Why does one always assume that everyone else is a moron and doesn't get your reference? I got the reference, and therefore, by induction, everyone else did, too.
I actually always found the "no time limit" aspect of baseball to be a non-problem. To me it represents, "someone needs to win and we're not going to mess around with the way we play the game just because no one has won yet."
I always thought that sudden death or shootouts or whatever are a copout, an agreement that the game is poorly designed and needs to be "just finished" because the competitors cannot be separated by their skill at the game itself. (One can always expand the definition of the particular game to include the tie-breaking strategy, but that's weak.)
Usually extra innings are the most exciting and complicated in the ballgame. Pitchers are worn out, players have been subbed. *sigh* It's just tiring to explain sometimes.:)
I see the Nomad II with a max size of 128 MB (I'd be a bit happier and willing to pay a bit more for more storage). The Rio Volt 250 plays off of CDs (which is not preferable to me). Yes, these both have FM tuners... but there are also roughly eight-hundred other mp3 playing devices out there that have different features (smaller and/or more memory and/or different decoders and/or different interfaces, etc) that do NOT have FM tuners.
I just wonder because an FM tuner is like beyond dirt cheap... why aren't they just standard?
I was wondering if someone with more relevant knowledge than I might make an estimation about how much more quickly we might expect to see Ogg support now that this has happened. Are embedded chips without FPU really that much more prevalent, or are they just that much cheaper?
I also wanted to know, on a side note, why the hell portable mp3 players don't come with a damn FM tuner in them. Is it a design/form factor issue? Perceived marketability problem?
I want to use my mp3/ogg player while at the gym... listen to Howard Stern and then switch to music when it gets dull/commercials. Is this so complicated?
I think a minimum salary of $50k to play a professional sport is more than reasonable.
As cliche as it is, you've got to remember that they are playing a game. Many other people have jobs wherein failure to perform properly has the dangerous consequence of death to themselves or others, and they get paid comparably, or sometimes less (firemen).
I wouldn't mind a six figure wage if it was around $100k, not $300k. I can't imagine how they could be considered "earning" $300k unless one does raw profit calculations, which, I'm sure have been done plenty of times.
When I was younger I thought it was cool that even the "average" ballplayers made so much... now that I'm in grad school and my wife is the breadwinner (on a schoolteacher's salary), everything seems a bit different.
Unfortunately, I'm all for the free market and capitalism so there's not much for me to say, I guess.:)
You're casting pearls before swine. The development of an appreciation of baseball is probably even more difficult than that of soccer. I think the only reason I can say that I enjoy watching baseball is because I played it for so many years. The same can probably be said by many soccer fans if they would just stop and think about how boring their favorite game looks to the marginally initiated.
It seems pretty rare to me that a fan will spontaneously develop an appreciation of baseball unless it happens stealthily while they're still young and come to think of the ballpark as a fun place.
strike zone... Yeah, toss one game out there for a proof of fact. When is the last time you saw a strike called above the belt? How about the inside corner? Most times a ball 3 inches above the knee was being called a ball before I quit watching baseball.
I believe it was the beginning of last year (it could have been two years ago) when MLB made a promise to enforce the "to the armpits" definition of the strike zone. I don't believe much change was made in the umpire's habits at the time, but after watching games more recently it has DEFINITELY been effective. I've never seen so many high strikes and find myself consistently wanting to say, "Well, that didn't USE to be a strike." (as if that makes any difference)
It doesn't backpropagate to Bond's stats, but things might be a bit different in the near future. (Of course, he's been on a tear regardless)
Having grown up in San Diego I can attest to the possibility of high humidity and minimal rainfall, which is the definition of desert.
Less than about 10 inches of rain per year qualifies for desert, which makes most of the San Diego coastline (and more) desert climate. This has nothing to do with the day-to-day humidity, though. Some nights you can barely see the lane markings due to the fog.
Learn something about how statistics are collected and how to apply them.
Oh, c'mon. You have information to share, no need to be a jerk about it.
I'm sorry that I didn't encapsulate everything in such a form that it couldn't possibly be misinterpreted. Sometimes you have to cut your losses about how much information someone wants to wade through. All I was trying to say is that when we were cavemen, it's doubtful that a person would live to be 80. Now it's the expected age of demise.
I say this:
E{age_of_death;-10000 bc} = 30 years
E{age_of_death;2002 ad} = 80 years
conclusion: I'm glad I'm living now as opposed to then.
You respond... "But, AHAH there were a lot of people that died really early in -10000 bc therefore your statistics are TOTALLY misleading and must be clarified with a statement telling you to learn something about statistics. Here let me talk about what's glossed over for a while."
Oookaay, let's look at it another way. Let's say that E{age_of_death} is a damn misleading statistic, and that just looking at some sort of probability function for age_of_death is more useful. According to what you said:
old times function: starts high, ends low
new times function: starts a little lower, end low... more uniform, if you will
conclusion: It's better to be born now.
More complicated, yet better statistics, and I don't feel it gets the point across in as straightforward a fashion.:P
Now, YOU remember, in order to calculate the efficacy of a message, you need to maximize over an operation like E{confusion*specifity}, where confusion and specifity are usually at odds with each other, but actually have many local minima.
I know what you meant. That's why I wanted to remind you that things are a little different now than they were then.
I liken the, "Well, if I get AIDS, then so be it." attitude to be about equivalently logical to, "You're uncle got what he deserved. God hates fagots." Obviously neither individual thinks too much about what's going on around them.
I can see why you would be frustrated with complacency and irresponsibility, just try not to paint with too broad of a brush.:)
Actually, you are probably speaking from a position that benefits from hindsight.
If the latency period of HIV is up to ten years (which is the last I've heard of it), and if my uncle died in 1992 (which he did), then if we also give a few years of wasting away (I don't know when he first developed symptoms), then he could have been infected way back in the 70's.
There was little to no information about HIV at the time. Think about all of the people who were infected by blood transfusions and whatnot. We only know that these things need to be checked out now. For my uncle, who probably got it from sex, and for blood transfusion victims, the disease basically "did just happen".
The only way it could have been prevented, because the vector was unknown, and, actually the disease was practically unknown, would have been to not engage in sex. Hah.
It just seems, to me, that in the past the advances were a bit slow. Like, "Ooh, people get sick from tiny bugs, let's wash our hand when we do surgery." How long did that take to figure out?
Then penicillin, inoculations, etc.
It's just poignant because I remember going to some of the rallies that he was involved in and they'd usually say stuff like, "One day, there will be a cure, or at least a way to manage." If I remember right there were already experimental treatments being performed at the time.
It's one thing to think that we are on the rising part of the exponential curve of medical advancements, and it's another to watch someone waste away and die in front of you just a few years before there are treatments that would have made his death unlikely.
It's like theory vs. practice, yo.
I'm just hoping that information learned from genetics (as presented, in no detail) in this article can be used so that _I_ don't die of any such crap as HIV++-super-mutated or cancer or you-name-it.
I would be pretty bummed (well, I guess I won't, but my family would be bummed) if I die like two years before they come out with a shot that extends your life by 200 years or so.
Slashdot Mirror
He got modded down because moderators, in general, are a bunch of humorless assholes. That's why.
I still don't understand why anyone would be so arrogant as to moderate someone DOWN in any case.
Oh, man, that was harsh.
BTW, do you know where Osama Bin Laden is? We've been looking for him.
:is standing now.
"Would you like me to get summo' data, massa? If I might say, you ah lookin' awfully famished. There is a nice pipe ovuh hea, suh. An OC-16 at least!
You eat data?
I bow to you.
Well, you know what "they" say about assuming, don't you?
No? I'll tell you, then:
"It makes an ASS out of U and ME."
hardee har
You'd best check yo'self before you wreck yo'self.
Damn!
I gotta million of 'em and a full pot o' coffee.
booyah
Why does one always assume that everyone else is a moron and doesn't get your reference? I got the reference, and therefore, by induction, everyone else did, too.
A man/woman need not use quotes to speak for them.
Can I use that in my sig? I'll attribute it to UnlikelyGuest if you wish.
Please see my other post: here
Duh.
It's when you look at something. As in, "Take a gander at them mams."
It's pretty archaic, so don't feel bad.
I actually always found the "no time limit" aspect of baseball to be a non-problem. To me it represents, "someone needs to win and we're not going to mess around with the way we play the game just because no one has won yet."
:)
I always thought that sudden death or shootouts or whatever are a copout, an agreement that the game is poorly designed and needs to be "just finished" because the competitors cannot be separated by their skill at the game itself. (One can always expand the definition of the particular game to include the tie-breaking strategy, but that's weak.)
Usually extra innings are the most exciting and complicated in the ballgame. Pitchers are worn out, players have been subbed. *sigh* It's just tiring to explain sometimes.
You don't get much work, do you?
Or do you?
I see the Nomad II with a max size of 128 MB (I'd be a bit happier and willing to pay a bit more for more storage). The Rio Volt 250 plays off of CDs (which is not preferable to me). Yes, these both have FM tuners ... but there are also roughly eight-hundred other mp3 playing devices out there that have different features (smaller and/or more memory and/or different decoders and/or different interfaces, etc) that do NOT have FM tuners.
... why aren't they just standard?
I just wonder because an FM tuner is like beyond dirt cheap
I was wondering if someone with more relevant knowledge than I might make an estimation about how much more quickly we might expect to see Ogg support now that this has happened. Are embedded chips without FPU really that much more prevalent, or are they just that much cheaper?
... listen to Howard Stern and then switch to music when it gets dull/commercials. Is this so complicated?
I also wanted to know, on a side note, why the hell portable mp3 players don't come with a damn FM tuner in them. Is it a design/form factor issue? Perceived marketability problem?
I want to use my mp3/ogg player while at the gym
I think a minimum salary of $50k to play a professional sport is more than reasonable.
As cliche as it is, you've got to remember that they are playing a game. Many other people have jobs wherein failure to perform properly has the dangerous consequence of death to themselves or others, and they get paid comparably, or sometimes less (firemen).
Economics is wierd sometimes.
I wouldn't mind a six figure wage if it was around $100k, not $300k. I can't imagine how they could be considered "earning" $300k unless one does raw profit calculations, which, I'm sure have been done plenty of times.
... now that I'm in grad school and my wife is the breadwinner (on a schoolteacher's salary), everything seems a bit different.
:)
When I was younger I thought it was cool that even the "average" ballplayers made so much
Unfortunately, I'm all for the free market and capitalism so there's not much for me to say, I guess.
Minimum salary was raised from $200k to $300k due to the recent negotiations.
Disgusting, eh?
You're casting pearls before swine. The development of an appreciation of baseball is probably even more difficult than that of soccer. I think the only reason I can say that I enjoy watching baseball is because I played it for so many years. The same can probably be said by many soccer fans if they would just stop and think about how boring their favorite game looks to the marginally initiated.
It seems pretty rare to me that a fan will spontaneously develop an appreciation of baseball unless it happens stealthily while they're still young and come to think of the ballpark as a fun place.
strike zone ...
Yeah, toss one game out there for a proof of fact. When is the last time you saw a strike called above the belt? How about the inside corner? Most times a ball 3 inches above the knee was being called a ball before I quit watching baseball.
I believe it was the beginning of last year (it could have been two years ago) when MLB made a promise to enforce the "to the armpits" definition of the strike zone. I don't believe much change was made in the umpire's habits at the time, but after watching games more recently it has DEFINITELY been effective. I've never seen so many high strikes and find myself consistently wanting to say, "Well, that didn't USE to be a strike." (as if that makes any difference)
It doesn't backpropagate to Bond's stats, but things might be a bit different in the near future. (Of course, he's been on a tear regardless)
Having grown up in San Diego I can attest to the possibility of high humidity and minimal rainfall, which is the definition of desert.
Less than about 10 inches of rain per year qualifies for desert, which makes most of the San Diego coastline (and more) desert climate. This has nothing to do with the day-to-day humidity, though. Some nights you can barely see the lane markings due to the fog.
Learn something about how statistics are collected and how to apply them.
... "But, AHAH there were a lot of people that died really early in -10000 bc therefore your statistics are TOTALLY misleading and must be clarified with a statement telling you to learn something about statistics. Here let me talk about what's glossed over for a while."
... more uniform, if you will
:P
:)
Oh, c'mon. You have information to share, no need to be a jerk about it.
I'm sorry that I didn't encapsulate everything in such a form that it couldn't possibly be misinterpreted. Sometimes you have to cut your losses about how much information someone wants to wade through. All I was trying to say is that when we were cavemen, it's doubtful that a person would live to be 80. Now it's the expected age of demise.
I say this:
E{age_of_death;-10000 bc} = 30 years
E{age_of_death;2002 ad} = 80 years
conclusion: I'm glad I'm living now as opposed to then.
You respond
Oookaay, let's look at it another way. Let's say that E{age_of_death} is a damn misleading statistic, and that just looking at some sort of probability function for age_of_death is more useful. According to what you said:
old times function: starts high, ends low
new times function: starts a little lower, end low
conclusion: It's better to be born now.
More complicated, yet better statistics, and I don't feel it gets the point across in as straightforward a fashion.
Now, YOU remember, in order to calculate the efficacy of a message, you need to maximize over an operation like E{confusion*specifity}, where confusion and specifity are usually at odds with each other, but actually have many local minima.
I just made that up.
I know what you meant. That's why I wanted to remind you that things are a little different now than they were then.
:)
I liken the, "Well, if I get AIDS, then so be it." attitude to be about equivalently logical to, "You're uncle got what he deserved. God hates fagots." Obviously neither individual thinks too much about what's going on around them.
I can see why you would be frustrated with complacency and irresponsibility, just try not to paint with too broad of a brush.
It's like a never-ending bughunt.
You squash the early segfaulters only to have different ones show up at later times.
Damn you, universe!!
Actually, you are probably speaking from a position that benefits from hindsight.
If the latency period of HIV is up to ten years (which is the last I've heard of it), and if my uncle died in 1992 (which he did), then if we also give a few years of wasting away (I don't know when he first developed symptoms), then he could have been infected way back in the 70's.
There was little to no information about HIV at the time. Think about all of the people who were infected by blood transfusions and whatnot. We only know that these things need to be checked out now. For my uncle, who probably got it from sex, and for blood transfusion victims, the disease basically "did just happen".
The only way it could have been prevented, because the vector was unknown, and, actually the disease was practically unknown, would have been to not engage in sex. Hah.
Well, that's kind of the point, really.
It just seems, to me, that in the past the advances were a bit slow. Like, "Ooh, people get sick from tiny bugs, let's wash our hand when we do surgery." How long did that take to figure out?
Then penicillin, inoculations, etc.
It's just poignant because I remember going to some of the rallies that he was involved in and they'd usually say stuff like, "One day, there will be a cure, or at least a way to manage." If I remember right there were already experimental treatments being performed at the time.
It's one thing to think that we are on the rising part of the exponential curve of medical advancements, and it's another to watch someone waste away and die in front of you just a few years before there are treatments that would have made his death unlikely.
It's like theory vs. practice, yo.
I'm just hoping that information learned from genetics (as presented, in no detail) in this article can be used so that _I_ don't die of any such crap as HIV++-super-mutated or cancer or you-name-it.
I would be pretty bummed (well, I guess I won't, but my family would be bummed) if I die like two years before they come out with a shot that extends your life by 200 years or so.