Here's my continuing analysis of each of The Apprentice candidates so far.

The task this week was opening a restaurant and was scored by how well they fared in Zagat's restaurant survey. One point that no one mentioned was that Apex would miss StacieJ on this task. StacieJ has successfully opened at least TWO different restaurants in major cities. She would have made a great project manager for this task, and if she failed at this they would finally have had a good reason for getting her fired.

I must say though, opening a restaurant in two days is pretty impressive. The show had to have arranged some of that stuff in advance for them - foodstuffs, tables, linens, etc. But even so, both teams seemed to do a great job. Of course, because the chef was provided, there were only two things that they really needed to worry about: Decor and Customer Service.

So Apex melted down almost completely, while Mosaic (literally) sleep-walked through this task. Trump seems to enjoy giving away the ending in the first 10 minutes. the title was "Be Respected" and in the first scenes we show just how much the women do NOT respect each other, particularly their project manager, Jenn C. Apex lost and Jenn C quickly (and deservedly) got the boot. Looks like my Week 1 observation of her was correct, even though I had her neutral as of last week.

I've the ranked the candidates in descending order in three groups: positive, neutral, and negative. Of course, this is all my opinion, so you are free to feel differently. Big movers this week were:

Movin' On Up: Jenn M (only decent Apex member)
Goin' Down: Sandy (they're calling for her in the boardroom)

The current standings so far...

Positive - these are the candidates who have stepped up (so far) and look to be strong contenders for the top prize. In descending order...

• Kelly - no change from last week (the scene of him giggling while the women carp at each other was typical Kelly)
• Raj - Raj led the team to an easy victory but we saw almost none of his leadership style. Apparently he delegated very well to the right people, but beyond his natty dressing, there wasn't much from Raj; clearly they are saving him for the later episodes
• Jenn M - She continues to impress with her rational comments and calm demeanor. She has avoided most of the catfighting, although it will take leading a task to solidify her as a contender. She moves up a couple notches. Only one of Apex I would ever consider hiring. The betting scandal is also telling evidence.
• Kevin - no change from last week, but he scores points for chiding the women on their foolishness in using StacieJ as a scapegoat.
• Andy - no change from last week, even though he's a poor waiter :-)

Neutral - these are candidates who either have not stood out yet, or have had both positive and negative exposures. In descending order...

• Stacy - Stacy got quite a bit of negative airtime interacting with Jenn C, but it looked to be mostly due to Jenn C's incompetence. She demolished Jenn C in the boardroom with her comments: "Where's Sandy? Sandy was in charge of decor, and decor scored the worst. Where's Sandy?" Preview scenes of her getting into with Pam might signal another boardroom call, and she's got no real achievements to use in her defense, but I predict her survival.
• John - Being eye-candy for the "fab four" is probably a bad sign, but I've no reason to move him up or down.
• Chris - his call on the gay guys was pretty sharp. However, his bad mouthing of the general public, and his foul language will keep him out of the executive suite. He drops a notch.
• Maria - she laid pretty low in this episode after avoiding a near-certain firing last week. Despite the consensus she's a certain goner, I'm keeping her at neutral. The other women are far worse, and I think Maria has learned her lesson.

Negative - these are candidates about whom I would be shocked if they made it to the final four. In descending order...

• Pam - No sign of Pam this week, although it looks like things will get VERY interesting next week as she switches teams to help the women get their act together. (Or will the tigresses just band against her?) Pam's early decision to jump ship looks like the smartest move in the game so far. Too bad for her she has to go back.
• Wes - no change from last week
• Sandy - "Where's Sandy?" She developed the great decor for the trendy restaurant. Oops, the decor sucked; it's a blue-collar neighborhood. So, why was she not in the boardroom? You know it's always a bad sign when Trump and his minions are practically BEGGING for you to be called out for firing. She drops like a stone to -
• Liz - Yet ANOTHER terrible episode for Liz as she breaks down in tears over her unfair treatment. This may yet turn in her favor as she earns sympathy points. But I sure hope not.
• Ivana - Ivana actually looked like the leader of the team in this episode, trying to keep loiterers out of the way. She still sucks, but at least Trump is not calling for her head anymore.

posted by Tim at 7:52 AM

Strategy at A&A isn't all that hard. But I still see plenty of players making some absurd decisions in the game, and I shiver, particularly when they are my allies. Here's the advice I'm always giving over and over:

1. Econ up first, then tech up. I have to see situations where it's best to only build one HQ. (Maybe on a tiny map with 8 players...) But even if you're planning to rush, 2 HQs seems so much wiser. I get annoyed when I see my ally build one HQ, a motor pool and an engineer brigade before making any troops. Sheesh. And unless your opponent REALLY SUCKS, you're not going to beat him quickly with a simple rush.

2. Grab and control cities. I see many players ignoring the cities during the game. Cities provide income, which enable you to produce more troops. Your team should grab as many as you can.

Use the recon infantry for your first division. It's faster and gets you to the town faster. Move in column formation since you're looking to avoid combat and get there quickly.

When capturing a risky city, place your infantry on the far side of the town, but still in the environs. The enemy will enter, but not be able to capture it until they eliminate your unit. Meanwhile you can micro your unit to avoid combat until reinforcements can arrive. This will not save the city from a large force, but it prevents a single regiment from capturing the city from you.

3. Use terrain bonuses(!) Heavy terrain provides enormous benefits to infantry. Keep your infantry IN the woods and cities as much as possible. And keep your vehicles OUT of them. Vehicles in urban areas take much more damage.

If you are fighting enemy and they are located in heavy terrain, immediately run to the better terrain; don't fight in the open! When attacking cities, don't engage the enemy until you are IN the city. If necessary, run past him to get into the city so you get better defensive bonuses.

If you are in key terrain, be willing to entrench your infantry to help control it. Entrenched infantry in heavy terrain is almost impossible to kill. Once it's entrenched, don't move it to go after stray units or you lose the bonuses. Use other units for maneuver.
Entrenched infantry is BETTER than a pile of bunkers for defending a strongpoint. Instead, use those bunkers to augment your entrenched troops, not replace them.

4. Control key terrain. Key terrain is defined as terrain that gives an advantage to the side which controls it. Because of the map configuration, this will usually be an area near the center of the map that controls the flow of the game. It could be a city or a chokepoint. Controlling an area like that gives you the ability to strike at the enemy in multiple locations, while preventing them from hitting your weakpoints. This can snowball, enabling you to spend more money on offense.

5. Keep your army fighting. Unless they are specifically holding a position, keep your troops fighting and gaining experience. Those troops are costing you money in terms of upkeep, so keep them in the fight. Fight, retreat, heal. Fight, retreat, heal. But...

6. Preserve your units. Success in A&A can be most easily predicted by your ability to kill off enemy regiments while keeping yours alive. Unlike other RTS games, units are not fodder to be used up. They gain experience and get with time, but cost money to recruit anew. Focus on killing off enemy regiments rather than causing superficial damage to lots of units, and don't lose your own. So retreat damaged units and heal them up, and avoid engaging in battles where you are at disadvantage.
posted by Tim at 1:37 PM

Out4Blood has been playing Axis & Allies by Timegate Studios. It's still in beta, but Atari has partially lifted the NDA, so we can discuss the game in public.

I was never a big fan of the current statistics package that Timegate is using, even back when they started doing it for Kohan: Kings of War. It's just not that informative. But as Disraeli said: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." So let's do the best we can with what we've got...

Everyone seems to like playing with the USA. They are the most popular (29.5%) and they win the most (23.6%) so they must be the best, right? After all, nukes are "imbalanced."

Wrong.

Comparing the play % with the win % shows that the USA is actually the worst nation in terms of performance. By dividing the win % by 2 times the play %, we can determine the win rate, which helps us estimate the odds of winning with that nation, all else held equal (like player skill). Win rates for the nations:

61.1% - Great Britain
54.3% - Japan
51.8% - Russia
50.7% - Germany
40.0% - USA

Now, this is not 100% accurate. For instance, maybe newbies play USA and Germany, and only good players try playing Japan and Great Britain. But it does show what type of statistics you would want if you were REALLY interested in helping the community. Ahem... Timegate! And while yo're at it, how about win rates for the various generals. And how about win rates by nation by map type. Or map size. Or 1on1 vs team games. Or FFA games. Or by player skill? Or...
posted by Tim at 1:36 PM

In an Op/Ed piece for the NYT, Al Gore makes a few funny remarks, showing that he was a pretty wry sense of humor:

While George Bush's campaign has made "lowering expectations" into a high art form, the record is clear - he's a skilled debater who uses the format to his advantage. There is no reason to expect any less this time around. And if anyone truly has "low expectations" for an incumbent president, that in itself is an issue.

And...

The debate tomorrow should not seek to discover which candidate would be more fun to have a beer with. As Jon Stewart of the "The Daily Show'' nicely put in 2000, "I want my president to be the designated driver.''

And if you remember the very audible sighs that Gore was so roundly lampooned over...

The biggest single difference between the debates this year and four years ago is that President Bush cannot simply make promises. He has a record. And I hope that voters will recall the last time Mr. Bush stood on stage for a presidential debate. If elected, he said, he would support allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada. He promised that his tax cuts would create millions of new jobs. He vowed to end partisan bickering in Washington. Above all, he pledged that if he put American troops into combat: 'The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well defined.'

Comparing these grandiose promises to his failed record, it's enough to make anyone want to, well, sigh.

posted by Tim at 12:55 PM

posted by Tim at 10:08 AM

Yahoo news is reporting that BetWWTS.com has suspended betting on the Apprentice because of a suspicious pattern of bets. Bets May Reveal 'Apprentice' Finalists

...

This is the fourth reality-TV-related incident on which BetWWTS.com has suspended wagering because of unusual betting patterns. Last year, CBS's "Survivor: Pearl Islands" winner Sandra Diaz-Twine received numerous wagers from Vancouver, British Columbia, before the first episode even aired. Similar incidents occurred during "Survivor: The Amazon" and the second installment of ABC's "The Bachelor."

...

Red flags were raised at the Antigua-based BetWWTS.com when a maximum bet of $300 was placed on two candidates: lawyer Jennifer Massey, 30, from San Francisco and software executive Kelly Perdew, 37, from Carlsbad, Calif. The next day, Doyle witnessed a number of New Hampshire accounts that bet the limit on those two contestants. 'When we see a lot of bets with $300 then that's very suspicious,' said Doyle, who noted typical bets are about $25.

Looks like some of our predictions ring true. Go Kelly!

FWIW, the firm also reported:

Before the betting was suspended, consulting firm owner Elizabeth Jarosz, 31, led the pack with 5-to-1 odds, investment firm partner Pamela Day, 32, had 7-to-1 odds and marketing director John Willenborg, 24, had 8-to-1 odds to win.

posted by Tim at 8:53 AM

No joke. There is a real live JPG virus. From Slashdot:

This could possibly be the worst viruses yet! Earlier this month Microsoft announced a problem in their GDI driver that processes the way JPEG images are displayed. Someone has finally posted an exploit to Usenet. Easynews, a premium Usenet provider, found the virus Sunday afternoon. Up-to-date information about how we found it and what it does is located at www.easynews.com/virus.txt. When this picture is viewed it installs remote management software (winvnc and radmin) and will connect to irc.

Now you need protection just to LOOK!
posted by Tim at 2:47 PM

Here's my continuing analysis of each of The Apprentice candidates so far.

The task was almost irrelevant this week except to set up the women losing and StacieJ's ouster as all the women ganged up on her. I was literally laughing out loud as all the women described how terrified they were at StacieJ's behavior. Clearly, they edited this for entertainment purposes. But StacieJ had to go. You can't lead if everyone hates you. But even still, the remaining women look completely dysfunctional. StacieJ's final comment about how they'll now have to go after each other will likely be prophetic.

I've broken them down into three groups: positive, neutral, and negative. Of course, this is all my opinion, so feel free to feel differently. Big movers this week were:

Movin' On Up: Kevin (led the win), Andy (yet another idea gets used), Jenn M (astute comments), Stacy (by process of elimination?)

Goin' Down: Maria (OMG, fails at a marketing task!), Liz (lousy leader)


Positive - these are the candidates who have stepped up (so far) and look to be strong contenders for the top prize. In descending order...

• Kelly - no change from last week
• Raj - no change from last week
• Kevin - with his previous positive scenes, Kevin moves up the ladder with the project leadership victory in Ep 3
• Andy - he maybe "young and inexperienced," but they sure keep going with his ideas. He's already got a lot things to point back to as major contributions to the team if some fool PM (read: Wes) tries to bring him into the boardroom. I'm moving him up to +
• Jenn M - while she has had almost no airtime at all, when she has been on she has made particularly intelligent comments (view the extended boardroom scene where she calls StacieJ a "scapegoat" for Liz's poor leadership). I'm going to go out on a limb and bump her up to +

Neutral - these are candidates who either have not stood out yet, or have had both positive and negative exposures. In descending order...

• Stacy - she's too short, and there is some negative stuff on the web videos, even though we haven't seen any of it yet on TV, but I am going to move her up to neutral. She seems to be one of the more stable women on a wildly unstable team.
• Jenn C - continues to be an enigma. She's providing some of the early color for the show with her exchanges with some of the other women, but I'll call her chances even.
• Chris - one of the unremarkable guys on the team. We haven't seen him do too much so far, except gripe about Pam's interrogation of the ice cream guy.
• John - another one of the unremarkable guys.
• Sandy - I become less impressed with her every comment she makes, oh great one, Mr. Trump, sir!
• Maria - despite being one of the better women so far, her gross error in negotiating the printing deal single-handedly caused her team's loss in Ep 3. Concern that she "can't handle money" is almost a death knell.

Negative - these are candidates about whom I would be shocked if they made it to the final four. In descending order...

• Pam - Pam's "very, very hard edge," her snooty attitude, numerous questions at the ice cream plant, and her lethargic sales technique make her an unlikable character. Add to that the negative web video of her on the sweepstakes (even though she was right on) sets her up as the men's next fall guy. If the men ever lose again. Given how disarrayed the women appear, we could see a reversal of last year, where the women won everything.
• Wes - no change from last week, although I might reinforce his position down here for arguing with Pamela about the sweepstakes, she was right and he was wrong.
• Liz - her blathering in Ep 2 during the boardroom typified the ditzy, but attractive, stereotype. Otherise, not enough evidence. Oops! We sure got a lot of evidence now! Didn't know you were overbudget until the P&G execs pointed it out to you?! Hmmm. Another "lousy leader." One rung above Ivana...
• Ivana - LOL. Even Trump was asking for Ivana's head: How come you chose StacieJ over Ivana?
• StacieJ - as we called it. The bottom of the list got lopped off.

posted by Tim at 1:22 PM

Here's my analysis of each of The Apprentice candidates so far. I've broken them down into three groups: positive, neutral, and negative. Of course, this is all my opinion, so feel free to feel differently.

Positive - these are the candidates who have stepped up (so far) and look to be strong contenders for the top prize. In descending order...

• Kelly - Kelly's earned major karma points so far by leading the men to their first ever victory - even going back to last season! Plus, he's only been shown in a "positive" light. He and Raj appear right now to be the top contenders (which could be on purpose to allow for an underdog story to emerge). One note: he is the oldest candidate and if you go back to Ep 1, Trump asserted that you could tell if someone is a star by age 22. Is Kelly too old to win? Hmmm.


• Raj - while Raj looked to be a little whacko in Ep 1, everyone on his team likes him. Even when pressed by Trump to come up with dirt on Raj, the worst they could say about him was: "He's brilliant." He does come across as a little pompous, though. With Trump, that might come back to bite him.


• Maria - has been shown in mostly positive light. During Ep 1, she was up with the whiteboard, facilitating brainstorming. Also, as shown in the extended version of Ep 1, she helped develop the winning toy idea. And in Ep 2 we see her orchestrating behind the scenes. Burnett cuts to Maria when he wants the rational view of what's really going on. To top it off, she appears to be well-liked by the women on the team because she's been involved in all the major discussions.

Neutral - these are candidates who either have not stood out yet, or have had both positive and negative exposures. In descending order...

• Andy - he's "young and inexperienced," but he's doing well so far. Even if he were to make it all the way, I don't think Trump would hire him. If we see a couple more positive instances, I might move him up.


• Kevin - while he hasn't gotten much airtime, his brother's cancer surviving story plays into the sympathy vote.


• Jenn C - hard to say; she's done some good stuff and Trump said positive things about her. However, she got slammed in the boardroom for not knowing when to shut her trap. She's also the loser who aped Trump during the reward in Ep 1. I'll call her chances even. The fact that she's gotten so much airtime could mean she makes an early exit.


• Jenn M - haven't seen enough of her yet to get a fix.


• Sandy - another average blonde who hasn't really impressed us, but it could be they're saving her for the latter episodes.


• Chris - one of the unremarkable guys on the team. We haven't seen him do too much so far, except gripe about Pam's interrogation of the ice cream guy.


• John - another one of the unremarkable guys.

Negative - these are candidates about whom I would be shocked if they made it to the final four. In descending order...

• Stacy - she's too short, and there is some negative stuff on the web videos, even though we haven't seen any of it yet on TV. Could easily move to neutral or positive though if gets more airtime.


• Liz - her blathering in Ep 2 during the boardroom typified the ditzy, but attractive, stereotype. Otherise, not enough evidence.


• Pam - Pam's "very, very hard edge," her snooty attitude, numerous questions at the ice cream plant, and her lethargic sales technique make her an unlikable character. Since I know her, I know she's better than that (although it's a fair assessment as is), but they're casting her in a bad light for a reason. She has the ability to go far, but she'll be a target the next time the team loses.


• Wes - I view him as the weakest of the men. While some of them have not shown themselves yet, he's clearly failed already. His performance as Kelly's sales manager was abysmal. Not only did he not get any sales, but his approach in being the only one on the phone limited their chances.


• Ivana - clearly gone as fast as Trump runs out of personal reasons for firing people. "You're a lousy leader," is pretty hard to come back from. Also, don't forget how she misrepresented StacieJ's effort during Ep 2: "I gave you busywork."


• StacieJ - hated by everyone on her team, she's not getting much sympathy from Trump, either. If her team loses again, she could easily get fired right away. I personally think she's as capable as most of the other women, and she's articulate in the boardroom, but she's had too many major negatives to get hired now.

posted by Tim at 2:44 PM

posted by Tim at 8:44 AM

In an unusual move, Atari has notified its Axis & Allies beta testers that they may now discuss the game outside the private forums.

Because we believe that your experiences with the final stages of the beta test will be of interest to the general Axis & Allies community, we've decided to lift the restriction on discussing the game outside of the beta forums. Please feel free to be as open as you wish about your feelings about the game. Though we of course hope that your experiences were entirely positive and that your discussion will reflect that, you should feel free to speak your mind. We only ask that you try to be fair and civil.

Because of last-minute engine and art changes that may be made after the close of the beta test, we ask that you not post any screenshots you may have taken of the beta version of the game.

Thank you for having honored the NDA and for your participation in what has been an excellent beta test.

For those unfamiliar with A&A, check out the website. Fans of RON might find it to be an engaging diversion. It's a World War II RTS game using some of the unique "Kohan" elements that Timegate has enhanced: zones of supply, zones of control, automatic resupply, non-stockpiling economics, unit upkeep, experience, and morale, just to name a few. A&A uses the same basic engine as the upcoming Kohan: Kings of War, so even though it's a new game, the engine has had a lot of extra testing.

The good news for Timegate is that this time they actually have a good publisher who is promoting the game. (Unlike their other publishers.) A&A is a great franchise which we hope continues with the RTS version. As I get to spend more time with the beta, I'll passs along my thoughts.

posted by Tim at 7:09 AM

The USA is getting killed in first morning's matches. Ryder Cup scoring. Geez.
posted by Tim at 8:47 AM

If there's a lesson to be had here, it's that you don't insult Donald Trump. Despite being, according to Trump, the "best guy in the room," Bradford gets fired for impulsively giving up his immunity. Trump thought that was really, really stupid. Really.

Personally, I didn't think it was that stupid. In any other game, it would have been a calculated risk. A good performer who accepts the same risk with the rest of team should earn an increased level of trust and credibility with his colleagues. Bradford's thinking was that he did well enough such that he wouldn't get fired, but this was an opportunity to earn the respect of the women. However, in Trump's game, not taking Trump seriously earns you an instant boot. Bradford thought that his performance was enough that he could avoid getting fired (I agree), but he didn't count on Trump being pissed at Bradford's hubris. Goodbye. The Apex team will really miss him.

Meanwhile, Kelly did a superb job leading the Mosaic team to victory. Congratulations, Kelly. I think he also scored bonus points with Trump (unintentionally) by asking to donate the whole profit to the charity.

It's very interesting to see the editing decisions they make on this show. They opted to show some key leadership choices Kelly made, while they constantly showed the other team being indecisive. Kelly also had to pass the moral test about how much money to donate to the charity. Since they hadn't specified up front how much to donate per sale, it was left up to Kelly. [Cut to Kelly grimacing over the decision]

One person who actually moved up a notch in my book was StacieJ. Her idea to hire temp workers to shovel out the ice cream could have been a huge plus. She's an entrepreneur who's done this sort of thing before - e.g., hire people to sell food for her profit. Too bad she has no people skills and didn't include anyone else in on the discussion. Why these Apprentice folks think they are "adding value" doing that kind of on-the-street marketing is beyond me. Each team could easily have fielded several carts and made a lot more money by paying the temps $6 an hour ($48 total for the eight hours) with bonuses for performance. Maybe there were some technical rules we didn't get to hear about that would prevent that sort of thinking. Not that it matters, she's damaged goods. Everyone hates her and she got killed in the boardroom - everyone said she should be fired. She won't last very long.

posted by Tim at 8:34 PM

At the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr whines about a supposed waste of time in the blogosphere.

But let me see if I understand things correctly. A presidential election is less than two months away, and there is a war going on right now in Iraq. The war in Iraq raises profound questions about United States policy with regard to the Muslim world for decades to come. But instead of debating the war that is going on right now, we're debating the war records of the two candidates from more than three decades ago. Wait, no, that's too direct: we're debating one network's story about one candidate's war record from three decades ago. Wait, maybe that's too direct, too: we're debating the fonts on different typewriters that may or may not have been used to write a memo that led to a story about one candidate's war record from three decades ago. Yeah, that's pretty much it.

C'mon, folks: don't we have more important things to blog about?

Yes we do. We should be blogging about how a supposedly reliable major network news agency has attempted to influence, through fraudulent means, our nation's presidential election process. And also how they were caught red-handed by a bunch of pajama-wearing bloggers. And how, when caught, the supposedly reliable major network news agency attempted to worm its way out of responsibility.
posted by Tim at 11:51 AM

Yikes! The BBC is reporting that Detroit is not a peaceful city.

Statistics show the city is the most violent and dangerous on earth, outside of active war/combat zones.

posted by Tim at 8:18 AM

While not a gaming topic per se, you really have to question CBS' game play here. If you haven't heard, CBS came up with a story about some "new" memos shedding unfavorable light on President Bush's guard experience. Tuns out the memos are fakes. But CBS is staunchly defending them. This could spell the end of CBS as a credible new organization, and it CERTAINLY should spell the end of Dan Rather, who "personally vouches" for the authenticity of the memos. Ouch.

For those that haven't cuaght up and want to view a blog-based catching of liars in action. Read Powerline. If you just wanna play T&P, then move along...
posted by Tim at 8:29 PM

Keep in mind that this is not a pure competition, but merely entertainment in the form of competition. Burnett is no dummy; he's cast people in certain roles through the editing process. The trick for the Apprentice meta-game is to try and understand what roles people are being cast as and then guess as to what the outcome might be based on that.

So far, I see several people filling some obvious roles:

• Andy is the young whiz-kid with no experience. Can he learn fast enough to make it to the end?
• Bradford is the cocky dictator with "nothing going on upstairs." He's alienated all the women already and missed bonding with the guys.
• Jennifer C comes across as bitchy New Yorker (from her nbc.com videos) but ultimate loser (from her obsequious dinner performance)
• Kelly is the Military Guy. His video is military this and military that. Pshaw! When did he get to be such a grey hog? As I recall, he couldn't get out of the military fast enough after graduation. Omarosa said this in her commentary:

  Kelly may find the organizational dynamics of the game to be restrictive and he may come across to his teammates as bossy and hard to work with. He may also intimidate his cast-mates, which could lead to them to try to remove him.

  Which is so insightful - it hurts that it comes from the evil that is her.
• Maria comes across as an aggressive, but effective leader, taking charge despite Bradford's ineffectual leadership.
• Pamela's got a "hard edge." Oops. But watch this video of her to see how she really thinks. She's a real threat as long as she doesn't antagonize her colleagues. (Ed. - Turns out I know Pamela from HBS. She was married to one of my sectionmates, Dave Vernon. Now, her bio says she's single. D'oh!)
• Raj is a freak. Reminds me of Sam. Is Trump serious about this guy or is he there only for color?
• Stacy J must be bi-polar. Not sure what occurred to instigate her tantrums but she's a goner first chance. Of course, we all said the same about Omarosa, didn't we? And while Stacy J might be the unofficial season 2 Omarosa, at least she has some awareness of her surroundings.
• Stacy R looks to be an early exiteer as well. She's too small to be so annoying (from the trailers). Can you imagine her running a Fortune 500 company? (Ed. - No.)
• Wes looks pretty cocky. Showing him drinking from the bottle is most likely an omen. "We don't like people who drink from the bottle, do we?"

I think the rest of the people have yet to appear in their "roles." Those that didn't stick out will likely whither away slowly while the "stars" play out the "script."

UPDATE: There are a few good recaps of the episode. This one at RealityShack and Sam's commentary over at Yahoo!

posted by Tim at 10:18 PM

An old comrade-in-arms from West Point has made it big! Kelly Perdew will be appearing tonight in the new season of The Apprentice. I'm hoping he does well and develops a better TV persona than Omarosa. Kelly and I were in the same company at West Point (D4), went to the Naval Academy together as exchange cadets, and were doubles partners on the racquetball team. In the meantime, he's been very successful:

After graduating from West Point, Kelly Perdew completed Ranger School and served two years as a Military Intelligence Officer in the US Army. Kelly raised over $5M in equity financing for three start-up companies, and as the acting President led the sale of one of those start-ups (eteamz.com: the largest amateur sports portal on the web at the time) for eight figures to a company that has since filed for an IPO. He is the Co-Founder and Chairman of a motor enthusiast community website called MotorPride.com, and is currently the President of CoreObjects, an outsourced software development company based in Los Angeles.

Knowing Kelly as I do, I have only two questions:

• Who did he flirt with the most? (I vote for Elizabeth)
• Who did he piss off the most? (I vote for Stacy J)

An answer to those questions might be revealed by his bio's quote: "I expect everybody to fall in line." Heh.

So this makes two "famous" people I've gone to school with. The other one being Wes Cherry. Bonus points if you have any idea why Wes is famous.

UPDATE: WOW. Turns out I know Pamela Day also. That makes 2 out of 18 that I know on this show. Cool.

posted by Tim at 2:33 PM

Via Slashdot. SFGate has an article saying:

A report posted Wednesday on the TV Week Web site said the brainy software engineer from Utah lost in a show taped Tuesday, walking away after his 75th straight game with about $2.5 million overall in cash and prizes. The magazine cited unnamed sources and said the show would air later this fall.

After winning the show that aired Wednesday, his 41st, he had amassed $1,380,661.

That's a lotta moolah.


posted by Tim at 7:10 AM

This is me at work.

posted by Tim at 12:58 PM

This is a test post from , a fancy photo sharing thing.
posted by Tim at 12:06 PM