Archives: March 2009

Mon 30 Mar 2009

Snuggie Showdown

Ultimate Battle: The Snuggie vs. Slanket vs. Freedom Blanket vs. Blankoat
(Jason Chen, Gizmodo, 30 Mar 2009)

The Slanket, the Snuggie, the Freedom Blanket or the supremely expensive and extravagant Blankoat? This is the most important question of the millennium. You're about to know the answer.

Those who haven't seen the Snuggie ad or one of its many parodies and aren't aware of the blanket-with-sleeves phenomenon get no sympathy from us. Unless, you've just awoken from an eight-month coma, in which case: Welcome back! To recap, the Snuggie is the most famous and widely marketed of the many blanket-with-sleeves. The Freedom Blanket originated the idea, the Slanket followed up, and recently, the Blankoat decided to take it into a ridiculous dimension.

But which is the best for you? We tried each of them the way they were meant to be worn: on the sofa, lying down, with one fist buried in a bag of Doritos and the other cradling a bottle of beer. We gained thirty-five pounds, but it was so worth it.

And for those of you who think that the whole blanket-with-sleeves product could just as easily be accomplished with a robe worn backwards? We tested that too.
Of course you'll have to click through to read the results of the test... :-)


Abulsme - Mon, 30 Mar 2009, 22:14:13 PDT
Permalink and Comments [0 comments]

Sun 29 Mar 2009

Denied!

Obama Denies Bailout Funds For Automakers
(Philip Elliott, AP on Huffington Post, 30 Mar 2009)

The White House says neither General Motors nor Chrysler submitted acceptable plans to receive more bailout money, setting the stage for a crisis in Detroit that would dramatically reshape the nation's auto industry.

President Barack Obama and his top advisers have determined that neither company is viable and that taxpayers will not spend untold billions more to keep the pair of automakers open forever. In a last-ditch effort, the administration gave each company a brief deadline to try one last time to convince Washington it is worth saving, said senior administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to more bluntly discuss the decision.

Obama was set to make the announcement at 11 a.m. Monday in the White House's foyer.
Buh Bye!


Abulsme - Sun, 29 Mar 2009, 23:49:13 PDT
Permalink and Comments [0 comments]

Fri 27 Mar 2009

Woo! Sling Me!

SlingPlayer for iPhone submitted to app store
(Mel Martin, TUAW, 26 Mar 2009)

Sling has announced that SlingPlayer for iPhone has been submitted to the app store for approval. The company had previously said the app would be submitted this quarter, and it's in just under the wire.

Sling already has versions for Blackberry, Windows Mobile, Symbian and Palm smart phones. No one can predict when, or if, Apple will approve the software, but there will be iPhone owners with pitchforks and torches outside Apple headquarters if the much sought-after app does not appear soon.


Abulsme - Fri, 27 Mar 2009, 09:39:02 PDT
Permalink and Comments [2 comments]

Thu 26 Mar 2009

Curmudgeon's Corner: Click Click Click

Sam and Ivan Talk about:

  • Facebook Connect
  • Email Forwards
  • iLife 09
  • Sam's Slowness
  • Bailouts, Breakups and Failures
  • Disclosure and Regulation
  • Hiding Risk
  • AIG Bonuses
  • Cuban Bous
1-Click Subscribe in iTunes

View in iTunes

Podcast XML Feed

Note: For those using the "View in iTunes" link, it often takes iTunes quite a few hours to show a new episode after the episode is posted here. So if you are looking for the podcast very soon after I post this, use one of the other methods to find the new episode. For those who are subscribed, your Podcast software should pick up the new episode next time it checks for new episodes on its own, or you can always force a refresh. For those using the XML feed directly, the new episode is now there.


Abulsme - Thu, 26 Mar 2009, 13:45:08 PDT
Permalink and Comments [0 comments]

Fri 20 Mar 2009

Not to Mention

That the total amount of all these stupid bonuses is a tiny tiny fraction of the TRILLIONS we are spending overall in bailouts, stimulus, and crazy stuff the Fed is doing. Even wasting 5 minutes on this is a huge distraction from paying attention to the parts of this that actually matter more and which are REALLY wasting the public's money.

To reiterate... I say just let everything die.

A good hard long recession will clear everything out to make room for later generations.

Brandy points out that my old email archives (paper archives from the early 90's from before I had enough hard drive space to store everything) will not fit in the car we would have to live in.

So be it.


Abulsme - Fri, 20 Mar 2009, 07:57:50 PDT
Permalink and Comments [4 comments]

Bonuses

For the record, although I'm sure Ivan and I will talk about it on the next show... I think the AIG bonuses are crazy. But I think the proposed retroactive taxes to take them away from the people who got them are completely and totally wrong and misguided and a horrible horrible precedent. We want a government that feels free to decide after the fact that it doesn't like that you made the money you made, and then change the rules so that they can take it from you... after you've got the money (and quite possibly after you have spent it, not knowing it would be taxed)? Really? We want that? Really?

These bonuses were written into contracts that AIG made. They were probably contracts AIG should not have made. But they were already done by the time the bailout happened. They were obligations, just like the other debt obligations AIG had. Of course AIG was going to pay its debts with the bailout money. That is what the bailout was for after all. Duh.

And no, we shouldn't have put strings on the bailout saying that AIG should pay some debts but not others. If we really felt that way, we should not do a bailout at all. Let the damn thing go out of business, then if there are creditors we think deserve it more than others, bail THEM out.

All and all, with every turn of every screw in this whole saga, I'm more and more convinced that the "right" thing to do, going back all the way to last fall, is to not have bailed out a damn thing. Not one company, not one industry. Not the financials, not the autos, not nothing.

Would we have a worse recession right now if we had? Probably. I won't try to argue against the folks that say these bailouts were necessary to prevent that from happening. I've always had severe reservations though.

And at this point I'm thinking that perhaps an extremely severe recession where most of the companies in most of these industries go completely out of business... taking with them all of the other companies... and yes regular people... who depended on them... is really the only way to get the bad blood out of the system. To completely and totally kill (for at least a generation or two, these things always come back) the idea that the bad practices that resulted in the mess are things NOT TO DO. Right now, I don't see that lesson REALLY being learned. People are just waiting for the tide to turn and then they will go right back to where things were.

We need to get back to the point where if you are going to try something, you really do shoulder almost all of the risk for it yourself, rather than trying to bury the risk in layers of insurance products designed to make the risky not risky. Hey, guess what, things are still risky. You're just moving the risk around and making it harder to see. It does not go away. And maybe insurance makes sense when it is against things which are actuarially highly predictable like death and disease and fender benders... but there should not be insurance against bad business decisions. It just distorts the whole incentive model and encourages people to take on very risky endeavors that are probably best left on the table.

How about a little caution and prudence instead? Sure, you don't get as big an upside, but so what.

Anyway, I say bring on the damn depression. Let everything fail. Salt the earth. Perhaps there will be horrible pain for a generation. But what comes after that will be stronger because of it. Trying to prop this crap up MAY be helping things in the short term, but in the long term, it is just propping up businesses and business practices that deserve to fail. Let them die.

DIE DIE DIE.


Abulsme - Fri, 20 Mar 2009, 07:29:55 PDT
Permalink and Comments [7 comments]

Curmudgeon's Corner: My Eyes Passed Out

Sam and Ivan talk about:

  • Plates and Such
  • Ivan is Busy
  • Companies in Panic
  • AIG Fun
  • Feedback
  • Software and Shuffles
1-Click Subscribe in iTunes

View in iTunes

Podcast XML Feed

Note: For those using the "View in iTunes" link, it often takes iTunes quite a few hours to show a new episode after the episode is posted here. So if you are looking for the podcast very soon after I post this, use one of the other methods to find the new episode. For those who are subscribed, your Podcast software should pick up the new episode next time it checks for new episodes on its own, or you can always force a refresh. For those using the XML feed directly, the new episode is now there.


Abulsme - Fri, 20 Mar 2009, 00:09:26 PDT
Permalink and Comments [0 comments]

Thu 19 Mar 2009

NoPodNopeNoNot

Yeah, yeah, sorry. Still no podcast. I'm a good deal of the way done, but I must go to work now. Probably should have even left a little earlier. My bad. Tonight for sure.

I hate it when I release this late in the week, but it hasn't been a good week in terms of me being able to get things done at home after work. I've either not been feeling great or I've had other stuff to do each evening.

Oh well. Tonight.


Abulsme - Thu, 19 Mar 2009, 10:31:43 PDT
Permalink and Comments [0 comments]

Wed 18 Mar 2009

Apathetic Non-Likely Voters

Chris Weigant once again uses some graphs I made for him, and some quotes from me, in an article on his site Wednesday.

A Surprise In Obama's Poll Numbers
(Chris Weigant, 18 Mar 2009)

It really is a bit early to focus on President Obama's approval ratings in the polls, I know. But, rather than looking at the overall picture of how he's doing, I have been noticing something interesting which I don't believe others have picked up on — Obama's numbers dramatically improve depending on the sample used by the pollsters. When "likely voters" (LV) are polled, the numbers they give are different from when either "registered voters" (RV) or "all adults" (A) are polled. Obama's LV approval rating is about five points lower than the RV/A numbers. The difference is more pronounced in the disapproval ratings, where LV numbers are fully ten points higher than RV/A numbers.
(Also cross posted at Huffington Post)

Chris draws some tentative conclusions from this about there (at least potentially) being a reservoir of extra strong support for Obama among the folks who are in the "All" or "Registered Voter" samples but who are not in the "Likely Voter" samples... perhaps tied to people who were not traditional voters who were "energized" by the Obama campaign and are retaining their excitement.

Maybe. But as Chris quotes me in his article, I have my doubts and think it is highly likely that there is a much more pedestrian explanation. The quote of mine Chris gives does hit on the crux of this, but for completeness to get my own thoughts on this out there, let me quote here a bit more of my comments to Chris which he excerpted. (I've made some minor edits to fix some wording issues with the original, and to remove other comments not directly relevant.)


Date: 15 March 2009 04:10:58 GMT
I can't do fancy loess regression like Pollster does. The lines are simple "last five poll" averages. But for these purposes that is probably fine.

My gut feel here is that these differences are actually somewhat tied to how undecideds or non-responders are taken into account. If you take my "average" lines for approve and disapprove and sum them at each point, for All/Registered you will see that the sum varies from 79.2% to 92.4% with an average of 87.5%. Meanwhile, for likely voter the sum varies from 88.6% to 99.0% with an average of 95.1%.

This means that the "all" group has a much higher undecided rate... which could either be a real effect or just that the likely voter polls push harder for an answer. It actually makes sense though that people who are less likely to vote are more undecided though, so lets assume it is a real effect.

What would more undecided people result in? Hmmm... well at first you'd think that it would lower BOTH the approve and disapprove numbers. But what we are seeing here is lower disapprove, but HIGHER approve. So what does this get you? Maybe there is a real effect here... something along the lines of the less-likely voters being more willing to give the benefit of the doubt and give an "Approves" rating and less likely to take a leap and say "Disapprove".

I think this also makes sense for the less-likely voter. Less likely voters are also most likely less in tune and in touch with what is going on... generally less informed. So they are giving the benefit of the doubt on approval, and less likely to disapprove, because they don't feel they know enough to pass a negative judgement.

I haven't tried this, but I'm guessing if you broke the polls up in a similar way for the last few years of the Bush administration, you'd see the same pattern... with the broader sample generally being less negative (more likely to approve, less likely to disapprove). This just seems like the natural tendency you would get from less informed people, which is who you are adding when you move from Likely Voters to the broader sample.

That is my guess anyway.

But you are right, the differences are quite clear between these groups.

Date: 15 March 2009 04:52:57 GMT
OK, before July or so, the polls were not identified as likely/registered/all, so there was no way to differentiate. So this only shows those polls that were in fact broken up that way.

So yes, with Bush in his last few months we do see the same pattern... the wider sample is more likely to be positive, and less likely to be negative. The differences are MUCH smaller though, and at certain points (back in August and September) the lines are almost indistinguishable. But I still think this does hold with the general principal that the people who are less likely to be engaged (and therefore not likely voters) are more likely to approve "by default" and less likely to give a negative (disapprove) rating. Basically, if you don't pay attention to what is going on, you give the benefit of the doubt.

If one does the same exercise as I did last time looking at the sum of approve and disapprove, we see that the number of "undecideds" is almost identical between the two groups (rather than being larger in the wider sample). This actually makes some sense too... after 8 years, almost everybody felt they had enough information to make a judgement about Bush, and the percentage of people who felt like they didn't know enough and therefore did that benefit of the doubt thing was much smaller.

At least, I think that explanation is a good tentative explanation of both the Bush and Obama results.
Date: 18 March 2009 06:49:08 GMT
I hypothesized that what is going on here is simply that non-likely voters... which are likely to also be people who are less informed about what is going on, and generally pay a little less attention to what is going on, are just more willing to "give the benefit of the doubt" and therefore are more likely to give a positive rating AND less likely to give a negative rating... they just generally are a little bit more positive than the people who actually pay attention.

And the Bush number seem to also follow this pattern... with the addition that after 8 years, even the people who pay less attention had a lot more information and were more likely to have an opinion, so the degree to which they are more positive than the likely voters is a lot less.

Now, all of the above is just a hypothesis. To actually test it, you'd actually have to run some polls specifically designed to investigate this and to control for other effects. This is just my guess as to a plausible interpretation of the data.

...

I would hesitate to attribute this as actual SUPPORT of Obama. The non-likely voters are almost by definition people who are less politically engaged. So what "approval" means is a softer concept in this group. It is kind of like asking me, as someone who doesn't follow sports at all, if I approve of how my local sports team is doing. I honestly have no idea how they are doing. So, while perhaps I would pick a neutral position if I'm given the choice, I'm still pretty likely to say I approve of how they are doing... the default position is to assume they are doing OK... it is the position that causes the least friction. If I said I disapprove, I feel like I need to have reasons... maybe even good reasons... for saying I disapprove. But if I really don't pay much attention, and don't have a strong opinion, I'll be reluctant to pass the negative judgement.

...

In the end, my thoughts about the undecideds may have been tangential. Basically, if there was no difference in behavior on these polls between Likely voters and non-Likely voters, other than there being a greater undecided rate among non-likely voters, one would expect that BOTH approve and disapprove would be LESS in the non-likely voter group... but that is NOT what you see. Disapprove is less as expected, but approve is unexpectedly higher. This indicates that there is indeed a behavioral difference other than just a higher tendency to be undecided. The bit about the "benefit of the doubt" is my stab at explaining that behavioral difference.
And that is that. :-)


Abulsme - Wed, 18 Mar 2009, 23:15:32 PDT
Permalink and Comments [2 comments]

Lateapod

Yes, I know, I should have released the podcast by now. I've had a cold so once I've gotten home from work I haven't been very productive, plus my computer has been nicely slow. And well, OK, I just didn't do it yet. I'll probably put it together tonight and release in the morning. We'll see.


Abulsme - Wed, 18 Mar 2009, 12:04:42 PDT
Permalink and Comments [0 comments]

Sun 15 Mar 2009

Hed Code

Also, I woke up Sunday with a stuffy head. Now, about 14 hours later, it is a full fledged head cold. It sucks. I hate colds. It will probably end up moving to my chest within the next 24 hours, and then I'll be completely miserable.

Bleh.


Abulsme - Sun, 15 Mar 2009, 22:12:55 PDT
Permalink and Comments [0 comments]

Moving an Office



On Saturday Amy and I moved my desk and a couple other pieces of critical furniture from my home office upstairs, down to what had been a mostly unused room downstairs (it had Mike the Skink, a hammock, and some exercise equipment in it). Amy did almost all the disassembling and assembling of furniture. The above is a timelapse of the work, first in the old office, then in the new office. And then a bit of Mike at the end.

So I'm now in my new home office downstairs. This is of course to make room for a nursery upstairs. And yes, I know we have a decent number of months before that is actually needed, but I figured I wanted to get it done with. And besides, the new office is actually a bit larger. So far, I think I like it.

Of course, so far I really have only moved the major furniture and the computer. Many piles of papers and books and other things are still upstairs. I figure I'll gradually move them over the next week or so.

Then the room upstairs will probably stay empty for a bit longer before we ACTUALLY start setting it up as a nursery.

In the meantime, I'm enjoying my new office... which for the moment still has a hammock in it too.


Abulsme - Sun, 15 Mar 2009, 21:51:00 PDT
Permalink and Comments [0 comments]

Another Fourteen Weeks of SemiProductivity



Back in November, I posted stats on the "things I want to do at home" that I'd gotten done between August 24th and November 29th. They are here.

The summary of that was:

  • 20 hours of catching up on putting things in Quicken and/or paying bills (51%)
  • 7 hours of random things from my projects list (18%)
  • 5 hours of catching up on old email (13%)
  • 4 hours of genealogy stuff (10%)
  • 3 hours of reading (8%)
That's 39 hours in 14 weeks, or about 2.8 hours per week of productive at home work on things I want to spend time on at home. That was pretty sad.

But, another 14 weeks has gone by. Lets see how the stats worked out for November 30th to March 7th...
  • 20 hours of catching up on putting things in Quicken and/or paying bills (43%)
  • 10 hours of reading (22%)
  • 7 hours of random things from my projects list (15%)
  • 5 hours of genealogy stuff (11%)
  • 4 hours of catching up on old email (9%)
That's 46 hours! That's 18% better than last time around. Woo! Go me!

Of course, that is still only 3.3 hours per week. I'm thinking a "reasonable" number for this would be more like 7 to 10 hours per week. Oops.

If I can get to 7 to 10, I think I'd actually be "keeping up" rather than falling further behind on my personal projects each week. We'll see if I can adjust things to do a bit better the next 14 weeks.


Abulsme - Sun, 15 Mar 2009, 17:21:41 PDT
Permalink and Comments [0 comments]

Cinema: Watchmen

A little over a week ago, Brandy and I went to see Watchmen. Ivan and I spent a good deal of time talking about this on the last Curmudgeon's Corner, so I won't spend as long talking about it here as I usually would. Listen to the podcast.

But I will say, I liked it. Brandy hated it. (Ivan hated it too.) Here is what I think is the main difference. What made me like it was not the plot, or the acting, or anything like that (which I think the others perhaps legitimately fault it on). What made me like it was the BACKGROUND. Noticing the little references going on behind the main characters. The things playing on TVs in the background. Figuring out what the differences were between the world in the movie and the real world. (From a historical point of view, not the radioactive blue man point of view.) Looking at the concept in general of these very flawed and unsympathetic characters. Etc. Whatever the main story was would be playing out, and I'd pay attention to that, sure, but then I'd notice that there was a commercial for the clapper playing in the background, and I'd get excited about that. And I'd spend time figuring out just how many terms Nixon would have had to have to still be president in 1985, and I'd like that. Then I'd look at Pat Buchanan talking about superheroes, and I'd like that. The movie was so dense with those sort of things, they occupied enough of my attention that any other flaws the movie may have had became invisible to me, because I was always on the lookout for more nuggets like those. And I'm sure I'll see even more if I ever watch it again at home. This is the kind of movie that makes you want to look at it frame by frame looking for more easter eggs in the background.

Of course, it takes a special kind of geek to enjoy that sort of thing. Which means everybody else hates the movie, and thus it is tanking quite nicely in the theater.

Oh well!


Abulsme - Sun, 15 Mar 2009, 16:02:35 PDT
Permalink and Comments [2 comments]

Fri 13 Mar 2009

Stewart and Cramer

Another Daily Show bit that will stand out over time. The actual show cut this way down, but the full, unedited, 23 minutes or so, is available online. And we're left once again asking why "real" news places don't actually push and prod and question the assumptions everyone makes, etc. It would be nice if that happened sometime. This is played straight too. This isn't a bunch of laughs. Both Steward and Cramer are dead serious almost the whole time. Speaking of which, I give Cramer a lot of credit for actually coming on this show and taking his spanking.

In three parts:






(via Oliver Willis and a bunch of other places)


Abulsme - Fri, 13 Mar 2009, 07:57:10 PDT
Permalink and Comments [2 comments]

Tue 10 Mar 2009

Curmudgeon's Corner: Giant Blue Radioactive Man

Sam and Ivan talk about:

  • A Personal Note
  • Watchmen
  • Savings Time
  • Dow Zero
  • Divorce and Marriage
  • Why the Dow?
1-Click Subscribe in iTunes

View in iTunes

Podcast XML Feed

Note: For those using the "View in iTunes" link, it often takes iTunes quite a few hours to show a new episode after the episode is posted here. So if you are looking for the podcast very soon after I post this, use one of the other methods to find the new episode. For those who are subscribed, your Podcast software should pick up the new episode next time it checks for new episodes on its own, or you can always force a refresh. For those using the XML feed directly, the new episode is now there. Enjoy.


Abulsme - Tue, 10 Mar 2009, 20:19:04 PDT
Permalink and Comments [0 comments]

Fri 06 Mar 2009

Blue Whale

OK, I give up, your damn marketing campaign worked. I've seen this damn blurb in the feeds of it seems like dozens of the blogs I have in Google Reader. Or maybe it was dozens of times in the same blogs. I don't know. In any case, it seems like I've been seeing it over and over and over again.

Blue whales are the planet’s largest creatures, yet we hardly ever see them. Their calls travel thousands of miles, but we can barely hear them. Now, National Geographic embarks on a mission to witness what nobody ever has in these waters; blue whales eating and giving birth.
Click to Learn More natgeotv.com/bluewhale
Fine. I just set my Tivo to record it. You win. This is probably the first internet ad campaign I've clicked on in many years, and not only that, I'm going to watch your damn TV show. You win. You can stop now. Or do I have to see this another 500 times before Sunday?


Abulsme - Fri, 6 Mar 2009, 07:17:01 PST
Permalink and Comments [0 comments]

Stewart on CNBC

I'm sure most of you have seen this by now, It has been linked to from pretty much everywhere, but I'm running a bit behind on my feeds right now, so for those of you who haven't...



Abulsme - Fri, 6 Mar 2009, 07:04:32 PST
Permalink and Comments [0 comments]

Thu 05 Mar 2009

What is Molybdenum?

So, last week I made a quick post titled Molybdenum is Coming. It was just a picture of a square from the periodic table. But it was a code. A code I figured at least one of the readers of this blog would get.

Indeed, one did, and he proceeded to email a number of the friends we have in common, clueing at least that small group in to what it meant.

I also explained what it meant on the last episode of Curmudgeon's Corner, titled Element 42.

I had intended both the original post about Molybdenum, and this explanatory post to happen a little over two weeks later than I actually made the posts, but some folks were anxious to get the news out the door sooner rather than later. Namely, Amy was just about ready to burst wanting to tell everybody she knew. :-)

Anyway, for any of my other readers who have not already figured it out or found out through other means, here is the explanation...

For many many years, whenever the topic of baby names came up, I would joke that if I ever had a girl, I would name it Molybdenum. Because of course it would be Molly for short and that would be a good name, plus it would be an element, and how cool is that, and also, it is Element 42, the answer to life, the universe, and everything, and you just could not top that!

So yes, although there were only a handful of people who would even have a chance of getting the reference... I still figured I'd use the Molybdenum thing as my pseudo announcement that yes, indeed, Brandy and I are expecting a baby...



For those of you who didn't get the reference, or were not told about this by someone who did, this post is the official, non-cryptic announcement of that fact. :-)

To answer the most common questions, either those people actually ask, or that they probably think but don't ask:

  • Officially at the moment the due date is September 21st, although the doctor has given us dates as early as September 6th, depending on which thing she was looking at.
  • We've been planning this for a couple of years now.
  • No, there almost certainly won't be a rush wedding between now and September.
  • We may however actually start Brandy's divorce proceedings against her husband who she hasn't seen in over a decade.
  • Yes, Amy is very excited to have a sibling coming.
  • Yes, we plan to find out the sex in advance.
  • Yes, there is a registry.
  • My home office will become the nursery, I will move downstairs with Mike the skink.
  • Yes, I know having a baby in the house will change almost everything.
  • Yes, we told our parents and close relatives and such a number of weeks before I made the Molybdenum post... I didn't make them find out by reading my blog.
  • Yes, the picture is a sonogram of Molybdenum... from several weeks ago... February 9th actually.
  • No, Brandy won't actually let me name the baby Molybdenum. Drat!
  • Umm... any other questions?
Anyway, we're all very excited.

Molybdenum is coming!


Abulsme - Thu, 5 Mar 2009, 23:38:11 PST
Permalink and Comments [15 comments]

Wed 04 Mar 2009

Hey Ma, Look What I Found!

Dr Who Dalek found in pond
(Daily Telegraph, 4 Mar 2008)

Sales executive Marc Oakland was pushing a rake around the bed of the shallow pool when he found the object with its distinctive eye stalk.

The 42-year-old said: "I'd just shifted a tree branch with my foot when I noticed something dark and round slowly coming up to the surface.

"I got the shock of my life when a Dalek head bobbed up right in front of me."
(via Outpost Gallifrey)


Abulsme - Wed, 4 Mar 2009, 07:31:45 PST
Permalink and Comments [0 comments]

Tue 03 Mar 2009

Curmudgeon's Corner: Element 42

Sam and Ivan talk about:

  • Southern Snow
  • DC Representation
  • Our Citations
  • Iraq Withdrawal
  • Obama Budget
  • Econ Still Sucks
  • Obama Speech Reax
  • Republican Chaos
  • Wherefore Molybdenum
1-Click Subscribe in iTunes

View in iTunes

Podcast XML Feed

Note: For those using the "View in iTunes" link, it often takes iTunes several hours to show a new episode after the episode is posted here. For those who are subscribed, your Podcast software should pick up the new episode next time it checks for new episodes on its own, or you can always force a refresh. For those using the XML feed directly, the new episode is now there. Enjoy.


Abulsme - Tue, 3 Mar 2009, 03:00:12 PST
Permalink and Comments [0 comments]

Mon 02 Mar 2009

Worse than 1929


From dshort.com

When adjusted for inflation, the decline in the S&P from the peak is now WORSE than the decline in the Dow was at a comparable time in the bear market following the 1929 crash.

Lovely!

(When not adjusted for inflation, we're just very slightly above the 1929 line.)


Abulsme - Mon, 2 Mar 2009, 19:46:34 PST
Permalink and Comments [0 comments]

Ding Dong

RIAA Layoffs 'Bloodbath' May Be the Beginning of the End for the Evil Organization
(Adam Frucci, Gizmodo, 2 Mar 2009)

The RIAA is currently laying off dozens of employees in what's been described as a "bloodbath" at the lawsuit-happy organization. Could this be the end of the RIAA?

Hypebot, the site that reported the layoffs, says that the "RIAA as you know it is probably history by Tuesday." And yes, that means tomorrow. Offices are closing and over 100 people are being shown the door, so this is clearly a serious move.

So what will happen to the RIAA? It'll probably merge with the IFPI, the European organization currently ineptly suing The Pirate Bay. But really, it's only a matter of time before that organization bites the dust as well.


Abulsme - Mon, 2 Mar 2009, 18:54:31 PST
Permalink and Comments [0 comments]

Ivan Missed the Call

Dow just went below 7000.

(Starting when the Dow was last near 10000, I kept asking him if we'd see 7000 or 13000 first. He first said 13000, then 7000, then a few weeks back switched back to 13000.)

OK, so next question, to repeat the 30% up or down...

Which do we see first from this point... 4900 or 9100?

That's another 30% down from here, or 30% up from here.

Ivan?

[Update 14:49 UTC - Added parenthetical clarifying what the original question was.]


Abulsme - Mon, 2 Mar 2009, 06:38:51 PST
Permalink and Comments [3 comments]

Sun 01 Mar 2009

Mac on an iPhone


(via 9 to 5 Mac)

Macintosh System 7 running on an iPhone. Nice.

Not that I'd ever actually use it for anything.


Abulsme - Sun, 1 Mar 2009, 21:22:32 PST
Permalink and Comments [0 comments]

A Little Rush Music


(via Andrew Sullivan)

Yup Rush, just keep on going. You're just what the Republicans need.


Abulsme - Sun, 1 Mar 2009, 20:58:11 PST
Permalink and Comments [0 comments]


MEMBERS

<March 2009 >
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

ABULWIKI

AbulWiki Home
Recent Changes
Random Wiki Page

OLD STUFF

True Binary Clock
Al/Kim Wedding
Pets and People
Home Movies
Old Pictures
Volleyball
Resume
Fitness
Books

ARCHIVES

August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003

ARCHIVE SUMMARY

View by Date

View by Category

Advanced search

PEOPLE WHO EMAIL ME A LOT AND HAVE WEBSITES

Al Michael
Ron Adams
Robert Pavia
Chris Morrow
Ruth Brandon
William Minter
Brandy Donaghy
Greg Haverkamp
Rebecca Livingston

SITES I CHECK DAILY

Information Aesthetics
TivoCommunity Forum
Schneier on Security
Yahoo! Most Emailed
Tech Memeorandum
Naturally Confused
TTLB Ecosystem
Cato at Liberty
Drudge Report
CAM Facebook
New GPS Info
Seattle Times
Gallifrey One
Boing Boing
Lifehacker
Boomzilla
SlashDot
Gizmodo
PVRBlog
Iseff
Fark
Digg
Listed on BlogShares Powered by pMachine XML

STATS

Total entries: 2517
Total comments: 1898
Total members: 37