My name is Mike Ondic and please try to make an effort to avoid me.
And if you think that your neighbor not returning your power tool is "evil", then yes, you do have a low threshold for what you consider evil.
I'd consider someone like that an asshole, jerk and yes, someone I'd want to avoid. I would not consider him evil though.
I reserve that term for rapists or murderers and Hitlers and Stalins.
If your test for what qualifies as evil is what you're embarassed to tell your parents about then I suspect you would consider about 95% of the people on slashdot "evil" since most people here would not willingly tell their parents about all of the porn sites they have visited on the internet.
So let me be the second or third in decrying the deplorable state of broadband in this country! More porn! Faster porn!... which means the Japanese and the Koreans have penises 33 times the size of ours! Even the women!
I don't pretend to know much about the energy business, but I thought economics were as much a reason for nuclear power basically dying out in the US. Nuclear power just isn't profitable when compared to coal, oil and other sources for power. Obviously NIMBY and public fear of anything nuclear plays a role, but I just don't think power companies really want anything to do with nuclear power.
Part of the success of poker on tv though is the thrill in seeing someone bet half a million dollars on a single hand. I realize that they're not really betting a half million dollars (and certainly not of their own money) but I don't think there is any hook like this comparable for gaming.
Futhermore, I don't think there is enough of an audience for gaming to make it as popular as poker is. Granted this will change to acertain degree as people who grew up playing games get older. But I think this will always be an issues of gaming being a niche "sport" for spectators at best.
And one other hook that poker has is that everyone watching thinks to themself, hey I can play as well as these guys (at least if I can see their cards). So in the back of some peoples minds there is the thought that they could hop in the car, drive to Atlantic City and beat Johnny Chan out of $100,000 ala Matt Damon in Rounders.
Why would improved models have anything to do with sports betting?
Points spreads and handicapping are already models used (ok, not models really, just a way for bookies to balance the money). Bets are placed all the time on sports where the winner is all but assured. Unless these new models can actually predict the final score or how much faster the winner will be than second place, then there is no reason sports betting shouldn't be able to continue.
I haven't followed swimming that closely, but was Phelps really the favorite in that race. I thought van den Hoogenband from the Netherlands (won gold in Sydney) and Thorpe from Australia (world record holder) were both favored over him in that race.
Obviously these statistical models aren't trying to pick winners of individual events, but for this race I think the result was pretty much what people expected, despite what Sports Illustrated or Time Magazine might have put on their covers while trying to sell magazines.
The same thing could be applied here, if the FCC could get its nose out of Howard Stern's butt for a moment and concentrate on what they should be doing, providing universal broadband.
Why should this be something that the FCC should be doing? I can understand that universal phone service can be justified by access to emergancy services in even the most isolated communities. What comparable requirement does having broadband access serve that can't already be met by dial-up?
Just skimming through the article, the main benefits touted were online gaming and video on demand. Online tutoring was also mentioned (though I don't see why broadband is required for this), but all of the economic boon was from the gaming and video (and the supporting equipment necessary). So their online gaming market is great, but should it really be governemnt policy to get Americans to spend twice as much on online gaming as they do now?
I get your point but there are a few differences. I'm not allowed to back my car about to a bar and have the exhaust pour in through the door. About the only place I'm allowed to drive a car is outdoors. And last I checked you're allowed to smoke outside as well, other than a handful of places.
Besides, what beneficial effect does smoking provide for society as a whole. There are many problems associated with automobiles, but the benefits are innumerable. What benefits does smoking provide to society?
Just as an aside, I think the smoking bans that are going around have gone a bit overboard. I don't have a problem limiting smoking in restaurants, stores, or workplaces, but eliminating it in bars seems like overkill. I've always figured that's one of the places where it is accepted and if I want to hang out there I just need to accept it or go somewhere else. New Jersey hasn't enacted these laws yet, but since NY and Delaware have I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
About the only thing I can think of that a smoker suffers discrimination for is health insurance, and from an insurers perspective this seems perfectly reasonable.
As far as bars, restaurants, stores, etc being non-smoking, you're not being discriminated against, you're completely free to go into any of those places. You're just not allowed to smoke while there because it disturbs other people.
Honestly the only book reviews I'm familiar with are the New York Review of Books and the NYT Sunday Book Review. The NYT, as you're probably aware, is pretty much split between fiction and nonfiction. I just don't find their reviews very interesting.
The New York Review covers mostly nonfiction books, predominantly in the humanities and social sciences (history, art, philosophy, etc) or current events and politics. Each issue usually has at least one or two reviews of fiction, whether novels, short stories or poetry. Science and technology issues are covered periodically.
I haven't read Kirkus and will have to check it out. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with other book reviews, either in print or on line. When I was in college I did occassionaly read the (London) Times Literary Supplemental (TLS). From what I remember (it's been over 5 years, and I didn't read it very often) it was similar to the New York Review. I don't remember if you could buy it seperately or if it came as part of the Sunday Times. Maybe some of our British friends here can help out.
I'm no expert on NATO naming conventions but I think: Foxbat, Flanker, etc = fighter; Badger, Blinder = Bomber; Satan, Sandbox = Suface to Surface missile.
I'm sure there are many exceptions but I think that was the general idea.
This is my favorite source of book reviews (with editorials and the occassional movie review thrown in). I find it much better than the NY Times Sunday Book Review which often isn't much more than a plot capsule and a reviewer stating whether they liked it or not (they always like the book).
The reviewers in the New York Book Review usually bring up challenges to the argument/methodology used in the books reviewed. Most of the reviews also cover 2 or 3 books on the same topic, comparing the strengths/weaknesses of each.
Just a warning though, there is an obvious liberal bias to the review. It isn't of the Michael Moore/Al Franken variety that "all republicans suck" but is more reasoned and researched arguments against specific policies. And even though I'm liberal it would be nice to have some intalligent consevative views printed more often just for variety's sake.
About the only critcism I have of the magazine is that nearly every issue for over a year now has had an article (usually an editorial as opposed to an actual book review) on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (almost uniformily critical of the Israelis). Which is fine, Israel is certainly open to some criticism, but after ten articles it becomes a little tiresome.
I used to subscribe to Men's Health and found the health and fitness articles informative and well written, but after 2 years the articles became a bit repetitive. Other than medical updates there is only so much you can really write about doing arm curls.
What the report says is that 3% of the jobs lost (not total jobs) were lost to overseas outsourcing.
From the article: "Nine percent of non-seasonal U.S. layoffs in the first quarter were due to outsourcing, but less than a third of the work was sent overseas, the U.S. Labor Department said in releasing new figures on mass layoffs and outsourcing."
So less than a tenth of all jobs lost were lost to outsourcing, and only a third of those were lost to overseas markets.
Over the long run you are absolutely right. But over the course of a night, or even a couple of days (a tournament say) a mediocre can be lucky enough to beat even some of the worlds best. I've heard at least one pro say this years World Series is basically a lottery because there are so many entrants. And I think that this has been shown in that the last two champions were first time entrants who had only been playing poker for a couple of years, and, I think at least, are unlikely to be heard from much in the future.
I agree with what you are saying, but I think my point still stands. Yes, if you're a quake expert you will most likely be an expert at UT or Doom or any other FPS.
But the original poster was writing of making a career of gaming of 20 or 30 plus years. I don't think antone here can claim that they know what the "big" game is going to be 15 or 20 years from now. I think the gaming industry is just too fluid for someone who is 18 years olds to be able to realistically say he can make a career by gaming.
15 years ago side scrollers were every where-and you may have been the best Super Mario or Metriod player, but what good is that going to do you now, no one makes side scollers anymore. If you want to make a career out of gaming then I think you have to accept at least the possibilty that a couple of times during your career you may have to learn an almost entirely new sets of skills and strategies, in addition to having to deal with slower reflexes.
Pro atheletes can make up for their slower reaction times because after years of playing they hopefully have a deeper understanding of their sport. A gamer who played FPS for his entire career could probably do the same thing, I just question whether it is reasonable to assume that a single genre is going to be viable for a 20+ year time frame.
I'm not sure if this is true or not. The difference between gaming and say basketball is that the "in" game changes every few years. 10 years ago it was Mortal Kombat, 7 it was quake, 3 years ago starcraft, what will it be next year? (my "in" game and time frames might be off, but you get the idea) Every 3 or 5 or whatever years to be capabale of making money the gamer is going to have to relearn a new game. A baseball player just has to play one game for his entire career.
Sure, there is going to be some skill carry over- but even if you were an expert at quake does that give you any assurance that you will be at the top for starcraft?
A pro athlete on the other hand knows that his skills will carry him throughout his career. Derek Jeter doesn't have to worry that one day he's going to show up at Yankee Stadium and be given a pair of skates and told that he is the new center for the Rangers (though that probably would be an improvement for the Rangers).
So while I would agree with you that if a gamer played FPS for a 30 year career, then yes, even if he lost some reaction time he could make up for it with better understanding of the game. I just think games change too quickly for top players to remain at the top.
I disagree that pro-gaming could become huge here in the US (I'm not even sure, based on the article that it is huge in South Korea).
I just don't think there is the fan or media interest to be able to support a large pro-gamer population. There probably is a small segment of the population willing to watch others playing video games, but I don't think you will ever sell out 20,000 seat arenas hundreds of time every year, or get millions of people to watch it weekly on TV. And without the fan interest (and advertising that follows it) pro-gaming can probably never expand because the prizes will have to either be put up by the sponsors or come from tournament entrance fees. And as you have said, that may be enough to support a handful of pro-gamers in the country, but not enough to make it huge.
I just checked my updated D&D 3rd Edition Supplement, Gods and Demi-Gods, and that rule has been modified so that only divine beings of the lower planes of existence will vanish from existence once proof for them is confirmed. Higher gods only have their attack abilites reduced by 50%.
Seriously, when did you become rule maker for all religions on the planet?
You might be interested then in The Physics of Hockey by Alain Hache. I bought it last year and found it interesting. he covers the basics from skating and stopping, to slapshots, chechs and saves. I think he even covered some of the thermo for making an ice rink.
Slashdot Mirror
According to an article in yesterdays New York Times they are becoming on in the same.
And if you think that your neighbor not returning your power tool is "evil", then yes, you do have a low threshold for what you consider evil.
I'd consider someone like that an asshole, jerk and yes, someone I'd want to avoid. I would not consider him evil though.
I reserve that term for rapists or murderers and Hitlers and Stalins.
If your test for what qualifies as evil is what you're embarassed to tell your parents about then I suspect you would consider about 95% of the people on slashdot "evil" since most people here would not willingly tell their parents about all of the porn sites they have visited on the internet.
Unless you have a really low threshold for what qualifies as evil then I can't come up with any.
That's easy when you're just 5 minutes away and then drive around the block for 42 minutes.
What porn sites are you going to?
Sicko.
I don't pretend to know much about the energy business, but I thought economics were as much a reason for nuclear power basically dying out in the US. Nuclear power just isn't profitable when compared to coal, oil and other sources for power. Obviously NIMBY and public fear of anything nuclear plays a role, but I just don't think power companies really want anything to do with nuclear power.
Futhermore, I don't think there is enough of an audience for gaming to make it as popular as poker is. Granted this will change to acertain degree as people who grew up playing games get older. But I think this will always be an issues of gaming being a niche "sport" for spectators at best.
And one other hook that poker has is that everyone watching thinks to themself, hey I can play as well as these guys (at least if I can see their cards). So in the back of some peoples minds there is the thought that they could hop in the car, drive to Atlantic City and beat Johnny Chan out of $100,000 ala Matt Damon in Rounders.
Points spreads and handicapping are already models used (ok, not models really, just a way for bookies to balance the money). Bets are placed all the time on sports where the winner is all but assured. Unless these new models can actually predict the final score or how much faster the winner will be than second place, then there is no reason sports betting shouldn't be able to continue.
Obviously these statistical models aren't trying to pick winners of individual events, but for this race I think the result was pretty much what people expected, despite what Sports Illustrated or Time Magazine might have put on their covers while trying to sell magazines.
Why should this be something that the FCC should be doing? I can understand that universal phone service can be justified by access to emergancy services in even the most isolated communities. What comparable requirement does having broadband access serve that can't already be met by dial-up?
Just skimming through the article, the main benefits touted were online gaming and video on demand. Online tutoring was also mentioned (though I don't see why broadband is required for this), but all of the economic boon was from the gaming and video (and the supporting equipment necessary). So their online gaming market is great, but should it really be governemnt policy to get Americans to spend twice as much on online gaming as they do now?
Besides, what beneficial effect does smoking provide for society as a whole. There are many problems associated with automobiles, but the benefits are innumerable. What benefits does smoking provide to society?
Just as an aside, I think the smoking bans that are going around have gone a bit overboard. I don't have a problem limiting smoking in restaurants, stores, or workplaces, but eliminating it in bars seems like overkill. I've always figured that's one of the places where it is accepted and if I want to hang out there I just need to accept it or go somewhere else. New Jersey hasn't enacted these laws yet, but since NY and Delaware have I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
As far as bars, restaurants, stores, etc being non-smoking, you're not being discriminated against, you're completely free to go into any of those places. You're just not allowed to smoke while there because it disturbs other people.
The New York Review covers mostly nonfiction books, predominantly in the humanities and social sciences (history, art, philosophy, etc) or current events and politics. Each issue usually has at least one or two reviews of fiction, whether novels, short stories or poetry. Science and technology issues are covered periodically.
I haven't read Kirkus and will have to check it out. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with other book reviews, either in print or on line. When I was in college I did occassionaly read the (London) Times Literary Supplemental (TLS). From what I remember (it's been over 5 years, and I didn't read it very often) it was similar to the New York Review. I don't remember if you could buy it seperately or if it came as part of the Sunday Times. Maybe some of our British friends here can help out.
I'm sure there are many exceptions but I think that was the general idea.
The reviewers in the New York Book Review usually bring up challenges to the argument/methodology used in the books reviewed. Most of the reviews also cover 2 or 3 books on the same topic, comparing the strengths/weaknesses of each.
Just a warning though, there is an obvious liberal bias to the review. It isn't of the Michael Moore/Al Franken variety that "all republicans suck" but is more reasoned and researched arguments against specific policies. And even though I'm liberal it would be nice to have some intalligent consevative views printed more often just for variety's sake.
About the only critcism I have of the magazine is that nearly every issue for over a year now has had an article (usually an editorial as opposed to an actual book review) on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (almost uniformily critical of the Israelis). Which is fine, Israel is certainly open to some criticism, but after ten articles it becomes a little tiresome.
I used to subscribe to Men's Health and found the health and fitness articles informative and well written, but after 2 years the articles became a bit repetitive. Other than medical updates there is only so much you can really write about doing arm curls.
What the report says is that 3% of the jobs lost (not total jobs) were lost to overseas outsourcing.
From the article: "Nine percent of non-seasonal U.S. layoffs in the first quarter were due to outsourcing, but less than a third of the work was sent overseas, the U.S. Labor Department said in releasing new figures on mass layoffs and outsourcing."
So less than a tenth of all jobs lost were lost to outsourcing, and only a third of those were lost to overseas markets.
Yes but are you able to buy virtual, virtual land in a game on this virtual internet?
Over the long run you are absolutely right. But over the course of a night, or even a couple of days (a tournament say) a mediocre can be lucky enough to beat even some of the worlds best. I've heard at least one pro say this years World Series is basically a lottery because there are so many entrants. And I think that this has been shown in that the last two champions were first time entrants who had only been playing poker for a couple of years, and, I think at least, are unlikely to be heard from much in the future.
But the original poster was writing of making a career of gaming of 20 or 30 plus years. I don't think antone here can claim that they know what the "big" game is going to be 15 or 20 years from now. I think the gaming industry is just too fluid for someone who is 18 years olds to be able to realistically say he can make a career by gaming.
15 years ago side scrollers were every where-and you may have been the best Super Mario or Metriod player, but what good is that going to do you now, no one makes side scollers anymore. If you want to make a career out of gaming then I think you have to accept at least the possibilty that a couple of times during your career you may have to learn an almost entirely new sets of skills and strategies, in addition to having to deal with slower reflexes.
Pro atheletes can make up for their slower reaction times because after years of playing they hopefully have a deeper understanding of their sport. A gamer who played FPS for his entire career could probably do the same thing, I just question whether it is reasonable to assume that a single genre is going to be viable for a 20+ year time frame.
Sure, there is going to be some skill carry over- but even if you were an expert at quake does that give you any assurance that you will be at the top for starcraft?
A pro athlete on the other hand knows that his skills will carry him throughout his career. Derek Jeter doesn't have to worry that one day he's going to show up at Yankee Stadium and be given a pair of skates and told that he is the new center for the Rangers (though that probably would be an improvement for the Rangers).
So while I would agree with you that if a gamer played FPS for a 30 year career, then yes, even if he lost some reaction time he could make up for it with better understanding of the game. I just think games change too quickly for top players to remain at the top.
I just don't think there is the fan or media interest to be able to support a large pro-gamer population. There probably is a small segment of the population willing to watch others playing video games, but I don't think you will ever sell out 20,000 seat arenas hundreds of time every year, or get millions of people to watch it weekly on TV. And without the fan interest (and advertising that follows it) pro-gaming can probably never expand because the prizes will have to either be put up by the sponsors or come from tournament entrance fees. And as you have said, that may be enough to support a handful of pro-gamers in the country, but not enough to make it huge.
Seriously, when did you become rule maker for all religions on the planet?
You might be interested then in The Physics of Hockey by Alain Hache. I bought it last year and found it interesting. he covers the basics from skating and stopping, to slapshots, chechs and saves. I think he even covered some of the thermo for making an ice rink.
No one can pump their own gas in New Jersey.