A (not so) secret vice

I'll admit it. I love stupid TV. I almost said "trash TV," but that seems to imply Jerry Springer and the like, which I still detest. No, I'm talking about bad, hour-long dramas. I blame the Sci-Fi channel for my affliction.

In case you didn't know, SciFi shows a mini-marathon of some sci-fi type of show Monday-Friday. Today it's something called Jake 2.0. It's a pretty lame show about a guy who ... Well let me just quote from the SciFi website:

A freak accident in an NSA lab floods Jake's body with nanobots; microscopic machines that imbue him with superhuman abilities. In effect, he is transformed into the world's first computer-enhanced human being.

He becomes stronger and faster than normal people. His sight and hearing are made more acute and able to perceive a wide range of spectrums and frequencies. He gains the ability to remote-control many kinds of technology with his thoughts.

Any of that sound familiar? Well it should if you ever watched the Six Million Dollar Man, Spider Man, Hulk, or that short-lived show Chuck. It combines elements of all those. Basically the guy is a computer tech for the NSA, but then after he gets "infected" with the nanobots he becomes a field agent with super powers.

The saddest part: I spent 4 hours watching Jake 2.0 episodes a couple of weeks ago. Further, Jake 2.0 is not the only one. Roswell, Kingdom Hospital, Tru Calling, Firefly, Level 9 -- they've all sucked me in at times. I don't know what happens, but I flip over to channel 33 and before I know it 2 or 3 hours have passed.

They say admitting your problem is the first step and now I've done that. On the other hand, "they" also say you have to want to quit and I'm not quite sure I'm ready to "sober up" in this case. I mean, who's it hurting? Nope, I think I'm going to continue to enjoy mindless sci-fi TV programs, but now I won't have to claim I'm spending the day watching British dramas or nature documentaries or lectures by eminent economists. No, I'll proudly stand up for stupid TV.

P.S. Speaking of lectures, ... I did spend two hours this past Sunday listening to a guy who claims to have "completed" Newton's theory of gravity. I understood about half of it -- enough to follow the lecture, but not enough to tell is he's a visionary or if he's full of crap. That experience, though, deserves a (later) post of its own.

Great baseball/stats article

I know (most of) y'all don't share my fascination with the grand sport of baseball or the field of statistics, but I have to mention this terrific article on sabermetrics (basically the statistical analysis of sports, most frequently baseball) over at Slate.

It gives general kudos to the stat-heads who analyze baseball in general, but the focus seems to be pointing out the mystery that is Derek Jeter's reputation as a good (maybe even great) defensive shortstop. This is something we stats guys have never been able to fathom. Jeter is better than most (historically) shortstops with the bat, but his defense is awful! And this is not a recent phenomenon. He's never been a great defensive shortstop -- despite winning 3 Gold Glove awards. Everyone remembers his spectacular plays and his spinning, leaping throws, but as sabermetrician Michael Humphries put it, "Basically, he's OK at easy plays and terrible on all others."

There's a lot of good stuff in the article (including a dig at the infamously stat-unfriendly Joe Morgan), but I seem to have lost my train of thought. It's a short article and it points to a lot of the things sabermetrics does well. If you're interested, click through and check it out.

Yet another thing ...

I don't worry about. Product placement in TV shows.

In case you haven't followed the news, the FCC is worried that product placement -- embedding a company's product into a program's story line rather than running a traditional paid ad -- is corrupting television viewers. PSHAW!

I'll admit that I'm sometimes influenced by advertising. I went to Sonic and had a banana split blast last night entirely because of their commercial. It was pretty tasty, though Sonic still can't match Dairy Queen when it comes to the blended ice cream treat.

That's what advertising is about -- making potential buyers aware of your product and hopefully convincing them to pony up the jack. Would it somehow be worse if I'd gone to Sonic not because of their ad, but rather because Dr. House had ordered one of his minions to fetch him a blast on his show? I don't think so.

Networks and advertisers pretty much have no other option. Tivo (and other DVRs) mean fewer and fewer people are watching commercials. A show may have a high rating, but if no one is watching the commercials, then I really don't see how it's going to charge premium prices for advertising. Product placement, on the other hand, seems to be an obvious solution. Plus, the practice could make TV more enjoyable -- if it resulted in fewer explicit commercial breaks.

Yeah I know it could go too far and I wouldn't enjoy watching my favorite TV character constantly point out the advantages of his Casio G-Force watch (for example). I'm thinking, though, that no one would enjoy watching that and shows would have to handle the process tastefully. I'll admit that it felt a little wrong when Heroes blatantly inserted the Nissan Rogue into some of their episodes, but it didn't destroy my moral center. Nor did it cause me to go out and purchase a new crossover SUV.

I honestly think I'm grown up enough to know when a product is being pushed on me. Despite that knowledge, I'm sure there'll be times when it'll influence my purchasing patterns, but so what? That happens with traditional ads, so why do I care what form the ad takes?

But hey, that's just me. Now I think I'll go and enjoy my yummy Snickers bar before class. [Don't you want to go buy a Snickers bar?]

Eerie tale

Yesterday and today's Washington Post carried a spooky story of a guy who killed two hikers on the Appalachian Trail back in 1981 and then tried to kill two more there just two months ago. Given my fondness for hiking/camping alone, it did cause me a bit of concern, but what was truly eerie to me was how well I know the area described. That's right in the heart of my (mostly) annual minor league baseball trip! Seriously, I've spent nights in and explored most every little town mentioned.

Anyway, it's kind of long, but it's a good read -- sort of an "In Cold Blood" story. If you're interested, here's part1 and part2. Oh, after reading the story you really should check out the interactive timeline. I'm no computer graphics expert, but it's cool.

There's no future(s) in onions

Literally.

While I think speculator's may be pushing up an oil bubble a bit, I also think the level of invective directed at futures markets is, to say the least, excessive. In case you haven't been paying attention, multiple sources are calling for a dramatic increase in regulation of or even an outright ban on futures markets in oil. Even overlooking the difficulties of a single nation doing that, I found the article on the lack of a futures market in onions interesting:

The bulbous root is the only commodity for which futures trading is banned. Back in 1958, onion growers convinced themselves that futures traders (and not the new farms sprouting up in Wisconsin) were responsible for falling onion prices, so they lobbied an up-and-coming Michigan Congressman named Gerald Ford to push through a law banning all futures trading in onions. The law still stands.

And yet even with no traders to blame, the volatility in onion prices makes the swings in oil and corn look tame, reinforcing academics' belief that futures trading diminishes extreme price swings. Since 2006, oil prices have risen 100%, and corn is up 300%. But onion prices soared 400% between October 2006 and April 2007, when weather reduced crops, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, only to crash 96% by March 2008 on overproduction and then rebound 300% by this past April.

Did you note those price swings? Up 400% over 6 months, then a 96% drop over about a year, followed by a threefold increase the next month. Yeah I know onions ain't oil, but remember that futures markets exist for a reason. Though speculators seem to be playing a larger role today, I'm not convinced getting rid of futures would stabilize oil prices.

Or maybe that's just my contrarian nature.

Oh, by the way, I picked up a new book to review yesterday. It's supposedly all the rage in Europe, but it's not being released here until September. Any of you international readers know anything about it? I'm not much of a "modern thriller" reader, but so far I like it. There seems to be an actual story, with character development, rather than just a bunch of technical detail with chase scenes and the obligatory unlikely romance. I agree with some UK readers, though, that the translation seems a bit awkward at times. I mean c'mon, who (other than crossword nuts) uses the word "anon" these days? I'll let you know more when I finish it. So far, though, the story strikes me as a goth/punk girl version of Philip Marlowe.

Movie note

I joined the stampede and went to see WALL-E yesterday. Everything I'd read had been positive, but I wasn't going to be surprised if I was disappointed. Truth is, I'm just not that big of an animated movie fan. I really liked Toy Story, but I think that's just because it was so new. Last year's big hit, Ratatouille, just struck me as "blah." It was okay and I'd probably have loved it as a kid, but I just didn't see what made so many adults all excited about it.

WALL-E, though, was different. Some people are talking about the good "message" in the film, but that didn't impress me. Maybe I'm just dense, but I didn't get the sense Pixar was clubbing me over the head about pollution. I just thought that was the plot device they used to set up the story. No, what I liked was that it was a good movie. Yes the animation was stunning, but I thought it was a hilarious story. Plus, the lack of (human) dialog was kind of cool. On top of that, it was funny. I do agree with some who say this will not be a huge hit as a "kid movie." Oh, it'll do fine at the box office because the sheep will flock, but I honestly think a lot of kids will be bored with the lack of talking. As a non-kid, though, I thought it was very good and if you've got some free time over the holiday weekend, I heartily recommend it.

Okay that's it. Everyone have a happy holiday and be careful out there.

I'm back

I don't know how regularly I will be writing, but for today -- I'm back. If you've missed me, sorry about that. If you haven't, well then a pox on you. I don't exactly know why I've stopped writing of late. I've been enjoying some down time this summer and I really haven't felt the urge to "share" anything. Today, though, I'm in the mood so what should I share?

Hmm ...

Has anyone else noticed that The Atlantic is a good magazine again? I knew they'd taken steps to beef up their web presence, but I was so impressed with the latest issue I ended up buying it from the newstand -- at a price of $5.95! I'm a big fan of magazines in general and I usually spend a good bit of time reading them at the library (I'm going to make a great old man), but this issue was so rich I knew I'd need my own copy to get through all the articles I was interested in.

First, there's a big story on rising crime rates in many American cities and a depressing (and politically taboo) correlation with a hugely popular anti-poverty measure. While reading the article I was impressed with the analysis -- a mixture of hard data and moving anecdotes -- but when I finished I was left with a great big letdown. In retrospect the conclusions don't seem to be that revolutionary. Still, I thought it was a well done piece.

The main reason I was interested in the issue, though, was an article questioning whether "googling" is making up stupid. I assumed (incorrectly) that it was going to be a screed about how the average American no longer knows the answer to questions such as, "What countries did the Allies fight in WWI?" Chiefly Germany and Austria-Hungary, with a dose of the Ottoman Empire thrown in for good measure. But does it mean we're "stupider" for not having that info available for instant recall. I'd say no. On the other hand, I do think Americans should know who won the Civil War and I'd even like them to know the (practical) end of the conflict was Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox Courthouse. The problem, in my opinion, is where to draw the line between useless trivia and essential civic knowledge? Similarly, I don't think being able to spell obscure words correctly earns someone the title of "smart." Of course I could be biased by my long history of choking in spelling bees, but I just don't find that a necessary or particularly useful skill.

Anyway, it turns out that was not the focus of the article. Interestingly, I found that my original issue (about how new technology meant no one "knew" facts any longer) was posed long ago by one Socrates:

Socrates bemoaned the development of writing. He feared that, as people came to rely on the written word as a substitute for the knowledge they used to carry inside their heads, they would, in the words of one of the dialogue’s characters, “cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful.”

Weird, huh?

No, the point of the article was that the instant information access of the Web may be changing the way we think and read. The author admits he may be a chicken little on the issue, but he does raise some serious questions. My favorite part was when he discussed the societal change ushered in by the advent of the mechanical clock. "In deciding when to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise, we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock." If you think about it, that one little change surely led to massive changes in the very way society organized itself.

Good or bad, the article made me think. [Kind of proving the point of the article itself.] I found the magazine to be full of articles that affected me similarly. I won't say the writing is better than The New Yorker (my overall favorite magazine), but I've never been able to keep up with The New Yorker's insane weekly publication schedule. Hence, I'm thinking I may give a subscription to The Atlantic another try.

Okay, this magazine review has gotten too long already and I didn't even get to the articles on Murdoch's takeover of the WSJ or how American traffic regulations may make our roads less safe or ... Trust me, it's a good issue.

On a lighter note, Pujols is back in the lineup and the Cardinals keep winning more games than they should. The only problem is that the hated Cubs are winning even more! Sigh.