gradgrind

What about an accident caused by Blizzard? Like, hundreds of people dying due to lack of sleeping for days? Or someone thinking that they actually are an Orc Shaman and going nuts on all the "Alliance" they encounter?

It could totally be Phelps. The amount of the over-the-top press he has gotten about being the greatest Olympic athlete ever suggests it is a possibility. He routinely pushes Georgia off the front page; he even pushes the crappy, floundering Yankees off the ESPN page. Hell, I would wager if the Olympics were in the fall, he would even push Notre Dame off of the Notre Dame Broadcasting Network, otherwise known as NBC.

I am not saying he should be. But it is a possibility.

You'll never convince the Blaintologists.

Shame on whomever went to see Baby Mama. Shame.

That is true, I suppose. Though I hope the women have better taste. But it is also true that there is a lot of NBA on this weekend, and though this is a broad generalization, men do watch more sports, leaving women more likely I suppose to go see a movie on their own, or with their female friends, and the are indeed more likely (shudder) to see Baby Mama than Harold and Kumar. Sigh.

"A man can dream, though . . . a man can dream." Professor Hubert Farnsworth

I think Baby Mama would have a better chance if it weren't called Baby Mama. I mean, Baby Mama? Really? Someone really thought that was a good title? That it didn't conjure up visions of some crappy cable sit-com? I mean, even "The Surrogate" would have been better.

Okay, so people bring up good points as far as how to settle this. Of, Cognos, I set it at 60% because I actually think that there is a staggering amount of racism (and sexism, for that matter) in this country, and actually expect it to play a huge role in the election. I believe that the American people will not elect an African-American when they have a old white guy to vote for. Full disclosure: I am a democrat, way on the left side of the party. I hope I am wrong, but I set the odds where I thought they should be.

This question could be saved, however, in exactly the way that Jenni and the puppies suggested, and this could be easily determined and will no doubt be pointed out by the MSM. If there is a swing in the ethnic/racial polling numbers before and after the election, then that would be a way to determine at least the effect of race. I agree it would not necessarily show racism (though I think such a swing would be suggestive of it). But switching it that way at least preserves the spirit of the question, which I still think should be asked and be out there in the public sphere.

I set it at 5% because I think people are idiots, and if this site becomes successful, I figure there is a small, but measurable chance, that this would come to pass. Can you even set odds at lower than 5%? Unless you are saying the odds should have been better that it would happen?

So I was just going to make my point, but there are a couple things I wanted to respond to. I don't think the question was suggesting that there should be a "joke-of-the-day" type prompts. What it was suggesting, and a number of people have picked up on this, is that there should be space somehow for interesting questions being asked. And I would agree with destry that questions should be able to be settled. But that should be the only determining factor. Theonecalledmichael makes the central point, that there are many interesting, fun, sad, depressing, humerous, etc. stories out there that don't get asked, get voided, or don't receive much interest. I took jbolli to be asking: how can Hubdub be made to be more fun? I am sorry if this offends a true prognosticator, but I don't see how this negatively effects competition. First, if the odds on the question are done truly (like will Jesus, or Heath Ledger, rise from the grave), and set at 95 percent no, you can't really make any money. Second, if the questions aren't attracting much play, then big bets give you less ROI, since they cause bigger swings in the odds. So, assuming the Hubdub police (which is all players by extension. In fact Hubdub depends on us "narc"ing on each other.

2 more things, then I'll stop this particular rant. The thing that amuses me most about this site is NOT the money. It is seeing where the odds end up, whether the bets end up conforming to what I think. To that end, I like questions where the odds are set at an extreme (in relation to what will probably happen), because I am interested in how informed, or lucky, the Hubdub community is. If a question is set at the "true" odds, there is less action, and less discussion, because people are less likely to bet.

Finally, to Destry's last point, I thought part of the point of Hubdub was interaction, otherwise what is the point of the comment sections? And, in defense of jbolli's question, he is looking to engage the Hubdub community on this issue, so isn't this exactly where it should be?

Anyway, I think this is an important discussion for the site, and I am glad people are chiming in.

Peace

rofl

Yes, yes, and most definitely yes. Money is not a stake here. People are anonymous, so hopefully reputations aren't at stake here. So what is the point, at the end of the day? Hopefully (though some people seem already to give a lie to this) the point should be to have fun. So it is good to have questions on the major news stories, sports stories, entertainment, etc. But since the points don't really matter, this only remains amusing for a limited amount of time. What is really interesting about this site are the clever, smart, silly, or stupid questions, and the discussions that result from said questions. Put another way, it is the interactions with other site members that make Hubdub fun (or annoying, or anger-making, etc.) Without these interactions, in my opinion, there is little to draw me back.

So, if silly, fun, off-the-wall, or irreverent questions are going to be voided from the sections as currently constituted, then I would argue there must be such a section. J.S. Mill argued, in On Liberty, that dissent and freedom of speech must be protected at all costs, if for no other reason than to help strengthen mainstream arguments (it is of course more complex, but good enough for government work.) A site like Hubdub, that by its very nature generates discussions about current events, should not be afraid to make space for the creative, wacky, and even inflammatory.

Not that I'm not betting, mind you.

Wow, that is so wrong.

Well, I suppose in the immortal words of Buck Murdock, "Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes."

I am tired of the democrats and republicans. I want to be able to vote for the Federalist party. Adams/Hamilton '08!!!

So here's a question: how much real money do you suppose has been bet on this question around the world (not counting money given to candidates by lobbyists and special interest groups)? Though I suppose, in fairness, that is what all that money is as well -- just gambling. Perhaps K Street and the various special interests groups need an intervention, and to be enrolled in Gambler's Anonymous.

But the popular vote win by Hillary does not necessarily determine delegates. In fact, he could still win the delegate vote despite losing the popular vote.

Good point: I apologize for my lazy reading. You are right, it appears to need clarification.

Derrick, check out comment number 7. It will be delegate counts. I am -i and I approve this message.

You know, what is really sad here is that as I was typing the above I was briefly more concerned about my hubdub bet and the hubdub dollars than with what I want to happen politically. Talk about your opiate-esque false consciousness. Man, religion's got nothing on hubdub.

p.s. The imaginary numbers are pretty gleeful over that odd/even dispute. They figure they will be the beneficiary of any dragged-out contest. Vote "i" in 2008 -- Reality is no object!" Supported by the √-2.

What jbolli said. In fact, as I understand it, it is quite likely that that will happen. And, as per hubdub rules, unless otherwise specified, all contests are to be decided delegate vote.

Sigh, I guess when someone has already swallowed that 24 Kool-aid there, rationality becomes of no avail in the discussion. Though, I feel I must warn those observers out there that the upcoming vote is not only happening in the 3rd month (with whom 24 has had a close association in the past), but in the first! week of that month. All those odds will no doubt have an impact on the outcome. Remember, the truth is out there.

But think about this. Factor out 24, and you'll see what he is hiding. Look more closely, you see 12 x 2, which looks okay, but then factor 12, and you get 4 x 3. 3!!!! What could be more uneven that 3 I ask you? If you don't probe into a candidates childhood, you'll never find the truth of things. Because everything they do as small children and teenagers clearly and obviously represents everything they are now, despite anything they have done or said since.

A pitcher of Grey Goose? (insert Homer salivating here).

On another note, I have always been suspicious of 24's claims to "Pro-Even"-ness. It was not so very long ago that he was associating with 21 and 23. And I have heard rumors on the internet (which, as we all know, is the font of all truth), that he has been seen next to 25. Remember, don't believe everything you think.

Excellent clean-up. Much thanks.

"In the same way, if it looks like a 7-year old typed in your comments for you, it is easy to assume that a 7-year old may have thought them up as well. Poor command of the English language and its textual representation distracts from the message. " I am laughing my a** off.

"'You gotta help me out man -- make me work for it. At least pitch a few; t-ball is only so amusing.' - he could help you swing the bat?" He could at least pitch.

And, finally, Grey Goose is my friend.

You gotta help me out man -- make me work for it. At least pitch a few; t-ball is only so amusing.

Yes, you spelled condescending correct"ly". And, since I am trying to be helpful, your spell check is "Broken" and I assume you meant "Help Me Ou[t]".

And, for the record, as I said earlier, I am a historian by trade.

"Peoples" should have an apostrophe: people's.

Jbolli isn't down, it's okay, he's just pissed.

Shadofax, hilarious man (or woman). And may I add, in the spirit of Douglas Adams, learning to talk has been widely regarded as a bad idea.

What was the original question here, by the way?

All I have to say here is: I am the one spending too much time here? I am? Really? And you and your 141 comments only pop by every now and again? Alrighty then.

Okay, so first of all sbc, you should really be giving props to jbolli who made that comment first. Second, if you look at the questions I have created, and the comments I have made, you will see that is not the case. And third, fine, me and bluejello are the same -- because we want a modicum of civility, look for rationality in discourse, like proper spelling (have you ever heard of spell-check by the way? I mean nucleur, really?) because we value language? And here I need to apologize to bluejello in case I am putting words into his mouth.

But here's my fundamental point -- people should make informed decisions for themselves. This means, sadly, you need to read and listen to what candidates say. You need to listen to various analysts. You need to, of course, and most importantly, have your own opinion about what you believe in, and in this case, what kind of country you want. (I, personally, did not vote for Obama. And, in the interest of disclosure, was an Edwards supporter.) You need to be wary of youtube clips, and quotes taken out of context. You need to be aware that politicians rarely speak their mind.

And, speaking as a historian, you really need to be really careful of trusting wikipedia.

Now, as for this election, I have serious problems with both Democratic candidates. I feel that Hillary is unelectable, and, honestly, I don't like Obama's idea of working across the aisle. I worry about his lack of experience, though as I think jbolli said way back, the president is very much a figure-head and rallying point. This is not to say that s/he won't wield power, but Washington is so convoluted, and we don't actually have a king. All that being said, I will vote for the Democrat, because McCain, though he used to be an independent, has so contorted himself that he has become a party-liner. I can no longer tell him from George W. Bush. And, finally, you know what? If Obama were actually a muslim, I would not give a rat's a**.

mrbluejello is one of the few rational people here.

So I thought I was out, but I keep getting pulled back in. But all I have to say at the moment is, wouldn't it be sad if you were so insecure about your own comments and argument that you had to create alter egos just to pat your own back? I'm just asking.

So first, Bill, are you sure you want to make a public statement like that? Won't that make you easier to find?

Second, wow, so much idiocy to respond to here, I don't know here to start. But like any debate where the boundaries of civility have started to disintegrate, we should always have recourse to basic civility, otherwise what is the point of the interchange of ideas? If you just want to shout the loudest and pretend that you have then won an argument, go on Bill O'Reilly. For if there is one thing I have learned from World of Warcraft, internet boards, and the like, is that anything written in all caps, or in effed up writing is usually the refuge of the weak, or ill-thought out argument.

Third, and I'll stop here for now, on the issue of grammar, legibility, and the like. . . . commenting on grammar and spelling is neither silly nor rude. Without language, we cannot communicate. If we can't communicate, then this is all pointless. And much like Ford Prefect was able to convince the Heart of Gold to let him out by proving he could still count, without functional (not even sophisticated) language, we will lose the ability to think in complex ways. Read your 1984.

Thanks for the vine, I am out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs

And this is before McCain became a George W. Bush clone.

What if he turns out to be a good replicator?

Markov, you got me thinking. Wouldn't Congress me more fun to watch if they actually were clowns? To be a good clown takes talent, athleticism. Plus pie fights would be a big plus.

Steph, you are my hero. You consistently have the best sense of humor on this entire site.

This is not to say that those on the left can't be intolerant, but you really think on the old scales of intolerance that the left are the winners? Really? 'cause if you do, I have this bridge in Brooklyn that I need to unload quickly, since I am moving. I'll give you a good price.

In hindsight, this question should have been voided wayback, or it should have been a no-brainer, because Sampson had a clause in his contract making it impossible to "fire" him, technically speaking. But whatever. Only hubdub money anyway.

Hell, I don't remember if I have money on this (I suppose I could check but I am too damn lazy.) And it si hubdub dollars, and in beta to boot, so who really cares? But, Jbolli is right here. Strictly speaking, obviously the university didn't fire him (then they'd have to pay on the contract, or litigate, etc.). But in the world of "university speak", Sampson just got fired. He took the buyout to save himself (mostly) and the university (as an afterthought) a little embarrassment. But he was bought-out so the University could try to protect itself from more sanctions and so it could save itself being in the news. Coaches do not get bought-out when things are going well. Now, if the question had been written, will Sampson lose his job because of the investigation, would you still be arguing this? If so, then you either are so concerned about your bet that you are looking for a way to get money, or you really choose to misunderstand the world of big-time college athletics. I bring up the hypothetical because that is what the question is really asking. Did he technically get "fired"? Obviously not, because the university did not terminate him, thus requiring them to keep paying him, etc. Did he get "fired" for all practical purposes? You betcha. In fact, you could say the settlement details of the question left this open. Will he get the "ax" for all this? He just did.

The better question would have been: At any point before the US 2008 Presidential election, will any politician express an original thought? I would set those odds at Yes: 5%, No 95%.

Well, sadly the question got voided (personally, I think Hubdub should have had more faith in itself and its longevity and ability to settle the question when it comes due). But no matter. Fun was had by those who bet and commented, so my work here is done.

Speaking as a huge UCLA fan, no it shouldn't have. UCLA was a HUGE favorite in their home game, and they got beat by 9. On their home court. So now UCLA is going to the Galen Center. Historically (in recent memory), UCLA has had trouble with 'SC. So I think 20-30 percent is exactly right. And anyone who thinks it should be 70% clearly doesn't follow UCLA basketball.

Shoot, my bad. I would say question gets voided if no attempt is made.

Alright, fair point. In my defense, me and the Grey Goose had it all worked out. It all made sense . . .

Space is indeed big. But, first you have to get up there, and second, there is in fact a whole lotta junk in orbit. Space is big, but the immediate area around our planet is pretty damn crowded. Plus, you never know what kind of innocent bystander E.T. might get in the way. You know, collateral damage.

But the person who creates the question can't really benefit, well at least not to the same degree as those who choose to wager on it.

Good news on all fronts that.