Last Sunday, the New York Giants played the Chicago Bears in football. The point spread on the game favored the Giants by 1.5 points, meaning that if the Giants won by only one point, those who bet on them would lose.
Having watched the game myself, I was not at all surprised to receive the following e-mail from a fan who prefers to remain anonymous:
Yesterday was the usual Sunday fare, sitting on my couch watching football games that I had bet on while I worked on research. The day had gone in a most familiar way — lost hundred of dollars on the Chiefs +6 against the Chargers, but looked like I was about to win it back with the Raiders +3.5 against the Broncos.
My last game of the day was the Bears +1.5 against the New York Giants. The Bears grabbed an early lead, and things were going pretty well, with a 16-7 advantage midway through the fourth quarter. My 1.5 points looked good, since the worst case scenario looked like a 17-16 Giants win. In which case, I would still win my bet. Read more …
Among many ingenious ideas/scenarios/scams proposed by blog readers in response to my horse betting quiz, the answer I was looking for finally appeared. Jim Vanasek is the reader who nailed it. Here is what he wrote:
The scenario: You are alive in going in to the final leg of the pick six. There is going to be a payout of $100,000 to the winning tickets. There is a very strong favorite in the race with 97 percent of the money bet on him. Your horse has 2 percent of the money bet on him. The last horse has 1 percent of the money bet on him. You KNOW Horse A cannot win. These numbers are consistent in the pick six pool as well as the win pool.
Assume there are 100 live tickets. 97 on the favorite, 2 on Horse B (we have one of the tickets), and 1 on Horse A. Read more …
Don Imusis back on the radio, brimming with apology and announcing a new cast that includes two African-American comedians. He was run off the air a few months ago for calling the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy headed ho’s.”
I understand why he was canned. I understand why he is back. I understand that our culture loves the whole hero-sins/is-sent-into exile/then-is-redeemed cycle. It seems to perfectly embody the Christian ideals on which much of our culture operates.
What I don’t understand is why Imus got fired for his sins, albeit temporarily, while Family Guy rolls merrily along. I am not saying that Family Guy should be canned, or that Imus shouldn’t have been, but it’s a pretty curious situation.
I haven’t seen Family Guy all that much, but whenever I do I am pretty surprised that it’s allowed on the airwaves right there during prime time on broadcast TV (not cable). It’s a cartoon comedy that packs more gags per minute about race, sex, incest, bestiality, etc. than any other show I can think of. (It may have been beaten by South Park and a dozen others for all I know, but I can’t think of anything that comes close on broadcast TV.) Read more …
It’s tough to imagine a world without cars. They serve as a base for our social and economic structure in a way that wasn’t thought possible a century ago. But the rapid growth of an automobile-based culture has produced economic and environmental consequences that, if left unchecked, could cripple society. As such, we’re facing a major dilemma: we can’t tell people not to drive, but we can’t survive if they keep doing so. What’s the solution?
Vijay Vaitheeswaran, a correspondent for the Economist, has set out to answer that question. His new book, Zoom: The Global Race to Fuel the Car of the Future, co-authored with Iain Carson, offers an in-depth history of the auto industry’s reliance on fossil fuels, and outlines the steps that should be taken to forestall a global crisis. Vaitheeswaran agreed to answer our questions about his book.
Q: What are the global trends in automotive ownership? How are they affecting the need for alternative fuels?
A: We are rapidly heading towards a world of a billion cars. The first mover was America, where there are now more cars than people with driver’s licenses Read more …
Do the book blurbs that one author gives to another author affect your decision to read the book?
The publishing industry certainly believes that blurbs matter a great deal. There is a lot of effort put into sending a manuscript out to authors for blurbs — more effort, I sometimes think, than the editing that goes into books. So do those endorsements matter?
Long ago, I used to think they mattered a lot. Then I changed my mind, thinking that blurbs don’t signal much about the quality of the book, but at least they signal something about the quality of the author’s friends or acquaintances who were willing to blurb the book.
Lately, I’ve come to believe that they really don’t matter at all, since most readers see blurbs as having about the same level of integrity as a used-car salesman’s personal promise that the car you’re about to buy is A-OK. But that might be an insult to used-car salesmen. Read more …
December 4, 2007, 9:34 am
December 4, 2007, 9:28 am
December 3, 2007, 11:10 am
November 30, 2007, 1:34 pm
