Comments for Jump for Jurvis http://jumpfor.jurvis.com Ramblings of a rationalizing creature. Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:05:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 Comment on Cilantro by any other name would taste as odious by kate http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=35#comment-29441 kate Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:34:53 +0000 http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=35#comment-29441 i despise cliantro and i am an 0 negative blood type i despise cliantro and i am an 0 negative blood type

]]> Comment on Cilantro by any other name would taste as odious by Jump for Jurvis » Blog Archive » Go figure http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=35#comment-9102 Jump for Jurvis » Blog Archive » Go figure Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:12:46 +0000 http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=35#comment-9102 [...] In the short while I’ve been blogging, I’ve noticed that the posts I enjoy the most as an author rarely garner the attention and comments that I think they deserve. Meanwhile, cilantro has people crawling out of the woodwork. wtf? [...] […] In the short while I’ve been blogging, I’ve noticed that the posts I enjoy the most as an author rarely garner the attention and comments that I think they deserve. Meanwhile, cilantro has people crawling out of the woodwork. wtf? […]

]]> Comment on Mmmmm… scarf π Monday! by Jump for Jurvis » Blog Archive » Go figure http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=170#comment-9101 Jump for Jurvis » Blog Archive » Go figure Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:11:54 +0000 http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=170#comment-9101 [...] In the short while I’ve been blogging, I’ve noticed that the posts I enjoy the most as an author rarely garner the attention and comments that I think they deserve. Meanwhile, cilantro has people crawling out of the woodwork. wtf? [...] […] In the short while I’ve been blogging, I’ve noticed that the posts I enjoy the most as an author rarely garner the attention and comments that I think they deserve. Meanwhile, cilantro has people crawling out of the woodwork. wtf? […]

]]> Comment on Please send help! by todd. http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=212#comment-8527 todd. Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:32:08 +0000 http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=212#comment-8527 PS, I bought the absurd five-blade beast on our honeymoon, when I found myself sans razor, and it was the same price as a new Mach 3 handle. I figured it was worth an experiment. I liked it enough that I bought new Fusion blades when the stash of Mach 3 I had at home ran out, but I'm not really sure I will do so again, because of the short lifespans. PS, I bought the absurd five-blade beast on our honeymoon, when I found myself sans razor, and it was the same price as a new Mach 3 handle. I figured it was worth an experiment. I liked it enough that I bought new Fusion blades when the stash of Mach 3 I had at home ran out, but I’m not really sure I will do so again, because of the short lifespans.

]]> Comment on Please send help! by todd. http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=212#comment-8526 todd. Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:30:25 +0000 http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=212#comment-8526 No, but if you find a good one, please do share the information. At the moment, I'm using a "Gillette Fusion Power," which is this absurd five-blade beast, which also takes a battery and vibrates gently. In general, I feel it gives both a closer and a more comfortable shave than the Mach 3 I've used for years and years. However, the blades last very few shaves, and once they've overstayed their welcome, the razor burn is worse than I ever had with a Mach 3. No, but if you find a good one, please do share the information. At the moment, I’m using a “Gillette Fusion Power,” which is this absurd five-blade beast, which also takes a battery and vibrates gently. In general, I feel it gives both a closer and a more comfortable shave than the Mach 3 I’ve used for years and years. However, the blades last very few shaves, and once they’ve overstayed their welcome, the razor burn is worse than I ever had with a Mach 3.

]]> Comment on Basic math skills. by jurvis http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=205#comment-6367 jurvis Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:17:10 +0000 http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=205#comment-6367 Good points Adam. Good points Adam.

]]> Comment on The End of an Era by tony http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=211#comment-3694 tony Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:26:24 +0000 http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=211#comment-3694 So, wait. Putting this playlist on an iPod means that songs are automatically in the order they were added to the playlist, so that the top slot is the one that has been there longest? It seems like in iTunes it just works backwards, where the top song is the most recently added. I just made a _last playlist in iTunes and inverted the playlist's native ordering so that the top slot should be the least recently added (i.e., longest time on the playlist). Other than the fact that the tracks that populated the list when I first created it all entered simultaneously, and are thus out of order, this seems to do the trick, no? So, wait. Putting this playlist on an iPod means that songs are automatically in the order they were added to the playlist, so that the top slot is the one that has been there longest? It seems like in iTunes it just works backwards, where the top song is the most recently added. I just made a _last playlist in iTunes and inverted the playlist’s native ordering so that the top slot should be the least recently added (i.e., longest time on the playlist). Other than the fact that the tracks that populated the list when I first created it all entered simultaneously, and are thus out of order, this seems to do the trick, no?

]]> Comment on Basic math skills. by Adam http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=205#comment-2448 Adam Mon, 07 May 2007 04:29:02 +0000 http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=205#comment-2448 I'm sorry to be five months late, but I couldn't let you slander the poor man without saying anything. His math is just fine, if slightly confusingly presented -- the point he's making is about the English language, not about numbers, that point being that the <i>official term</i> used by the MLB doesn't match the official numerical representation of the statistic. That's because when people use the word "percent", there is an implied use of "out of one hundred." i.e.: "My body is 40 percent water." -> "My body is 40 per every 100 parts water." But there's no way to say this sentence correctly using either way of saying the figure given as OBP: "He has a four hundred On Base Percentage" -> "He gets on base four hundred times per hundred chances." or "He has a point-four-hundred On Base Percentage" -> "He gets on base .4 times per hundred chances." Of course, each of these are incorrect in different ways, but his point is that it's silly (and confusing) to represent anything labeled as a "percentage" using a decimal point -- you could correctly say that a player who gets on base 4/10ths of the time has an "on base per-one-age of .4", or an "on base per-thousand of four hundred", or an "on-base percentage of 40", but for some reason the guys who write the scorecards decided to use a term that makes no sense with the number provided. I’m sorry to be five months late, but I couldn’t let you slander the poor man without saying anything. His math is just fine, if slightly confusingly presented — the point he’s making is about the English language, not about numbers, that point being that the official term used by the MLB doesn’t match the official numerical representation of the statistic. That’s because when people use the word “percent”, there is an implied use of “out of one hundred.” i.e.:

“My body is 40 percent water.” -> “My body is 40 per every 100 parts water.”

But there’s no way to say this sentence correctly using either way of saying the figure given as OBP:

“He has a four hundred On Base Percentage” -> “He gets on base four hundred times per hundred chances.”

or

“He has a point-four-hundred On Base Percentage” -> “He gets on base .4 times per hundred chances.”

Of course, each of these are incorrect in different ways, but his point is that it’s silly (and confusing) to represent anything labeled as a “percentage” using a decimal point — you could correctly say that a player who gets on base 4/10ths of the time has an “on base per-one-age of .4″, or an “on base per-thousand of four hundred”, or an “on-base percentage of 40″, but for some reason the guys who write the scorecards decided to use a term that makes no sense with the number provided.

]]> Comment on Okay. So we take ze money you haf on you, und ve calls it eefen. by jurvis http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=210#comment-1797 jurvis Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:35:38 +0000 http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=210#comment-1797 I should let everyone know that Ben has made good on his contest. I am now $7.61 richer! Hooray for Ben!! I should let everyone know that Ben has made good on his contest. I am now $7.61 richer! Hooray for Ben!!

]]> Comment on Okay. So we take ze money you haf on you, und ve calls it eefen. by Logan & Priscilla Germick http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=210#comment-1796 Logan & Priscilla Germick Mon, 19 Mar 2007 02:31:37 +0000 http://jumpfor.jurvis.com/?p=210#comment-1796 Jarvey LaSalle! We're in your corner, zis man, he must be told, zis iz not fair! Jarvey, he shall be ze triumphant one, ya? Jarvey LaSalle! We’re in your corner, zis man, he must be told, zis iz not fair! Jarvey, he shall be ze triumphant one, ya?

]]>