nevada, Utah State). The only ranked teams on their schedule (or nearly ranked) are Hawaii (#27 AP, #27 Coaches) and Nevada (#26 AP, #26 Coaches).
If Oregon or Boise State played an SEC schedule, they wouldn't even be considered a top five team. Or a top ten team. Same could be said for Texas Christian, Michigan State, Missouri, and Utah.
With the SEC being as tough as it is, and the fact that they beat each other up so, puts the SEC in the situation of its biggest strength (so many good teams) is its biggest weakness.
It still has a ways to go, though.
After a weekend where everybody in the SEC that was supposed to win won -- no offense LSU, but Auburn was ranked higher; and no offense Kentucky, but in a normal world, Georgia would have been a lock to win -- things are getting a little clearer.
In the East, things are much simpler now.
South Carolina, with 2 conference losses, can take the division by winning out (Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida) and getting no help from anyone. Win and they're in ... the SEC title game.
Florida, with 3 conference losses, is in the same situation. If the Gators win out (Georgia, Vanderbilt, South Carolina), they'll win the East by virtue of a tie-breaker against USC.
Georgia also has 3 conference losses. If the Bulldogs win their remaining conference games (Florida, Auburn), they still need USC to lose 2 of their final 3 games in order to squeeze into the title game.
Vanderbilt has an even tougher time. In one weekend, they've gone from "win and you're in" to "a snowball's chance in hell" for making the SEC title game. Vandy needs to win its last 4 conference games (Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee), and get a loss each from Georgia and Florida (who play each other this coming Saturday), as well as 2 losses from the Gamecocks.
The simplest scenario is for USC and Florida to win out, and their November 13 game be for the SEC East title, and a spot in the SEC Championship Game.
The SEC West has simplified itself, too.
If Auburn wins out (Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama), they're in the SEC title game.
If Alabama wins out (LSU, Mississippi State, Auburn), they're in the SEC title game.
Everyone else needs help to make it to the title game.
LSU went from "win and you're in" to "maybe next year" with that loss to Auburn. The Tigers need to win out (Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas), and hope for two Auburn losses, in order to make the title game.
It's even harder for Mississippi State. They need to win out (Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi) ... and have LSU lose two games ... and have Auburn lose its last three SEC games.
Arkansas needs to win out (South Carolina, Mississippi State, LSU) ... and have Auburn lose all three SEC games, as well as Alabama lose its two SEC games.
The simplest scenario is for Alabama and Auburn to win out, then play for the West title on November 26.
The BCS?
It looks like the BCS might just save itself after all.
Auburn (#1 BCS, #3 AP, #3 Coaches) tops the BCS. And, if they win out, they should stay atop the BCS and play for the pretend championship in January.
Oregon (#2 BCS, #1 AP, #1 Coaches) could run the table and make the pretend title game. But, they have games against Southern California (#24 AP), Washington, California, Arizona (#15 BCS, #15 AP, #16 Coaches), and Oregon State (#33 AP).
Boise State (#3 BCS, #2 AP, #2 Coaches) may get left out. Again. Probably because they are a decent team with a cupcake schedule. They still have lots of football left to play (Louisiana Tech, Hawaii, Idaho, Fresno State, Nevada, Utah State). The only ranked teams on their schedule (or nearly ranked) are Hawaii (#27 AP, #27 Coaches) and Nevada (#26 AP, #26 Coaches).
If Oregon or Boise State played an SEC schedule, they wouldn't even be considered a top five team. Or a top ten team. Same could be said for Texas Christian, Michigan State, Missouri, and Utah.
With the SEC being as tough as it is, and the fact that they beat each other up so, puts the SEC in the situation of its biggest strength (so many good teams) is its biggest weakness.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Demonic?
Thanks for joining us for our interview today. First, some background...
Recently, Rush Limbaugh commented on how many of the recent images of the president have a "demonic" look.
There are some pictures on the Drudge Report. I'm gonna hold them up here to the Dittocam. I've got too many things to do here, but, folks, these pictures, they look demonic. And I don't say this lightly. There are a couple pictures, and the eyes, I'm not saying anything here, but just look. It is strange that these pictures would be released. *
Is Rush right? Do these recent pictures of Obama have a demonic look? We thought we'd ask some experts on demons what they thinks. So, Satan, what about these pictures?
I'm Phil, not Satan.
He was talking to me.
He was looking at me.
He called me by name.
I tell you what, we'll go alphabetically. Why don't you answer first, um, Phil?
What was the question?
Do the new pictures of Obama have a demonic appearance?
I don't know.
Um, okay then. What about you, Satan?
What?
Do the new pictures of the president have a demonic appearance?
Wait. That is your president?
Yes, that's Barack Obama...
Heh. I bet some of you right wingerz thought that Satan did that, didn't you?
I beg your pardon?
Well, he didn't. It was me!
Seriously? That's your president? And you? Phil? You did that? That's the worst you could do? Why didn't you simply put Jimmy Carter back in office?
Obama is sending the country to Heck in a handbasket...
So, Rush is right? Those pictures are demonic?
If you're asking if he's a demon, then no. My big brother has all the demons working for him.
Who works for you, then?
Democrats. In their natural state ... here in Heck ... they are demonic rats. We shorten that to "Democrats" when we have them appear on Earth.
You see what I have to put up with? He's an embarrassment to the family. He makes my life a living ... heck.
So, Satan, you're saying Obama isn't demonic?
I'm saying he's not one of mine. That doesn't mean he doesn't want to be...
You do that all the time! Every time I have some success, you try to horn in on it!
So, Obama isn't demonic? He's simply misguided, naive, unqualified, and out of his depth?
Some think he knows exactly what he's doing.
But, does he?
Silly human. It doesn't matter if he knows what he's doing or not. It's what he's doing that matters. And, for the first time in my life, I'm proud of my little brother.
Monday, October 18, 2010
And the football mess continues
Oregon is number one?
According to the AP and the Coaches Poll, yes. The BCS has them at number two. Behind Oklahoma.
But, are Oregon (#1 AP, #1 Coaches, #2 BCS), Oklahoma (#3 AP, #3 Coaches, #1 BCS) ... or Boise State (#2 AP, #2 Coaches, #3 BCS) ... the best teams?
Of course not. And maybe, just maybe, that'll be proven out before the end of the season. Oregon still has a few games left. And there's no guarantee they'll make it through unscathed. Oklahoma has a few left, too. As does Boise State. Only, the thing is, they're probably better than all the teams they have left on the schedule.
But, the better team doesn't always win. Just ask Alabama. Or South Carolina. Or Florida.
So, they could end up at #1 and #2 at the end of the year. Which would mean that the BCS game will have something other than the best two teams.
Why am I hating on Oregon, Oklahoma, and Boise State? I'm not. They're all good teams. Probably all deserve being in the top 25. Maybe even the top ten. Maybe.
If they played an SEC schedule, though, they wouldn't be undefeated at the end of the year. Or, maybe now, depending on who they played when.
Put any of those teams in the SEC West, for instance. That means having to play Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, and Mississippi State. And, three teams from the SEC Ease (Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt). Plus any cross-state rival that's not in the SEC.
Could Oregon make it though that? Of course not. Oklahoma? Nope. Boise State. You must be joking.
What about the rest of the teams in the top ten? TCU (#4 AP, #4 Coaches, #5 BCS), Michigan State (#8 AP, #8 Coaches, #7 BCS), Utah (#9 AP, #9 Coaches, #9 BCS)? No way.
Or any of the other undefeated teams in the top twenty-fives? Oklahoma State (#17 AP, #15 Coaches, #14 BCS), Missouri (#18 AP, #16 Coaches, #11 BCS)? Again, no way.
Who have I left out? No one. No other non-SEC team is undefeated. And those with one or more losses already don't play an SEC schedule. No way they'd be undefeated if they did play an SEC schedule.
So, am I saying that undefeated doesn't equal best? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Maybe college football will straighten itself out by the end of the year, and the SEC champion will end up in the title game, beating some poor victim by 20-40 points. If that happens, then the BCS will have dodged a bullet.
But, as it stands now, it's possible that either LSU or Auburn could go undefeated (they play each other this coming Saturday), beat USC in the SEC title game in December, and be shut out of the BCS "championship" game.
It happened to Auburn a few years ago. It could happen again. It shouldn't, but it could.
Of course, the SEC isn't immune to how screwed up things are.
Alabama, Auburn, and LSU are all in a position that, if any one of them win out, that team wins the SEC West. The other three teams in the West all need help; if they win out, they still might not win the West.
In the East, South Carolina, Florida, and Vanderbilt are in the same position: if one of them wins out, they win the East. The other three teams all need help to win the East.
And, yes, you are reading that right. Florida just lost three SEC games in a row, and could still win the East. Because if they win out, they'd beat both USC and Vandy, and win by way of tie-breaker. And, yes, Vanderbilt -- beaten 43-0 by Georgia on Saturday, 2-4 on the season -- could win the East if they win out, by virtue of tie-breaker.
Football is a mess right now. And nothing indicates it'll get any better.
According to the AP and the Coaches Poll, yes. The BCS has them at number two. Behind Oklahoma.
But, are Oregon (#1 AP, #1 Coaches, #2 BCS), Oklahoma (#3 AP, #3 Coaches, #1 BCS) ... or Boise State (#2 AP, #2 Coaches, #3 BCS) ... the best teams?
Of course not. And maybe, just maybe, that'll be proven out before the end of the season. Oregon still has a few games left. And there's no guarantee they'll make it through unscathed. Oklahoma has a few left, too. As does Boise State. Only, the thing is, they're probably better than all the teams they have left on the schedule.
But, the better team doesn't always win. Just ask Alabama. Or South Carolina. Or Florida.
So, they could end up at #1 and #2 at the end of the year. Which would mean that the BCS game will have something other than the best two teams.
Why am I hating on Oregon, Oklahoma, and Boise State? I'm not. They're all good teams. Probably all deserve being in the top 25. Maybe even the top ten. Maybe.
If they played an SEC schedule, though, they wouldn't be undefeated at the end of the year. Or, maybe now, depending on who they played when.
Put any of those teams in the SEC West, for instance. That means having to play Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, and Mississippi State. And, three teams from the SEC Ease (Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt). Plus any cross-state rival that's not in the SEC.
Could Oregon make it though that? Of course not. Oklahoma? Nope. Boise State. You must be joking.
What about the rest of the teams in the top ten? TCU (#4 AP, #4 Coaches, #5 BCS), Michigan State (#8 AP, #8 Coaches, #7 BCS), Utah (#9 AP, #9 Coaches, #9 BCS)? No way.
Or any of the other undefeated teams in the top twenty-fives? Oklahoma State (#17 AP, #15 Coaches, #14 BCS), Missouri (#18 AP, #16 Coaches, #11 BCS)? Again, no way.
Who have I left out? No one. No other non-SEC team is undefeated. And those with one or more losses already don't play an SEC schedule. No way they'd be undefeated if they did play an SEC schedule.
So, am I saying that undefeated doesn't equal best? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Maybe college football will straighten itself out by the end of the year, and the SEC champion will end up in the title game, beating some poor victim by 20-40 points. If that happens, then the BCS will have dodged a bullet.
But, as it stands now, it's possible that either LSU or Auburn could go undefeated (they play each other this coming Saturday), beat USC in the SEC title game in December, and be shut out of the BCS "championship" game.
It happened to Auburn a few years ago. It could happen again. It shouldn't, but it could.
Of course, the SEC isn't immune to how screwed up things are.
Alabama, Auburn, and LSU are all in a position that, if any one of them win out, that team wins the SEC West. The other three teams in the West all need help; if they win out, they still might not win the West.
In the East, South Carolina, Florida, and Vanderbilt are in the same position: if one of them wins out, they win the East. The other three teams all need help to win the East.
And, yes, you are reading that right. Florida just lost three SEC games in a row, and could still win the East. Because if they win out, they'd beat both USC and Vandy, and win by way of tie-breaker. And, yes, Vanderbilt -- beaten 43-0 by Georgia on Saturday, 2-4 on the season -- could win the East if they win out, by virtue of tie-breaker.
Football is a mess right now. And nothing indicates it'll get any better.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Remote Desktop on the iPad
Does this look the desktop of my Mac?
The correct answer is "Yes, sort of."
But, it sort of looks like my iPad, too. Because it is.
But, it's also my Mac.
I have an app (it's free!) that allows me to connect to my Mac over my network.
No, I have no idea what I'll do with this. It's just so cool.
The correct answer is "Yes, sort of."
But, it sort of looks like my iPad, too. Because it is.
But, it's also my Mac.
I have an app (it's free!) that allows me to connect to my Mac over my network.
No, I have no idea what I'll do with this. It's just so cool.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Choking on Pussy
I've decided to watch all of the James Bond movies. In order.
I've seen many of them, but not all of them -- none of the Brosnan or Craig ones, for instance.
I started from the beginning, and I'm only up to "Goldfinger
."
I was sitting on the couch, watching the movie, after Bond had escaped from the prison cell, and was underneath the Ft. Knox mock-up, listing to Goldfinger tell his plans. About that time, I decided I was thirsty. So, to the kitchen I went, opened the 'fridge, and grabbed a Diet Dr Pepper.
Popping the top, I went back into the living room, just in time for where Bond realized he had just been thrown against the wall by Honor Blackman's character, Pussy Galore.
I was taking a drink and looked at the screen when Connery realized who had overpowered him, smiled and said, "Pussy!"
I nearly choked when the Dr Pepper went down the wrong way.
I think I shall hit "pause" the next time I'm thirsty.
I've seen many of them, but not all of them -- none of the Brosnan or Craig ones, for instance.
I started from the beginning, and I'm only up to "Goldfinger
."I was sitting on the couch, watching the movie, after Bond had escaped from the prison cell, and was underneath the Ft. Knox mock-up, listing to Goldfinger tell his plans. About that time, I decided I was thirsty. So, to the kitchen I went, opened the 'fridge, and grabbed a Diet Dr Pepper.
Popping the top, I went back into the living room, just in time for where Bond realized he had just been thrown against the wall by Honor Blackman's character, Pussy Galore.
I was taking a drink and looked at the screen when Connery realized who had overpowered him, smiled and said, "Pussy!"
I nearly choked when the Dr Pepper went down the wrong way.
I think I shall hit "pause" the next time I'm thirsty.
Resizing multiple images using Google Picasa
I'm a fan of many of Google's products. Including Picasa.
I find it a useful tool for simple image editing, as well as uploading images to the Web.
There may be better tools around that do lots of different things better, but as far as ease of use, cost (free), and cross-platform compatibility (I use Mac and Windows), it's hard to beat.
Today, someone asked a question about resizing images in bulk for inclusion in email. And, Picasa is an easy-to-use tool for that. Here's how...
Installation
I'll assume you've already installed Google Picasa on your Windows (or Mac). If you haven't, go ahead and do that.
For Windows, I tell it to only look in the "My Documents" or "My Pictures" area, rather than the entire hard drive. Other than that, though, I usually accept the default settings.
Resizing
In order to resize the pictures, it's pretty simple.
After opening Picasa, find the images you want to resize by navigating to that folder:
Now that you have the folder, select the images by CTRL-Click (Windows) or COMMAND-Click (Mac):
Click the "Export" icon at the bottom of the screen:
From the pop-up window, select the size you want, then press "Export":
The standard default location works for me.
And that's it!
Conclusion
Personally, I find it a very easy-to-use way to make simple edits, including resizing, to images.
Plus, I like the fact that the original file isn't changed. I can undo any edit I want on the original file. And, when I export, I have a second (edited) version I can use as I wish.
I find it a useful tool for simple image editing, as well as uploading images to the Web.
There may be better tools around that do lots of different things better, but as far as ease of use, cost (free), and cross-platform compatibility (I use Mac and Windows), it's hard to beat.
Today, someone asked a question about resizing images in bulk for inclusion in email. And, Picasa is an easy-to-use tool for that. Here's how...
Installation
I'll assume you've already installed Google Picasa on your Windows (or Mac). If you haven't, go ahead and do that.
For Windows, I tell it to only look in the "My Documents" or "My Pictures" area, rather than the entire hard drive. Other than that, though, I usually accept the default settings.
Resizing
In order to resize the pictures, it's pretty simple.
After opening Picasa, find the images you want to resize by navigating to that folder:
Now that you have the folder, select the images by CTRL-Click (Windows) or COMMAND-Click (Mac):
Click the "Export" icon at the bottom of the screen:
From the pop-up window, select the size you want, then press "Export":
The standard default location works for me.
And that's it!
Conclusion
Personally, I find it a very easy-to-use way to make simple edits, including resizing, to images.
Plus, I like the fact that the original file isn't changed. I can undo any edit I want on the original file. And, when I export, I have a second (edited) version I can use as I wish.
SEC after 6 weeks
A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned how upside-down the SEC East was after 4 weeks of play.
Now, it's 6 weeks into the 2010 season, and things aren't any clearer. And that's after Florida has lost two games in a row. And not just two in a row, but two conference games in a row.
In the SEC East, despite those two losses, if Florida wins out, they'll still win the East. Same thing with South Carolina and Vanderbilt. Just as it was two weeks ago.
Because of how the remaining conference schedule is laid out, if Florida wins out, they would win the tie-breaker with either South Carolina or Vanderbilt. But, with their current situation of having two conference losses, they'd need to win out in order to win the East.
South Carolina has an easier ride. Their next three games are Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Tennessee. The Gamecocks should win those three. They finish the conference hosting Arkansas and playing at Florida. They don't need to win all those to take the East. They could afford one loss in that mix, just as long as the loss isn't to either Florida or Vanderbilt.
Vanderbilt, as I mentioned, has the toughest schedule of the three. Their next four games are Georgia (away), South Carolina (home), Arkansas (away), and Florida (home). They finish at Kentucky and hosting Tennessee. If they beat both South Carolina and Florida, they could afford to lose one of those other games and still win the East. I don't expect them to, but, the funny thing is, they are still in position to win the East without help from anyone.
Not so with the other three teams in the East. If Georgia won out, they'd still need South Carolina to lose two conference games, and Vanderbilt to lose one in order to win the East. Any other scenario and UGA is out of the mix. Which means, they can be considered out of the mix.
And, as unlikely as UGA's situation is, Tennessee's and Kentucky's are even more unlikely.
But what about the West?
It's wide open. In fact, only Mississippi State and Arkansas would need help to win the West.
If Arkansas wins out, they's still need an Alabama loss to take the West. If Mississippi State wins out, they'd still need three losses by Auburn and LSU to sneak in.
But the other four teams control their destiny.
LSU, if they win out, takes the West. Same thing with Auburn. And Alabama, because of tie-breakers. And, believe it or not, Mississippi. Yes, the team that lost to Jacksonville State and Vanderbilt would win the SEC West if they won the rest of their conference games. But, seeing as how they still have Alabama (away), Arkansas (away), and Auburn (home) up next, with games at Tennessee and LSU still to come, capping it with cross-state rival Mississippi State, that seems pretty unlikely.
The fact is, all the contenders in the West have a rough schedule. Because they play each other.
The East is clearer. And makes more sense.
Except for the fact that Vandy is still in the mix.
Now, it's 6 weeks into the 2010 season, and things aren't any clearer. And that's after Florida has lost two games in a row. And not just two in a row, but two conference games in a row.
In the SEC East, despite those two losses, if Florida wins out, they'll still win the East. Same thing with South Carolina and Vanderbilt. Just as it was two weeks ago.
Because of how the remaining conference schedule is laid out, if Florida wins out, they would win the tie-breaker with either South Carolina or Vanderbilt. But, with their current situation of having two conference losses, they'd need to win out in order to win the East.
South Carolina has an easier ride. Their next three games are Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Tennessee. The Gamecocks should win those three. They finish the conference hosting Arkansas and playing at Florida. They don't need to win all those to take the East. They could afford one loss in that mix, just as long as the loss isn't to either Florida or Vanderbilt.
Vanderbilt, as I mentioned, has the toughest schedule of the three. Their next four games are Georgia (away), South Carolina (home), Arkansas (away), and Florida (home). They finish at Kentucky and hosting Tennessee. If they beat both South Carolina and Florida, they could afford to lose one of those other games and still win the East. I don't expect them to, but, the funny thing is, they are still in position to win the East without help from anyone.
Not so with the other three teams in the East. If Georgia won out, they'd still need South Carolina to lose two conference games, and Vanderbilt to lose one in order to win the East. Any other scenario and UGA is out of the mix. Which means, they can be considered out of the mix.
And, as unlikely as UGA's situation is, Tennessee's and Kentucky's are even more unlikely.
But what about the West?
It's wide open. In fact, only Mississippi State and Arkansas would need help to win the West.
If Arkansas wins out, they's still need an Alabama loss to take the West. If Mississippi State wins out, they'd still need three losses by Auburn and LSU to sneak in.
But the other four teams control their destiny.
LSU, if they win out, takes the West. Same thing with Auburn. And Alabama, because of tie-breakers. And, believe it or not, Mississippi. Yes, the team that lost to Jacksonville State and Vanderbilt would win the SEC West if they won the rest of their conference games. But, seeing as how they still have Alabama (away), Arkansas (away), and Auburn (home) up next, with games at Tennessee and LSU still to come, capping it with cross-state rival Mississippi State, that seems pretty unlikely.
The fact is, all the contenders in the West have a rough schedule. Because they play each other.
The East is clearer. And makes more sense.
Except for the fact that Vandy is still in the mix.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
If my guy is in the middle of the pack, am I still a conservative?
John Hawkins at Right Wing News posted results from a poll, asking for the candidates that conservative bloggers would be most likely to support.
I was a participant.
Yes, I know. Who knew that I was a conservative blogger? Conservative, sure. But a blogger? That's a stretch. At least, it'd be as stretch to consider me a serious blogger. Or a blogger whose opinion anyone would care about.
Still, I participated. And the results are here.
Who did I vote for? Haley Barbour.
Why? Well, the poll didn't ask that. But, Barbour is a conservative with experience and a successful track record. A longer track record than many of the others on the list.
My guy made the middle of the pack. Which means he's not the flavor of the day. Like Jindal. Or Palin. Or Christie.
I could vote for those. But, in all honesty, they don't have a long a track record as Barbour. And they aren't all as conservative as I'd like. Well, Palin might be, but Jindal or Christie aren't as far right as I'd like.
If Barbour ends up being the GOP nominee, I'd be thrilled. But, based on that poll, I'd be one of only a few. If one of the others end up being the GOP nominee, I could support them. At least, much more than whoever the Democrats end up nominating.
I was a participant.
Yes, I know. Who knew that I was a conservative blogger? Conservative, sure. But a blogger? That's a stretch. At least, it'd be as stretch to consider me a serious blogger. Or a blogger whose opinion anyone would care about.
Still, I participated. And the results are here.
Who did I vote for? Haley Barbour.
Why? Well, the poll didn't ask that. But, Barbour is a conservative with experience and a successful track record. A longer track record than many of the others on the list.
My guy made the middle of the pack. Which means he's not the flavor of the day. Like Jindal. Or Palin. Or Christie.
I could vote for those. But, in all honesty, they don't have a long a track record as Barbour. And they aren't all as conservative as I'd like. Well, Palin might be, but Jindal or Christie aren't as far right as I'd like.
If Barbour ends up being the GOP nominee, I'd be thrilled. But, based on that poll, I'd be one of only a few. If one of the others end up being the GOP nominee, I could support them. At least, much more than whoever the Democrats end up nominating.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Tips for the new dad
Now that Frank J is a new dad -- which might imply he was an old dad, but I'm not suggesting that -- he might appreciate some tips.
Having once been a new dad myself, I remember how much I appreciated people offering my all kinds of advice on how to do this or that and what all I was doing wrong and how could any child expect to survive when subjected to someone with as little parenting skills as I ...
Ah, yes, I really appreciated all that. And those dads reading this can relate.
Well, Frank J's a new dad now, and he's gonna get all the help he can. Whether he likes it or not.
Allow me to start with some things I learned along the way, that might actually be useful if he was raising my children. No one told me these. I learned these by experience:
Perhaps others have some tips they'd like to share?
Having once been a new dad myself, I remember how much I appreciated people offering my all kinds of advice on how to do this or that and what all I was doing wrong and how could any child expect to survive when subjected to someone with as little parenting skills as I ...
Ah, yes, I really appreciated all that. And those dads reading this can relate.
Well, Frank J's a new dad now, and he's gonna get all the help he can. Whether he likes it or not.
Allow me to start with some things I learned along the way, that might actually be useful if he was raising my children. No one told me these. I learned these by experience:
- When the baby cries, she's asking for Mama.
- If the baby appears to smile, and is looking at you, she's smiling.
- If the baby appears to smile, but is looking at some of your wife's family, it's just gas.
- If the baby spits up, she's wanting Mama.
- People will pay more attention to the baby than to you. That's because people are inherently evil.
- There will be other people around the hospital with babies. They had babies born around the same time as you. They're just trying to steal your thunder.
- Your wife will be tired. Pretend to care.
- The hospital will have cable, which means you will be able to see the playoff games.
- If the baby starts crying with the bases loaded, suggest to your wife that she show the baby around one of the other floors. Tell her she's being selfish is she doesn't.
- If the baby makes any sound, she's simply trying to say "Daddy." Don't correct her. There will be plenty of time for that later.
- If you smell some really horrible smell emanating from the diaper area, everything's fine; she's merely asking for Mama to hold her.
Perhaps others have some tips they'd like to share?
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Dear Black Folks, Raise Your Standards, Love, Basil
There's a new poll out. And it shows that the president's approval rating isn't all that great.
Except among Blacks.
According to the latest Gallup Poll (tip: Los Angeles Times Top of the Ticket), 91% of Blacks approve of the job Obama is doing, compared to 36% for Whites.
What?
91%?
Really, Black Folks?
Sometimes, I just don't understand.
I grew up in southeast Georgia, where Blacks made up 40% of the population. We went to school together, played together, went to church together... But do I really understand Blacks?
Hell, I don't understand my sisters, so understanding Blacks? That may be too much to ask.
Still, I did learn early on that Blacks and Whites do some things differently.
Like playing the card game Tonk. Or playing checkers with Flying Kings. And, if you don't know what I'm talking about, then you don't know Black Folks. Or Black Folks in the south, anyway.
Little things like that made me aware that different people ... are different.
Now, it's not just different races that do things different. Wife's family, mostly from Alabama, for instance, has some really strange ways of playing Dominoes.
And that fits with what I learned early on: different people, whether of different races, different sexes, different locations, do and think things different from one another.
So, I suppose I'm not all that surprised that Blacks have a different opinion of Barack Obama's job performance.
But, a difference of 91% to 36% in Obama's approval rating? That's more than "playing checkers with Flying Kings" different.
I suspect there's a little bit of the whole "Black man done good" thing going on.
Only, here's the thing: he ain't doing all that good. And he ain't all that Black.
It's been a couple of years now. Time to get over that "proud of what that Black man done" thing when it comes to Obama.
Because, Obama is doing nothing positive for Blacks.
Think about this: If a politician from Georgia ran for president, what's the first thing people would think? I'll tell you: Jimmy Carter.
It'd be hard for someone from Georgia to get elected president. And this is nearly 30 years after Carter left office. Carter spoiled it for Sam Nunn, Zell Miller, and others who might have made decent presidents. And who knows how long it will be before any politician from Georgia could run for president and people not wonder if he'd be another Jimmy Carter?
What does that mean for Blacks? Barack Obama is the Black Jimmy Carter. Obama is screwing it up for other Blacks. He's doing a sucky job at president. Not because he's Black, but because he's an incompetent fool. Just like Jimmy Carter.
So, to my Black friends -- and to Blacks that aren't my friends -- that still think Obama is doing a good job: open your eyes.
And raise your standards.
More comments at IMAO
Except among Blacks.
According to the latest Gallup Poll (tip: Los Angeles Times Top of the Ticket), 91% of Blacks approve of the job Obama is doing, compared to 36% for Whites.
What?
91%?
Really, Black Folks?
Sometimes, I just don't understand.
I grew up in southeast Georgia, where Blacks made up 40% of the population. We went to school together, played together, went to church together... But do I really understand Blacks?
Hell, I don't understand my sisters, so understanding Blacks? That may be too much to ask.
Still, I did learn early on that Blacks and Whites do some things differently.
Like playing the card game Tonk. Or playing checkers with Flying Kings. And, if you don't know what I'm talking about, then you don't know Black Folks. Or Black Folks in the south, anyway.
Little things like that made me aware that different people ... are different.
Now, it's not just different races that do things different. Wife's family, mostly from Alabama, for instance, has some really strange ways of playing Dominoes.
And that fits with what I learned early on: different people, whether of different races, different sexes, different locations, do and think things different from one another.
So, I suppose I'm not all that surprised that Blacks have a different opinion of Barack Obama's job performance.
But, a difference of 91% to 36% in Obama's approval rating? That's more than "playing checkers with Flying Kings" different.
I suspect there's a little bit of the whole "Black man done good" thing going on.
Only, here's the thing: he ain't doing all that good. And he ain't all that Black.
It's been a couple of years now. Time to get over that "proud of what that Black man done" thing when it comes to Obama.
Because, Obama is doing nothing positive for Blacks.
Think about this: If a politician from Georgia ran for president, what's the first thing people would think? I'll tell you: Jimmy Carter.
It'd be hard for someone from Georgia to get elected president. And this is nearly 30 years after Carter left office. Carter spoiled it for Sam Nunn, Zell Miller, and others who might have made decent presidents. And who knows how long it will be before any politician from Georgia could run for president and people not wonder if he'd be another Jimmy Carter?
What does that mean for Blacks? Barack Obama is the Black Jimmy Carter. Obama is screwing it up for other Blacks. He's doing a sucky job at president. Not because he's Black, but because he's an incompetent fool. Just like Jimmy Carter.
So, to my Black friends -- and to Blacks that aren't my friends -- that still think Obama is doing a good job: open your eyes.
And raise your standards.
More comments at IMAO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)