Martin's posterous - Min runesten, hak bare løs

3 Jun 2010

Simpel matematikopgave gav læserstorm

http://ing.dk/artikel/109315-simpel-matematikopgave-gav-laeserstorm?utm_medium=email&utm_source=nyhedsbrev&utm_campaign=ingeftermiddag#

1 Jun 2010

Was this REALLY shot w/ the Canon 5D MKII

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/05/18/thoughts-on-house-finale/

26 May 2010

European Debt Crisis Explained

24 May 2010

Water balloon at 9.600 frame/sec

via youtube.com

21 May 2010

Celebrating PAC-MAN’s 30th birthday

via googleblog.blogspot.com

21 May 2010

Sayonara, iPhone: Why I'm Switching to Android - Techtonic Shifts Blog - Newsweek.com

Sayonara, iPhone: Why I'm Switching to Android

Daniel Lyons

I was already fed up with my lousy AT&T service, and was seriously considering switching to the HTC Incredible, an Android-powered phone that runs on the Verizon network.
But then, after seeing Google's new mobile-phone software today, I've made up my mind.
Goodbye, Apple. I'm ditching my iPhone. Seriously, I'm gone.
Advertisement
I don't even care if Apple does manage to get off the awful AT&T network and strike a deal with Verizon. That may or may not happen, depending on which blog you read on which day.
I used to think that would be enough, that if I could just run my iPhone on Verizon, I'd be happy.
Well, no more.
The new version of Android—version 2.2, a.k.a. Froyo—blows the doors off the iPhone OS. It's faster, for one thing. It also will support Flash, something Apple refuses to do, mostly out of spite.
The new Android OS will support tethering, meaning you can use your phone as a portable Wi-Fi hotspot, connecting your computer to the Internet. Apple and AT&T say they're going to offer tethering—someday. It's just not clear when. Which is why today, just to be mean, Google showed an Android phone tethered to an Apple iPad. Big laughs all around.
Froyo also will let you buy songs over the air and download them directly to your phone. It will also stream songs from your music library to your phone. I don't really use my phone as a music player that much, but still, it's impressive that Google has this feature and Apple still doesn't.
I'm assuming that Apple could have done this already, but chose not to. Who knows why? Maybe they want to keep people locked into their old way of doing things. Or maybe because they were a market leader with no real competition and just got lazy.
And, yes, while Apple might one day match what Google just introduced, the point is this: Apple now is chasing Google.
The most telling thing to me was Google's tone toward Apple at the event. Instead of pretending to still be an Apple ally, Google today basically threw down the gantlet and admitted that it's engaged in total war with Apple.
And unlike other Apple rivals, like Adobe, Google execs weren't huffing and puffing and wringing their hands about Apple's bad behavior. No, instead, Google was mocking Apple. Making fun of it. Laughing at it.
The Android OS is already outselling iPhone OS in the United States. Now it's blowing past Apple in terms of the technology it's delivering.
Yes, Apple still has a larger installed base. I was a little shocked recently when an Apple spokesbot responded to the news of Android's outselling iPhone OS by reciting the old chestnut about Apple's having more phones out there.
I was shocked because it's a familiar line, one that I've heard countless times in my 20-plus years covering technology. But I've only ever heard it from companies that are doomed and in total denial about it.
We've seen this movie before. In the 1980s, Apple jumped out to an early lead in personal computers, but then got selfish. Steve Jobs, a notorious control freak, just could not play well with others.
Along came Microsoft, with Windows, which was a knockoff of Apple's operating system. Microsoft partnered with everyone and today has 90 percent market share, while Apple's share lingers in the single digits.
Today the battlefield is mobile devices, and just as before, Apple jumped out to an early lead. And just as before, Jobs got selfish. He won't support Flash, or any cross-platform tools—because he wants developers locked into his platform, and his App Store, where he collects a 30 percent commission.
He's created his own advertising platform, and stacked the deck in his favor by refusing to share user data with other platforms. On that one he'll take a 40 percent slice, thank you very much.
He's even censoring content, ruling out material that he deems to be offensive. Not just porn, but anything that's racy or suggestive, or that "ridicules public figures."
What makes this even more insulting is that Jobs tries to dress up his selfishness as a kind of altruism. He says it's all about creating a beautiful experience, that while he may be selling you an intentionally crippled device, he's doing it for your own good.
Well, bull. The truth is, this is about Apple wringing every last dime out of its ecosystem and leaving nothing on the table for anyone else.
As sick as I am of my iPhone's dropped calls, I'm even more sick of Apple treating us all like a bunch of idiots, stonewalling and bullying and feeding us ridiculous explanations for the shortcomings of its products—expecting us to believe, basically, that its flaws are not flaws, but strengths.
Steve Jobs has created his own precious little walled garden. He's looking more and more like Howard Hughes, holed up in his penthouse, making sure he doesn't come in contact with any germs.
Now Google is saying, hey, nice garden, have fun sitting in it. By yourself.
As Google exec Vic Gundotra said when explaining why Google entered this market: "If we did not act, we faced a draconian future where one man, one company, one carrier would be our future."
Just this morning, fed up with constant dropped calls on my iPhone, I called Verizon to ask about the HTC Incredible. They told me that phone is back-ordered, and I can expect to wait about 30 days to get one.
I'm not surprised. And frankly, I think it will be worth the wait.

via blog.newsweek.com

via @tveskov @kres

20 May 2010

infooverload

er du dement?

nej, jeg sorterer bare enormt meget information fra!

13 May 2010

Why you shouldn't lay odds-on shots OR why you should back ...hmm

13th May 2010

Good afternoon, friends,

In today's Horse Racing Focus....

Take a light slap or a heavy blow....
What happens when you lay really low?

Take a light slap or a heavy blow....

Regular readers of this column will know that I like to lay horses
on the exchanges - and that the majority of my methods involve
identifying horses that can be layed at prices of 4/1 or less.

It doesn't take any fresh-faced exchange user long to figure out
that where laying horses is concerned - focusing your efforts on
the horses priced up the shortest is the way to go. And it is
certainly the least painful.

If you back a 33/1 shot to the tune of £1 then you get the £33 if
the horse wins and the bookie wins your £1 if it loses. When you
lay a horse on the exchanges you are effectively adopting the role
of the bookmaker. You are opposing a horse (laying it) rather than
supporting it (backing it). You get the £1 if the horse loses and
you have to shell out the £33 if the horse bucks market expectation
and wins.

Getting caught out laying a winning horse at 33/1 totally wipes out
the fruits of 32 successful earlier lays (and that's the best case
scenario). Get caught out a couple of times (and it happens) and
the old cheeks start to sting a bit.

As a layer you're going to get it wrong. And when you do you want
your liabilities to be as minimal as is reasonably possible. Laying
a 3/1 winner still hurts. That's 3 points down the swanee - the
proceeds of 3 successful lays (minus commission) - the equivalent
of a light slap on a cold morning. It isn't the concussive blow of
a blunt instrument that paying out on a 25/1 shot represents.

Where the subject of laying horses is concerned the most common
question I'm asked goes something like this: 'Why don't you just
lay odds-on shots?'

I can see how the question arises. Focusing purely on the odds-on
shots can seem appealing. It reduces liabilities bet per bet.
You're never in a position where you can lose more money than
you're set to gain. It appears like it might be a sweet deal. But
does it pay? Can you twist a worthwhile profit out of it? The
answer is No.

What happens when you lay really low?

Let's have a look at what odds-on shots have achieved as a group on
the turf in Britain over the last few seasons.

Year	Runners	Wins	WSR%
2003	624	366	58.65
2004	442	252	57.01
2005	346	192	55.49
2006	444	259	58.33
2007	400	230	57.30
2008	468	272	58.12
2009	461	269	58.35
2010	52	26	50.00

That's pretty conclusive. Approaching 60% of odds-on shots win
their races. What about the profits? Were there any? No - on SPs
the figures show negligible profits for some of the seasons. But
that's more than wiped out when you take into account that on
occasions you'll be laying on the exchanges at odds slightly bigger
than SP and paying an exchange commission of up to 5% on all your
successful lays.

Maybe a bit more selectivity is what's needed here? Maybe we need
to find a sub-group of odds-on shots that don't win quite so
frequently?

How about if we just focus on 2-year-old odds on shots? 2-year olds
are young horses, still learning the trade, prone to mistakes,
unpredictable - and often over-hyped by pundits and punters who see
the next wonder horse emerging at every turn. Is this a good group
to oppose at short-prices? 1338 2-year-olds have been sent off at
odds-on since the beginning of the 2003 season. 772 of them won at
a strike rate of 57.7% - and produced no significant, if any,
profit.

How about 2-year-olds over 5 furlongs? Not all 2-year-olds are
sprinters. Many will be at their best in later years over longer
trips. But they will still often run over 5 furlongs at 2. Do these
types go off at odds-on? Does the market miss a trick and over-
support 2-year-olds not suited to the minimum trip. Not on the
figures. 56.9% of odds-on 2-year-old runners over 5f win their
races - and produce no profit for layers.

Okay. What about odds-on 2-year olds over 7f and beyond - the kind
of trips that provide a test of stamina for a 2-year-old? Maybe the
market gets these types of races wrong and consistently over-bets
horses that shine over shorter distances but can't subsequently
step up to trips as a 2-year-old. It's worth a look - but the
results are getting predictable. 57.8% of 2-year-olds sent off at
odds-on over 7f+ win their races - and produce no profit for
layers.

What about focusing on odds-on shots that have been off the
racecourse for 6 weeks or more? Plenty of these types are likely to
be short of peak fitness and in need of a run. The short price
about them might have more to do with past achievements than
current race-readiness? How does this group perform on the stats?
Not many horses are backed in to odds-on when returning to the
course off a 6 week break. Just 25 such runners have gone to post
since 2003 - but 18 of them won at 72% and produced no profit for
layers.

Do the top jockeys get over-bet? Does the wider market over-bet
their rides? Are some horses backed into short-prices more because
of who is onboard rather than their true chances based on their
bare ability? It doesn't look like it - Dettori, Moore, Spencer,
Fallon, Hughes and the like all win on odds-on shots at least 50%
of the time and produce no profit for layers.

How about the lesser lights of the weighing room? They might draw
quite so much of the racing media's attention but you can get your
fingers burnt underestimating them. For example, Joe Fanning, Paul
Hanagan, Martin Dwyer, Richard Hills, Michael Hills and Phillip
Robinson all get their odds-on shots home in 1st place at least 55%
of the time - and in some cases well over 60% of the time. It is
not profitable to lay their odds-on rides.

I could keep on going. Whichever way I look at it I can't find a
way of laying odds-on shots for profit on the exchanges. And I'm
not sure it's worth the effort involved trying. My focus is better
employed in other areas - on alternative price bands and different
groups and sub-groups of horses which can be laid consistently to
produce long-term profit. I'd suggest that yours is too. I hope
that answers the question.

Until next time, be lucky.

Nick
Nick Pullen
www.HorseRacingFocus.co.uk

Horse Racing Focus is a free weekly email providing information and advice designed to improve your betting success. Please visit my dedicated website www.horseracingfocus.co.uk to access previous articles and bookmaker reviews, plus you can read comments from other readers.

You’ll also find a useful glossary of Horse Racing terms and a facility to help you find the best odds for your bets. Go to http://odds.sportsbettingxtra.co.uk/horse-racing/ to compare all the major bookmakers’ odds for all the major races – so you always get the very best betting value, every time.

You are receiving this email because you have signed up to Nick Pullen's Horse Racing Focus newsletter (published by Oxfordshire Press). Please do not reply to this email directly - it is part of an automated service and will not be read by a human!

CONTACT US:

Please email all correspondence to: nick@oxonpress.com

To unsubscribe from Horse Racing Focus please click here