Don't try to find the CIS football results online. Only the much-maligned Globe and Mail has the results online. Go figure; a national paper has somebody on a national story. My local paper, which covers the Western Mustangs and CIS football, has nothing. To be fair, St. Mary's University still seems unaware that the Huskies won the Uteck Bowl in a stunning upset over the Laval Rouge et Or. Good work all you young kids who are so up-to-date on your interweb knowledge.
So, as of now, Manitoba is up by 20 points on Western in the first half. For a real time stream, go to your Sportsnet channel, or listen to CHRW Radio.
Wait, Manitoba just scored. It is 31-5. Consider this game over. As I predicted. Live blogging don't you know.
Update:
Manitoba 52, Western 20.
From honshui, we find these predictions:
"Manitoba is a great choke team so don't give up hope just yet. My prediction for the Vanier Cup: Laval 121 UWO 3."
Honshui was comically wrong on that pick, is 13 points behind me in our NFL pool, and 6 points off in our CFL pool. Put a fork in the boy, he is done. Luckily, nobody cares about football. How about that Time Crash episode? Celery!
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
Neal Adams - CrackPot of the Day
One of my favourite comic book artists is Neal Adams. He has written and penciled for both Marvel and DC, and has done some seminal work with Batman and Green Arrow. And he is a raging crackpot. In fact, he may be my favourite crackpot. Mr. Adams takes his theory of the origin of the earth and the nature of the universe so far out of reality, and discounts so much science, that he becomes impossible to debate. In this discussion with the New England Skeptical Society, Adams avoids direct answers, and tut-tuts every refutation thrown his way, and says, in his defense:
“I’m not a real scientist, I’m an artist and I don’t look at it the way… I look at it, I study all the sciences, I study every aspect of science but I don’t study it technically. I don’t do the math or all the rest of it. So I just kind of skim the surface of it.”
Sweet! With that kind of justification I am ready to knock down all the sacred cows of science and economics. Math and reality be damned! And now physicists can become comic-book artists without having any technical skill either. Sauce for the goose Mr. Adams.
Having "skimmed" the skin off the fatty soup of science, Neal has come up with these stunning observations:
• There was no deep ocean 200 million years ago
• Positronium after electron-positron annihilation become a prime matter particle
• Matter can not be created or destroyed
• Positrons and Electrons are the basic particles of the universe
• The water fell into the cracks created from an expanding Earth
• The Scientific community is not able, ready to willing to consider new ideas (from unreputable sources)
• There is no experimental evidence (yet) to support Expanding Earth but the theory is based on modern science
• Modern science is wrong
• Bones could not hold up many more masses than that of an elephant
• There is no calculation of a weight vs. bone support threshold
• An artist who has studied anatomy can deduce that a Tyrannosaurus Rex is a predator and can run up to 60Mph
• An elephant weighs what a T-Rex use to weigh when there was less gravity
• Newton's third law of motion is applied directly to gravity and electromagnatism ( as in positive vs negative )
• ‘Gravity is not gravity’ (doesn’t exist perhaps?)
• The moon is hollow
• Planets are held in orbits around the sun by electromagnetic lines
• Electromagnetic fields grow outward and balance the Universe
• Quintessence would be a good explanation for disproving Big Bang theory
• The sun is growing in size and magnitude (not because of the process of fusion but instead because of growing mass?)
• The big bang didn’t happen
• When a star explodes (supernova) it turns into chunks of hydrogen that are blown out at near light speeds
• The universe does not have a central point and there is no way to explain the collection of ‘stuff’
• Expanding Earth Theory is the theory of everything
You have to love somebody with the balls to discount all astrophysics holds to be true and comes up with his own theory of everything. And then, blames "the man" for keeping him down and for keeping his incredibly revolutionary ideas out of the hands of the masses. Somebody who then provides a really cool animated version of said theory. On the internet. For everyone to see. And a video too! Poor Neal. Nobody will listen to him.
In the end, I do profess a grudging respect for Neal Adams. It is not just his arrogance and temerity (a quality he shares with other famous crackpots), it is the ridiculous number of non-facts he can hold in his head. He has this incredible storehouse of non-knowledge, all formed into, what is to him, a perfect theory. And unless you are a polymath, his arguments become all but impossible to refute. The listener sinks under the sheer weight of information put forth by Adams. Almost all of it is wrong, but as seen in his e-mail debate with Dr. Steven Novella, as soon as he gets close to being pinned down on any one point, he moves the goalposts, brings up another obscure non-fact that supposedly supports his position, and then claims victory. It is a fascinating skill as he does it so very well. Perhaps this ability to live in a fantasy world is what has made him such a famous purveyor of it.
Neal Adams. A great artist and a wacky conspiracy theorist. He is our crackpot of the day.
“I’m not a real scientist, I’m an artist and I don’t look at it the way… I look at it, I study all the sciences, I study every aspect of science but I don’t study it technically. I don’t do the math or all the rest of it. So I just kind of skim the surface of it.”
Sweet! With that kind of justification I am ready to knock down all the sacred cows of science and economics. Math and reality be damned! And now physicists can become comic-book artists without having any technical skill either. Sauce for the goose Mr. Adams.
Having "skimmed" the skin off the fatty soup of science, Neal has come up with these stunning observations:
• There was no deep ocean 200 million years ago
• Positronium after electron-positron annihilation become a prime matter particle
• Matter can not be created or destroyed
• Positrons and Electrons are the basic particles of the universe
• The water fell into the cracks created from an expanding Earth
• The Scientific community is not able, ready to willing to consider new ideas (from unreputable sources)
• There is no experimental evidence (yet) to support Expanding Earth but the theory is based on modern science
• Modern science is wrong
• Bones could not hold up many more masses than that of an elephant
• There is no calculation of a weight vs. bone support threshold
• An artist who has studied anatomy can deduce that a Tyrannosaurus Rex is a predator and can run up to 60Mph
• An elephant weighs what a T-Rex use to weigh when there was less gravity
• Newton's third law of motion is applied directly to gravity and electromagnatism ( as in positive vs negative )
• ‘Gravity is not gravity’ (doesn’t exist perhaps?)
• The moon is hollow
• Planets are held in orbits around the sun by electromagnetic lines
• Electromagnetic fields grow outward and balance the Universe
• Quintessence would be a good explanation for disproving Big Bang theory
• The sun is growing in size and magnitude (not because of the process of fusion but instead because of growing mass?)
• The big bang didn’t happen
• When a star explodes (supernova) it turns into chunks of hydrogen that are blown out at near light speeds
• The universe does not have a central point and there is no way to explain the collection of ‘stuff’
• Expanding Earth Theory is the theory of everything
You have to love somebody with the balls to discount all astrophysics holds to be true and comes up with his own theory of everything. And then, blames "the man" for keeping him down and for keeping his incredibly revolutionary ideas out of the hands of the masses. Somebody who then provides a really cool animated version of said theory. On the internet. For everyone to see. And a video too! Poor Neal. Nobody will listen to him.
In the end, I do profess a grudging respect for Neal Adams. It is not just his arrogance and temerity (a quality he shares with other famous crackpots), it is the ridiculous number of non-facts he can hold in his head. He has this incredible storehouse of non-knowledge, all formed into, what is to him, a perfect theory. And unless you are a polymath, his arguments become all but impossible to refute. The listener sinks under the sheer weight of information put forth by Adams. Almost all of it is wrong, but as seen in his e-mail debate with Dr. Steven Novella, as soon as he gets close to being pinned down on any one point, he moves the goalposts, brings up another obscure non-fact that supposedly supports his position, and then claims victory. It is a fascinating skill as he does it so very well. Perhaps this ability to live in a fantasy world is what has made him such a famous purveyor of it.
Neal Adams. A great artist and a wacky conspiracy theorist. He is our crackpot of the day.
Canada's Finders Keepers Law
Yes, I am the guy who opens up the dictionary to random pages, looking for new words, or more precise definitions. So is it any surprise that I found this little gem whilst looking through Canada's Criminal Code? No. Not really.
Defence of Property
Defence with claim of right
39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
Defence without claim of right
(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 39.
In other words, always call it when enacting finders keepers. Always.
Defence of Property
Defence with claim of right
39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
Defence without claim of right
(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 39.
In other words, always call it when enacting finders keepers. Always.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Sauce For The Goose
Monday again. Another day of self-loathing stretches before me. But wait! There is a antidote for my blues! Organ music! Happy organ music! Happy reggae organ music!
And if, for some unknown reason, that doesn't float your boat, I got you some German Ukelele music too!
I love Mondays!
And if, for some unknown reason, that doesn't float your boat, I got you some German Ukelele music too!
I love Mondays!
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Why Does This Woman Have A Job?
Over at the The Galloping Beaver blog, Dave has a post about the convicted-stalker-turned-psycho-pundit, Rachel Marsden. Newly fired from the Toronto Sun, her latest screed, courtesy of the Canada Free Press, includes this delightful passage:
"Really, has society lost its collective mind to the point where we’ve forgotten how to properly wage a war?"
No, we haven't. We just want to avoid waging it like Kurt Meyer.
"Really, has society lost its collective mind to the point where we’ve forgotten how to properly wage a war?"
No, we haven't. We just want to avoid waging it like Kurt Meyer.
Big Stadiums, Football, and Fans
I wish they would stop playing university football in giant stadiums. Saturday's Hardy Cup, between the Manitoba Bisons and the the Regina Rams was played in the aforementioned Canad Inns Stadium in Winnipeg. It seats about 30,000 people. Which is great, unless you get 1750 fans showing up to watch the game. Then it just looks bad. This is the same problem I have with the Vanier Cup being played in the goddamn Dome. Still, I am a bit curious at the bad turnout as there were 8500 people at the Yates Cup. And that many people packed into the Guelph stadium looked great on tv, provided tons of atmosphere, and made the event seem really special. Maybe Manitobans don't like football. They should have played in Saskatoon. But never fear, you will get to see an empty Rogers Dome on Vanier Cup weekend. The game should be great, but the tiny crowd in the big building will probably come across like a high-school game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)