Alison has this habit of not untying her shoes before taking them off. I've tried to convince her that doing so is bad for the shoes, that it stretches the upper and stresses the seams, but she remains unconvinced. It makes me cringe every time she does it, especially when I've loaned her the shoes she's mistreating so. I'm not even sure how she can remove her feet from her shoes when they are still tied; I certainly can't. She must wear her shoes much more loosely than I do.
This could be---say it with me---a deal-breaker.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Stupidification
I'm sure Lisa Simpson would approve of this neologism:
stupidification, noun. Dumbening.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Optimum Scoring Frequency in Sports
All the hubbub surrounding the World Cup has finally motivated me to post my treatise on optimum scoring frequency in sports. So, here it is.
I believe that, in sports based on a points system, both participant and spectator, the frequency of scoring should be neither very high nor very low.
When the scoring frequency is too low, the score doesn't always identify the superior individual or team. Consider (non-American) football, otherwise known as soccer. I've seen games where one team is clearly better than the other: Team A controls the ball for most of the time, and most of the game is played on Team B's half of the field, but the game ends in a (usually scoreless) tie, so the score does not reflect team A's superiority. Worse, in low-scoring sports, an inferior team can get lucky and win by a single score.
At the other end of the spectrum are sports where the scoring rate suffices to ensure the superior team wins but is so high that it makes each individual scoring incident unexciting. Consider basketball. Scores of 100 or so provide plenty of resolution but the entire arena doesn't erupt in a chorus of "Gooooaaaallll!" each time a basket is sunk.
In my opinion, American football has a scoring rate close to the "Goldilocks" value: not so low that there is insufficient resolution or too many lucky breaks, but not so high that scoring is uneventful.
This is all my opinion; your mileage may vary.
I believe that, in sports based on a points system, both participant and spectator, the frequency of scoring should be neither very high nor very low.
When the scoring frequency is too low, the score doesn't always identify the superior individual or team. Consider (non-American) football, otherwise known as soccer. I've seen games where one team is clearly better than the other: Team A controls the ball for most of the time, and most of the game is played on Team B's half of the field, but the game ends in a (usually scoreless) tie, so the score does not reflect team A's superiority. Worse, in low-scoring sports, an inferior team can get lucky and win by a single score.
At the other end of the spectrum are sports where the scoring rate suffices to ensure the superior team wins but is so high that it makes each individual scoring incident unexciting. Consider basketball. Scores of 100 or so provide plenty of resolution but the entire arena doesn't erupt in a chorus of "Gooooaaaallll!" each time a basket is sunk.
In my opinion, American football has a scoring rate close to the "Goldilocks" value: not so low that there is insufficient resolution or too many lucky breaks, but not so high that scoring is uneventful.
This is all my opinion; your mileage may vary.
Smoove
I can't recall where I got this word, but I've been using it for at least a couple of years when "smooth" simply doesn't suffice:
smoove, adjective. Extremely smooth.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
It's NOT a monster movie, you say?
Apparently the Sci Fi Channel is capable of showing something other than crappy monster movies. Check out this review on Yahoo!News. I'm actually interested in seeing this now. I guess other people must find this stuff kind of facinating, too, or else they wouldn't make this show. I can't help feeling like I'm a bit morbid, though. (Mwahahaha!)
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Who am I?
I got up and went for a 3 mile run at 6:30 this morning. Wow! To be honest, this was not my idea and had someone not been expecting me to show up I would have stayed in bed. I am still super impressed with myself (or should I say "quite pleased with myself"), though. I am actually even further impressed that I am not napping on my desk right now.
Do you think I should be concerned that perhaps I have been kidnapped by aliens and I am actually a robot copy and I don't know it? Hmmm....or maybe I'm a Cylon.
Do you think I should be concerned that perhaps I have been kidnapped by aliens and I am actually a robot copy and I don't know it? Hmmm....or maybe I'm a Cylon.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Brian with the Overhead Projector
Here's another metaphorical situation for you, gentle reader. This one was conceived when one of Alison's professors discovered a simple way to illuminate a recessed blackboard whose own lights had failed.
Brian with the overhead projector, metaphor. Any person who is "quite please with" and surprised at his own cleverness in solving a problem.
Melinda at the Closet Door
Remember the episode of TNG where the Enterprise D encounters a species whose language is incomprehensible, even with the universal translator? Picard discovers that their language is metaphorical, based on references to similar situations in their mythology and history. Over the last few years, I've invented a few of my own phrases for describing situations concisely. Here's one that was inspired by an incident involving Alison's former roommate:
Melinda at the closet door, metaphor. Any person who is unable to turn door knobs, open jars, et cetera, due to her hands being slippery, especially if this inability is brought on by the application too much lotion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
