after reading the article, it seems that the judge only addresses part of the problem (if it is to be considered a problem). As stated above, he suggested that there be some kind of wait period after which deleted digital information can't be used in court. The article says this would be analagous to the information being consigned to the trash, are documents recovered from the trash/dump/wastepaper basket admissible?
Also, when something is deleted, what happens to it? I'm not terribly familiar with the inner workings of any OS (I'm a hardware person), but where does the information go? I mean, does it stay on the harddrive and is simply not referenced until you write over it? Once you write over the information can it be recovered? If I delete 2 GB of mp3's from my harddrive, I am told I now have 2 more GB of free space. Does that mean that the information is gone and unrecoverable without special tools, or it's just hidden and I should be able to get it back, or it's completely gone and the bits have been wiped? Or, are the bits not gone until they are overwritten?
Is there a way to change how an operating system or file system deletes files? Could a program or subroutine be made to go through and fill all dereferenced HD space with 0's or something? Or would the information still be recoverable from under those 0's somehow?
I don't know if suggesting legislation for this would be the best course of action. Especially if there isn't a way of telling when files are deleted. Even if there is a way to tell, what's to stop the people who can recover deleted information from changing the flag that says when a file was deleted (if such a flag exists)? If the only people who can retrieve deleted information are 'experts' and these 'experts' are employed by people with lots of money who are trying to find dirt on someone else...ok, I'm probably being too paranoid never mind.
::sigh:: one of these days I'll contribute something other than more questions.
hell, a 1.2 GHz processor is finishing the race while my computer is finishing the first lap! I've been lapped 3 times, only because you can't get lapped 4 times in a mile!
but basically I'm too lazy to set up my favorites for the mods. That and I'm very set in my base ways, I know all the maps, I know all the weapons, and I love going on the servers frequented by the top 10 teams from OGL and holding my own.
:-) I play base because I was involved in the base community on the OGL ladder. I don't feel the animosity towards mods that the rest of the base community seems to feel. "Llama Caging" and such.::sigh:: even 30 year old men can be incredibly immature in computer games. oh well.
Sorry, couldn't resist. Honestly, I haven't been following the development of Halo or Tribes 2 very much, as I've been spending all my time drooling over Baldur's Gate 2. It just strikes me as messed up that a few screenshots for Halo are shown and suddenly the entire community proclaims it as a Godsend, and everyone immediately forgets about Tribes 2.
And I'm not sure that I would say Tribes was only half-heartedly team-oriented. Seems to me that when it first came out there was a much more concerted effort for teamwork (in pubs at least). The game is very, very different now than when it was released, and the teamwork is very different as well.
We may have a different perspective, as I only play base, but I don't know that you don't play base frequently as well. I simply never play mods.
X-Box. Just means it won't compete with Tribes 2 anytime soon.
I'm biased, I love tribes, and I think Tribes 2 will be awesome. It kinda burns me that some sites show 1 or 2 screenshots from Halo and suddenly every gaming site and their mother is crowing that Halo is THE game we should be anticipating, THE game that will revolutionize squad warfare, and so on. It's just hype, hype, and more hype, when Tribes 2 will be out in a month or two, and Tribes IS the game that revolutionalized squad warfare (with due respect to TFC and CS).
the author of the linked story compared the argument to the religious battles in the 15th century between the Dominicans and Franciscans?
well, it amused me.
on-topic...yea, Sun shouldn't do this. bad sun. whatever...(sorry, I got distracted by the fact that he was waiting for two years to be able to use what he wrote his master's thesis. poor guy, heh)
all the companies would have to do is show to the judge that the technology in question has no other valid use other than to make illegal copies of material, right? Isn't that what happened in the DeCSS case?
just a thought, and I know what I'm tossing out has been said a lot before, but it seems that any large enough company can throw lawyers at anything and find a way to either spin things so that they look like they are the victims in the court's eyes or...no wait, that seems to be all lawyers do, is spin info.
it continues the storyline of BG1 directly. And you only start at level 9 with certain classes. Most people will probably import their character from Baldur's Gate into BG2, it simply wouldn't make any sense if your 7th level fighter was suddenly level 1 again.
and BG2 isn't supposed to be as much of a killfest.
I'm playing through BG1 again right now, and it is truly a fine game. I did play through Torment several times, and torment is a better RPG but Baldur's Gate is a fine game in it's right.
If you're really interested, you could go to www.bgchronicles.com and read up on the game a bit.
There has been no word as to whether or not there will be a PS:T 2. I've seen speculation as to how it could be done, but it would be strange. The Nameless One is stuck in the lower planes for a long time, a sequel might involve Fall-From-Grace trying to get him back, but Black Isle is incredibly silent on any talk of a sequel. I know Black Isle is working on an as-of-now undisclosed project, so who knows.
I just had to point this out. Many, many, many, probably most, employed Americans have money in stock. Don't believe me? Ever heard of a 401(k)? Most pension plans have at least some money in stocks. That includes union pension plans. Never before have more people had more money in stock.
you're most likely correct. I should have clarified like many other posters did on this topic. The original post I was replying to was referring to individuals owning stock and having a say in how the company was run. The majority of individuals owning stock do now have any say in how the company is run. I addressed this more in a reply I made above. Also, most of the other posters on this thread made the same point.
Having a 401(k) and a pension plan doesn't give you enough stock to have any input into how the large corporations run.
also, "more people" having "more money" in stock doesn't mean much. Regardless of how many people have money in the stock market, most of the money in the stock market comes from the richest individuals in the nation, which is a very small percentage. It is those individuals who get a say in how the company is run, not the small stockholders with 401(k) plans or mutual funds.
Considering the source it comes from, and the statements it makes.
"This is a class with clout," said Raghavan Mayur, president of the Technometrica Institute for Politics and Policy, which conducted the poll for IBD. "Obviously, they're watching, and they can swing things one way or another."
I remember the same thing being said about "Soccer Moms" 4 years ago. I was never convinced it wasn't just political hype.
For instance, a survey by Paine-Webber found that 50% of Americans own stock, while a Heartland-Bullseye poll found the number was closer to 60%.
Look at the sources. Investment firms. I am very hesitant to take their statistics at face value without knowing how they gathered those statistics and the demographics of the people they polled.
And, in a recent survey, the Federal Reserve said 49% of Americans directly own shares compared with just 31.6% in 1989.
I'm more inclined to believe this bit of information, but they leave out how much stock those Americans own. I know lots of people who own some stock in the companies they work for. The amount is typically so low it really doesn't make a difference.
So who belongs to this new investor class?
Typically, he's a white male, married, between 45 and 54 years old. He has a college education and works in a white-collar job. And he has more than $50,000 invested in the stock market.
The profile of the typical non-investor: female, married, age 65 or older, with a high school education. She also works in a white-collar job.
Now we get to the heart of the problem. These are their demographics. I'm willing to venture that the population they sampled for this pool was not a good demographic representation of the country as a whole.
Also note the amount of money a "typical" investor has invested in the stock market. $50,000? That's a lot of money, especially considering that the median income for the US is under $40,000 ( us census data ).
Also, notice the last line of the article:
The same was true among middle-income groups. The same what was true? Everything? Or just the political views that made up the majority of the article? My reading of this article is that it is mostly just political propaganda targeted at the investors who frequent the website.
53% of registered voters that they polled had over $10,000 in the stock market. What percentage of people aren't registered to vote? That's and important piece of information, especially with the degree of voter apathy in America.
Also, small time investors have no say in how large corporations run. If I buy 100 shares of Xerox stock, it gets me NO input into Xerox's upper echelons.
In summary, be wary of polls online, unless you know how the information was gathered (i.e. the census). Individuals with $10,000 invested in the stock market are not going to have a say in the workings of huge corporations because their $10,000 is going to be spread out over a multitude of companies. It's only the large investors who have millions of dollars in stock in a particular company (well, many particular companies) that have a voice with the Board of Directors.
When people complain about the government, I have to point out that we, not them, are the government. If there's a government problem, it's because I elected the wrong person.
Well...I don't really agree with that. We don't have many options to elect the right person. How many of our elections are between only two candidates? I live in New York. The senate primaries were yesterday, and guess what, Hilary Clinton won the Democratic Primary and Rick Lazio won the Republican Primary. I never ever HEARD of anyone challenging them. For the past month they've been running ads against each other, they both effectively ignored the primaries.
It's also difficult for anyone from the majority of the american public to achieve a high-ranking elected government position. This is a generalization, but most people don't have the resources or the abilities to run for a seat in the house, or the senate.
To a great extent, we are the corporate power. Never before in American history has so much money been invested in the stock market by so many people. We own our oppressor.
This isn't really accurate. You say that never before...has so much money been invested. This is probably accurate. However, most of that money is in the hands of a small percentage of the population. Because of the stock market's incredible success and so many companies having incredibly increases in their stock price, our culture has shifted so that to the outside observer it would seem that everyone is investing in the stock market, simply because of media saturation. You can't watch prime time television without seeing a myriad of investment ads. But the simply fact is most of the people in the country don't have the money or the time to spend investing in the stock market.
Don't mind me, I just hate wallstreet. I find it incredibly galling that a small number of people who pump money into our corporations dictate how those corporations run. (side note, I'm interning at Xerox right now...it's messed up, wallstreet is dumb. That's all I can say.)
Harvard is Harvard. Trying to defame them, give them a bad image, make them look bad, whatever, it doesn't work.
Everyone knows what Harvard is, and Harvard has universal respect.
No one will get a negative image of Harvard from this, it can only reflect poorly on Metallica, as anyone who is uninformed will view it as some stupid metal band suing our greatest institute of higher education...and those who are informed will see it in a fairly similar manner.
but they are in the minority, and most of them excel in one particular sport, not all sports, right? My understanding is Duke, Wake Forest, and UNC have good basketball teams. UNC has a good women's soccer team. Georgetown is also up there in academics, and their best sports team is basketball. My knowledge is limited, as UNC-Chapel Hill is in the top 50 academically, and I don't know if that's the main UNC campus or a satellite. In retrospect I probably should have said I didn't see many of the top 20 schools as having large athletic programs, but again, there are exceptions as Duke is ranked 8th, Stanford is ranked 6th, and Notre Dame is 19th. My point should have been that the schools that make employer's eyebrows raise when they see them on a resume typically don't have great sports teams.
Currently released games: Baldur's Gate, Planescape:Torment, Icewind Dale (and those are just the rpg's.). Baldur's Gate two comes out in less than a month. Neverwinter Nights comes out in under a year, probably. All are the epitomy of what role-playing games should be. There are truly fine games, if you would stop and look for a second. And don't say that these games didn't sell, Baldur's Gate sold VERY well, was named RPG of the Year (as was Torment, a year later), and BG2 will most likely outstrip BG and PS:T in sales and critical acclaim.
so it just means that Mr. Hayes isn't terribly open-minded. Neither is the poster that I've been replying to.
I may disagree with what he says, or I may agree, he still has a right to say it. And whether or not I agree or disagree with his comments should not be influenced by who is making the comments.
uhh, yes athletes are over-praised...and over-compensated, so what?
that's the point. you're just saying, "so? it's not a problem" and he's saying "this isn't good"
I stated somewhere that he's probably overreacting. Duh.
you are also, apparently, stupid. i read all the posts, and most of them are stupid as well.
Thanks. You're basing this on what? My attempt to engage in a useful conversation on a topic instead of pointlessly flaming someone simply because I disagree with their ideas? Thank you for being close-minded.
sorry, but, it has been explained to you enough, i am not repeating myself any more
No, it hasn't been explained to me. So far on this subject you have said:
his points are that of an ignoramus and
true some podunk hick universities value sports over academics but what do you expect out of rednecks?
the fact is there are a/lot/ of great academic universities, and i work at one (which also happens to be known for football, but that's just because michigan is the state of champions.)
I fail to see how that constitutes an explanation. You haven't given any valid points at all as to why Dan Hayes' arguments are those of an ignoramus, and yet you say that you will not repeat yourself anymore!
Think about why though.
Q.Who enjoy's sports?
A. Average Joe Sixpack
Q. Who covers the Sports that Joe likes?
A. National news agencies who need money from people like Joe.
I agree with you. It's a societal quirk that we most likely have to live with, because I doubt that it is going to change soon, and we will probably do better directing our efforts towards other areas since it really isn't damaging anyone. My main point was that there are academic institutions, and there are sports schools, the two don't intersect that often. You referenced the college rankings, and I didn't see many of the schools in the top 50 as being schools with large athletic programs. (we'll ignore Stanford for this argument).
I agree with what you just said, I was disagreeing with what you said before:-)
Q. "Who's popular or respected for being valedictorian?"
A. Ironically ours (at a VERY respected private school), later became a "Professional Wrestler"
Ha! That's awesome. (what private school? I only know of TAMS, IMSA, and Bishops.)
maybe you should read some of the posts people made in the thread saying why his points aren't worthless. I didn't see any valid, well-supported points detailing why this man's ideas are those of an ignoramus.
true some podunk hick universities value sports over academics but what do you expect out of rednecks?
Very open-minded of you. Thanks. Maybe it's because I'm a damn yankee, but I don't see many podunk hick universities around here.
I addressed the main points of the post in question in another post on this thread, but it basically comes down to the fact that our country rewards things other than scientific research and academic prowess. I'm not saying that this is an earth-shaking problem, it's probably not that much of a problem at all. Sports keep the mindless masses happy, eh?
provided you fit one of the preferred groups that they are currently admitting.
I believe MIT is now 50/50 in terms of male/female ratio, while they were 65/35 3 years ago when I applied, and was wait-listed, then rejected.
MIT is overjoyed because they had so many "qualified, interested female candidates." Bullshit.
At the same time a visiting professor from Harvard slams Caltech, saying that we have no right to be ranked the #1 school in America (last year) because we have no African-Americans in the freshmen class.
I'm at Caltech because of my academic skills. My parents went to state schools and we're not rich. I couldn't get into MIT or Harvard because I'm a white male.
And don't flame me for saying that, it's true, and it annoys me.
There's a little thing called US NEWS College Rankings that colleges strive for. If they don't make the grade and get a poor ranking, they will get a poor turnout, and thereby go out of business.
That reasoning doesn't totally work.
1. The majority of american highschool students couldn't get into any of the top 20 (or maybe even top 30) schools if their life depended on it.
2. Caltech was #1 last year, and we didn't have a huge influx of applicants. Princeton is #1 this year, and I doubt they will have a large influx of applicants.
3. What's Michigan State ranked on the US News and World Rankings? How do their sports do and how many students do they have? Same question for (I think) UTexas. Both those schools have near 40,000 people, and where are they in the rankings?
Sure, call Dan Hayes a troll. He may be exaggerating slightly, but he has a point. Sports players get more recognition than scientists. This isn't a problem that starts in college, it starts way before that.:-) Who's popular or respected for being valedictorian? Who's popular or respected for being on a state-championship football team?
There are academic colleges and there are sports colleges (and there are some that do both). If there is a problem (which is debatable), it doesn't lie with the colleges, it's just one of those societal quirks we have.
Slashdot Mirror
Create several large files (to fill up the HD within epsilon), overwrite them several times with random data, and "delete" them.
Epsilon?
after reading the article, it seems that the judge only addresses part of the problem (if it is to be considered a problem). As stated above, he suggested that there be some kind of wait period after which deleted digital information can't be used in court. The article says this would be analagous to the information being consigned to the trash, are documents recovered from the trash/dump/wastepaper basket admissible?
Also, when something is deleted, what happens to it? I'm not terribly familiar with the inner workings of any OS (I'm a hardware person), but where does the information go? I mean, does it stay on the harddrive and is simply not referenced until you write over it? Once you write over the information can it be recovered? If I delete 2 GB of mp3's from my harddrive, I am told I now have 2 more GB of free space. Does that mean that the information is gone and unrecoverable without special tools, or it's just hidden and I should be able to get it back, or it's completely gone and the bits have been wiped? Or, are the bits not gone until they are overwritten?
Is there a way to change how an operating system or file system deletes files? Could a program or subroutine be made to go through and fill all dereferenced HD space with 0's or something? Or would the information still be recoverable from under those 0's somehow?
I don't know if suggesting legislation for this would be the best course of action. Especially if there isn't a way of telling when files are deleted. Even if there is a way to tell, what's to stop the people who can recover deleted information from changing the flag that says when a file was deleted (if such a flag exists)? If the only people who can retrieve deleted information are 'experts' and these 'experts' are employed by people with lots of money who are trying to find dirt on someone else...ok, I'm probably being too paranoid never mind.
::sigh:: one of these days I'll contribute something other than more questions.
Moller
hell, a 1.2 GHz processor is finishing the race while my computer is finishing the first lap! I've been lapped 3 times, only because you can't get lapped 4 times in a mile!
Moller
but basically I'm too lazy to set up my favorites for the mods. That and I'm very set in my base ways, I know all the maps, I know all the weapons, and I love going on the servers frequented by the top 10 teams from OGL and holding my own.
::sigh:: even 30 year old men can be incredibly immature in computer games. oh well.
:-) I play base because I was involved in the base community on the OGL ladder. I don't feel the animosity towards mods that the rest of the base community seems to feel. "Llama Caging" and such.
Moller
flame you for working on renegades ;-)
Sorry, couldn't resist. Honestly, I haven't been following the development of Halo or Tribes 2 very much, as I've been spending all my time drooling over Baldur's Gate 2. It just strikes me as messed up that a few screenshots for Halo are shown and suddenly the entire community proclaims it as a Godsend, and everyone immediately forgets about Tribes 2.
And I'm not sure that I would say Tribes was only half-heartedly team-oriented. Seems to me that when it first came out there was a much more concerted effort for teamwork (in pubs at least). The game is very, very different now than when it was released, and the teamwork is very different as well.
We may have a different perspective, as I only play base, but I don't know that you don't play base frequently as well. I simply never play mods.
Moller
X-Box. Just means it won't compete with Tribes 2 anytime soon.
I'm biased, I love tribes, and I think Tribes 2 will be awesome. It kinda burns me that some sites show 1 or 2 screenshots from Halo and suddenly every gaming site and their mother is crowing that Halo is THE game we should be anticipating, THE game that will revolutionize squad warfare, and so on. It's just hype, hype, and more hype, when Tribes 2 will be out in a month or two, and Tribes IS the game that revolutionalized squad warfare (with due respect to TFC and CS).
sorry, just a little rant, don't mind me.
Moller
the author of the linked story compared the argument to the religious battles in the 15th century between the Dominicans and Franciscans?
well, it amused me.
on-topic...yea, Sun shouldn't do this. bad sun. whatever...(sorry, I got distracted by the fact that he was waiting for two years to be able to use what he wrote his master's thesis. poor guy, heh)
Moller
all the companies would have to do is show to the judge that the technology in question has no other valid use other than to make illegal copies of material, right? Isn't that what happened in the DeCSS case?
just a thought, and I know what I'm tossing out has been said a lot before, but it seems that any large enough company can throw lawyers at anything and find a way to either spin things so that they look like they are the victims in the court's eyes or...no wait, that seems to be all lawyers do, is spin info.
Moller
go to Baldur's Gate Chronicles
It has all the information you could ever want on Baldur's Gate 2, updates from the development team, etc.
it continues the storyline of BG1 directly. And you only start at level 9 with certain classes. Most people will probably import their character from Baldur's Gate into BG2, it simply wouldn't make any sense if your 7th level fighter was suddenly level 1 again.
and BG2 isn't supposed to be as much of a killfest.
I'm playing through BG1 again right now, and it is truly a fine game. I did play through Torment several times, and torment is a better RPG but Baldur's Gate is a fine game in it's right.
If you're really interested, you could go to www.bgchronicles.com and read up on the game a bit.
There has been no word as to whether or not there will be a PS:T 2. I've seen speculation as to how it could be done, but it would be strange. The Nameless One is stuck in the lower planes for a long time, a sequel might involve Fall-From-Grace trying to get him back, but Black Isle is incredibly silent on any talk of a sequel. I know Black Isle is working on an as-of-now undisclosed project, so who knows.
Moller
since the game starts and you are in a prison being experimented upon by an insane wizard.
as such, you've been stripped of your gear. you might find some of it as you escape from the wizard.
I just had to point this out. Many, many, many, probably most, employed Americans have money in stock. Don't believe me? Ever heard of a 401(k)? Most pension plans have at least some money in stocks. That includes union pension plans. Never before have more people had more money in stock.
you're most likely correct. I should have clarified like many other posters did on this topic. The original post I was replying to was referring to individuals owning stock and having a say in how the company was run. The majority of individuals owning stock do now have any say in how the company is run. I addressed this more in a reply I made above. Also, most of the other posters on this thread made the same point.
Having a 401(k) and a pension plan doesn't give you enough stock to have any input into how the large corporations run.
also, "more people" having "more money" in stock doesn't mean much. Regardless of how many people have money in the stock market, most of the money in the stock market comes from the richest individuals in the nation, which is a very small percentage. It is those individuals who get a say in how the company is run, not the small stockholders with 401(k) plans or mutual funds.
Moller
Considering the source it comes from, and the statements it makes.
"This is a class with clout," said Raghavan Mayur, president of the Technometrica Institute for Politics and Policy, which conducted the poll for IBD. "Obviously, they're watching, and they can swing things one way or another."
I remember the same thing being said about "Soccer Moms" 4 years ago. I was never convinced it wasn't just political hype.
For instance, a survey by Paine-Webber found that 50% of Americans own stock, while a Heartland-Bullseye poll found the number was closer to 60%.
Look at the sources. Investment firms. I am very hesitant to take their statistics at face value without knowing how they gathered those statistics and the demographics of the people they polled.
And, in a recent survey, the Federal Reserve said 49% of Americans directly own shares compared with just 31.6% in 1989.
I'm more inclined to believe this bit of information, but they leave out how much stock those Americans own. I know lots of people who own some stock in the companies they work for. The amount is typically so low it really doesn't make a difference.
So who belongs to this new investor class?
Typically, he's a white male, married, between 45 and 54 years old. He has a college education and works in a white-collar job. And he has more than $50,000 invested in the stock market.
The profile of the typical non-investor: female, married, age 65 or older, with a high school education. She also works in a white-collar job.
Now we get to the heart of the problem. These are their demographics. I'm willing to venture that the population they sampled for this pool was not a good demographic representation of the country as a whole.
Also note the amount of money a "typical" investor has invested in the stock market. $50,000? That's a lot of money, especially considering that the median income for the US is under $40,000 ( us census data ).
Also, notice the last line of the article:
The same was true among middle-income groups.
The same what was true? Everything? Or just the political views that made up the majority of the article? My reading of this article is that it is mostly just political propaganda targeted at the investors who frequent the website.
53% of registered voters that they polled had over $10,000 in the stock market. What percentage of people aren't registered to vote? That's and important piece of information, especially with the degree of voter apathy in America.
Also, small time investors have no say in how large corporations run. If I buy 100 shares of Xerox stock, it gets me NO input into Xerox's upper echelons.
In summary, be wary of polls online, unless you know how the information was gathered (i.e. the census). Individuals with $10,000 invested in the stock market are not going to have a say in the workings of huge corporations because their $10,000 is going to be spread out over a multitude of companies. It's only the large investors who have millions of dollars in stock in a particular company (well, many particular companies) that have a voice with the Board of Directors.
Moller
When people complain about the government, I have to point out that we, not them, are the government. If there's a government problem, it's because I elected the wrong person.
Well...I don't really agree with that. We don't have many options to elect the right person. How many of our elections are between only two candidates? I live in New York. The senate primaries were yesterday, and guess what, Hilary Clinton won the Democratic Primary and Rick Lazio won the Republican Primary. I never ever HEARD of anyone challenging them. For the past month they've been running ads against each other, they both effectively ignored the primaries.
It's also difficult for anyone from the majority of the american public to achieve a high-ranking elected government position. This is a generalization, but most people don't have the resources or the abilities to run for a seat in the house, or the senate.
To a great extent, we are the corporate power. Never before in American history has so much money been invested in the stock market by so many people. We own our oppressor.
This isn't really accurate. You say that never before...has so much money been invested. This is probably accurate. However, most of that money is in the hands of a small percentage of the population. Because of the stock market's incredible success and so many companies having incredibly increases in their stock price, our culture has shifted so that to the outside observer it would seem that everyone is investing in the stock market, simply because of media saturation. You can't watch prime time television without seeing a myriad of investment ads. But the simply fact is most of the people in the country don't have the money or the time to spend investing in the stock market.
Don't mind me, I just hate wallstreet. I find it incredibly galling that a small number of people who pump money into our corporations dictate how those corporations run. (side note, I'm interning at Xerox right now...it's messed up, wallstreet is dumb. That's all I can say.)
Moller
Harvard is Harvard. Trying to defame them, give them a bad image, make them look bad, whatever, it doesn't work.
Everyone knows what Harvard is, and Harvard has universal respect.
No one will get a negative image of Harvard from this, it can only reflect poorly on Metallica, as anyone who is uninformed will view it as some stupid metal band suing our greatest institute of higher education...and those who are informed will see it in a fairly similar manner.
Moller
but they are in the minority, and most of them excel in one particular sport, not all sports, right? My understanding is Duke, Wake Forest, and UNC have good basketball teams. UNC has a good women's soccer team. Georgetown is also up there in academics, and their best sports team is basketball. My knowledge is limited, as UNC-Chapel Hill is in the top 50 academically, and I don't know if that's the main UNC campus or a satellite. In retrospect I probably should have said I didn't see many of the top 20 schools as having large athletic programs, but again, there are exceptions as Duke is ranked 8th, Stanford is ranked 6th, and Notre Dame is 19th. My point should have been that the schools that make employer's eyebrows raise when they see them on a resume typically don't have great sports teams.
Moller
Currently released games: Baldur's Gate, Planescape:Torment, Icewind Dale (and those are just the rpg's.). Baldur's Gate two comes out in less than a month. Neverwinter Nights comes out in under a year, probably. All are the epitomy of what role-playing games should be. There are truly fine games, if you would stop and look for a second. And don't say that these games didn't sell, Baldur's Gate sold VERY well, was named RPG of the Year (as was Torment, a year later), and BG2 will most likely outstrip BG and PS:T in sales and critical acclaim.
Moller
so it just means that Mr. Hayes isn't terribly open-minded. Neither is the poster that I've been replying to.
I may disagree with what he says, or I may agree, he still has a right to say it. And whether or not I agree or disagree with his comments should not be influenced by who is making the comments.
Moller
uhh, yes athletes are over-praised...and over-compensated, so what?
/lot/ of great academic universities, and i work at one (which also happens to be known for football, but that's just because michigan is the state of champions.)
that's the point. you're just saying, "so? it's not a problem" and he's saying "this isn't good"
I stated somewhere that he's probably overreacting. Duh.
you are also, apparently, stupid. i read all the posts, and most of them are stupid as well.
Thanks. You're basing this on what? My attempt to engage in a useful conversation on a topic instead of pointlessly flaming someone simply because I disagree with their ideas? Thank you for being close-minded.
sorry, but, it has been explained to you enough, i am not repeating myself any more
No, it hasn't been explained to me. So far on this subject you have said:
his points are that of an ignoramus
and
true some podunk hick universities value sports over academics but what do you expect out of rednecks?
the fact is there are a
I fail to see how that constitutes an explanation. You haven't given any valid points at all as to why Dan Hayes' arguments are those of an ignoramus, and yet you say that you will not repeat yourself anymore!
Moller
Think about why though.
:-)
Q.Who enjoy's sports?
A. Average Joe Sixpack
Q. Who covers the Sports that Joe likes?
A. National news agencies who need money from people like Joe.
I agree with you. It's a societal quirk that we most likely have to live with, because I doubt that it is going to change soon, and we will probably do better directing our efforts towards other areas since it really isn't damaging anyone. My main point was that there are academic institutions, and there are sports schools, the two don't intersect that often. You referenced the college rankings, and I didn't see many of the schools in the top 50 as being schools with large athletic programs. (we'll ignore Stanford for this argument).
I agree with what you just said, I was disagreeing with what you said before
Q. "Who's popular or respected for being valedictorian?"
A. Ironically ours (at a VERY respected private school), later became a "Professional Wrestler"
Ha! That's awesome. (what private school? I only know of TAMS, IMSA, and Bishops.)
maybe you should read some of the posts people made in the thread saying why his points aren't worthless. I didn't see any valid, well-supported points detailing why this man's ideas are those of an ignoramus.
true some podunk hick universities value sports over academics but what do you expect out of rednecks?
Very open-minded of you. Thanks. Maybe it's because I'm a damn yankee, but I don't see many podunk hick universities around here.
I addressed the main points of the post in question in another post on this thread, but it basically comes down to the fact that our country rewards things other than scientific research and academic prowess. I'm not saying that this is an earth-shaking problem, it's probably not that much of a problem at all. Sports keep the mindless masses happy, eh?
Moller
provided you fit one of the preferred groups that they are currently admitting.
I believe MIT is now 50/50 in terms of male/female ratio, while they were 65/35 3 years ago when I applied, and was wait-listed, then rejected.
MIT is overjoyed because they had so many "qualified, interested female candidates." Bullshit.
At the same time a visiting professor from Harvard slams Caltech, saying that we have no right to be ranked the #1 school in America (last year) because we have no African-Americans in the freshmen class.
I'm at Caltech because of my academic skills. My parents went to state schools and we're not rich. I couldn't get into MIT or Harvard because I'm a white male.
And don't flame me for saying that, it's true, and it annoys me.
Moller
you could give reasons instead of just dismissing them out of hand.
There's a little thing called US NEWS College Rankings that colleges strive for. If they don't make the grade and get a poor ranking, they will get a poor turnout, and thereby go out of business.
:-) Who's popular or respected for being valedictorian? Who's popular or respected for being on a state-championship football team?
That reasoning doesn't totally work.
1. The majority of american highschool students couldn't get into any of the top 20 (or maybe even top 30) schools if their life depended on it.
2. Caltech was #1 last year, and we didn't have a huge influx of applicants. Princeton is #1 this year, and I doubt they will have a large influx of applicants.
3. What's Michigan State ranked on the US News and World Rankings? How do their sports do and how many students do they have? Same question for (I think) UTexas. Both those schools have near 40,000 people, and where are they in the rankings?
Sure, call Dan Hayes a troll. He may be exaggerating slightly, but he has a point. Sports players get more recognition than scientists. This isn't a problem that starts in college, it starts way before that.
There are academic colleges and there are sports colleges (and there are some that do both). If there is a problem (which is debatable), it doesn't lie with the colleges, it's just one of those societal quirks we have.
Moller