sacm3bill

I was thinking in terms of desktops/laptops, not mobile devices. For the former category, what I said is true. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems). For mmobile devices though, you're right - it's closer to 50/50. Many businesses use PC based software and servers, and there are certainly a great number of such PCs being used to store and manipulate sensitive data. In fact using a cash register is a great example of that - data breaches via POS register hacking has been big in the news recently. Stolen PC laptops are another source of headline-making breaches.

Apple products in general experience fewer security issues, but that's not necessarily because their security is any better than PCs. It's primarily because hackers generally target PCs - there are so many more targets in that space.

I thought it was outstanding - a real page turner with great characters and story. Well worth the $ - I know Gary's been providing free copies but I'd encourage anyone interested to pay for it... gotta support our fellow Sandtrappers. :-) (And it may be coincidence, but I played 3 of my best rounds in years after reading it - I think some of the mental game advice from the Jack character sunk in.)

Through Amazon onto my Kindle - is there another way?

Downloaded the free sample, then downloaded the whole thing. Really enjoying it.

"I've played in one where the player whose drive was selected did not get to play the second shot, cutting 18 swings per group out of the round." That probably speeds things up in most cases, but not when there's only one decent golfer in the group. You end up usually using the decent golfer's drive, so only the 3 duffers hit the next shot. That removes the chance for the decent golfer to get the 2nd shot somewhere near the green, and instead the 3 duffers either top it 10 yards forward, or send it into the weeds or water.

No the difference between par and course rating is they are two completely different concepts. Not sure why you think we need to throw away par and just use course rating, since they're 2 different things.

What he's saying is, consider a course that has 18 holes that are all 340-yard par 4s with wide fairways, no bunkers and no water hazards. That's a par 72, but a scratch golfer is not going to shoot a 72. He's going to get a lot of birdies on those short par 4s. So the course rating is going to be a lot lower than 72. I.e., the course rating depends on the difficulty of the course, not the par.

That +27 is for 2 rounds, so it's actually worse than that. He's a good golfer, based on what I saw on Big Break. Sounds like the pressure of his first PGA event just got to him. From his twitter feed, on the first round: " Well friends, not too much I can say except I'm only human and I lost my mental focus after a tough first 2 holes. I'm embarrassed but ok... It was the worst round of my professional career. I just didn't want to let anyone down and that thinking got in the way... "

Good find. And the other thing a lot of people get wrong (including probably Dan himself) is that Gladwell's contention is not "If you put 10,000 hours in, you will be an expert". He's actually saying "All of the experts have 10,000 hours in." Or in logician's terms, 10,000 hours is a necessary but not sufficient condition to being an expert. Many people are under the impression that if Dan does not reach expert level after 10,000 hours, he will have disproven the theory. In actuality, he'll only disprove it if he *does* become an expert *without* putting 10,000 hours in. (But of course it's moot anyway since Gladwell wasn't talking about sports.)

Hey Brandon, Hmm, well I was thinking the author was talking about a single set of trees that were in play on both holes, which would therefore mean something between the 2 holes - but you could be right in your interpretation of 2 different sets of trees. Although the description "skinny cypress" tree doesn't match the one on the right of the 8th fairway you're talking about. (It's Bill, not Sam btw - but no worries.) Great point by Rick above - marking trees GUR doesn't remove the responsibility of still having to identify your ball. They tourney director is prob just frustrated about the incidents and lashing out, and either isn't thinking clearly or isn't up on the rules.

Yep, and wanting them cut down even more so. If you don't like trees, play a links course.

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/05/27/6436797/making-the-rounds-memorial-amateur.html See pic below. I believe they're talking about the trees in the circled area. #8 is the right-to-left par 4 above the trees in question, #9 is the left-to-right par 3 below them. I've played this course and know these holes well, but all you need is the picture to know that if you're in the trees it means you've hit a bad shot. Does a tournament director have the authority to mark a group of trees GIR?

Quote: Originally Posted by scopek Quote: Originally Posted by albatross Deadwood was so great. Still love The Wire the most. I can't believe I haven't gotten around to Six Feet Under yet. I really need to do that, I've heard. Yes! Deadwood is one of the best series ever made!!! For some reason, I don't know a lot of people that have seen it or could appreciate it for what it is. I am definitely not anti-swearing and feel there's nothing better then using the F-word at times. But the first episode of Deadwood even made me uneasy with the language. But I did a little research online and found out that they actually did swear like that and it is historically accurate. Once I accepted the language and really started listening to the dialoge, I was amazed by how brilliant the writting is. The creator of the show (Milch) originally claimed it was historically accurate, but actual historians disputed that. Milch apparently later changed his tune, as this is what Wikipedia (and other online sources) has to say: Quote: From its debut, Deadwood drew attention for its extensive profanity. It is a deliberate anachronism on the part of the creator with a twofold intent. Milch explained in several interviews that the characters were originally intended to use period slang and swear words. Such words, however, were based heavily on the era's deep religious roots and tended to be more blasphemous than scatological. Instead of being shockingly crude (in keeping with the tone of a frontier mining camp), the results sounded downright comical. As Geoffrey Nunberg put it "… if you put words like 'goldarn' into the mouths of the characters on 'Deadwood', they'd all wind up sounding like Yosemite Sam." Instead, it was decided that the show would use current profanity in order for the words to have the same impact on modern audiences as the blasphemous ones did back in the 1870s And I agree, the writing was brilliant.

I'm not saying everyone is guaranteed to score better by laying up off the tee in every situation. Just saying that IMO there is some validity to at least considering the percentages. It's different for everyone - for example, unlike you I have never hit 3W or 5W as good as I've hit my irons.

Yes, obviously an 8i from 8i distance will get you closer to and/or on the green vs a 5i from 5i distance. But the tee shot is part of this equation too. And the point is that you're a bit more likely to get to 5i distance with a 5i (*and* have a shot at the green *and* not be OB or otherwise in trouble) than you are likely to similarly get to 8i distance with a driver. I'm just saying you need to consider the tradeoffs. Again, that's obvious. The point is that 2 poorly hit 5i will likely leave you in better shape than an equally poorly hit driver followed by an equally poorly hit anything.

Both bolded statements may be true, but if the goal is to decrease score and not just increase GIR, then I can still see how 5i-5i might be better. The reason being, high handicappers like myself aren't generally hitting a lot of greens with 8i anyway. Whether Driver-8i or 5i-5i, if we hit two decent shots we're generally going to be somewhere within 30 yards of the green. From there it's most likely we'll get down in 3 (whether just off the green or 30 yards away), for a most likely score of bogie. With two 5is that aren't hit well, we'll still prob be close to 30 yards from the green in 2 shots - but with one driver shot not hit well, we're more likely to get into the kind of trouble that takes us 3 shots to get close to the green.

For me, when I use this technique, looking at the hole is to help judge how hard to hit it, not as an aiming point. For big breaking putts I don't worry about direction because I've already lined up a mark on my ball, and have lined up my feet and body to the ball at address, so I just need to trust I've done that properly and make the stroke. True, on short putts, direction is more important than speed, but for me looking at the hole on short putts does help with direction too - esp since the hole is more likely to be the aiming point.

True - I guess they figure you wouldn't know someone else's GHIN number (unless you're a club chairman or something, in which case you'd have a right to see someone's actual round dates), and if you're looking up by GHIN then you're looking up your own.

That's just the way the system displays the entries for everybody. There was a change made a couple years ago where GHIN stopped displaying the exact dates of postings, for privacy reasons. (People didn't want their bosses seeing them post a round on a day they were supposed to be sick, for example.) That said, I agree that the validity of his index is questionable, given how many rounds he claims are just for practice (the suspicion being that he decides to call them practice after he starts off playing poorly), and the fact that his tournament rounds are so much worse than they should be for his index.

It has nothing to do with social graces, bizarre or otherwise. Courses group people together simply because they're throwing money away if they don't. If the course is slow that day and an introvert asks to go out on their own, the course will probably let them. Otherwise, it's silly to expect a busy course to give a single a block all to himself when there are paying customers they could put with the single. If the single doesn't like it he can comeback when it's not so busy.

Chevy Chase : And now with tonight's commentary; Miss Emily Litella. Emily Litella : Thank you, Cheddar. Now what's all this talk about violins on tv? I think we need more violins and less of that loud rock music. And furthermore... Chevy Chase : Uh, excuse me; Miss Litella. It's violence on TV, not violins. Emily Litella : Oh. Never mind.

This has been sated before in other ways, but I think the value of Dan's experiment boils down to whether we're saying 10,000 hours is sufficient , or necessary . I think the original theory is saying that 10,000 hours is necessary, in that top performers have put in that amount of time. But it's not necessarily sufficient, especially if you don't have the natural ability also required.

It isn't just you. I'm a single digit handicap off mats.

Totally understandable, but there are lots of ways to gauge whether you're improving other than total score. Some options are: - Get an official handicap. (Which allows for unfinished holes, as David in FL alluded to.) - Learn how the handicap numbers work and then keep track of your own handicap unofficially. - Keep track of how many times you are having to pick up and mark an X. - Keep track of how many pars you get. - Track stats like fairways hit, greens hit in regulation, # of pars, # of lost balls, etc. I'm sure you can think of others.