I was an enormous fan of the original BG when I was a kid; the big deal we made about its Sunday night broadcast is one of my earliest memories. I don't remember a whole lot about it reliably, though I've seen many episodes again in repeats, and Wikipedia has refreshed my memory on much of it. I remembered enough to appreciate most of the tips of the hat to the original series; the original theme music as the Caprican anthem, the 2-parter when Starbuck crashed which was based on an original series episode, with the little wing-waggle thrown in as an acknowledgement; of course, the thoroughly enjoyable re-appearance of the old-school Cylons in the BG TV-movie, Razor. And one thing I remembered well, perhaps because so much of a Catholic's early life is coloured by religious teaching, was the religious subtext the show had.

I assumed that in the modern age, this would be an aspect the re-imagined series sidesteps; much to my surprise, it became the centre of the show, with the allusions to Egyptians, Jews, Romans and Christians much thicker on the ground than they were in the old series. A daring, and thoroughly interesting choice. The series is solid but unremarkable in script dialogue, and has a few brilliant actors and a balance of journeymen. But the plot development has been outstanding. Not since The Sopranos has a show so consistently defied my predicitons and expectations (as opposed to Lost, where I've given up trying to predict or expect anything).

Most of the time, anyway; the "final four" only surprised me with the revelation of Sam. I liked how Sam being a Cylon neatly explains why the Cylons just up and broke camp when they had him and Starbuck pinned down during his rescue from Caprica, much more neatly than the Cylon explanation to the fleet, anyway.

This brings us to one of the major points of fan speculation; the identity of the final Cylon. Here you get to a scale-of-cast issue. Most choices - Gaeta, Dee, etc. - are just not prominent enough as actors or cast members. It has to either be an character we've never seen (but an actor of some status, a la Dean Stockwell and Lucy Lawless), or come as a major revelatory shock. Tom Zacharek (however it's spelled) has long been a favourite candidate of mine; the actor who played the original Apollo turning out to be Cylon has a nice dramatic irony. Starbuck is a little too obvious, tied up with all the prophecies and what not, but she's certainly a possibility. What sours that is the one thing I'm not exactly clear on; D'Anna said that the fifth isn't with the fleet.

If she wasn't lying - and I can't see any reason why she would - that takes Tom and Starbuck off the table, and most everyone else. It leaves the possibility of a character we haven't met, of course, but that'd be a bit of a let down, in my opinion. D'Anna also could have meant that the fifth wasn't with the fleet because it was one of the people on the basestar with her at the time; discounting Athena, that means Baltar, Laura, and Helo.

Baltar, like Starbuck, seems too obvious, but his clear importance to their destiny would make a lot of sense. Helo would be interesting; once bullet-proof because of his relationship with Athena, we now have it confirmed in-universe that at least some Cylons can procreate, as Tigh and Caprica Six seem to indicate. That would mean that Hera was a full-blood Cylon, and the Chief's kid is actually the first half-breed. Interesting, but Helo seems to fail the shock-test; he's just not that major a cast member. Of course, Laura would be the jaw-dropper in that group, and I think it's a strong possibility just for that reason.

Then we come to what I see as the last possibility, with the postulates already laid out; that the final Cylon is the entity or whatever that seems to appear both to Baltar and Caprica Six; Whedon obsession compels me to refer to this character as "the First". This is the most mysterious character of the show; throughout the first season, we simply thought of her as something Caprica Six did to him; an implant she was using to communicate, maybe his own madness. But the more we saw of Caprica Six on Caprica, we realized that she was absolutely nothing like the Six that was always with Baltar. And then the bomb, when we realized that Caprica Six had her own version of the First, who appeared as Baltar but spoke in the same haranguing manner as Baltar's shadow. This is my favourite candidate for the Fifth, a Cylon version unlike anything we've seen before; pure energy? A ghost in the collective unconcious, able to appear to the receptive and those adept at visualization, which we know both the Cylons and Baltar to be experts at? God? There's just so many intriguing possibilities.

Finally, we come to the major surprise of the mid-season finale; the appearance of a blasted and wrecked Earth. It almost certainly is Earth just based on the few episodes remaining, as a resumption of the hunt seems impractical, and the constellations were right. So, is it past, present, or future? The old series, from what I can remember, implied that the 13th Colony were the founders of our own civilization, and the events of the series were happening in our present or very recent past, as in one episode they just missed intercepting Neil Armstrong's broadcast from the moon; I also seem to remember that awful follow-up series having Cylons running around at Halloween, but would prefer to forget it. I supposed there's a dim possibility that the new series is also in our present, and either we've nuked ourselves extinct, or somehow the 1-led Cylons got there first and wiped it. Both scenarios seem unlikely, and rather stupid, so I'm dismissing them. But honestly... there's just not enough data to speculate with, past or future. I'm hoping for past, as I like the idea we're all the descendants of mixed-blood Cylons and humans, but that's a preference, not a speculation.

At any rate, it's been a thoroughly entertaining series, and if it keeps up its unexpected twists, I'm sure all this speculation will look foolish come mid-March 2009. But it is fun to do.

It really doesn't matter. and I've come back around (one of these mental oscillations...) to the conclusion brought to my attention on the NKS blog.

Here is the key statement:

Mathematics is a symbolic language — you can argue that none of its elements “exist” in physical reality, yet they can be used to communicate information about things which are real.

I found another statement to this effect in the classic "What is Mathematics?" by Courant & Robbins, revised by Stewart.

Through the ages mathematicians have considered their objects such as numbers, points, etc., as substantial things in themselves.  Since these entities had always defied attempts at an adequate description, it slowly dawned on the mathematicians of the the nineteenth century that the question of the meaning of these objects as substantial things does not make sense within mathematics, if at all.  The only relevant assertions concerning them do no refer to substantial reality; they state only the interrelations between mathematically "undefined objects" and the rules governing operations with them."  What points, lines, numbers "actually" are cannot and need not be discussed in mathematical science.  What matters and what corresponds to "verifiable" fact is structure and relationship, that two points determine a line, that numbers combine according to certain rules to form other numbers, etc.

I often forget that the abstraction is not the thing.  The metaphor is not the thing.  The symbol is not the thing. Mathematics never makes assertions that it is the thing.  It is an abstraction - a description of relationships devoid of many of specific objects' and environments' properties.  This abstraction (and simplification) is required to make progress.  If mathematicians were to create theory that was specific to every situation, object, and environment, the world would run out of shelf space for storing all the math books and we'd gain nothing over flat out recording keeping.  In a sense, mathematical abstraction is a wonderfully useful compression of information.  The application of mathematics to a specific situation is the decompression of the abstraction.

This abstraction is so useful because it lets us focus on key relations and make progress on understanding despite our lack of complete knowledge of specific objects, environments, and situations.

This abstraction is also dangerous and/or limiting.  Not all situations in the universe are able to be described by a simplified mathematical theory.  In fact, a surprising number of very simple phenomena (theoretical, biological, physical, financial, etc.) are not mathematically compressible.  That is, a purely mathematical theory will not be sufficient for understanding in many situations.

What a relief!

Some mathematicians already experienced this relief from needing to describe the universe in some ultimate truth.   That's far too big for any discipline to bear.

Not all mathematicians and a majority of economists, business people, vcs, media, and lay people do not recognize this limitation of mathematical theory (heck, and many other theories!).  In the US (perhaps elsewhere), business models (pro formas), stock indexes, indicators, projections, forecasts, formulas dominate our thinking on very complex phenomena.   We've explored this issue many times on this blog.

Understanding the universe we experience requires a combination of theories.  Math can sometimes point the way and get us going, keep us focused, or help us communicate.

Whether the real numbers exist doesn't really matter.  The real numbers are useful for moving us forward on some problems in the real world.  Pi, as a compression of a really long number and challenging concept in geometric forms, is useful in helping us make wheels, explore space, and so much more.  That is what makes math great, even if it isn't objective, ultimate truth.

One element of the season I just watched, which focused on city politics (while also, as in previous seasons, including the drug trade, police work, and general mayhem). There is one character, a police officer, Major "Bunny" Colvin, who decides to essentially legalize drugs in certain sections of the city. Without informing his superior officers, he tells his subordinates to crack down on all drug trafficking everywhere except the free zones, nicknamed "Hamsterdam", where they will ignore everything except violence (so, drugs, prostitution, etc, are all OK there).

This doesn't go over well when people find out about it, as you might imagine. But, should it have? What exactly is wrong with legalizing drugs, anyway?

Consider - if it was somehow proven that, by making murder legal, we would actually reduce the murder rate, would we even consider legalizing murder? I don't think so. But that's because we see murder as inherently wrong - it deprives another human being of their right to life. Nothing can justify legalizing it - even a reduction in death. Because as it is now, we see the victims of murder and try to seek justice for them, but if murder were legal, we would just be giving up on those who were chosen to die.

But drugs are not the same thing. Whether or not doing drugs is immoral, it doesn't harm anyone else for the drug addict to use them. That means we don't have to make this great stand against drug use regardless of the costs. If legalizing drugs reduces drug use or makes it less dangerous or reduce the power of drug traffickers (since if it's legal, it can be legally imported), we should go ahead and do it. It's a prudential decision, really. Not like illegalizing murder - which every society has to do if it wants to at all resemble a just one.

My research isolated this material by removing the entrained oil and any inorganics (rust, catalyst fines, etc.). Mass spec and fluorescence showed it to be the condensed dimer of coronene, fifteen rings with a six-memberred bridging ring. The deposits were often > 95 % of this coronene dimer, trivially called dicoronylene. So, dicoronylene has been produced for over 50 years in these amount. About a million kilograms, as a ballpark number, for one specific large PAH.

Did the collapse of a little-known private oil-marketing firm, SemGroup, play a roll in oil's 14% price drop over the past 10 days? The Wall Street Journal thinks it might have:

The Tulsa, Okla., company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Tuesday, citing among other financial woes a loss of at least $2.4 billion in crude-oil futures. Changes in its hedging strategies coincided with big moves in oil recently.

The company had taken out short positions, or bets that crude prices would fall, as a hedging strategy for oil it intended to move through a subsidiary's pipelines and sell to refiners, according to an affidavit filed in Delaware bankruptcy court by Terrence Ronan, SemGroup's senior vice president, finance.

Then, when oil prices rose, SemGroup moved to "cover" its short positions by taking out equivalent long positions, or bets that oil prices would rise.

Eventually, SemGroup was unable to put up collateral for its swelling bets and sold its futures account to Barclays Capital on July 16, according to the affidavit...

One theory making the rounds in the market is that as SemGroup's long positions snowballed, so did the oil rally. SemGroup's rapid exit from the market removed a force for upward momentum when the market, under siege from negative U.S. economic indicators, needed it most.

"In the three days surrounding that transfer" to Barclays, crude futures "plunged $15.89...thus, with SemGroup removed from the market, crude oil has been free to fall," wrote Stephen Schork, editor of the Schork Report, a newsletter tracking the oil market.

The linkage isn't entirely clear. Some traders note that SemGroup's activity dried up well before July 16, and there is no indication of what Barclays did with SemGroup's positions once it took control.

Now that SemGroup is toast, we'll know in the next couple of weeks.

Now don't that warm your heart?

-Marc-

Value of currencies change everyday according to supply and demand for the particular currency thus called a floating exchange rate. One way to make money with this method is by speculation, which means buying stock of one currency and anticipating a positive move to rake more returns.

Todays news that Telltale Games is working on an episodic Adventure game ala Sam & Max, or the upcoming Strong Bad's Cool Game for Attractive People. Wallace & Gromit's Grand Adventures will put you in control of both Wallace and Gromit, as they "engage in zany entrepreneurial schemes and tinker with kooky contraptions".

No release date has been announced, but stay tuned to this site for updates!

KLind

Make it so that Gordon is oblivious. :)

What is Speculation?

Once you understand the way risk and reward operate – or better, how more risk might mean more reward, the tendency is to assume more risk is almost too tempting to avoid. This is often done, in many cases with the full knowledge that increased risk does not always result in increased reward. In other words, once you grasp the seductive power of increased risk, many investors choose to discount the downside of the equation. This can be incredibly dangerous when it comes to your retirement portfolio.

Consider the word speculation. Speculation (spek'yuh-LAY'shuhn) n. has several definitions. The first is the act of speculating or the contemplation of a profound nature, a conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by speculating. We think therefore we speculate.

The second definition is much more dangerous. It involves the engagement in risky business transactions on the chance of quick or considerable profit. Jacob Freifeld’s 1996 paper on the subject of behavioral decision making titled “Speculative Bubbles: Financial Genius Before the Fall" came well in advance of what was to be, at least until the sub-prime mortgage mess began to unfold recently, the greatest market bubble of in recent history.

He wrote about the theory of speculation: “In some cases this financial innovation is replaced by changes in government policy that either favor easy credit or lower taxation, stimulating rapid business growth. Whatever the case may be, a financial atmosphere of tremendous supply combined with demand for some desirable asset, be it stocks, real estate, or even rare tulips, gives birth to the speculative bubble.”

Speculating on the Tulip

Many financial writers, myself included have alluded to the lessons of the tulip. Tulips became the craze of the wealthy in the early 1600’s, so much so, that if a person of means did not own a collection of these rare flowers, they were considered uncultured. The demand for these exotic bulbs grew into speculative and historic proportions.

Charles Mackay, in his book “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” published first in 1841 wrote: “The demand for tulips of a rare species increased so much in the year 1636, that regular marts for their sale were established on the Stock Exchange of Amsterdam, in Rotterdam, Harlaem, Leyden, Alkmar, Hoorn, and other towns. Symptoms of gambling now became, for the first time, apparent.”

No Place for Speculation

There is, however no place for speculation in your retirement plan. The fact that they exist at all, is the largest hurdle any investor, especially one interested in building his portfolio for retirement, has to face. As I mentioned previously, the presence of a bubble or the effects of its aftermath tend to leave many investors indecisive.

Even as he wrote his paper, he wondered about the state of the stock market. “Currently the U.S. stock markets are in the late stages of what looks like a speculative bubble.”

While I go into great detail (in the book) about what is important to consider when bubbles exists, and how to invest your way through them, folks like Mr. Freifeld will sound warning bells well in advance of the impending disaster. But it is something you can ignore.

If your retirement planning is based on a conservative approach, a common sense approach if you will that rises above speculation, you will have no need to pay heed to those warnings. Believe it or not, you can win in any market situation.

As I stated previously the show is basically about a mute girl whose parents were murdered that plays the japanese board game Shougi (shogi)which has been referred to as "japanese chess". Go is sometimes erroneously called that as well however those two games are extremely dissimilar. Well as far as I know about chess and shougi there are similarities between the goal (capture the opposing king while protecting your own) and movement patterns of some of the pieces but other than that the setup formation is different as are... maybe the number of pieces and the play strategy. The big difference between shogi and chess is that you can reuse captured pieces in shogi. Also promotion works a bit differently in that more pieces than just the pawns can be promoted (it is only the pawns that can be promoted in chess isn't it?) and the promotion zone isn't only the opposite side of the board as it is in chess. So between those two there are a lot more variables than there are in chess and game play differs accordingly.

So shogi aside, the majority of the show takes place during an unprecedented open tournament between male and female pro shogi players and amateur shogi players of all abilities for a large prize (50 million yen). And within that the majority of the focus is on Shion's own matches. On at least one occasion a side character had their match relegated to the "cold" opening segment. The plot otherwise mostly revolves around Shion being harassed and people investigating the murder of her parents.

I can not state enough times how massively disappointed I was that this show wasn't about Shion traveling around solving crimes in between her shogi matches. The show never tries to get you to think this, that was apparently just an observation I heard a long time ago from someone who had no familiarity with the work yet was predicting the course of the series. However if the show would have been like that I'd have enjoyed it more even though it probably would have just been worse.

Various things annoyed me about the show. The first was how blatant it was from the first episode who the killer was, the second was that you are explicitly told who it is before the last episode of the show so it peaks before the climax. The other thing was how stupid the plot involving Saito Ayumi was. You have a male character cross dressing who is actually voiced by a woman. Just having a female character would have been better in the first place. Then on top of it all his hair gets chopped off.

Aside from the plot the animation was horrid and the character designs, mostly the hair and clothing styles of the bland looking characters, weren't any better. Being a show with absolutely no action and a number of still sequences there isn't an excuse for how terrible the show looked. There is a scene near the end of the last episode in particular between the Hani brothers where the animation is so bad that Satoru looks like a paper bag that's floating around. Being a mere 22 episodes makes this more inexcusable.

Now on the bright side of being only 22 episodes, it didn't have two stupid recap episodes as many shows are apt to do and I'm pretty sure it ran over new years and golden week (basically the two major holiday periods in japan). Then again it would have likely only been in production during new years so golden week shouldn't have been an issue, but it is common for shows in production during new years to just throw out a recap episode during that time period which is usually half way through one way or the other. You know Golden week delayed shipment of something I was waiting on and that really pissed me off. Things like that and "business days" really piss me off but that is another story.

Soooooo in the end I'm not sure what Shion no Ou was trying to accomplish. The odd background to the story was probably just an attempt at spicing up the typical "sports saga" (perhaps similar to how you had a ghost in Hikaru no Go) but since everything else about the series was typical of those types of works it just seemed out of place. I read something interesting about how Hikaru no Go had reinvigorated Go among youth but that there hasn't really been a series to do that with Shogi. In this same report it was alleged that more youth play shogi in the first place. On the other hand Go is a game that is played widely enough around the world, Mahjong (which is really less a game of skill than chance) as well, certainly throughout asia, but Shogi is confined mostly to japan. It's pretty easy to imagine shogi totally dying out eventually. That would be too bad since It really is a more interesting game than chess. Though in my case I'd be even worse at it than chess. That might be true of a lot of people.

Actually that reminds me of something I read about the stagnation of japanese companies and products. In particular even though something like the majority of people in japan use cell phones and their service is provided by japanese companies, japanese mobile phones are not much of a factor, certainly on the world market. Hmmm in fact the only electronics field I'm particularly aware of being dominated by japan (I have to wonder if they don't dominate comics and animation as far as production goes) is console gaming but by the same token PC gaming is weak in japan and the consoles are mostly made with components from american companies anyway. In fact since the likes of Sony and Nintendo are diversified worldwide one can wonder how much anything that goes on R&D wise is still related to Japan. Though that is neither here nor there. And certainly the Iphone rapidly became the most popular cellphone in the world anyway so you can't really blame japanese for that.  And it really has nothing to do with shion no ou but this is my blog so I can write crap if I want to. You might try it sometime.

Right before the Fourth of July, I wrote that the price of oil was a bubble waiting to be pricked and nearing a short-term top. In the past three weeks, the price of oil has fallen by about $20 bucks a barrel, or almost 15 percent, a huge move by any standard. In terms of daily closing prices, July 3rd ended up being the exact top.

I also correctly pointed out the main reason usually cited for the fall-off: Decreased demand due to a weakening economic picture, particularly in the U.S. and Europe. I also believe the fact U.S. government officials have been speaking out against an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear production facilities has helped. I do not think any of George W's jawboning about offshore drilling, nor Congress' subsequent investigations into oil market speculation, had any real impact.

However, I wouldn't start planning to buy that new SUV just yet. I am a bit concerned that we didn't get that last parabolic move in the price of oil that I thought we'd get. Bubbles don't typically fizzle out; they tend to pop in dramatic fashion. So I still believe another big move higher, one that potentially busts through July's high of $147, could be forthcoming.

In other words, this is one hot-button election issue that won't be going away anytime soon.

The Yankees are always rumored to be involved in trades, whether they're blockbusters or minor deals, the team is always linked to a variety of pitchers and hitters. All that means is that Brian Cashman is doing his job and is exploring his options (while driving the prices up for competing ball clubs like the Red Sox or the Rays). For fun, here's a list of players that the Yankees have been linked to as the trade deadline approaches, along with a quick description.

1. Xavier Nady: Could happen, but the price will have to drop
2. Jason Bay: Probably won't happen, but he'd be a great addition
3. Damaso Marte: Currently closing for the Bucs; doubtful but possible
4. John Grabow: A decent lefty that could be had on the cheap from the Pirates
5. Matt Holliday: No chance here; the Phillies were close, but unless the Yankees are willing to part with Joba or Phil Hughes, this is a pretty unrealistic option
6. Brian Fuentes: The Rockies have reportedly been scouting Humberto Sanchez; could happen but he's not necessary and therefore the Yankees won't be willing to part with too much, making Grabow and Marte more attractive options
7. A.J. Burnett: I don't think it will happen; his contract is scary and his performance is erratic; let's not forget about his health and that he plays for the Jays
8. Bronson Arroyo: K rate is up, but his performance has been poor; if the Reds are looking to dump his salary then he could be an option that won't cost much talent in return
9. Adam Dunn: Jon Heyman thinks he'd be a good fit since he won't cost much outside of money (like fellow teammate, Bronson Arroyo); however, a lot of people are weary about his love for the game and there hasn't been much on the Dunn front beyond Heyman's mention
10. Jarrod Washburn: J-Dub looks like the guy the Yankees are shooting for, but there have been conflicting reports about the actual interest as well as Washburn's desire to play for NY; If the Mariners try to pass Vidro in a Washburn deal to the Yanks, I think the team would pass
11. Derek Lowe: No chance; The Dodgers want a bat and the Yankees don't have any to spare; plus, the Dodgers are right at the top of the standings and they won't part with solid pitching for nothing
12. Paul Byrd: There have been brief mentions about Byrd since he is available, but right now, I doubt the Yankees are seriously looking at him since he doesn't offer all that much
13. Freddy Garcia: Ozzie Guillen, one of Freddy's better friends in the game, doesn't even think Garcia will be ready to contribute to a team, so why should the Yankees?
14. Casey Blake: Heyman also noted that the Yankees may pursue Cleveland's versatile player, although there hasn't been much beyond his rumor; he would offer some much needed versatility though, which would provide Damon, Giambi, A-Rod and others ample opportunities to DH (and rest)
15. Gerald Laird: He's a solid catcher but the Rangers aren't ready to let Salty take over, especially when you consider how he is behind the plate (is he a catcher or a 1B?)
16. Miguel Olivo: Why bother?
17. Paul Lo Duca: See Miguel Olivo's description x2

These are some of the names we've heard. I tried to get all of them, but if I missed any, please feel free to discuss them in the comments section. I've also suggested Raul Ibanez on this blog, but I haven't seen much interest expressed in any mainstream media outlets. The team's top officials will convene tomorrow in order to discuss possible trade scenarios along with their internal options (Alfredo Aceves?). In a few days, one or more of these guys could be on the team.

I must admit that I am satisfied by the level of truth and sincerity on the Kudlow & Company show on CNBC. I was equally pleased with thoughtful guests on the show from both sides of the aisle in Congress, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND).

Kudlow admitted point blank that half of the cause of oil prices is dollar devaluation as he explored immediate means of addressing the other half of the problem. The Democrat admitted the dollar devaluation problem and gave reasonable numbers of the impact of speculation on current oil prices.

Kudlow! Kudlow! Kudlow! Truth in the MSM has scored a 3-pointer.

The Republican Party representative was talking compromise, talking about the demands of the people, and talking about the need for drilling as well as addressing concerns with alternative energy.

While I must admit I like the Democratic Party representative who talked favorably of a compromise and the need to allow legitimate hedging of oil while limiting illegitimate hedging of oil, I believe he left out two key points of the speculation debate.

The Iran War may have led to legitimate hedging of oil, if not by the American government itself. Also, illegitimate speculation driven by pure profit may even have sinister motives beyond just pure profit.

Kudlow didn’t go into ways of solving dollar devaluation. However, admitting we even have a problem there is a good first step towards recovery.

I missed the first part of the show. I hope there was debate on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout. I hope that if there is a bailout, it comes with punishment. I believe the CEOs should be fined and fired for their irresponsible behavior that resulted in a tax payer bail out. We must let CEOs know there are consequences for their actions.

Overall, I was quite pleased with the talk from the MSM. There was a new level of sincerity and truth achieved.

--jeepndesert

I think the algorithm is definitely part of it. But the people are going to be an important part too. What Google would be buying, if they do buy, is the ability to process direct, high frequency page ranking signals on a sustainable basis.

Links = Indirect, Slow Signals = Page Rank
Currently, Google ranks search results mostly on the basis of how other web pages link to a given page. Information about this linking behaviour (which is typically agnostic to the indirect effect it has on search results) provides Google with various "signals" that they can then use to sort search results. This is a ear-to-the-ground approach to understanding what's going on in the web. This works pretty well for traditional search results.

Votes = Direct, Fast Signals = Digg algo
Digg works with a very different type of signals. When users vote on an article, they are explicitly trying to move it up to the home page. That is a very direct signal. This is a keys-to-the-castle approach, and it works particularly well for news. After all, you want your spys and messengers to have ready access to interrupt you with important news.

Props to Digg
The problem with explicit signals is that they are easy to game, as diggers keep re-discovering. The other problem with them is that they happen a lot within short bursts of time. So not only do you have to be good at  filtering out malicious votes that are not based on the merit of the article, you also have to be able to do it in record time.

While we may debate on whether or not the current Digg algorithm is gameable, we have to acknowledge that it is the most sophisticated, evolved algorithm that addresses these issues at scale. But the algorithm itself may not survive the brutal onslaught of Google users. That's why the Digg team is important. Their experience in reacting, almost in real time, to deal with suspicious voting patterns and significant new social dynamics is extraordinary. But here's the kicker - when they do react, they are usually not acting as moderators and manually fixing things - they fix the algorithm to account for the new patterns of usage.

This combination of algorithm, the massive Digg community and the people who are intimately familiar with both, are what would make this worthwhile to Google.

It was, um, not a crowd pleaser. The general consensus among my correspondents is that speculators are evil, they are trying to ruin the lives of innocent ordinary folk, and dorks like me should lose our journalism licenses.

Well, the U.S. government task force charged with getting to the bottom of the speculator scandal issued its report yesterday. Bottom line: speculators aren't to blame. The oil price is the result of high demand, stretched supply and a shortage of refinery capacity. Never easily daunted by mere facts, the Senate voted unanimously(!) to press ahead with debates aimed at curbing price speculation in the futures markets.

We do not want to hear that we are the cause of the oil price rise. And politicians do not want to be the ones to press that unpopular reality. So off we go to bizzaro world, where the facts don't matter. Only emotions do.

There has been a lot of buzz over at MLB Trade Rumors that Jarrod Washburn could find his way into Yankee pinstripes soon. The Mariner lefty has enjoyed a healthy 2008 and would fit nicely into the back end of New York's rotation, likely replacing one of Darrell Rasner or Sidney Ponson. While it appears that the price, in prospects that it is, would be within Brian Cashman's budget, I'm not so sure that this is simply a salary dump (no, I have not trademarked the term as of this moment).

Let's take a gander at Washburn's numbers this year, as well as some splits. (All statistics cited in this post were taken directly from baseball-reference.com).

GS: 19
W-L: 4-9
IP: 110
H: 131
BB: 32
K: 65
ERA: 4.75

Using these "19th-century" statistics, we can see that Wash has been respectable but far from spectacular. Seattle's terrible offense aside, he isn't exactly tearing up opponents. Or is he?

March/April: 33.1 IP, 4.86 ERA
May: 20.1 IP, 9.30 ERA
June: 30.2 IP, 2.93 ERA
July: 25.2 IP, 3.16 ERA

His totals are clearly skewed by a horrendous May. Outside of that, he's posting a sub-4.00 ERA. Hey, that rhymes.

Now, I certainly wouldn't expect him to keep up this pace, but a resurging Yankees offense and flyball-friendly ballpark would give him the firm support he needs. Lefties are OPS-ing just .646 against him, and we know well how the cavernous left side of Yankee Stadium's outfield hurts right-handers. He is notable for pitching well at the House That Ruth Built for a while, but that's not enough reason to get him, in my opinion. I simply like the situation and his career. He should be had for a B-level prospect and perhaps cash, and Jarrod has postseason experience. Being left-handed is usually to your benefit as well.

Ignoring statistics for a moment, I'd like to make it known that I largely advocate this move in the favor of the Yankees, and for the Mariners, albeit to a lesser extent. The Yanks get a veteran lefty who has pitched well in their home ballpark for nothing of interest to them, and the M's dump unnecessary salary. As an added bonus, the Yankees would have him under contract for 2009 at the reasonable sum of $10.35MM. Andy Pettitte and Mike Mussina are not automatic re-signs, so I take this as a plus and not a negative as many have claimed across the 'Net.

The bottom line: Brian Cashman, go get 'em.

"I think that's the scariest thing - to think, could we come up with a third movie that was as good as the first two?  Can we top ourselves?  Doing it a third time would be a big proposition.  We've only talked loosely about it, though, Chris and I."

"I have [a theme and villain]. But I’m not going to tell you. Chris is very particular about that."

"I do think, though, that if there’s not a third film – these two movies stand on their own. I think it could go either way."

Well, at least we know they're talking it over.  With the aftermath of events from TDK, we were left with a final note from Commissioner Gordon:

He's the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now.  So We'll hunt him, because he can take it.  Because he's not a hero.  He's a silent guardian...a watchful protector...a Dark Knight.

Based on this, I'd have to speculate the theme for "Batman 3" would lie somewhere along the lines of redemption, or perhaps sustenance.  A film almost always needs to have a love interest and who better to top off the late character of Rachel Dawes than Selina Kyle aka Catwoman?  As for the villain, I think to many of us it still remains a complete Mister E......

Read my blog!

John McCain’s veep search is coming to an end, the Obama campaign bans the wearing of the color green, and Obama’s European speech WILL NOT be political.

[/caption]

This just in! A Beta tester mentions off-hand that Treants have pet bars! Here's the link. Decide for yourself! Hurrah!

Possibilities:

1) He has tried the spell in Beta and know for sure we have pet bars

2) He read somewhere that there are pet bars and makes an off-hand comment in a forum thread.

3) Well, aren't those the only 2 real options?

Sure would be nice if it was true. 

/wave

In response to the airlines' ridiculous email plea vilifying futures market speculators, Kimberly Strassel vents her frustrations at airlines (HT: Coyote). I found it very therapeutic.

Note that the airline industry is so bureaucratized that it avoids the market forces that keep other service industries serving the customer. Because the payoff is cheaper and bigger if they lobby the government to restrict competition and bail them out in tough times, airlines pander to politicians, not customers. Remember this when you want more government intervention in more areas of the economy. The airlines are a perfect example of a "public/private partnership" -- I sure as heck don't want my health care going the way of the skies.

Also see Josh's earlier post on oil speculation.

Okay, so as you might see in Murmur's comment on the Eclipse post (and his comments on the Druid forums) some of the math was flawed. I was also requested to expand the math from the previous calculations, I assume for clarity's sake. Here goes. 

For starters, just to clarify, when we deal with critical strikes from our spells, due to Vengeance, they do double damage. Thus, if you have a 30% critical strike chance with a certain spell, then out of 100 spells 70 will do full damage and 30 will do double damage. If it does an average of 1000 damage per second without critting, this is equal to:

(1000x70) + (2000x30) / 100 = 1300 DPS. Thus, this can be simplified to multiplying your DPS with a given spell by (1 + C) where C is your critical strike chance with that spell as a decimal (i.e. 35.67% crit chance is .3567 as C). 

Let's reiterate the numbers from the previous post regarding max rank Starfire and Wrath as given to us by MMO-Champion. 

Wrath: Causes 489-551 Nature damage to the target. 380 mana. Avg. 520 dmg.

Starfire: Causes 661-779 Arcane damage to the target. 555 mana. Avg. 720 dmg. 

I was also requested to use more realistic numbers (which hurt my Moonkin pride, I'm at 865 and proud of it) for spell damage. 1000 was cited as very low for raid situations and let's do some random speculation for WotLK damage numbers at pop that up to 2000. I know some high-end Moonkins are well above 1500 raid buffed, right? Well, I think so. So let's hope that 2000 isn't too high considering level 80 raid buffed. Disclaimer: We actually have no idea. Level 80 isn't even possible in Beta yet. But I bet it's more than possible. 

I'm going to again assume Moonfury, Moonglow and Earth and Moon, as well as Master Shapeshifter (and additional 4% spell damage) which is likely in a min/max PvE build. By request a talented Curse of the Elements is being added which boosts Arcane damage an additional 13%. This is all intended for raiding mostly, and Wrath will be more on par with Starfire for PvP or soloing. 

Wrath: 67.1% coefficient. Thus (2000 x .671) = 1342 + 520 = 1862. Total 20% damage increase from debuffs. (1862 x .20) + 1862 = 2234.4 damage on average. Mana cost lowered 9% to 346 mana. Spell cast speed = 1.5 seconds talented w/o NG. Thus we arrive at 1489.6 DPS and 6.458 DPM. 

Starfire: 120% coefficient. Thus (2000 x 1.20) = 2400 + 720 = 3120. Total 20% + 13% damage increase from debuffs = 33%. (3120 x .33) +3120 = 4149.6 damage on average. Mana cost lowered 9% to 505 mana. Cast speed = 3.0 seconds talented w/o NG. Thus we arrive at 1383.2 DPS and 8.217 DPM. 

Wrath's DPS factoring in crits, assuming a modest 30% chance for that spell, we multiply by 1.30:

(1489.6 x 1.30) = 1936.5 DPS; (6.458 x 1.30) = 8.395 DPM

If Wrath is buffed from Eclipse and has it's damage increased an additional 10% then simply multiply it's DPS and DPM by 110%, I believe, to get 1638.6 DPS and 7.104 DPM. A big DPS boost and DPM boost, but not approaching. If we factor in for crits (which I believe comes last in calculations) we multiply by the crit chance and get:

(1638.6 x 1.30) = 2130.2 DPS; (7.104 x 1.30) = 9.235 DPM. 

Now, let's look at Starfire's final DPS and DPM with and without the buff. Without, we multiply our numbers by 1.30 at 30% crit:

(1383.2 x 1.30) = 1798.2 DPS; (8.217 x 1.30) = 10.682 DPM. 

With the buff, we multiply instead by 1.40 and get:

(1383.2 x 1.40) = 1936.5 DPS; (8.217 x 1.40) = 11.504 DPM. 

Let me retype the final numbers so we can look at them all together. 

Wrath: without buff--1936.5 DPS; 8.395 DPM

with buff--2130.2 DPS; 9.235 DPM

Starfire: without buff--1798.2 DPS; 10.682 DPM

with buff--1936.5 DPS; 11.504 DPM

So, those are some preliminary numbers. At 2000 spell damage and 30% crit for Wrath and Starfire (26% on your character sheet) we see, well, those numbers. Whether or not you think Eclipse is worth it depends on how much mana you have, but obviously Wrath is better to cast before than after the buff. I won't pretend to know whether this is good enough for raid situations or not. I'll let you be the judge.

Some people have suggested dropping only 1 point in Eclipse because while it's a nice buff, it's not necessary. When it procs, use it. Otherwise you'll be OK. I kind of like that idea, simply because there are too many good talents around that are also very nice. 

I hope that helped.

/wave

Now that most of the commentators on Dalal street have been proved wrong, we all stare at the future, thinking where are we headed next.

Some say the pain “may” be over one day, the other day they say there “might” still be some more downside. How can you have a view which is in may and mights. I have been following the stock market for a few years now. The targets for specific stocks are based on pure hunch of the speaker and seem to have no logic what so ever, and that is always followed by “may/might” theory.

Anyways, analyzing the current situation, what the sectors to look at and why. I will mention only about sector I know about or have studied.

1. Banking/Finance: The credit crisis has shown a spectacular uptrend in the last few months. This trend threatens to continue for a few more months as the credit criteria continue to tighten for all lenders. This trend will see a further increase in losses till we reach the peak before starting the downward journey. The credit cycle typically takes 24 months to stabilize, and we can expect things returning to normal only in the last quarter of 2009. Meanwhile, since lending will reduce, there will be lesser and lesser balance sheet by the day; hence one can expect lowering of profits because of runoffs as well. So a double whammy, lower revenues - because of lower new loans and older loans paying off and higher credit losses.

I would suggest staying away from all companies which are too focused on consumer lending.

1. Real Estate: This sector has reached a level of typical saturation, ala FMCG. The prices will not see much growth, unless they are differentiated products – like a “Healthy Living” township or “Build Tomorrows leaders” township. Smaller players will have to go niche, and larger players will have to go volume. If you are invested in a vanilla small player, please exit the counter. The home prices will remain more or less stable in tier 1 cities, may be 5-10% drop in suburbs. Tier 2 and tier 3 cities will crumble up to 20%, esp since the developers here are typically local builders, who can undercut larger players with their cost efficiencies. A branded national player may just end up being a status symbol in these cities. Also, the rentals in tier 2 and tier 3 are very low, taking the regular investment return out of picture for the investor. The speculative demand will die down for lack of growth prospects.
2. Commodities: Like all rallies, commodities rally is about to get over there will be a sharp correction in the prices of lot of commodities, largely because of speculator interest.

IT : Info tech stocks are a risky bet right now. The US slowdown has not yet gone into a full fledged recession yet. My guess is in the next 3 months we will see some bad news in this sector as bigger giants start looking at their spending.