Paul Murray's weblog, with news you may have missed and my $0.02 worth on a number of topics.

"You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it."
- Art Buchwald

I bet you don't have a friend who's an acupuncturist

E-mail me: pmurray [at] despammed.com

Wow. How's this for an amazing photograph?

Pretty impressive, especially when you read about how narrow the window of opportunity was.

(Via Metafilter and many other sites.)

Labels: photography, space

posted by Paul Murray at 1:20 AM | permanent link |

The perfect crime? In August 1911, the Mona Lisa was stolen from the Louvre. It was recovered in December 1913 when Vincenzo Perugia tried to sell it in Italy. At his trial in June 1914, Perugia claimed that, acting alone, he stole the painting to return it to Italy (although he had admitted trying to sell it to someone in London). He was convicted and was imprisoned for seven months. Case closed.

Or not.

Mind-boggling as it is that someone could simply hide in the museum overnight, then walk out the next morning with one of the world's most famous paintings, there may be more to the story, as you can read in this book excerpt in Vanity Fair.

Apparently it's not a new story, but I'd never heard it before.

(via kottke)

Labels: crime, history, Mona Lisa

posted by Paul Murray at 11:42 PM | permanent link |

Interesting presentations. We had a meeting at work today that was intended as a look at recently developed technologies and interesting things other people are doing.

This video was played as sort of a thought-provoking piece (which I believe was its original purpose for a conference).



The other thing I liked was this explanation of the credit crisis.

Labels: learning

posted by Paul Murray at 11:06 PM | permanent link |

Random facts. This is a collection of unrelated facts that I've stumbled across in my recent reading:

"More than 90% of federal defendants plead guilty; the vast majority who go to trial are convicted; four of five convicted defendants serve jail time." (LA Times)

"The F-15, the backbone of America’s air power for more than a quarter century, may just be the most successful weapon in history. It is certainly the most successful fighter jet. In combat, its kill ratio over more than 30 years is 107 to zero. Zero. In three decades of flying, no F-15 has ever been shot down by an enemy plane—and that includes F-15s flown by air forces other than America’s." (The Atlantic)

"The general expectation in sports is that performance improves over time. Future athletes will surely be faster, throw farther, jump higher. But free-throw shooting represents a stubbornly peculiar athletic endeavor. As a group, players have not gotten better. Nor have they become worse.

'It’s unbelievable,' Larry Wright, an adjunct professor of statistics at Columbia, said as he studied the year-by-year averages. 'There’s almost no difference. Fifty years. This is mind-boggling.'

There are measures in other sports that have shown similar consistency, like golf scores or batting averages, but none of them are as straightforward as lobbing a ball toward a basket." (New York Times)

Labels: random facts

posted by Paul Murray at 12:24 PM | permanent link |

The Oscar necrology, unspoiled. I hated a lot of things about this year's Oscar show, but none more than what they did the necrology, AKA "the dead people montage."

If you missed it -- well, let me put it another way. Even if you were watching the show, you missed it, because they spend that time doing swoopy camera work inside the Kodak Auditorium. Perhaps someone thought it looked artsy, or (and I heard this and suspect it's true) they had a director who's used to doing sporting events. The latter is a perfect explanation, really, because it made the video content meaningless. It might as well have been a "let's make noise" sign at a basketball game, for all we at home can tell.

Some people, usually younger ones, don't "get" the dead people montage. To me, it's the one montage I look forward to seeing every year at the Oscars and Emmys. As opposed to the other montages, with the following typical themes:

• Aren't movies/TV important?
  
• Look at all the popular things we made/showed this year (but aren't honoring, at least this year)!
  
• We made a lot of love stories this year!

This is turning into a digression on the use of montages during award shows, which I didn't intend to write. So let me try and wrap this thread up by saying that I thoroughly appreciate montages that have a good reason to exist, which does not include an industry patting itself on the back.

Back to the Oscar necrology. It was a montage that we weren't allowed to watch due to somebody's horrendous idea to use swoopy camera work.

Evidently a lot of people felt the way I did, and somebody at the academy listened, because lo and behold, the necrology itself (i.e., not what those of us at home were forced to watch) has turned up on YouTube, and which you can now watch.

By the way, see if you can identify people who are missing from this reel (not Heath Ledger, he died early enough to be included in last year's necrology). Some answers are below.



Some people who were not included in this necrology, but arguably should have been:

• Patrick McGoohan
  
• George Carlin
  
• Eartha Kitt
  
• Neal Hefti
  
• Harvey Korman
  
• Earle Hagen
  
• Mel Ferrer
  
• Alexander Courage
  
• John Phillip Law
  
• Irving Brecher
  
• George Furth
  
• Beverly Garland
  
• Guy McElwaine
  
• Bernie Brillstein, and, I would say most shockingly ...
  
• Don LaFontaine

Remember Don, the movie trailer guy? "In a world where ..." Remember this?



Who better represented the movies for several generations than Don LaFontaine? They couldn't give him 5-10 seconds?

Clean necrology and the more thorough list via Mark Evanier.

Labels: Academy Awards, award shows, montages, Oscars, tv

posted by Paul Murray at 9:54 PM | permanent link |

A passing (?) of note. Q: What's the oldest software Microsoft still produces and sells?

A: Flight Simulator -- although that may be changing, as PC Magazine reports.

Microsoft confirmed Friday that the software giant has shuttered ACES Studios, the developer of the Flight Simulator series of games, whose latest incarnation is Flight Simulator X. The simulation is considered Microsoft's oldest product, whose original version first shipped in 1982.

However, a Microsoft spokeswoman said that while the studio has been closed, the software company remains committed to the Flight Simulator franchise, without explaining how future products can be launched without a dedicated software development team backing them.

James Fallows bemoans the (apparent) loss. More information than you may want at the MS Flight Simulator Wikipedia entry.

I fondly recall wasting time with Flight Simulator is my early computing days (although SimCity and Harpoon were my real addictions). I haven't touched it in years.

Via rc3.org

Labels: computer games, Flight Simulator, memories, Microsoft

posted by Paul Murray at 4:44 PM | permanent link |

Inauguration Day.
A few days ago, they sent out an e-mail at work that the inauguration would be playing in the boardroom for anyone who would like to watch it. I thought about going down to watch it. Then I decided I would simply listen online. Then I changed my mind again and decided I wanted to watch it, being a historic occasion and all. After wasting several minutes trying to find a good online stream, I headed down to the boardroom, which is located on the first floor of our building, on one side of the main lobby.

I'd heard that the swearing-in was scheduled for 11:57 am, so I headed down at 11:55 ... to find people overflowing into the lobby. So I watched it while standing just outside the doorway of our boardroom, and stayed for the speech.

Immediately afterward, I headed upstairs to a conference room for a 12:30 meeting ... where I discovered they had it on a projection screen. This room even had a couch (I'm still getting used to being in "the other building" since our December move).

Labels: inauguration, Obama, politics, president

posted by Paul Murray at 11:37 PM | permanent link |

From their lips to -- well, some people's ears. Last Wednesday I was saying good riddance to 2008, due in part to the atrocious economy, and hoping (but doubting) that things will get better in 2009. Now I read that some people think that might happen sooner than you might expect (albeit with a big "if"):

In the midst of the deepest recession in the experience of most Americans, many professional forecasters are optimistically heading into the new year declaring that the worst may soon be over.

For this rosy picture to play out, they are counting on the Obama administration and Congress to come through with a substantial stimulus package, at least $675 billion over two years.

They say that will get the economy moving again in the face of persistently weak spending by consumers and businesses, not to mention banks that are reluctant to extend credit.

If the dominoes fall the right way, the economy should bottom out and start growing again in small steps by July, according to the December survey of 50 professional forecasters by Blue Chip Economic Indicators. Investors seemed to be in a similarly optimistic mood on Friday, bidding up stocks by about 3 percent.

But in the absence of that government stimulus, the grim economic headlines of 2008 will probably continue for some time, these forecasters acknowledge.

Before you get too excited, the article goes on to point out how these same forecasters didn't foresee how bad things were going to get. And there's a strain of "neo-Hooverites" in the Republican Party who argue that government should be slashing spending to balance budgets, instead of spending more to help the economy recover. (This is the exact opposite of what most economists would recommend.) So don't spend that emergency fund yet.

Labels: economy

posted by Paul Murray at 1:21 AM | permanent link |

Good-bye 2008. And good riddance. Not that I'm expecting much better from 2009. But it's been a tough year. While there were a few high points, the grim economy and auto-related turmoil -- and most of all, losing mom -- have made it a year I'm glad to see in the rearview mirror.

Labels: year-end

posted by Paul Murray at 3:08 PM | permanent link |

The scare story about CFLs. For reasons even I don't entirely understand, I seem to write a lot (1, 2, 3) about compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). I think it's the many benefits that can result from such a simple act as changing light bulbs. It's one thing to try and persuade people that they should somehow sacrifice to reduce energy consumption -- good luck telling Americans that -- but CFLs end up saving users money, too. Everybody wins, pretty much.

Probably the biggest qualification behind that "pretty much" is the issue of CFL disposal. CFLs contain mercury. Throw one into a landfill and it's not a big deal, but when everyone starts using them and throwing them away, it becomes a serious problem.

Some people argue that the mercury is such a serious problem that rushing to CFLs is a big mistake. Earlier this week, Slate's Brendan I. Koerner looked at the CFL mercury issue and punched a hole in that argument with an interesting point:

The irony of CFLs is that they actually reduce overall mercury emissions in the long run. Despite recent improvements in the industry's technology, the burning of coal to produce electricity emits roughly 0.023 milligrams of mercury per kilowatt-hour. Over a year, then, using a 26-watt CFL in the average American home (where half of the electricity comes from coal) will result in the emission of 0.66 milligrams of mercury. For 100-watt incandescent bulbs, which produce the identical amount of light, the figure is 2.52 milligrams.

The math is less compelling in areas where significant amounts of power come from sources other than coal (hydroelectric, nuclear, etc.). And yes, we need to make it much easier to recycle CFLs. But avoiding their use due to mercury concerns doesn't make sense.

Labels: CFLs, environment, Light bulbs

posted by Paul Murray at 8:14 PM | permanent link |

Why Las Vegas is worried about this year's Super Bowl. Las Vegas casinos are nervous as The Big Game approaches, according to the Wall Street Journal:

But too much of that [heightened] interest, at least as far as Vegas is concerned, is in the underdog Giants. Sports books prefer an even amount of betting on both teams to mitigate risk, because they make an additional amount (called vigorish) on losing bets. Even a 60/40 split would be reasonable, said Jay Kornegay, executive director of the Race and Sports SuperBook at the Las Vegas Hilton. Too much money on one side, though, exposes them to significant losses if the public's team wins.

As of yesterday, 75% of the wagered money at the Hilton was on the Giants. "There's definitely concern," Mr. Kornegay said. "If you find any Patriots fans, make sure to send them our way."

The reason for the lack of belief in the 18-0 Patriots is the point spread, or the minimum margin New England must win by in order for its backers to collect. Initially, the Patriots were favored by 14 points last week -- and should have been favored by even more, some experts say. Sean Van Patten, an oddsmaker at Las Vegas Sports Consultants, says he would've made the line 15. "I still think in the back of my mind that the bad Eli Manning might show up," he says of the Giants' up-and-down quarterback.

But bettors found the 14-point spread overly generous, considering the Giants' current 10-game winning streak on the road and the Patriots' recent close calls, which include a three-point victory over the Giants Dec. 29. As money has flowed in on the Giants, the sports books have lowered the spread to 12 or 12½ to encourage betting on New England and to even up the action. They are hoping that the line eventually will rise back to 13 or beyond, because history has shown that casual bettors -- who typically bet in the final few days before the game -- overwhelmingly favor the favorite.

Despite its current predicament, Vegas doesn't expect a repeat of Super Bowl XIII in 1979, a disastrous event that casinos still refer to as Black Sunday. In the lead-up to that game, the Pittsburgh Steelers were initially favored over the Dallas Cowboys by as few as two points. Bettors flocked to the Steelers, causing the spread to rise as high as five. Then sentiment switched to Dallas, driving the spread back down. Pittsburgh wound up winning, 35-31, in a worst-case scenario for the sports books, because bettors on both sides, those who had the Steelers minus fewer than four or Dallas plus more than four, got paid.

"I'm glad I wasn't working here then," the Hilton's Mr. Kornegay said.

Labels: football, gambling, sports

posted by Paul Murray at 12:06 AM | permanent link |

Ice. I know a few people who chew ice, but I didn't appreciate how popular it is down south until I read this Wall Street Journal story.

Ice isn't just for chilling drinks anymore, or for packing fish and treating sprains. It's a hot snack. Some Sonic Drive-In franchises sell it in cups and in bags to go. Ice-machine makers are competing to make the best chewable ice, with names like Chewblet, Nugget Ice and Pearl Ice. One manufacturer calls the ice-loving South the "Chew Belt."

Generally, more ice is sold during the summer, but people who compulsively chew ice do so whether it's hot or cold outside. One Sonic in Texas sold 13 10-pound bags, at $1.49 apiece, in one week this month.

Sales of machines that make easier-to-chew ice jumped about 23%, to 16,673 units in 2006 from 2003, according to data from the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute. Some ice chewers, including country-music star Vince Gill, have had the machines installed in their homes.

But what really piqued my interest was a single paragraph mentioned halfway into the story:

Today, obsessive ice chewing has been linked to iron deficiency, which afflicts about 2% of U.S. adult males and as many as 16% of young females between the ages of 16 and 19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Treating the deficiency -- whose link to ice eating is unclear -- tends to end the compulsive chewing for such people.

Labels: health

posted by Paul Murray at 12:04 AM | permanent link |

A belated R.I.P. Apparently Kelloggs, which owns Nabisco, which in turn owns Sunshine, killed off Hydrox cookies in 2003 -- without bothering to announce it. Some people still can;t over it.

But Ms. Burton, who maintains the Hydrox Web site, is unconvinced. She says she grew up in a "Hydrox family." Her grandparents ran a grocery store when her father was a child. "He had access to all sorts of cookies," she says.

In college, when friends ridiculed her for preferring the cheaper knock-off Hydrox to the real thing, she did some research. Among her findings: Hydrox was created in 1908 by what would later become Sunshine Biscuits Inc. That was four years before the National Biscuit Co. (later called Nabisco) came up with the similar Oreo. Oreo was the knock-off.

The Hydrox name came from combining the words hydrogen and oxygen, which Sunshine executives thought evoked purity. Others thought it sounded more like a laundry detergent. Still, the biscuit gained a loyal following. In an informal taste test held in Manhattan in 1988 by Advertising Age, 29 tasters voted for Hydrox, 16 for Oreo.

More damaging to Hydrox over the years was Nabisco's far larger marketing budget, Hydrox fans believe. Sunshine also stumbled in 1991, when it tried to revamp its mascot, a glob of vanilla crème that morphed into a smiley figure named Drox. Pillsbury sued Sunshine, arguing successfully in court that Drox resembled the Pillsbury doughboy. Sunshine was forced to shelve the little fellow.

When Keebler acquired Sunshine in 1996, Sunshine was a distant third behind Keebler and Nabisco. Keebler then replaced the original Hydrox with a reformulated, sweeter cookie aimed more at children, called Droxies. When they failed to make a dent in the Oreo, Kellogg, which had acquired Keebler in 2001, quietly stopped making Hydrox two years later.

I grew up eating Hydrox cookies. My mother always bought them instead of Oreos. When I finally tried Oreos, I didn't like them as much. So I guess I sympathize with these people.

Labels: cookies, food

posted by Paul Murray at 7:33 AM | permanent link |

The gray lady lets her hair down. The New York Times displayed a flash of informality Sunday. Their obituary for Suzanne Pleshette ended by talking (naturally) about the legendary ending of Newhart ... and referenced the headline of this short 1999 story from The Onion.

Labels: humor, newspapers

posted by Paul Murray at 11:56 PM | permanent link |

A tale of two papers. The two major newspapers in Detroit, the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press, both redesigned their websites in 2007. To me, there was no question that the News site was much more attractive, definitely easier to read and arguably easier to use.

Nielsen Online has just released its newspaper website traffic measurements for December, and they are (unique audience and year-over-year change)...

27. The Detroit News -- 1,256,000 -- 21.4%
29. Detroit Free Press -- 1,168,000 -- (-22.9%)

Maybe I'm not the only one who feels that way about the websites.

For comparison, here's the circulation of their physical printed papers, as of 3/31/07, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulation (via BurrellesLuce):

20. Detroit Free Press: 329,989 Daily / 640,356 Sunday
47. The Detroit News: 202,029 Daily / 0 Sunday

Both newspapers are a mere shadow of their former selves, in more ways than one. While newspaper readership is declining in general, both Detroit papers hemorrhaged readers during a long strike that began in 1995. Gannett took over the News after a 1985 merger, and the quality went downhill. Having ruined the News, Gannett unloaded it to MediaNews Group in 2005 when they bought the Free Press from Knight-Ridder. So we have the distinction of having Gannett spoil both of our once-great newspapers.

Wikipedia: Detroit News, Detroit Free Press

Labels: news, newspapers, websites

posted by Paul Murray at 12:28 PM | permanent link |