Help my Marketing Team by answering a quick 6 question survey!
Thanks guys for your support!
- Tom
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Help my Marketing Project - Short 6 Question Survey
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=d53anpDNbtfnGy_2b0Tew_2bbw_3d_3d
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
5 Yard Penalty, No Home Run
MLB General managers voted 25 to 5 Tuesday morning session (Nov. 6, '07) to explore the possibility of Instant Replay technology to help settle disputes on various types of plays: home run calls, fair or foul calls, in or out of the ballpark calls. This vote gives the technology a good chance that it will be available on a limited basis in Major League Baseball games. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071106&content_id=2293785&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
My question is... WHY? Why would people feel that Instant Replay technology benefit baseball? Yeah, it can help calls, but it eliminates the human element from the game. While they're at it, they might as well have robot umpires to correctly call every play... thus creating the most boring game in the world. What's next? Baseball gets 3 time outs every 4.5 innings? Managers can throw a red flag onto the field and challenge plays? This ideology of brining replay footage into the hands of the umpires completely destroys the excitement of the game.
Speaking on the point of complete BULLSHIT, Yankee GM Brian Cashman said, "It's amazing that umpires are right as much as they are. About 99.9 percent of the time they're accurate. But nobody wants to be in a position where you work morning, noon and night for 12 months, and have it go down to one call in one game. Each game is important. All I know is I support any form and fashion of baby steps toward utilizing technology to benefit the umpires and the game." You know what I say? You're retarded Brian. Umpires are trained to make those borderline calls, and in all honesty, I can't think of a time when an umpire mad a bad call. There have been arguable calls, but they're ultimately the keepers of the keys.
In opposition to the vote, Houston GM Ed Wade said, "The umpires were more right than wrong 99.9 percent of the time. With the increased time of the game, at some point you'll get to a stage where managers are almost compelled to challenge and that's why I voted against it. I thought the guys on the committee made some very good points. There's a lot of validity to what they had to say. I just think that if you're going to do something like that on a limited scope, it doesn't stay limited." I agree with him, it won't stay limited. If you use it to call close home runs, you're going to start using it on every play. Now consider this scenario: 3-2 count, bottom of the 9th, tied game, bases loaded. Pitcher throws it on the outside corner, called strike, home team manager challenges the call. What then? You're going to argue the pitch that ultimately could've won the game? 'Let's go to the overhead cam... play reversed, team wins.' Or better yet, similar situation, except there's just a man on first, batter hits a game winning home run that's caught by a fan a little below the top of the outfield wall. Too bad, play reversed, thats only a double. Wow... I don't think I could ever watch baseball again.
I applaud Selig for acknowledging that inserting the technology into the game could have a devastating effect. Some believe that he has seemed to soften on the issue when asked about the issue in Arizona, where the Rockies were playing the Diamondbacks in the National League Championship Series. But what difference does it make? The Rockies still won, they were still on fire, and they left the D'Backs out in the Colorado cold. "I don't like instant replay because I don't like all the delays," Selig said. "I think it sometimes creates as many problems or more than it solves. But I am willing to say we'll at least talk about this if people want to talk about it. I'm going to let the general managers discuss it, let them come back and make recommendations. No, I'm not a big advocate of instant replay." Good Bud... keep it that way.
In discussing how to implement the instant replay feature, general managers determined that one central replay location somewhere in the U.S., would be able to review and ultimately put into play a replay review, just like the National Hockey League. But doing this would be a huge expense for the MLB, as so many more cameras would have to cover the entire outfield wall, and then some. I can understand some managers thinking, but it's just wrong. "Personally, I think with all this technology out there, at least you've got to consider it," Omar Minaya, the Mets GM, said. "Of course, it's how we use it. That's the key. I am a traditionalist, but I also believe that you would hate to see a season or a World Series end on a controversial play." But, how often does it come down to that? How many times has a season ended on a controversial play? How many times did the umpires make the wrong decision in that situation?
If Bud Selig allows the use of instant replay cameras, it will be the end of an era for baseball, there'll be another asterisk in the record books, and there'll be more disappointed fans then ever. And when the day finally comes when instant replay becomes a part of baseball... I don't think I'll watch the sport ever again.
My question is... WHY? Why would people feel that Instant Replay technology benefit baseball? Yeah, it can help calls, but it eliminates the human element from the game. While they're at it, they might as well have robot umpires to correctly call every play... thus creating the most boring game in the world. What's next? Baseball gets 3 time outs every 4.5 innings? Managers can throw a red flag onto the field and challenge plays? This ideology of brining replay footage into the hands of the umpires completely destroys the excitement of the game.
Speaking on the point of complete BULLSHIT, Yankee GM Brian Cashman said, "It's amazing that umpires are right as much as they are. About 99.9 percent of the time they're accurate. But nobody wants to be in a position where you work morning, noon and night for 12 months, and have it go down to one call in one game. Each game is important. All I know is I support any form and fashion of baby steps toward utilizing technology to benefit the umpires and the game." You know what I say? You're retarded Brian. Umpires are trained to make those borderline calls, and in all honesty, I can't think of a time when an umpire mad a bad call. There have been arguable calls, but they're ultimately the keepers of the keys.
In opposition to the vote, Houston GM Ed Wade said, "The umpires were more right than wrong 99.9 percent of the time. With the increased time of the game, at some point you'll get to a stage where managers are almost compelled to challenge and that's why I voted against it. I thought the guys on the committee made some very good points. There's a lot of validity to what they had to say. I just think that if you're going to do something like that on a limited scope, it doesn't stay limited." I agree with him, it won't stay limited. If you use it to call close home runs, you're going to start using it on every play. Now consider this scenario: 3-2 count, bottom of the 9th, tied game, bases loaded. Pitcher throws it on the outside corner, called strike, home team manager challenges the call. What then? You're going to argue the pitch that ultimately could've won the game? 'Let's go to the overhead cam... play reversed, team wins.' Or better yet, similar situation, except there's just a man on first, batter hits a game winning home run that's caught by a fan a little below the top of the outfield wall. Too bad, play reversed, thats only a double. Wow... I don't think I could ever watch baseball again.
I applaud Selig for acknowledging that inserting the technology into the game could have a devastating effect. Some believe that he has seemed to soften on the issue when asked about the issue in Arizona, where the Rockies were playing the Diamondbacks in the National League Championship Series. But what difference does it make? The Rockies still won, they were still on fire, and they left the D'Backs out in the Colorado cold. "I don't like instant replay because I don't like all the delays," Selig said. "I think it sometimes creates as many problems or more than it solves. But I am willing to say we'll at least talk about this if people want to talk about it. I'm going to let the general managers discuss it, let them come back and make recommendations. No, I'm not a big advocate of instant replay." Good Bud... keep it that way.
In discussing how to implement the instant replay feature, general managers determined that one central replay location somewhere in the U.S., would be able to review and ultimately put into play a replay review, just like the National Hockey League. But doing this would be a huge expense for the MLB, as so many more cameras would have to cover the entire outfield wall, and then some. I can understand some managers thinking, but it's just wrong. "Personally, I think with all this technology out there, at least you've got to consider it," Omar Minaya, the Mets GM, said. "Of course, it's how we use it. That's the key. I am a traditionalist, but I also believe that you would hate to see a season or a World Series end on a controversial play." But, how often does it come down to that? How many times has a season ended on a controversial play? How many times did the umpires make the wrong decision in that situation?
If Bud Selig allows the use of instant replay cameras, it will be the end of an era for baseball, there'll be another asterisk in the record books, and there'll be more disappointed fans then ever. And when the day finally comes when instant replay becomes a part of baseball... I don't think I'll watch the sport ever again.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
E 4 Egregious Entertainment
The inaugural E For All Expo, or E4, wrapped up its quiet four days at the Los Angeles Convention Center on Sunday. E4 was a new attempt to revive America's biggest video game show... and failed terribly. E4 was meant to fill the void left when the industry's biggest trade show, the Electronic Entertainment Expo, or E3, downsized and moved out of the LA Convention Center, but the crowds were non-existent and so were the big-name game companies that drew in said crowds. As such, E4 was an entertaining disgrace to the entire video game entertainment industry.
Over the past decade, E3 has been the keystone event in establishing a look into upcoming projects within the video game industry. Its attendees included, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Electronic Arts, Capcom, and Rockstar just to name a few, on top of the throngs of video game enthusiasts just waiting to get a hands on demonstration to blog about for weeks. E3 can be credited to hyping the Nintendo Wii (and conversely Sony stealing their idea and turning it into the SIXAXIS controller) as well as creating the buzz for highly anticipated video games such as Halo 3. The expo had ballooned to over 60,000 attendees before being reduced this past July to 3,000 hand-picked guests who attended a more buttoned-down show that received mixed reviews from participants.
What these ignorant organizers haven't realized is that the former E3 expo is exactly what the video game industry needs to create excitement for upcoming projects. By not bringing in the biggest names and by not creating a show thats worthy of recognition, there is nothing worth talking about within the video game industry. The last thing I've heard for upcoming projects was a new Madden, but when hasn't there been a new Madden. E3 downsized for the little guy... and effectively killed any type of talk for new exciting stuff. So why in god's name wouldn't you try to bring in the biggest and best for this thing?? The whole excitement that surrounded E3 was the fact that everyone in the industry would see what's in store for the future... creating competition to make the best game/system possible. But they killed that, so who's left to pick up the pieces? Nice attempt E4, but you just got romped.
E4 already announced that the expo will be returning next year in August, closer to the date of the new E3 as well as the Penny Arcade Expo. However, PAX is quickly becoming the new expo that the video game industry will flock to (attendance at the expo reaches a new peak every year). But if E4 wants to compete, they better do something on the level of the former E3... not this stellar piece of crap they just pulled together.
iPredict E4 will E-flop as PAX kicks their ass. Alas, I click over to www.penny-arcade.com for my tri-weekly comic relief...
E4 = pwnd
Over the past decade, E3 has been the keystone event in establishing a look into upcoming projects within the video game industry. Its attendees included, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Electronic Arts, Capcom, and Rockstar just to name a few, on top of the throngs of video game enthusiasts just waiting to get a hands on demonstration to blog about for weeks. E3 can be credited to hyping the Nintendo Wii (and conversely Sony stealing their idea and turning it into the SIXAXIS controller) as well as creating the buzz for highly anticipated video games such as Halo 3. The expo had ballooned to over 60,000 attendees before being reduced this past July to 3,000 hand-picked guests who attended a more buttoned-down show that received mixed reviews from participants.
What these ignorant organizers haven't realized is that the former E3 expo is exactly what the video game industry needs to create excitement for upcoming projects. By not bringing in the biggest names and by not creating a show thats worthy of recognition, there is nothing worth talking about within the video game industry. The last thing I've heard for upcoming projects was a new Madden, but when hasn't there been a new Madden. E3 downsized for the little guy... and effectively killed any type of talk for new exciting stuff. So why in god's name wouldn't you try to bring in the biggest and best for this thing?? The whole excitement that surrounded E3 was the fact that everyone in the industry would see what's in store for the future... creating competition to make the best game/system possible. But they killed that, so who's left to pick up the pieces? Nice attempt E4, but you just got romped.
E4 already announced that the expo will be returning next year in August, closer to the date of the new E3 as well as the Penny Arcade Expo. However, PAX is quickly becoming the new expo that the video game industry will flock to (attendance at the expo reaches a new peak every year). But if E4 wants to compete, they better do something on the level of the former E3... not this stellar piece of crap they just pulled together.
iPredict E4 will E-flop as PAX kicks their ass. Alas, I click over to www.penny-arcade.com for my tri-weekly comic relief...
E4 = pwnd
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Comcast Acknowledges Blocking Traffic
Comcast Corp. acknowledged Tuesday that they had been "delaying" some subscriber Internet traffic, but said any roadblocks it puts up are temporary and intended to improve surfing for other users. Personally I believe that what they did was complete crap. On top of that, other groups have also denounced Comcast's actions, calling it an example of the kind of abuse that could be curbed "Net Neutrality" legislation. Net Neutrality is the idea that Internet Service Providers are required to treat all internet traffic equally.
The thing that causes me to lose all credibility in Comcast is that they have repeatedly denied blocking any Internet application, and then reversing their statements, acknowledging that they have denied PAYING CUSTOMERS usage of the internet. The programs that they've blocked included "peer-to-peer" file-sharing programs like BitTorrent, Gnutella, and Lotus Notes, an IBM Corp. program used in corporate settings. Mitch Bowling, the senior vice president of Comcast Online Services, added a nuance to their prior statement, saying that while Comcast may block initial connection attempts between computers, it would eventually allow access if the computers keep trying. "During periods of heavy peer-to-peer congestion, which can degrade the experience for all customers, we use several network management technologies that, when necessary, enable us to delay — not block — some peer-to-peer traffic. However, the peer-to-peer transaction will eventually be completed as requested," Bowling said.
"Comcast is making arbitrary bandwidth allocation decisions slowing use of basic (programs) without being clear to consumers what they really get when they buy a broadband connection," said Markham Erickson, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Open Internet Coalition, a group that counts Google Inc. and eBay Inc. among its supporters. Basically this means that if Comcast doesn't approve of the application being used for internet usage, they can essentially hinder access indefinitely. Yes, they claim that they only delay access for those programs, but that paradoxically translates into a unfair allocation of bandwidth for other paying customers.
In addition, I say that I agree with Peter Eckersley, a staff technologist at Electronic Frontier Foundation when he says, "If ISPs start regularly engaging in conduct like this, then kids in their dorm rooms or small startup companies that are trying to develop innovative new uses of the Internet are going to have to come and get permission from players like Comcast to get their protocols working properly. That kind of veto over innovation would be very bad news." By limiting connections, I feel that Comcast has opened Pandora's Box. Not only are they losing face, but they have effectively began turning the wheels to essentially prevent them from ever doing this sort of thing again. What were they thinking? Obviously management missed the full implications on this one, and on top of that, effectively proved what a lackluster bunch of brainless idiots they all are.
Comcast Corp: 0
Internet Users: 10,000,000,000 and counting...
The thing that causes me to lose all credibility in Comcast is that they have repeatedly denied blocking any Internet application, and then reversing their statements, acknowledging that they have denied PAYING CUSTOMERS usage of the internet. The programs that they've blocked included "peer-to-peer" file-sharing programs like BitTorrent, Gnutella, and Lotus Notes, an IBM Corp. program used in corporate settings. Mitch Bowling, the senior vice president of Comcast Online Services, added a nuance to their prior statement, saying that while Comcast may block initial connection attempts between computers, it would eventually allow access if the computers keep trying. "During periods of heavy peer-to-peer congestion, which can degrade the experience for all customers, we use several network management technologies that, when necessary, enable us to delay — not block — some peer-to-peer traffic. However, the peer-to-peer transaction will eventually be completed as requested," Bowling said.
"Comcast is making arbitrary bandwidth allocation decisions slowing use of basic (programs) without being clear to consumers what they really get when they buy a broadband connection," said Markham Erickson, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Open Internet Coalition, a group that counts Google Inc. and eBay Inc. among its supporters. Basically this means that if Comcast doesn't approve of the application being used for internet usage, they can essentially hinder access indefinitely. Yes, they claim that they only delay access for those programs, but that paradoxically translates into a unfair allocation of bandwidth for other paying customers.
In addition, I say that I agree with Peter Eckersley, a staff technologist at Electronic Frontier Foundation when he says, "If ISPs start regularly engaging in conduct like this, then kids in their dorm rooms or small startup companies that are trying to develop innovative new uses of the Internet are going to have to come and get permission from players like Comcast to get their protocols working properly. That kind of veto over innovation would be very bad news." By limiting connections, I feel that Comcast has opened Pandora's Box. Not only are they losing face, but they have effectively began turning the wheels to essentially prevent them from ever doing this sort of thing again. What were they thinking? Obviously management missed the full implications on this one, and on top of that, effectively proved what a lackluster bunch of brainless idiots they all are.
Comcast Corp: 0
Internet Users: 10,000,000,000 and counting...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
