37 posts from January 2008

FactCheck

<stolen from FactCheck.org>

With a nationwide wave of nominating contests looming next week, Republican presidential candidates held their last scheduled debate against the backdrop of Ronald Reagan’s retired Air Force One. But we found some of the candidates' facts just won’t fly.

• Romney complained that McCain used "the wrong data" about job creation to support his assertion that Massachusetts had ranked 47th among the 50 states while Romney was governor. Romney was wrong; McCain was correct.

• Romney said his hundreds of millions of dollars in "fee increases" merely caught up with years of inflation and weren’t tax increases in disguise. Independent budget experts contradict him on that.

• Romney said the over-budget costs of his Massachusetts health care plan were due to changes made by his successor. Authorities on the plan say that’s mostly untrue; costs went up because more people than expected signed up for state-subsidized insurance.

• Romney wrongly claimed McCain’s anti-global-warming bill would boost gasoline prices by up to 50 cents per gallon. Actually, the official estimate is 40 cents for most vehicles, and not until the year 2025.

• McCain and Romney traded oversimplified assertions regarding a "timetable" for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. 
  

• Huckabee cited a Heritage Foundation study to back up his assertion that rebates to taxpayers aren’t as good a way to stimulate the economy as the highway construction he favors. In fact, the study does disparage rebates but urges tax cuts instead, not increased spending.

• Ron Paul repeated his claim that defending the U.S. "empire" is costing "a trillion dollars a year." But the dubious figure includes costs such as the entire Veterans Affairs budget. Paul also claimed "nobody" is talking about cutting spending, even as his rivals did so 14 times during the same debate.

Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed at FactCheck.org.

Geek

<stolen from Yahoo!>

By JESSICA MINTZ, AP Technology Writer

Web retailer Amazon.com Inc. said Thursday it will buy online audio book seller Audible Inc. for $300 million in a bid to expand its reach in digital audio content.

ADVERTISEMENT

Amazon said it agreed to buy Newark, N.J.-based Audible for $11.50 per share, a 23 percent premium over Wednesday's closing price.

Audible's catalog includes about 80,000 audio books, radio programs, spoken word selections and other digital content for download.

Amazon and Audible have been partners since 2000, when the companies, with Microsoft Corp., launched an e-book and audio-book store on Amazon.com. Company executives would not comment Thursday on whether the partnership, which adds links to Audible on some Amazon book pages, has been financially successful. The executives did not detail any future plans, and said Audible's brand and Web sites will continue to operate.

In the last year, Amazon has bulked up its own digital content offerings, which include the Unbox movie download service, an MP3 music store and Kindle, the retailer's e-book reader and accompanying store, which stocks 90,000 books, newspapers and other content and can play Audible files.

Increasing the amount of digital content Amazon sells will help the company improve margins — the weak spot in Wednesday's earnings report that spooked Wall Street into an after-hours sell-off of the company's shares.

Amazon's shares posted a nearly 5 percent gain in the wake of the acquisition news, even though analysts said the Audible deal itself isn't likely to make much of a dent in the margin woes in the near term.

"I don't think it makes a big difference any time soon, just based on Audible's size," Global Crown Capital analyst Martin Pyykkonen said in an interview. "This business of digital audio books has grown, certainly, but it hasn't taken off."

Audible hasn't seen a profitable quarter for more than a year, despite its role as exclusive provider of audio book and other spoken-word content to Apple Inc.'s iTunes store, which accounted for nearly a third of its revenue in the third quarter of 2007. The buyout won't affect Audible's agreement with Apple, which is set to expire in late 2010, according to Audible Chief Executive Donald Katz.

Scott Kessler, an equity analyst with Standard & Poor's, said Audible may have been attractive to Amazon since it has upgraded its technology infrastructure, and focused more on long-term members instead of shoppers who make only occasional purchases.

For its part, Amazon has offered little insight into how its digital content businesses are faring. In its quarterly report Wednesday, executives did not update investors on its Unbox or MP3 stores, and said only that they were having a hard time making enough of the $399 Kindles to meet demand — the device is currently out of stock on Amazon.com.

The company said late Wednesday that its fourth-quarter profit more than doubled and forecast strong sales growth for the coming year, but a flat operating margin outlook dismayed analysts. Operating margin is an indicator of how much a company makes on each dollar of revenue.

"I have no issue that they're not doing the right thing," Pyykkonen said. "But in my view, at the end of the day, this is still a bloody competitive retail business."

Amazon said the deal, expected to close by the second quarter, includes Audible's cash and short-term investments and outstanding stock-based awards.

Shares of Amazon gained $3.49, or 4.7 percent, to $77.70, while Audible's stock jumped $2.09, or 22.4 percent, to $11.42.

Dallas Cowboys

Q: What do you call 53 people sitting around a TV watching the Super Bowl?

A: The Dallas Cowboys.

Q: How do you keep a Dallas Cowboy out of your yard?

A: Put up goal posts

Q: Why doesn't San Antonio have a professional football team?

A: Because then Dallas would want one.

Q: What's the difference between a Dallas Cowboy & a dollar bill?

A: You can still get four quarters out of a dollar bill.

Q: What do the Dallas Cowboys and possums have in common?

A: Both play dead at home and get killed on the road!

Q: What do the Dallas Cowboys and Billy Graham have in common?

A: They both can make 70,000 people stand up and yell 'Jesus Christ'

Apple

<stolen from Wired>

Apple's MacBook Air starts shipping today, which means that it's only a matter of days until we see a grinning, smug-like man stroking the Air and showing it off in the middle of the subway commute. Then, Mr. Dumas will put the notebook away in an office envelope, after which everyone in the train will slowly roll their eyes.

The MacBook Air's main features are its 13.3-inch LED-backlit widescreen display, a trackpad with iPhone-style multi-touch gesture capabilities, and of course, record thinness. Potential negatives include its non-user replaceable battery, the missing optical drive, and its excessive price. 

In other news, the Apple TV's new software update, which will allow users to rent movies straight from their TV (without using the PC) has been delayed for an extra couple of weeks. Maybe Apple will use the extra two weeks to extend its rental playing limits to a more appropriate length of time.

NFL

This is a great read from the Footballguys blog:

The Giants are heading to the Super Bowl, earning a rematch against the undefeated Patriots. No matter where your personal allegiances lie, you have to give the Giants credit for a hard earned berth. They won three straight road games against three division champs. They beat the 1st and 2nd seeds, avenging three of their in-season losses in the process. Along the way, the Giants have won an NFL record 10 straight road games.

No one, even the most ardent Giants fan, would argue the Patriots are a heavy favorite. Vegas puts the game a -11 and, if history is any indication, the line tends to grow in the favorite’s direction as the game approaches.

Now that the matchup is set, the discussion has turned to just how big of an upset would it be if the Giants beat the Patriots in two weeks?

Before we attempt to answer that question, we need to recognize that it’s subjective. Not everyone agrees about the best team in history, the best QB in history or the best RB in history…so we can’t expect everyone to agree about the greatest Super Bowl upset in league history, either. That said, here are my thoughts on the matter:

The Point Spread Approach

Personally, I don’t think point spreads are the best arbiter of this kind of discussion; but a lot of people do put faith in the betting line. To that end, the Giants are currently 11-point underdogs. If the spread holds at 11 points, it wouldn’t come close to matching the New York Jets in Super Bowl III. Joe Namath’s team were 17-point underdogs to the Baltimore Colts. More recently, the New England Patriots were 14-point underdogs against the St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI and won outright. In fact, the Giants would be tied for 4th place in SB history, according to point spread:

• Super Bowl III: New York Jets (+18) over Baltimore Colts
• Super Bowl XXXVI: New England Patriots (+14) over St. Louis Rams
• Super Bowl IV: Kansas City Chiefs (+12) over Minnesota Vikings
• Super Bowl XXXII: Denver Broncos (+11) over Green Bay Packers
• Super Bowl XLII???: New York Giants (+11) over New England Patriots
  

The Margin of Victory Approach

Margin of victory is an valuable tool in comparing teams. In a league where the average margin of victory is slightly more than a field goal, margin of victory helps illustrate the best teams; teams that can win handily; whether that be by virtue of an explosive offense or a stifling defense. As you might imagine, teams with a high margin of victory traditionally beat opponents with lower margins of victory; that’s basic math.

Key Talking Points:

• The 2007 New England Patriots set an NFL record for margin of victory (19.7 PPG)
• The 2007 New York Giants margin of victory (1.4 PPG) is the 3rd lowest in Super Bowl history
• 2/3rds of Super Bowl winners have had a better regular season margin of victory than their opponent
• 1/3rd (14 of 41) Super Bowl winners have had a smaller margin of victory than their opponent

Here is a list of the Super Bowl champions that had smaller margins of victory than their opponents:

As you can see, the Jets victory of the Colts stands atop this list, while (surprise, surprise), the Patriots victory over the Rams is a close second.

Now consider the implied differential if New York beat New England:

• New England Margin of Victory = 19.7 PPG
• New York Margin of Victory = 1.4 PPG
• Implied Differential = (18.3)
  

This would be the most surprising SB victory, BY MORE THAN A FACTOR OF 2X THE PREVIOUS RECORD.

The Winning Percentage Approach

A lot has been made about how we need to “throw the records out” once the playoffs begin. Yet, history shows us that’s really not logical. When push comes to shove, the team with the better regular season record USUALLY wins the Super Bowl; it’s that simple.

Key Talking Points:

• The New England Patriots, the first 16-0 team in history, obviously had a 1.000 winning percentage
• The New York Giants (10-6), had a 0.625 winning percentage
• 10 of 41 (24.3%) Super Bowl champs had a worse winning percentage than their opponent

Here is a list of Super Bowl champs that had worse winning percentages than their opponents:

Interestingly, the Packers’ victory over the Raiders in Super Bowl II tops this list [they ranked 3rd based on margin of victory differential], and those were followed by New England over the Rams [2nd in our margin analysis] and Namath’s Jets over the Colts [1st place in the margin analysis].

Now, consider what a Giants victory would imply:

• New England Patriots (16-0) = 1.000% winning percentage
• New York Giants (10-6) = 62.5% winning percentage
• Implied Differential = (-37.5%)
  

Thinking of this another way, no SB champ in HISTORY has beaten an opponent with more than 3.5 more wins in the regular season, yet were the Giants to win they would have done so finishing SIX GAMES BEHIND the Patriots in the standings.

CONCLUSION

It’s difficult if not impossible to compare eras. In this case, the earliest Super Bowls pitted two entirely different leagues against one another, and football historians would say, as a result, their regular season accomplishments weren’t apples to apples. Therefore, some will always contend that Joe Namath’s New York Jets victory of the Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III was the greatest upset in professional football history. The most contemporary upset would be the Patriots victory over the Rams [which ironically started the Patriots dynastic run we’re now dissecting]. By any objective measure, a Giants victory against the Patriots this year would be right up there with those two upsets. To my mind, based on the differential in their respective finishes this season, it WOULD be THE biggest upset in Super Bowl history. But even if you disagree, it’s hard to argue it wouldn’t be AMONG the biggest upsets.

FactCheck

<stolen from FactCheck.org>

In last night's debate, held days before Tuesday's Republican primary in the Sunshine State, the remaining GOP candidates came up with a few new factual distortions and repeated several old ones. Among them:

• McCain said he had won the Republican vote in both the South Carolina and New Hampshire primaries, where independent voters also participate. One exit poll showed him narrowly prevailing with Republicans in New Hampshire, while another didn’t. And the same poll that favored him in that state had him losing the GOP vote to Huckabee in South Carolina.
  
  
• McCain all but denied that he had said he didn’t know much about economics. In fact, he did say that he needed "to be educated" on the subject.
  
  
• McCain also said he voted twice to make Bush's tax cuts permanent – but doesn't mention that he initially opposed them.
  
  
• Romney falsely portrayed Hillary Clinton's proposed health care plan as an all-government program. It's not.
  
  
• Huckabee once again claimed the FairTax would benefit everyone. That's not possible.

Read the rest at FactCheck.org.

I think the MacBook Air is beeeyoutiful.  However, as the review points out, it's not meant for power users which I pompously feel I am.  As well, it's a bit on the pricey side given it's performance.  I do look forward to Air v2.

It fits in a manila folder, you can slide it under a door, and if you threw it hard enough you could probably chop someone in half with the thing. It's the thinnest, and if we may say so, sexiest laptop around today: the MacBook Air. But looks aren't everything to everyone, and despite all the rhetoric about being a no-compromises ultraportable, Apple did leave plenty on the cutting-room floor in its quest to make an absurdly thin ultraportable that doesn't skimp on a full size keyboard or roomier 13-inch display. But, as many potential buyers have been asking themselves since last week, is the Air right to be your next machine? Read on, we'll tell you what we think.

Read the rest at Engadget.

Phoenix

Got back yesterday from a short stint in Phoenix.  It was apparently on opposite time as rather than the normal burgers, steak and pizza we did authentic Indian, authentic Mexican, Vietnamese, Ecuardorian and Thai.

First off was an Indian dive in a strip mall.  I won't mention the name as I wasn't impressed and I heard later it's about to be shutdown by the health department.  Joy.

Wednesday night we hit Via Delossantos.  It's a dive in what I'm told is a bit of the seedier part of town.  A quote "You know the place where they always find the stolen cars....this is it".  The first thing you notice on the menu, they have close to 200 tequilas and mescals listed in the menu.  While I was a bit unimpressed with my tacos, the mescal greatly made up for it.  So much in fact I've added it to my wishlist!  ;-)

Lunch on Thursday was served up at a Vietnamese dive.  I didn't note it's name as it was "just" ok.  Don't get me wrong, I know the place servers up some good food, but eh.

Thursday night was my favorite without a doubt.  Yet another dive, Mi Cocina Mi Pais was a fantastic surprise.  We started off by ordering some tamales as an appetizer.  They were a bit different than what I was used to as the masa was somewhat cake like in texture.  Don't get me wrong, they were great.  But holy crap, my entree was awesomely spicey.  When I ordered the carne asada I was asked if I wanted regulary or Ecuadorian, which is spicey.  Of course I chose Ecuadorian.  It was sooo damn hot it made the steamed white rice seem spicey!  I am not kidding.  It was fantastic.

When it came time for lunch on Friday I have to admit I was ready for a burger.  It's sad I know.  Luckily a buddy talked me into trying some Thai food.  Yet again we hit another hole in the wall, Chanpen Thai Cuisine.  If you know me you know that 1) I don't do soup and 2) I don't do veggies.  Well, I tried both and they were great.  Try the red currry, good stuff!

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Chino Bandito.  I hit this place on a previous trip and it's another great dive.  It's food is fantastic, a blend of Chinese and Mexican.  The combination is a trip, but they knock it out of the park.

Lessons learned:
  - Mescal is mas bueno
  - Ecuadorian food kicks arse
  - Mescal is mas bueno
  - Don't be so damn apprehensive in trying new foods

FactCheck

<stolen from FactCheck.org>

A radio ad sponsored by Hillary Clinton reprises her misleading claim that Barack Obama likes Republican ideas. Obama has responded with an ad that makes a half-true accusation that Clinton "championed" NAFTA. We find that both claims are misleading and that the candidates are, in fact, making mountains of molehills.

Specifically, we found that:

• Clinton's ad falsely implies that Obama supported "special tax breaks for Wall Street" and running up the deficit, and that he opposed minimum wage increases while refusing to deal with the housing crisis. In fact, Obama voted to increase the minimum wage and actually supported some cost-cutting measures that Clinton opposed.
  
  
• Obama’s claim that Clinton flip-flopped on NAFTA is half-true. She did change her position, but she did so long before she began running for president.
  
  
• In fact, the two candidates vote with Democrats more than 90 percent of the time and voted with each other 94 percent of the time. Interest groups give them nearly identical ratings for being liberal.