Pats not best ever now, but still could be

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=280203017

All day I was thinking about how I would be writing about the 2007 Patriots being the best team of all time.  Then the Giants came along and completely ruined my argument.  While a good argument could still be made for the Patriots being the GOAT (only team to ever go 18-0, most points by any NFL team ever, arguably the best quarterback ever in his prime who has arguably the most talented wide receiver ever), it’s impossible to crown them the greatest without the win at the end of the season.  In the NFL, greatness is measured in Super Bowl rings, whether you’re talking about players or teams.  Records, number of wins, star players and margin of victory mean nothing when you don’t have the hardware to show at the end of the season.  Hope is not lost for the Pats, though.  While they will probably never go undefeated and win it all, if they are able to maintain their high level of play and get back to the Super Bowl next year, they could win it and cement themselves as the greatest dynasty of all time.  They will have gone to five of the last seven Super Bowls, won four of them, had an undefeated season in the midst of it, broken countless records and had the best quarterback ever in his prime.  Tom Brady will have four Super Bowl rings, tying him for the most ever with Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana, hold the record for most touchdowns in a season, 50 (unless someone breaks it next season – not going to happen) and will be a ridiculous 17-3 in the postseason.  Not bad for a lowly 199^th draft pick out of Michigan.

Why we need geeks to rescue the Earth..

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-09/st_thompson

Srikanth Veluvolu

Over the course of the past few years, maybe even the entire past decade, a lot of..shit..has happened to this planet. Global warming, genocides, natural disasters, and MILLIONS of people have died pre-mature deaths as a result. What’s interesting is not that millions of people have died, but instead the manner in which millions of other people react to those deaths. This article is absolutely right about the paradox that guides the human mind. If I were to see a picture of a loan starving child in Africa or the Middle East, I would feel a tremendous amount of empathy, but if I were to see a picture of say….an entire starving village, I wouldn’t feel the same amount of sorrow as I did for the child. This isn’t because I don’t care, or I don’t realize the pain of all those people – I do! But theres just something about recognizing the plight of large numbers of people that I don’t want to accept. In my mind, I get a greater amount of satisfaction knowing I could give X amount of money to that one child, as opposed to the entire village, even though I know it would benefit the entire village more. What I find interesting about this article is that it examines this phenomenon through experiments, and concludes that we as humans, are hardwired to lose our perception when dealing with large numbers, which is why we need geeks to save the world for us. And it’s so true – when it comes to sponsoring that one child, or bringing that one kid from a 3rd world country over to America for a life saving surgery,  we as humans are extremely reliable. But when it comes to solving real problems, problems on a global scale of millions and billions, we falter, because our minds cannot comprehend the severity of the situation. It’s sad and it’s screwed up…but for the large majority of us “non-geeks,” it’s who we are as human beings.