Bruins goalie Malcolm Subban, brother of PK, showing love for the Patriots during tonight's game against LA. #DoYourJob
Ten days ago, we had stories about depressed Super Bowl ticket prices: "The New England Patriots have been to the Super Bowl five times in the past 14 years. So, some fans may not see the novelty any more."
But since "deflategate," we now have record high prices.
Some people have been pejoratively likening "deflategate" to "Watergate." If that comparison is apt ... follow the money, people.
Fans who hoped to get a cheap Super Bowl ticket are running out of time, as Super Bowl XLIX might go down as the most expensive ticket in the game's history.
Playing #SuperBowlXLIX. The Patriots destroyed the Seahawks 35-0. Marshawn Lynch ineffective. Passing game not enough. Lots of pressure on Wilson, including a couple of sacks, though he did break a few tackles, and had a scramble for a first down. Brady and the short passing game completely dominated.
Watching #SuperBowlXLVI. Another disappointment. The Patriots had defeated every team that season that had previously beat them in the playoffs, except for Indianapolis, where the game was held, and the NY Giants. The beloved wife of their beloved owner had recently died, they were settling all scores, and they were a team on a mission.
But redemption was not to be. Another close game with squandered opportunities.
Watching #SuperBowlXLII. Most disappointing Super Bowl ever. But I knew despite the undefeated season, the Patriots could be beaten. The Giants had almost done it a month earlier, and I knew it would be close, even if most other people bought into the destiny nonsense.
The Pats were one ridiculous play away from winning, but the best team won, as they always do.
Watching #SuperBowlXL. You know, the one where the better team lost, for the first time in the history of sports. ;) Not that I was rooting for the Steelers, but my goodness, the whining ...
Watching #SuperBowlXXXIX. Patriots beat the Eagles in Jacksonville. The game does not end on a field goal.
Watching #SuperBowlXXXVIII. First Patriots Super Bowl not in New Orleans (it was just down the coast in Houston). Not even Ricky Proehl could stop us winning our second Super Bowl title.
Watching #SuperBowlXXVI. Third time's a charm for the Patriots in New Orleans. The first of three wins in four years, each by three points.
Watching #SuperBowlXXI. The Pats could've won that game if not for Desmond Howard. The Pats' second straight Super Bowl loss in New Orleans.
The Patriots stopped Walter Payton in #SuperBowlXX. Stopping Marshawn Lynch on Sunday won't be enough.
Watching #SuperBowlXX. Still painful. Bears much more obnoxious than Seahawks.
I love Tom Petty. I love "I Won't Back Down." I've listened to the song hundreds, maybe thousands, of times, I know every chord in it, and I've even performed it (on guitar and vocals) on multiple occasions (not including playing it several times in Rock Band). And I've written dozens of songs myself, each with varying levels of originality.
I've heard this Sam Smith song a few times previously, and it did not invoke in me any thoughts of the Petty tune, even as a big fan of the song and a songwriter myself. Yes, upon listening to it after the claim of copying, I hear obvious similarities in the chord progressions and melodies. But when Smith's people say it was coincidental, I find that to be perfectly believable.
It's a very simple and fairly obvious chord progression. The verse in Petty's goes vi/V/I four or five times, with the third time using IV instead of I. Sam's does it four times, with no variation on the third measure. And Sam's chorus is basically just the verse, whereas Tom's chorus uses a very different progression until the end, where it goes back to vi/V/I. The melody of the chorus is very similar, but not nearly similar enough for me to think it was copied.
I've heard so many songs in my life that sound similar -- I mean, come on, we're talking about Western pop music that uses four measures with three major chords and three matching minor chords, you can only vary it so much -- that this sounds just like a normal song.
So I find the claim of coincidence to be believable. What is not believable to me is their claim that Smith was not familiar with "I Won't Back Down." How is that even possible? Hasn't everyone in the English-speaking world heard this song many times in their life?
High-voiced British crooner Sam Smith has agreed to pay royalties to Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne for Smith’s hit single “Stay With Me.” First released back in April, the third single off of Smith’s album In The Lonely Hour reached No. 2 on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart. However, the song does bear m
Just a quick update for those not following along: the Patriots report that their normal, legal, pregame prep of the football can temporarily modify the ball (probably due to increased heat) enough that when the balls are tested afterward, they can be up to 1.5 PSI higher than they will be later.
That number fits perfectly with the anonymous reports that the balls were 2 PSI under regulation (13 PSI). They allow +/- 0.5 PSI, down to 12.5 PSI, and a ball that loses 1.5 PSI after measurement would be down to 11 PSI, which is 2 PSI under 13 PSI.
Them's the facts. In fact, if what Belichick says about this is true, you would expect the balls to later be at 11 PSI, without any illegal manipulation.
It's the league's turn to rebut this, or agree with it, or ignore it. But at this point, there's no evidence of wrongdoing, because the only "evidence" (both actual, and anonymously sourced) has been explained away.
I wrote this song this week.
night's silence was broken
the levee was breached
they said you were coming
but you fell asleep
and i was just waiting
while you turned my world sideways and upside down
i started looking
i headed downtown
i told myself
you don't wanna be found
and i was just searching
looking all over and upside down
tired as ever
caught off guard
body is aching
working so hard
and i was just sleeping
but just for a minute, and upside down
one more night
one more place
one more push
one new face
and you were just leaving
you came round the corner and upside down
I wrote this song this week. night's silence was broken the levee was breached they said you were coming but you fell asleep and i was just waiting while you...
Shannon Watts is the face of a Bloomberg funded anti-gun group Moms Demand Action.
Man arrested for tackling man with gun at Walmart. Because America. http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/27896784/man-spots-gun-then-tackles-concealed-carry-license-holder … #gunsense
(incase she becomes embarrassed at her ignorance and deletes it, the above is copy and pasted from her tweet.
Shannon supports assaulting gun owners because they happen to exercise their second amendment right. Seems to me that one side of the debate is off the rails. Perhaps they are projecting their inability to control themselves on safe and legal gun owners.
Deputies arrested a man who spotted someone with a gun, followed him into a Walmart, and tackled him. The problem? The man with the gun had a concealed weapons permit and was carrying legally.
Everyone knows you can't be that good without cheating. Except for the Yankees. And MJ. And the Spurs....and Kobe...and Joe Montana....and the Montreal Canadiens. And Michael Phelps.
These teenaged humans are so dumb in so many ways. They think a court has the lawful power to override an executive's lawful decisions or a legislature's lawful acts; they think that even if the court could do this, that they would have the facts to back it up; they think that there's only one side to the story; they think that their voice is worth more than the voices of those that disagree with them, especially when the policies they want the court to enforce would cause massive harm to many other people; and so on.
Worst of all, they simply do not understand the role of science in government. Even if we knew that the climate was continuing to warm (and we certainly do not) or knew what the effects would be (and we know that even less), policymaking in a republican-democratic society must be done according to the will of the people, as long as the rights of individuals are not harmed.
Science can only inform decisions, not make them for us. This is a lesson all humans who wish to engage in public discourse, even the young ones, need to understand: you can't simply say "I believe I am right, and I believe the facts prove I am right, so therefore everyone has to do what I say." That's not how this works.
For politicians who fail to act on climate change, Kelsey Juliana has a few words. "I want to remind them that we are their employer," said Juliana, 18, a native of Eugene, Oregon, and freshman at Warren Wilson College in North Carolina...
I remember the last time the Patriots were accused of violating the rules, based on anonymous sources, on the eve of a Super Bowl. It turned out that the story -- that the Patriots recorded video of a Rams practice -- was totally false (though lots of people still seem to believe it).
Forgive me for not believing in, or caring about, a similar unsubstantiated story now. We do know there's an allegation that a ball was deflated to some extent, and the NFL is investigating it. That's basically all we know. We do not know if it is true, and we do not know how it happened if it is true. And until we do know, I have no reason to care.
In case I wasn't clear in my last post: since the Great Depression, no President except for Ronald Reagan was followed by a President of his own party (except by death or resignation: FDR, JFK, and Nixon).
The reasons are obvious: people get tired of the party in power. That's why Presidents, if they stay in office long enough -- Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama -- have a Congress run by the opposing party. And when it comes time to replace the President, it's hard to get the people to pick a President of the same party.
Reagan was popular enough (above 50% through 1988) that Bush was able to pull it off. But Obama is significantly more unpopular.
The safe bet really is that the Republicans will win the presidential election, regardless of who the candidates are. Of course, exceptionally good or bad candidates could throw this off, as could a drastic increase in Obama's popularity 18 months from now, so I'm not making a prediction here. I'm just saying what's most likely.
No Democratic President has been followed by an elected Democratic President since almost before there was a Republican Party, when Franklin Pierce handed off the reins to James Buchanan in 1857. The only other Democrats to follow Democrats since then (Truman and Johnson) did so as Vice President when the President (Roosevelt and Kennedy) died in office.
I see much of what President Obama is doing, such as pretend that he is trying to institute a tax on big financial institutions, which he knows will never pass, as trying to be the first modern Democratic President to help hold the office for his party. He is going to continue to demonize the GOP in preparation for the 2016 elections. It'll be ugly, unfortunately.
(For reference, before Pierce, it happened once, from Jackson to Van Buren. For Republicans, it's been Grant to Hayes, Hayes to Garfield, Roosevelt to Taft, Coolidge to Hoover, and Reagan to Bush. There was also a string of three Democratic-Republican handoffs: Jefferson to Madison to Monroe to Adams.)
"My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren't heroes. And invaders r worse. But if you're on the roof of your home defending it from invaders who've come 7K miles, you are not a sniper, u are brave, u are a neighbor." -- Michael Moore
So ... it's not easy, but I am trying to make sense of this. Michael Moore is saying his uncle was worse than a coward because he invaded another country in World War II, where he was killed by a sniper. Moore apparently knows that this was a sniper, not someone defending his home, even though he killed Moore's worse-than-cowardly uncle, who was invading the sniper's home.
And somehow Kyle, who put himself in harm's way for his country, repeatedly, oftentimes being on the ground and being shot twice and involved in six IED blasts (that is, he wasn't always sniping), even after he left the service (helping other vets), even to his own death ... was a coward, according to Moore.
I am going to admit failure in my attempt to make sense of Michael Moore.
Filmmaker Michael Moore took to Twitter with his views on snipers as "American Sniper" hit theaters nationwide.
Perl v5.18 allows you to define named subroutines that exist only in the current lexical scope. These act (almost) just like the regular named subroutines that you already know about from Learning Perl, but also like the lexical variables that have limited effect. The problem is that the feature ...
Now think about that teacher being told repeatedly that it was their choice to be paid so pitifully low. They did it to themselves. If they don't like the wage they should quit.
It is their choice to take a job with that pay. It is not their choice to be paid a certain amount, per se -- if it were all their choice, they'd be paid more, usually -- but they choose to accept that level of pay. They did, absolutely, "do it to themselves." And if the pay is not worth it to them, then yes, absolutely, they should quit. There is no question about that.
The very fact that they do not quit means one, simple, necessarily true, thing: that the combined benefits of the job -- the wages, health benefits, whatever good will, etc. they get for doing the job -- is enough compensation to get them to do the job. If it was not, then they would quit.
I wouldn't tell them that "repeatedly," but if the subject came up, I would be honest with them and tell them these true facts.
Now imagine they heeded that advice prior to you taking their course. Imagine you instead received instruction from someone who cared so little about the students, and did the bare minimum to receive a paycheck and keep from being fired.
If that happened -- all good teachers held out for higher pay, so the only teachers left were the terrible ones -- then teacher pay would increase. The biggest reason teacher pay does not increase is because we believe we don't need to increase pay to keep good teachers.
So in a very real and necessarily true sense, yes, teachers keep their own wages low by not holding out for better wages.
Wouldn't you do anything you could to keep the inspiring teacher in the classroom?
Absolutely not. Would I pay them a million dollars? Ten million? One billion? Of course not.
But the fact is that, for now, we don't need to do more to keep that teacher in the classroom. They are in the classroom now, and as best I can tell, they aren't leaving.
Rather than shunning Cosby, as Peggy Drexler says -- despite the fact that he might be completely innocent -- we should shun people like Drexler, who demand that we punish people for merely being accused of a crime. I have literally zero evidence before me that Cosby did anything wrong, and therefore I have literally zero reason to shun him.
She says we should hold him accountable. She doesn't say for what. She is assuming he is guilty ... or simply wanting to hold him "accountable" regardless of whether he's guilty. If Cosby is innocent, isn't that ... well, blaming the victim?
And her assertion that if we don't shun Cosby we will enable future rape ... she goes from being a jerk to a dishonest and terrible person.
When is the time to for a women to defend an alleged serial rapist? Never.
In 2008, when the Canadian Islamic Congress attempted to criminalize my writing, we heard a lot of the usual hooey (courtesy of that eugenicist crackpot Oliver Wendell Holmes) that there was no right to shout fire in a crowded theatre. On the very last
Mark Steyn makes an excellent point on The Kelly File tonight ... Charlie Hebdo was one of only a handful of publications to print the Danish Mohammed cartoons a decade ago, so it's odd that now everyone is claiming "Je Suis Charlie."
That is, maybe if all these people actually were Charlie, then Charlie's staff wouldn't have been singled out for assassination.
When opinion content sparks death threats, every news publication that cares about freedom should publish that content. If you don't stand up to terrorists and yell "Non!," then vous n'êtes pas Charlie.
If the cops in Paris had heavier weaponry, they might've saved some lives, or captured/killed some terrorists.
I am not saying the Paris police should've done things differently. I don't know what the answer is, and maybe the answer is "no automatic weapons for cops." I do not know. I am saying only that this event should factor into discussions about "militarization of police."
Stop saying "misnomer" to mean "misunderstanding." "Misnomer" means "misnamed." I've heard this repeatedly in recent days, including from prominent (and supposedly well-educated) politicians and journalists, saying things like "the biggest misnomer about North Korea is that it has no technological capabilities. ..."
That isn't a misnomer! A misnomer would if North Korea were south of South Korea.
You can say the Affordable Care Act is a misnomer, because it is not affordable, and does not do anything about health care. But you can't say that a "misnomer about the ACA is that it has death panels." That's a "misunderstanding," not a "misnomer."
You're hurting my brain. Stop it.
This is necessary for me to be able to use "foo.bar" in Mac OS X, and have it resolve to "foo.bar.example.com".
Add "--AlwaysAppendSearchDomains" to the ProgramArgments to discoveryd in the file "/System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.discoveryd.plist". Then "sudo launchctl unload" that file, and "sudo launchctl load" that file. Bob's you're uncle!
This is a direct follow-on to this question. Before Yosemite, I'd add the "-AlwaysAppendSearchDomains" argument to the mDNSResponder plist file so that all local resolver lookups added the search
It's a New Year. Again.
"Privilege" is special treatment someone gets because of an elevated status. "Privilege" is not normal, default, and expected treatment, even in the face of others being mistreated.
If I am judged well because I am "white" and male, that could be called privilege. But that generally doesn't happen. What actually happens -- sometimes -- is that people are mistreated because of their gender or race. There is no privilege conferred in such a situation.
For people to say that I am privileged because I am not mistreated not only misuses the plain meaning of the word "privilege," muddying the language, but it has the negative effect of implying that the treatment I get as "privileged" isn't the normal and expected treatment that everyone should get. It implies I am getting treatment I don't deserve, just because someone else is not getting treatment they do deserve.
And I think this is intentional. The people who started using the term, I think, want me to feel guilty for being treated properly. I don't, and I won't. I will not feel guilty because someone mistreats someone else ... unless I was able to do something about it, and didn't.
So I will continue to speak out against jerks who mistreat others, and I will continue to point out the fact that those jerks mistreating others doesn't magically make me privileged, and I will continue to feel no guilt or shame about any of it.
The sad thing about all of this is that most of us are on the same side: we are against jerks mistreating others (whether it's unwanted crude comments, criminal harassment or assault, or anything in between). Not that we're in agreement about everything: for example, some people want to end sexism in video games, whereas many people think it's just fine because that's what many people want, and it's not meant to be taken seriously. But the main problem is the jerks, and we're largely in agreement about them.
But some folks try to turn the jerks' behavior into some sort of larger cause wrapped in psuedoscience and generalizations in order to alienate people in order to try to win an argument using emotion, rather than simply going after the jerks. And I don't want to only blame the one side: the folks who are generally on "my" side often respond with unreasonable and unnecessary derision and dismissal, which not only pushes the sides further away, but also can have the effect of enabling the jerks.
So to both sides: stop treating everyone who doesn't agree with you about how to characterize the problem as the enemy, instead of treating the people who are actually causing the problems as the enemy.
(Oh, and stop pretending that I am privileged for not being mistreated.)
This video is based on the article "Playing with privilege: the invisible benefits of gaming while male" written by Tropes vs Women in Video Games producer J...
I am not a Seahawks fan. I am a Patriots fan who lives near, and works in, Seattle. I want the Patriots to play the Seahawks in the Super Bowl and crush them.
But I absolutely love Marshawn Lynch's handling of the news media. I could do without his crotch-grabbing, but newsflash to the media: almost everyone I've heard complain about Lynch's handling of the media are in professional media. You (well, and the NFL) are the only people who have a problem with this. The rest of us mostly think it's just fine.
I gave up on most sports journalism a long time ago. Unless there's a really big story -- which few sports journalists are equipped to handle anyway -- sports journalism tends to be tediously uninteresting at best. It's the same old story day after day, week after week. I love watching my teams play, but I don't want to hear about how Lynch "feels" about his great touchdown run. I'm satisfied to let the touchdown (and his crotch grab) speak for itself.
And don't even get me started on the train wrecks that occur when folks like Bob Costas and Christine Brennan try to cover "issues" in sports, like offensive team names and guns. They spread lies and ignorance and act like everyone should care what they think.
Just give me the scores and show me the big plays. That's all I want from you. And you're not very good at anything else, anyway.
So sports journalists, get over yourselves. Most of us have gotten over you already.
Penn Jillette says you're helping enable hackers to commit crimes when you click on stolen material like the Jennifer Lawrence nude photos and Sony emails
Uber offers refunds after charging $100 minimum fare in a hostage crisis.
I've been using Mac OS X as my main OS for more than ten years. I've been using the System Preferences probably on average about once a week, or more. Yet, to this day, cannot quickly find what I am looking for in the app.
It took me about 5-10 seconds to find "Sharing" today. I knew it was called "Sharing." I knew it was in the middle of the window somewhere, but I just couldn't see it there. And this happens to me regularly.
Maybe it's time for me to give up and use View -> Organize Alphabetically, because 10+ years of this futility is long enough.
Please stop treating Rolling Stone as though it engages in journalism. It never has. It unapologetically prints lies, and has for years.
This faked rape article is just another in a long line. Remember RFK Jr.'s article in Rolling Stone about how the GOP stole Ohio in 2004? Almost the entire article was based on lies, as was easily demonstrated by anyone who bothered to look up the cited sources with a remotely critical eye, but the mainstream media certainly never cared about being critical of those claims. At least now, for c change, everyone is on board with recognizing Rolling Stone's lies. But don't be fooled into thinking this is an exception. Whether it's elections or rapes or any of numerous leftwing causes, Rolling Stone habitually ignores counterevidence and willfully prints dishonest articles in the hopes of manipulating their uncritical readers.
It's how they roll.
An odd story. We don't know why the children were removed, exactly, but it seems likely that the fact of the home birth had nothing to do with it.
The intro to the story seems like nonsense, too: they claim the couple was using "homeopathic medicine," but no evidence of that is provided. Perhaps the anchors meant "naturopathic medicine," but those are two very different things.
(Homeopathy is the belief that if a substance can cause symptoms in a healthy person, it can cure those symptoms in a sick person. Further, that substance is, in homeopathic remedies, usually *not even actually used, because it is diluted from the remedy to the point where it no longer exists in the remedy. So when you see "homeopathy," think "a substance that causes sickness can cure it, as long as it isn't actually used." It's literal nonsense.)
A Bellingham couple is fighting the for their children, claiming CPS seized them after a home birth and natural remedies.
Finished watching about 20 hours of appendices for the first two Hobbit films. I now know the names of each of the 13 dwarves.
I'll watch the extended edition of the first film this weekend, and the second film next weekend, followed by seeing the film on the 16th at a company event.
It's a lot of Hobbit.