Woke up at 8am so I could post first in a Zotac thread.




FUCK YEAH!

09:39 EET

liar

1 europe 1 timezone :P

gratz to this overwhelming success! 8)

I will stream this event in English, high FPS and high quality.

Tune in @ http://TheBeard.TV/ tomorrow @ 14:00 CET!

ur stream is awesome but i think u should ask some high skilled player to co cast with u to get more insight since u r kinda new in quakelive shoutcasting :P
( it would attract more viewers aswell)

PS = Spam irc main ql channels ( #zotac.qlive - #quakelive #esl.quakelive , even #lvl^ when they are not streaming )

maybe you should cast so u can explain how you can't play with 30 ping vs 100 :D

when did that happen??

last brotac, vs cypher

wish i had 30 :( he made me play in a server with 60 ping which is the double i m used to ( and the only ping i play ) . He played with his usual eu server ping while i played without warmup or anythign for the first time with double of ping so well i didnt feel much of a ping advantage .

awww :(

Yeah, that mean Belarusian! He should have picked a server on which he had 80 ping and you 30.

never said that ... just saying its wrong that i played 30 vs 100 . Server we played was kinda fair but there wasnt the huge ping advantage as someone thought .

sparta you do realize you are being trolled by all the cypher fanboys?

OMG YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT MY IDOL CYPHER! HOW DARE YOU!

ye started to think about that :D

cocaster secured, as advertised?

Fuck yeah, you rock man!

you've got a great voice to be a commentator

the whole thing is very pro (except the comments themselves sometimes but u're aware of that so it's np)

well played on the choice of music !

keep going

my first zotac. wish me luck to lose my match with positive frag count :]

no

27:-1, thx :p

I do. FOR MOTHER RUSSUA!

GL&HF

GoodGame will stream totday as well :)
http://www.goodgame.ru/news.php?ocd=view&id=8152

Level Up TV will cover this cup from quarters on. Casting by zsx (if he manages to wake up this time :D)

www.levelupyourgame.net

72 / 256

*laughs*

I woke up too late :P

you can sign up till 14:00

THought 13:00 fail -.-

thebeard.tv, yay

.

whos that austrian with my nick, i'll cheer for him

are u taking part in the new bundesliga?

he gets raged way too easily for his own good, needs to copy your laid-back Australian approach :/

yeah srsly, someone tell him...

wp strenx

funny thought:

given that you win every single week, you would earn slightly above the minimum wage set by the government in turkey (which is also the unofficial average wage anyway).

so yeah, sad.

Can you earn minimum wage in Turkey working only half a day a week? from home? playing a video game?

BTW, minimum wage laws are actually bad since they cause unemployment by pricing low skilled workers out of the market.

thanks for your economical insight

They're good because they protect workers from getting exploited but thanks for your input.

thanks for your economical insight

except that statistics from countries that have it don't back your statement. You just fell for lobbyists.

Oh and there is the theory that suggest the exact opposite, since people with a very low income are the most likely to spend money they receive, much more than a business who turns more profit. Therefor the domestic consumption increases which helps the economy.

don't tell that spanish anonymous - they rely on their african slaves working for free

Yeah, statistics... ;) And currently the CPI in USA is about 1 percent. I mean it is but some people call it to be an indicator of inflation ;D

Of course that minimum wage is destructive for the economy. Why else would the unemployment rate among young blacks in the US be around 50%? They can't get a job worth more than the minimum wage, which leads to the inability to raise their skills and gain experience so they stay unemployed for a long time.

Austrian economics anyone?

And as regards this "opposite theory" that you have just mentioned - it implies that enterprises earn more when reducing employment as a result of behaving not in accordance with the economic calculations but with government regulations - preposterous ;D

"Therefor the domestic consumption increases which helps the economy."

I wish I knew how to place an image in a post but I don't so instead of pasting in a picture of Keynes I will just say - don't listen to Keynes! :D

Yeah, statistics... ;) And currently the CPI in USA is about 1 percent.

yes, statistics. It's very simple really.
Here is the unemployment rate of Great Britain, the minimum wage was introduced in 1999.

Of course that minimum wage is destructive for the economy. Why else would the unemployment rate among young blacks in the US be around 50%

lol, someone is confusing cause and effect here.
Try this: the US economy is shit and therefore young unskilled suffer the most. This always happens in countries where the economy has taken a hit, with or without minimum wage.

Austrian economics anyone?

no thanks, not that crap again :(

And as regards this "opposite theory" that you have just mentioned - it implies that enterprises earn more when reducing employment as a result of behaving not in accordance with the economic calculations but with government regulations - preposterous ;D

I have no idea how you interpreted what I wrote, to find that implication. But no, my statement really does not imply that.

My statement "implies" that companies keep more money when they pay their workers less. It's that simple.
In addition, it also states that a higher domestic consumption helps companies earn more money.I don't think you will find too many economists who would disagree with that.

I've grown out of disputes with online experts. We'll see in a few years how your mainstream ideas bring the US economy to its knees.

"My statement "implies" that companies keep more money when they pay their workers less."

I will refer to this though.

It is true but it is at odds with the concept of minimum wage. Suppose no minimum wage, if it's in the company's interest to employ 4 people for 500 euros, they will be more productive (=have more profits) than hiring 2 people for 1000 euros with a minimum wage.

I've grown out of disputes with online experts. We'll see in a few years how your mainstream ideas bring the US economy to its knees.

likewise.

It's always hilarious to see "experts" such a you to use a single factor as the explanation of a complex question on top of confusing causes and effects.

they will be more productive (=have more profits) than hiring 2 people for 1000 euros with a minimum wage.

That is a much too simple statement and does not reflect how the economy works.
You don't make a profit by producing something, in fact productio also costs you for the workplace, material, etc. Selling is what makes you money, not producing.

Hence, companies will not instantly hire more workers when they are cheaper. Instead, most of the time they will just keep the profits or, which is even worse, lower the price for their product. That means, that in order to compete with their new price a competitor may have to lowers their as well. Which is oftendone by cutting wages or possibly firing people while raising the hours for the others.

That is how economy works.

"You don't make a profit by producing something, in fact productio also costs you for the workplace, material, etc. Selling is what makes you money, not producing. "

Wow, I'm grabbing my phone to call Stockholm. I like how you associate the word "productive" with nothing but production.

I'm done arguing. Smarter people than me tried to convince mainstream freaks like you for decades/centuries, so what chances in succeeding do I stand? :D

so what chances in succeeding do I stand? :D

the more important question is what your chances of actually understanding what the "mainstream freaks" are.
Because so far I do not have the feeling that you have invested enough time into understanding the basics, hence arguing becomes difficult.

/edit

oh and calling Stockholm is unnecessary.
Buying a "economics 101" book is more than enough. And maybe then you will see that one doesn't have to be the "smartest person in the world" to correct your very obvious mistake.

I am acquainted enough with mainstream to have gotten a good grade at uni, so your point is totally invalid.

But I can understand where all those untrue assumptions of yours come from ;) <- see what I did there?

EOT

so you say you do know the basics, yet felt the need to write such an idiotic "smartest person" line.
Your assumption being of course, as usual that mainstream must be wrong, that you know better and others are just too stubborn to see the truth.


nice one. =]

Thanks for the reply. To explain the data, in countries were you see small increase of unemployment when the minimum wage rises is because of the following: The reason most people don't earn minimum wage in more liberalized economies isn't because of the employers good will but because if an employer is underpaying their workers there is an opportunity for new entrepreneurs to enter the market, steal their workers by paying higher wages but still make a profit. When enough players have entered the market what the worker ends up earning is close to the value they are making for the business. The thing is that regulation and taxes have to be kept to a minimum so that it is easy for new businesses to enter the market and compete, this doesn't happen in more socialistic economies. If to solve this you only increase minimum wage, low skilled workers that generate very little productivity won't be hired because they have to be payed more than what they are worth. That is why you don't see now a days people cleaning car windows and pumping gas in gas stations, or showing you the way to your seat in a theater. That is why teen unemployment is so high, because they can't get that low wage job to put their foot in the market and learn a trade.

About the argument that spending more is good for the economy. You have the cart before the horse. First you need savings, without capital there is no way to invest and produce the products you end up consuming. One of the problems of this decade was very little savings and too much consumption. Just think of it logically, how is the act of you going to the supermarket and buying a TV helping the economy? anyone can consume, that is very easy. What is important is to produce something of value.

you are funny.

as an example:

First you need savings, without capital there is no way to invest and produce the products you end up consuming.

You use that statement as an argument to give people less money.

Just think of it logically, how is the act of you going to the supermarket and buying a TV helping the economy?

and to even ask that question in this context tops it of.

Yeah, I wonder how going to a store and spending money for product and services could possibly help the economy. I supoose the money should be given to a banker to invest. intead?

That you choose to completely ignore the wellfare of the actual average citizens in favor of that of those who already rich.


And that's why, I'm not even going to bother to properly reply to what you wrote.

You didn't comment on anything about minimum wage, so i guess my point was clear and solid.

"That you choose to completely ignore the wellfare of the actual average citizens in favor of that of those who already rich."

Your point of view seems to be driven by emotion more than reason. Keep in mind we both have the same objective (i hope), to increase the standards of living for everyone. The argument of taking money from the rich and giving it too the poor sounds nice, but my argument was that simply consuming more doesn't improve the economy, therefore makes everyone (rich or poor) worse off in the long run.

About giving the money to the bank. As i said, without investment there is no production and therefore nothing to consume. You probably imply that giving money to bankers is bad because they are rich and use that money to buy subprime mortgages, and those sort of things, that makes the economy worse off. (Actually, before the crisis, many people defending the little guy were pushing for subprimes. Before, the bankers were bad guys because they didn't lend to people that had little credit. Now they are bad guys because they lent to too much people with little credit.)

Good banks that invest in productive endeavors help everyone in the long run, thats why we have all the things now a days that make or life much better, those things come from capital investments made with the help of banks. It is difficult for a business to collect enough money from individuals without an intermediary to start up, plus, individuals don't really know were to invest their money. That is why banks exist, they specialize in lending. Bad banks that invest unwisely should go bankrupt, therefore cleaning the market from bad investments. The problem is that we have very unwise (or self interested) governments that decide to bail out banks and businesses that made bad investments. This creates a moral hazard where banks don't care where to invest, since they aren't afraid of losing. Also, now a days we have central banks that distort price signals (prices are information that help to make a decision on where to invest) by artificially lowering interest rates (the price of money).

You didn't comment on anything about minimum wage, so i guess my point was clear and solid.

it is obvious that you think so. That make it correct though.

I didn't reply because your arguments are anything but solid. In fact, they are lacking so much that I don't see a basis for an actual discussion.

And all that while the solution is very easy:

You claim that a minimum wage increases unemployment. So, when Great Britain introduced it in 1999, the unemployment rate should have increased. It didn't. The same goes for Ireland.
In fact, they have a lower enemployment rate than a country like Germany, which does not have a direct minimum wage.


So, you can claim that my argument is "emotional" as much as you want.
It just shows that you can't deal with the facts speaking against you.


also:

I explained why in some socialistic countries unemployment is not affected when minimum wage goes up. There are other factors to consider, again, as i explained above.
The point about investing vs consuming, if your reply is simply a funny image, i guess we are done then.

didn't realize someone would call Great Britiain and Ireland "socialistic" countries.


So, yes we are indeed done here.
Enjoy your Fox News.

I don't get the Fox News comment, since they support neo-conservatives like George Bush, John McCain and the mainstream US Republican party. Maybe you didn't realize it, but George Bush was almost as anti free market as Obama, and way more than Clinton. Maybe not in his rhetoric but in his actions. If i was you i'd try not to view the world in black and white (right/left).

All of Europe is socialistic. Sure, countries had some free market reforms but they are definitely not purely free market economies. The United States is also socialistic in many areas.

You say minimum wage never causes unemployment. OK, again, think about it logically, how much should minimum wage be then? Why not raise it to 20 dollars/hour, maybe 100 dollars an hour, everyone would be rich then, right? How do you set the minimum wage without causing unemployment? If the salaries don't match the value of the workers productivity, then there is something else going on, as i said, like too much taxes, regulation that hinders worker's flexibility, government granted monopolies, other costs associated to hiring people (like forced compensation when firing a worker), there are many things that add to the cost of employing someone. Just raising the minimum wage is the worst way to try to solve these problems, not only because it causes unemployment, but because it distorts the price signals of wages and makes the economy less productive, hurting everyone. It is much better to let market decide wages, then if people are still too poor to live on those wages then they could rely on welfare.

You say the UK unemployment didn't rise, well if you see the actual statistics, you can see a sharp downward trend in unemployment until minimum wage is put into law, after then unemployment still goes down, but at a slower rate. Statistics in economics give very little information because you can't just isolate a variable and test an experiment again (like in physics or chemistry), there are many things going on at the same time and its easy to confuse correlation with causation.

All of Europe is socialistic. Sure, countries had some free market reforms but they are definitely not purely free market economies.

and that is all I need to read.

Since you only making hollow statements and ad hominems like "you are funny" and "that's all i needed to hear" i sense you don't have any actual arguments to criticize my statements. It was a nice (albeit one sided) debate while it lasted. If it makes you feel better, i'm sure you can beat me at quake.

gg

well, what is the point in discussing someone who claims he knows what he is talking about while calling all of Europe socialistic. Something not a single socialist would ever agree with.

From experience I can say it would take tons of post to explain to you how you mixed up the definition of "socialistic" and "social". And even that would only have mild chances of success.

On that basis, I do not anticipate any kind of worthwhile discussion on a topic that is much more complicated. After all, the "socialistic" part is only one example.


And yes, I am totally aware the this is an ad hominem.
But so what, I would also not discuss algebra with a toddler, whojust counted one, two, four, three.

So your case for not replying is solely based on semantics, awesome. You know perfectly well with what i mean by "socialistic". Political terms are used with different meanings depending on who uses them, so there's no need to behave like there's one unique definition for a word and everyone else is wrong. Specially when arguing colloquially on a forum.
Whenever someone calls Europe socialistic in the 21st century (believe me, i'm not the only one) they are just referring to the degree of government intervention in the market. The Socialist Party here in Spain is not trying to implement Karl Marx's teachings now a days, they are looking for a higher degree of government intervention in the market place to fix what they perceive as social ills or inequalities (and it's called "Socialist" party not "Social" party).

Please, no more ad hominems gone wrong, you are just making a fool of yourself. Try to counter my arguments or don't reply at all.

Well, I figured I might as well inform you why I don't want to argue with you.

Wow becks...you really do argue with EVERYTHING. Even if you're right (sure as hell didn't read all that) give it up man....this site is for - QUAKE not some fucking economics reform policy.

I just argue about topics I am interested in and read stuff about, both here and in real life.
There just happen to be quite a few.


In this case, I actually took several macro economics and business politics classes for the mba part of my studies.


Actually, what I do find worrisome is that people like you are insinuating that being interested in and discussing various topics is somehow a bad thing.
It's almost like you want to be ignorant about the world ...

I don't know if you're a long-time ESR user but if not, let me warn you that becks is the smartest person in the world and doesn't change his mind more frequently then once a lifetime. That's why I encourage you to save energy and not try to convince him because it's impossible :D

becks is the smartest person in the world and doesn't change his mind more frequently then once a lifetime

lol.

It's true. You're an idiot. You could have the *wrong in every single way possible answer* to a question, but you're so dumb that you'd still think you're right - UNTIL THE DAY YOU DIE. lame ass

hi.

Aren't you the drugs guy, who is still butthurt because I and others told him he doesn't know what a placebo effect is?

Yeah, your insults are totally hurting me :P

4 russian streams, maybe stop doing your own streams already? :S

more concurence - better quality of stream

I want zsx's cfg

strenx is MAD

his crap banter really cracks me up

In b4 sombra jokes!

aahhha "you don't nolife enough" hahahahhaha

Strenx doing the rounds as normal.

I love zsx and strenx bant ;D

In less than one year strenx evolved from a +forwarding lg whore into a nearly complete player. Sick hitscan aim, perfect item timing and his positioning gets better and better. Props dude

Just don't forget the lesson it all started with.

I think I'm right in saying that I love every post you write about the One.

Hehehehe. One can do no better than constantly praise Him ;)

I mean it though. His positional and item control game has influenced the whole lot of current top players. Plus he's the only one of his generation still actively playing at this level. A very unique figure in the whole circus.

All I'm counting on is one victory in a major tournament so that Played-Quake-for-two-years-I-love-rapha-and-cypher-children shut up ;)

Fanboyproof disclaimer: I like cypher as a player.

For me, it's ok he doesn't win as long as he's making top four. As he has basically done all those years through 3 quake installments, which in itself is an incredible achievement.

As soon as he's taking a major win, he might consider it the right time to quit. Wouldn't like to see that happening, at all.

Fair point.

what mouse does noctits use? thx in advance

salmosa and a worn out qck+ :D

thank 'ee

abyssus with salmosa sensor and trying to get used to a razer goliathus speed atm

What's the benefit putting a Salmosa sensors into an Abyssus shell?

i dont like the abyssus sensor but i prefer its shape?

Yeah I thought that but then thought they were just the same size/shape etc

How hard is it to switch the sensor? Also how is the prediction on it compared to a 518? I tried out the 518 and the sensor felt all funny for me.

I don't really have a problem with the abyssus sensor, but I was trying to draw with the mouse recently and noticed it still has minor jitters, even on a goliathus speed.

I was thinking of putting in a ms3.0 sensor, but I want to be able to use the mousewheel etc.

never used a 518, but i never understood what problem ppl had with prediction

its actually quite easy since the bottom part and the board of both mice are pretty much 1-1 the same. You just have to modify the mousewheel a bit (some sandpaper work is prolly enough) so the abyssus cover fits properly

i'm hearing there's serious shortage of sandpaper though - outside of australia, that is

Abyssus shape is awesome.

What's the differences? (not being arsey, I just don't know much bout them :P)

Just look at pictures, it looks different enough. Salmosa has seperate buttons and looks more curved. The abyssys the buttons are built into the cover and has square edges.

lol @ zsx flaming

Zsx sounds like he's casting from a mental hopital..!

i correct myself, he's in fact casting from a Zoo.

what's wrong with mental hospital ?

Didn't say it was wrong, but seeing as you asked. What's right with it?

didn't say it was right, but seeing as you asked. What wtf is happening ? WTF holy cow ? MINDFUCK

Get casting with Zsx, you seem the perfect candidate...

gg strenx

first half of hub3 noctis pov = $$$
after that it just went downwards :<

damn i missed it, vods up yet?

our vods are up at www.own3d.tv/lvlup

say thanks to zsx for casting

don't worry, already did. But thanks for being a concerned viewer :)

you guys did such a thoroughly lovely job at dh - i still keep watching the vods at work when i think it's time for a sweet break - won't be forgotten

true

would you mind posting spec demos from the zotacs you stream so i don't have to ask you everytime? thanks =)

I am not the one streaming lately, but you can ask the person who does it (Drill) in our irc chan #lvl^

(//_v)