Go to the source. Lee Smolin created LQG. I'd recommend Lee's "Three Roads To Quantum Gravity", which features LQG, ST and a hybrid approach. You could also check out this for a variation on LQG.
Speaking of audio books:), what about making some? There are plenty of subjects lacking in audio books. Choose one that you think is important and have at it -- leave something significant for others after you shuffle off planet #3.
I'm genuinely interested, and have 12 feeds. Not uncommonly I will subscribe to a site's feeds, get caught up, then usually unsubscribe most or all the feeds. For example,/. has a feed, I subbed for a while but there was no need -- can go to home page and click "Early" to get caught up on earlier articles. Care to list some of your top feeds?
Rather than respond to everyone, I'll try to summarize. The grandparent implied there was no money in the marginal business of providing replacement phones for those that are stolen. I am not saying that selling replacement phones is $Phonemaker's only business. I doubt that it equals their main business. I am saying that every extra sale -- defined as two phones to the same customer -- is "found money" in that there is no other way they would make this revenue except for someone being held up at knife point on 5th Avenue. And so, most importantly, $Phonemakers have zero incentive to stop the flow of "found money". It is going to take (1) a third party stepping in to put a stop to this deliberate inaction because $Phonemakers would have to be out of their minds to stop it on their own or (2) $Phonemakers finding a conscience.
$Phonemaker does nothing, tons of phones get stolen, $Phonemaker makes tons of replacement phones (i.e. tons of money).
.
Or
$Phonemaker makes a used phone useless, no phones get stolen and $Phonemaker loses tons of money in lost replacement phone revenue.
Can you explain how each phone stolen is "marginal", as opposed to 100%, gain? Basically, if they do nothing they find money for zero work. This model dictates exactly what they should do -- absolutely nothing. No wonder they are having a big pow-wow about it. Might need to have annual meetings even.
My attempt to sift through the ads was to click on the slide show. Expected to be tortured with one slide per ad-laden screen. Was not expecting zero slides per ad-laden screen, until I turned on javascript. Anyway, went that approach, glanced at each slide until it got to Mobile, and I was done. Nothing to see, moved on, but even the "print" version of that article was unreadable -- had a box outline overlay thing on top of the text and it didn't go away as I scrolled. They need to work on their "print" mode...Still, I survived the article and am off to get the tattoo.
This actually reminds me that in the NBA (though not college) they recently implemented a very interesting rule called a "clear-path foul". If a defender fouls an opponent in open court who had a "clear path" to the basket, the offensive team shoots free throws AND retains possession of the ball. I would like to see this happen for all fouls in the final 2 minutes of the game. That would probably go a long way toward solving the end-of-game-slugfest problem. .
There ya go. Awesome. Now to tweak the de-flopping.
I think some kind of coarse correction is needed. It will not eliminate the potential for a bad call to influence the outcome of the game. But then this is possible in any sport. A perfect game "did not happen" because of a horrendous missed call -- this year -- but no changes were made and the commish didn't step in and say "heh, we've all looked at the replay and changed our mind about that call after the fact." The changes that are needed are (1) shorten the end of the game by (2) NOT EVER rewarding someone in any way for fouling another player. No, you do not want to give a penalty when one is not called for, but this is the penultimate problem already conceded. Anyway, to do all this, basketball (i.e. David Stern) will have to relinquish its craving for an "exciting" ending, as this leads to an "assault is good" ending. I doubt he will do this because he thinks he will lose ad views as a result.
.
One thing I think you are not fully considering is that players adapt very well to the rules "as the refs are seeing them today". In baseball the early batters return to the dugout and inform everyone else how the home plate umpire is calling the game. In football there is a lot of consideration given, by analysts, to who is refereeing a game, precisely because it is known how each person refs, and so how players will adapt to this. I think you are being a bit over-protective of a bad system, rather than wanting to embrace a new one, one that will still need to have the bugs worked out.
Another thing we have not mentioned is video replay. This is becoming a bigger factor each day. Baseball, the sloth of sports when it comes to "advancing the game" is already using it, but will have to fully embrace it to simply make their game fair (and less open to betting-related corruption of the officiating). Every sport needs more video replay -- and heh, David S., you can fit in ad views while they are reviewing the replay!!!1!
I would rather a game be stopped to get the call right than for any other reason (aside from player injury, of course). Also, there are anti-flop rules in basketball that remove the temptation to fake contact.
The average football game is every bit as close at the end as any basketball game. The total number of scores per game is not relevant. Neither is the exact score differential.
.
The bottom line is simple. Either the other team has a chance at the end -- in football, basketball, baseball or lawn darts -- or they do not.
Football accepts the inevitable and doesn't end violently. So does baseball. Basketball doesn't, and sometimes lawn darts doesn't.
Good points. Football games are often decided on the last throw, the last score as well. I agree that basketball has a movement issue that few other sports have, making the refereeing of same an inexact science. Frankly I am astounded how well the basketball refs do -- they might be some of the greatest refs in sports.
.
What I disagree with in how the end of basketball games is allowed to play out is that physical "contact" determines almost everything that happens (in close games, anyway). And this is the opposite of the grace in how a football game ends. "We have the ball, we have 3 downs, we are up by 5 points and we are going to run out the clock" is often how it all ends. It doesn't mean the previous 59 minutes weren't awesome. It just means the game is effectively over.
Basketball has the announcers saying "They have to foul them now" and "they have a foul to give" (what if instead they said "they have a punch to throw"?). Basketball could just say "There are 20 seconds to go, we have the ball, the lead and the 24 second clock to run out the game, and that is what we are going to do". The previous 47 minutes could still have been awesome. Don't end the game with violations that help the violators. NBA claims to be all about the message they send to kids, to a creepy extent. How ironic that the message they send at the end of each game is "Violence pays off".
To expand on my previous post...it is good enough in football to "run out the clock" but basketball chooses to make the end of the game "exciting" by stretching the last 60 seconds into 30 minutes through small consequence penalties that bring the game literally to a halt a dozen times. Great for stuffing in more commercials, horrendous for the sport.
.
The basketball fouling problem would go away if (1) an additional penalty shot was awarded. Instead of one shot there were two; instead of two there were three, etc. or (2) if flagrant fouls and some technicals led to ejections [like in soccer] or (3) if only fouls in the last 30 seconds of the game had the increased penalties listed in -1- above or (4) if fouls led to that player being sidelined for several minutes (even if the penalized team was allowed to replace him on the floor).
Fouling in basketball is condoned bullying. Like going to a seminar on how to assault someone and watching a basketball game break out (to borrow and then bludgeon the hockey line).
Thank you for posting this. The primary reason I dislike the game, though I like very nearly all sports. By coincidence the 2013 Scripts just started up on ESPN...
Maybe you were going for funny, but Excel was exactly what the Oakland Athletics, and later the Boston Red Sox used to succeed...as depicted in Moneyball.
Alcohol is bad for the skin, while soap has proven to be just as effective at germ removal. So I'm fine with this monitoring if one of the options is to use regular soap. Otherwise they might as well add an injection station where you have to stab yourself with the medical elixir du jour before leaving the restroom.
We all can identify you by your style of writing -- drawing strength from anonymity, the coward within you comes quivering to the fore as you shake your jowels at someone more constructive than yourself. No need for you to have that as your user name.
Slashdot Mirror
Go to the source. Lee Smolin created LQG. I'd recommend Lee's "Three Roads To Quantum Gravity", which features LQG, ST and a hybrid approach. You could also check out this for a variation on LQG.
Speaking of audio books :), what about making some? There are plenty of subjects lacking in audio books. Choose one that you think is important and have at it -- leave something significant for others after you shuffle off planet #3.
wouldn't "hammer and axe" make more sense? A saw can be guided to and then used to cut without the use of vision.
Easier to fake arson than a flood.
Great post. Shows how sheep-like people are, drinking Starbucks.
-- a Peet's fan
I'm genuinely interested, and have 12 feeds. Not uncommonly I will subscribe to a site's feeds, get caught up, then usually unsubscribe most or all the feeds. For example, /. has a feed, I subbed for a while but there was no need -- can go to home page and click "Early" to get caught up on earlier articles. Care to list some of your top feeds?
How much tech can you have in an industry with profit margins of 1 or 2%?
The novice posts a theory.
An expert refutes it.
Guess which one gets the +5.
Burma Shave!
Rather than respond to everyone, I'll try to summarize. The grandparent implied there was no money in the marginal business of providing replacement phones for those that are stolen. I am not saying that selling replacement phones is $Phonemaker's only business. I doubt that it equals their main business. I am saying that every extra sale -- defined as two phones to the same customer -- is "found money" in that there is no other way they would make this revenue except for someone being held up at knife point on 5th Avenue. And so, most importantly, $Phonemakers have zero incentive to stop the flow of "found money". It is going to take (1) a third party stepping in to put a stop to this deliberate inaction because $Phonemakers would have to be out of their minds to stop it on their own or (2) $Phonemakers finding a conscience.
.
Or
$Phonemaker makes a used phone useless, no phones get stolen and $Phonemaker loses tons of money in lost replacement phone revenue.
Can you explain how each phone stolen is "marginal", as opposed to 100%, gain? Basically, if they do nothing they find money for zero work. This model dictates exactly what they should do -- absolutely nothing. No wonder they are having a big pow-wow about it. Might need to have annual meetings even.
Then this would be the real reason why "Do not track" is being universally ignored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saw
wiki explanation.
Thanks for the link. And no need to enable JS to read it.
My attempt to sift through the ads was to click on the slide show. Expected to be tortured with one slide per ad-laden screen. Was not expecting zero slides per ad-laden screen, until I turned on javascript. Anyway, went that approach, glanced at each slide until it got to Mobile, and I was done. Nothing to see, moved on, but even the "print" version of that article was unreadable -- had a box outline overlay thing on top of the text and it didn't go away as I scrolled. They need to work on their "print" mode...Still, I survived the article and am off to get the tattoo.
.
There ya go. Awesome. Now to tweak the de-flopping.
.
One thing I think you are not fully considering is that players adapt very well to the rules "as the refs are seeing them today". In baseball the early batters return to the dugout and inform everyone else how the home plate umpire is calling the game. In football there is a lot of consideration given, by analysts, to who is refereeing a game, precisely because it is known how each person refs, and so how players will adapt to this. I think you are being a bit over-protective of a bad system, rather than wanting to embrace a new one, one that will still need to have the bugs worked out.
Another thing we have not mentioned is video replay. This is becoming a bigger factor each day. Baseball, the sloth of sports when it comes to "advancing the game" is already using it, but will have to fully embrace it to simply make their game fair (and less open to betting-related corruption of the officiating). Every sport needs more video replay -- and heh, David S., you can fit in ad views while they are reviewing the replay!!!1!
I would rather a game be stopped to get the call right than for any other reason (aside from player injury, of course). Also, there are anti-flop rules in basketball that remove the temptation to fake contact.
Replace "smart people" with "1%" and you've got it about right.
.
The bottom line is simple. Either the other team has a chance at the end -- in football, basketball, baseball or lawn darts -- or they do not.
Football accepts the inevitable and doesn't end violently. So does baseball. Basketball doesn't, and sometimes lawn darts doesn't.
.
What I disagree with in how the end of basketball games is allowed to play out is that physical "contact" determines almost everything that happens (in close games, anyway). And this is the opposite of the grace in how a football game ends. "We have the ball, we have 3 downs, we are up by 5 points and we are going to run out the clock" is often how it all ends. It doesn't mean the previous 59 minutes weren't awesome. It just means the game is effectively over.
Basketball has the announcers saying "They have to foul them now" and "they have a foul to give" (what if instead they said "they have a punch to throw"?). Basketball could just say "There are 20 seconds to go, we have the ball, the lead and the 24 second clock to run out the game, and that is what we are going to do". The previous 47 minutes could still have been awesome. Don't end the game with violations that help the violators. NBA claims to be all about the message they send to kids, to a creepy extent. How ironic that the message they send at the end of each game is "Violence pays off".
.
The basketball fouling problem would go away if (1) an additional penalty shot was awarded. Instead of one shot there were two; instead of two there were three, etc. or (2) if flagrant fouls and some technicals led to ejections [like in soccer] or (3) if only fouls in the last 30 seconds of the game had the increased penalties listed in -1- above or (4) if fouls led to that player being sidelined for several minutes (even if the penalized team was allowed to replace him on the floor).
Fouling in basketball is condoned bullying. Like going to a seminar on how to assault someone and watching a basketball game break out (to borrow and then bludgeon the hockey line).
Thank you for posting this. The primary reason I dislike the game, though I like very nearly all sports. By coincidence the 2013 Scripts just started up on ESPN...
Maybe you were going for funny, but Excel was exactly what the Oakland Athletics, and later the Boston Red Sox used to succeed...as depicted in Moneyball.
Alcohol is bad for the skin, while soap has proven to be just as effective at germ removal. So I'm fine with this monitoring if one of the options is to use regular soap. Otherwise they might as well add an injection station where you have to stab yourself with the medical elixir du jour before leaving the restroom.
We all can identify you by your style of writing -- drawing strength from anonymity, the coward within you comes quivering to the fore as you shake your jowels at someone more constructive than yourself. No need for you to have that as your user name.