Vegas & The Aftermath - Diary

[Royal Flush]

There was a great map of the new political order in the USA in today's paper - the States all coloured red or blue, with the voting shown alongside each State.

The voting in each State was much as you'd forecast - the Obama heartlands of, say, California (61%-37%) & New York (62%-37%), with the deep south going predictably the other way to McCain, e.g, Oklahama 66%-34%, & Alabama, 61%-39%. Those apart, it was mostly in the 56%-44% to 52%-48% range, either way.

But........

What is "District of Colombia" (Washington DC, as we know it, the US capital)  all about? It went 93%-7% in Obama's favour. How much?

Curious, I went Wikipidea-ing, & found this clue.

If Washington, D.C. were a state, it would rank last in area (behind Rhode Island), second-to-last in population (ahead of Wyoming), first in population density, 35th in gross state product, and first in percentage of African Americans, which would make Washington, D.C. a minority-majority state.

I'm not sure why that fascinated me so, but it did.

It's also the murder capital of the USA

[Longy]

There was a great map of the new political order in the USA in today's paper - the States all coloured red or blue, with the voting shown alongside each State.

The voting in each State was much as you'd forecast - the Obama heartlands of, say, California (61%-37%) & New York (62%-37%), with the deep south going predictably the other way to McCain, e.g, Oklahama 66%-34%, & Alabama, 61%-39%. Those apart, it was mostly in the 56%-44% to 52%-48% range, either way.

But........

What is "District of Colombia" (Washington DC, as we know it, the US capital)  all about? It went 93%-7% in Obama's favour. How much?

Curious, I went Wikipidea-ing, & found this clue.

If Washington, D.C. were a state, it would rank last in area (behind Rhode Island), second-to-last in population (ahead of Wyoming), first in population density, 35th in gross state product, and first in percentage of African Americans, which would make Washington, D.C. a minority-majority state.

I'm not sure why that fascinated me so, but it did.

Well yes, similar to this country (apart from the colours are the other way round) Democrats do well in Urban multi racial areas similar to Labour and Republican do well in White rural areas like the Conservatives.

Obama won the black vote 95-5 nationwide and this is only surprising the fact that as many as 5% of black people voted for McCain imo. Though Obama picked up the biggest % of white votes for any democrat for 30 years, so it really was a breakthrough election for the US and it will be interesting to see if this election is a blip or that it starts a trend.

[Karabiner]

Talking of how times have changed, everything happens SO much quicker now. I suppose the Internet has changed a lot of things.

The sheer speed of this latest recession/credit crunch/depression has astonished me. Banks taken over in hours, where it would normally take years to get through regulatory obstacles, & Takeovers completed at breakneck speed, Leaman Bros etc.

Demand has fallen off a cliff in just 2 or 3 months, all the financial & manufacturing industry pointers say the same thing.

I was reading today about something called "The Baltic Dry Index", (let's call it BDI) operated by The Baltic Exchange, in London.

The BDI measures & charts bulk Shipping rates, the cost of chartering cargo vessels, & the cost per ton for transporting stuff. As such, it's a sort of crude barometer of world trade - but stuff has to be exported & shipped hither & thither, so it's a decent yardstick.

So, the BDI has dropped from 11,798 in May - 6 months ago - to, wait for it - 826 now!

The rate for transporting Iron Ore from Brazil to China, $100 per ton then, is $10 now.

Finally, a bulk-carrier was chartered at $234,000 a day, just 6 months ago. Last week, it was $5,611 per day. Think on that. (According to today's Independent).

Does that mean that the price of scampi will be going down now then ?

The scampi that start off as Scottish langoustines and get shipped to Thailand via Rotterdam to get peeled and processed before being sent back by the same route to appear on our supermarket shelves a few days later as Youngs scampi.

[Rod Paradise]

On average, the length of any River is able to be calculated simply. Take the distance in a straight line from beginning, inland, to where it meets the sea. Multiply it by pye. (3.147 etc....?). And that gives you the actual river length.

Is that really true, has anyone checked?

No idea Tom, & I have a feeling everyone's eyes glazed over, & they fell asleep at my inane geekyness!

The Simon Singh book was given to me, as a gift, by a very clever man indeed - Paul "Dotcom" Philips, the Yankee Poker player, who's "Extempore" blog (still running) used to be the best poker blog on earth. But now he's a Scrabble geek.

He swore that Simon Singh was correct, but I still need convincing.

Tank & I went to a lecture by Simon Singh last year, on probability. I'd recommend going to a lecture by him if you ever get the chance - he's very entertaining & has a great talent for explaining concepts.

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=30293.msg637816#msg637816

[EvilPie]

Fermat's Last Theorem is alas quite beyond me, although I would like someone to explain, in simple terms, the answer to the riddle of the Cicada and it's amazing 17 year life cycle.

Essentially, it's to do with the cicada avoiding coming out of the ground when there are things that like to eat cicadas around. Because 17 is a prime number it makes it far less likely that something which likes to eat cicadas will be able to synchronise its own cycle to come out at the same time. If the cicada was every 15 years, say, then things which worked on three or five year cycles would be able to match the cicadas and be around to eat them. There are some specis of cicada which work off a 13 year cycle instead, and the same theory applies here, cos 13 is a prime number as well.

But it's only prime first time round. The second cycle is 34 which puts them at risk from the 17th generation of those pesky 2 year predators then the third cycle puts them at the mercy of the 17th generation 3 year bad boys.

I can't see how this has anything to do with it. I think they're just lazy.

Sorry if this is old news I've only just picked up on the thread after a couple of days.

[kinboshi]

Fermat's Last Theorem is alas quite beyond me, although I would like someone to explain, in simple terms, the answer to the riddle of the Cicada and it's amazing 17 year life cycle.

Essentially, it's to do with the cicada avoiding coming out of the ground when there are things that like to eat cicadas around. Because 17 is a prime number it makes it far less likely that something which likes to eat cicadas will be able to synchronise its own cycle to come out at the same time. If the cicada was every 15 years, say, then things which worked on three or five year cycles would be able to match the cicadas and be around to eat them. There are some specis of cicada which work off a 13 year cycle instead, and the same theory applies here, cos 13 is a prime number as well.

But it's only prime first time round. The second cycle is 34 which puts them at risk from the 17th generation of those pesky 2 year predators then the third cycle puts them at the mercy of the 17th generation 3 year bad boys.

I can't see how this has anything to do with it. I think they're just lazy.

Sorry if this is old news I've only just picked up on the thread after a couple of days.

But a predator that depends on the cicada for food is going to be disappointed unless they follow the same cycle.  If the predator is on a two year cycle, what do they eat during the intervening years?

Of course, some predators will eat the cicada when they eventually join the party, but this will be an additional food source to what they depend upon, and so a significant number of cicadas will survive and reproduce and perpetuate the species.

[TightEnd]

blonde Fry Ups

[Colchester Kev]

blonde Fry Ups

But not Ecks.

[tikay]

blonde Fry Ups

But not Ecks.

Unless scrambled.

[tikay]

Thanks for the replies & stuff guys, I will reply this afternoon.

Really, if anyone wants a stonking good read, buy something by Simon Singh. He makes science readable, fascinating, & fun.

Right, I gotta head home now, 2 hours north, to gather up 6 sets of shirts, socks & keks, kiss Angell goodbye, & head across to Birmingham for tomorrow's SPUKT. On Sunday, from there, I head north again, to Blackpool, to play a few Side Events, before returning to work on Wednesday or Thursday. I'm never going to get my lawn cut.

[EvilPie]

Fermat's Last Theorem is alas quite beyond me, although I would like someone to explain, in simple terms, the answer to the riddle of the Cicada and it's amazing 17 year life cycle.

Essentially, it's to do with the cicada avoiding coming out of the ground when there are things that like to eat cicadas around. Because 17 is a prime number it makes it far less likely that something which likes to eat cicadas will be able to synchronise its own cycle to come out at the same time. If the cicada was every 15 years, say, then things which worked on three or five year cycles would be able to match the cicadas and be around to eat them. There are some specis of cicada which work off a 13 year cycle instead, and the same theory applies here, cos 13 is a prime number as well.

But it's only prime first time round. The second cycle is 34 which puts them at risk from the 17th generation of those pesky 2 year predators then the third cycle puts them at the mercy of the 17th generation 3 year bad boys.

I can't see how this has anything to do with it. I think they're just lazy.

Sorry if this is old news I've only just picked up on the thread after a couple of days.

But a predator that depends on the cicada for food is going to be disappointed unless they follow the same cycle.  If the predator is on a two year cycle, what do they eat during the intervening years?

Of course, some predators will eat the cicada when they eventually join the party, but this will be an additional food source to what they depend upon, and so a significant number of cicadas will survive and reproduce and perpetuate the species.

Very true if the predator was solely dependant on the cicada.

So the cicada is probably one of the only creatures that really are pointless.

Most insects while fairly insignificant to most of us do serve a purpose as they are part of the food chain / circle of life.

The cicada however stays asleep for 17 years, pops up to breed and then pisses off back to sleep again.

What a loser!

[AndrewT]

The cicada however stays asleep for 17 years, pops up to breed and then pisses off back to sleep again.

That doesn't sound too bad a life, actually.

[EvilPie]

The cicada however stays asleep for 17 years, pops up to breed and then pisses off back to sleep again.

That doesn't sound too bad a life, actually.

Maybe they could join the boy band?

[kinboshi]

The cicada however stays asleep for 17 years, pops up to breed and then pisses off back to sleep again.

That doesn't sound too bad a life, actually.

Maybe they could join the boy band?

[tikay]

I saw this headline today - funny how the mind sometimes takes things literally.



 Ford announces $129M 3Q loss, burns $7.7B in cash (AP)