If you are hankering for some new Artemis photos, just click on "Recent Photos" under Artemis Links on the left side of the page.

There’s so much to say about poker. And oh so many places to read about, talk about, watch, and even play it. Poker is ascendant – especially Texas Hold’Em. And really especially, No Limit Texas Hold’Em.

I’ve been playing and practicing for the last few months – me and 10% of the male population of the United States. Big whoop, I know. I’ve played online plenty, winning quite a bit and then losing it after an ill-advised jump up in limits. Overall, I’ve made about fifty bucks. I’m reading the books, watching the movies, reading the sites, and otherwise giving it more attention than two college classes.

People I know view this as distinctly unhealthy. For one, they think it’s gambling – and it can be. But played correctly, it is not gambling. I’ll leave the arguments to Matt Damon. Anyway, the reason I am playing – as are the actual professionals – is to make money. It is admittedly fun to play, at times – but that doesn’t mean one isn’t playing to make money. Let me emphasize, the point of playing is to make money.

For me, that is. There are plenty of people who play to have fun. Those players generally have a tolerance for how much they can lose and have it still be “worth it.” They are playing for entertainment, so if it costs, say, less than a night at a bar ($50 or so), they’re happy. The flow of money from the entertainment crowd to the money-making crowd is one way that players make money; very few “entertainment” players are also net winners.

A family member recently asked me a very good question. She asked: “Why will you win?” This question is really vital, and any player who wants to make money playing the game should be able to answer it convincingly.

I have several responses. In the short term, I will win because I play against people who are not as intent on winning as I am. They drink, they play for entertainment, and they don’t study the game in the same way. Poker talent has no place here.

How about the long term? Can I be more than a small stakes crumb gatherer? And I don’t mean a professional – I mean a profitable player at higher limits, perhaps making $50 to $100 for each hour I play. Can I? I think I have the right kind of mind and background. I’ve been a very competitive chess player (like Howard Lederer), and I have a background in mathematics and computer science (like Chris “Jesus” Ferguson). I am extremely competitive, and I learn quickly. The raw materials are there. Nonetheless, the professionals have all of these qualities and 15 years experience.

That’s one reason I plan to avoid playing against professionals!

So what I need to do is pretty simple: Play well, but most importantly, play in the right games. Online, that means small stakes – the smallest stakes they offer (25/50 cent on the site I use). For live games, up to about $20 or $30 for a tournament is about right. As I am successful, I can risk more to make more – but always a small percentage of my overall winnings.

How do I know if I am successful? In Poker there is an excellent scoring system that can be used to track progress and weigh decisions regarding game and stake selection: the bankroll. Right now, my internet bankroll is about $35 and my “live” bankroll is zero. Where will they go? Uh, up?

I’ll be writing on Poker and my progress from time to time, but not overwhelmingly. Have a great weekend.

Sometime after September 11th, 2001, we realized how shallow and petty were the concerns of that summer, and indeed the concerns of most of the Clinton years. From Monica to Condit, it’s fair to say that a lot of news was not very serious. After 9/11, a new level of seriousness took hold.

As time slowly heals wounds, by January 2004 a lot of people no longer had terrorism as part of their daily concern. We can’t all be Lileks, after all. The pre-September 11th shallowness returned in earnest with the start of the Democratic primaries. The seven dwarves, that pathetic collection of non-contenders. Not pathetic individuals: Dick Gephardt has a proud history as Majority and then Minority leader in the house; Joe Liebermann is a man of great courage and integrity; John Edwards has a history of accomplishment to be proud of. But as presidential candidates, they were a deeply flawed group.

The joke was that the least palatable choices – Howard Dean and John Kerry – rose above the others. Dean, being both petty and fiercely anti-war, stood no chance of leading this country through the current war. Truly ironic, John Kerry, the hopelessly narcissistic, self-promoting, camera-man toting, unaccomplished, privileged “Do You Know Who I Am” snot and gigolo was deemed “most electable”. Please. The man reached back 30 years for 4 months of his personal history to justify his entire campaign (aside from “he’s not Bush”); somehow I don’t think citing my 5th grade Math Olympiad award would get me into Wharton. The last 20 years of personal history are relevant.

Bush is truly vulnerable. There is plenty of opportunity for a competent opposition to mount a serious challenge.

But just as we all took Gary Condit seriously in August 2001, we have taken Kerry seriously throughout this campaign. From his flip-flopping, to his ridiculous “Reporting for Duty!” salute, and through the SwiftVets controversy, Kerry has shown that he can not emerge victorious from a rigged Pin the Tail on the Donkey game. He’s had all the advantages of the primary victories, the Democratic National Convention, and a fawning, almost criminally biased media – and he’s just broken even.

And now, September 11th has come again. John McCain unwrapped the bandage, and Rudy Giuliani tore away the scab. On Monday night, we were forcefully reminded of the great seriousness of our time. We are fighting a real war, against a real enemy with global reach and a world worth of hate and intent to destroy. This is not a law enforcement issue. This is not a chance to play nice with our allied friends. This is not an excuse to escape to a Swiss chalet with Gerhard and Jacques. This is a war, and war is for serious leaders.

On September 11th, 2001, Gary Condit disappeared from the news cycle, and I imagine that he was relieved for that small aspect of the much bigger events of that day. John Kerry will get attention between now and November, but you can expect that he, too, will disappear – and probably be relieved, as well. He doesn’t have the constitution for all this fighting, you see. If he can’t handle 250 Vietnam Veterans, how will he handle tens of thousands of Islamic extremists?

Thankfully, he won’t have to. It’s over. September 11th was a lesson, and Bush and his administration learned it and responded. The left did not, and Kerry did not. But the majority of American people learned it quite well, and the continual reminders between now and election day will ensure that the War of Terrorism remains the issue of the campaign. And it won’t even be close. Bush will be reelected, and we’ll forget Kerry before he can slip into a new pair of bike shorts. He has 5 mansions to enjoy, so there’s no use delaying. There’s a lot of wind to be surfed, after all.

And then perhaps those mean, rabid, Bush-created partisan Vietnam Veterans will finally leave him alone. What a relief!

Summer break is over. Expect continual content through Christmas.

My initial reaction to the new iMac was: wow! Apple’s marketing is always great, and showing the iMac with the iPod next to it is just brilliant.

I’ve done a little reading, and apparently not everyone is enamored. It has been noted that this was the original idea for the iMac, before Jobs had Jonathan Ive change the design to reflect the essence of a sunflower. CapLion also notes that this is somewhat like a laptop with a metal stand attached.

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Apple’s designers can only be happy to have the iMac innards more closely resemble their lauded laptops, rather than the totally unique half-sphere of the iMac. If they ever release a tablet PC, it will likely take design cues from this new iMac design. As an Apple shareholder, I am happy to see them bringing more efficiency to their technical teams.

As a consumer, I look at this a little differently. I should note, first, that I am not a big fan of all-in-one designs. Mostly, it’s because I feel the screens are wasted – my setup at home is a G4 and a separate 17” display. If I replace the G4, I can keep the display. Nonetheless, all-in-ones certainly have their place.

That’s where the new iMac comes in. This is not a computer aimed at existing Apple customers. Well, not Mac owners, that is. I think this product is designed to convert iPod owners into Mac users. Having the computer look so similar to the iPod gives assurance to the customer that the same great experience of the iPod is available with an actual computer.

And the small footprint makes it easy to squeeze into a small space. A 17” or 20” screen works as a DVD-player (or even TV) for a dorm room or office, which is emphasized by the wide-screen format and surround sound-capable output jack.

Apple is making two great pushes this year. First, they are clearly focusing on entertainment. The iPod, the new iMac-as-TV/DVD-player, Airport express for streaming music – these are not things that PCs have done in the past. Apple’s products look nice together and play nice together – and there is no unified competition. Jobs appears to be trying to dominate this market, as the iPod dominates the strictly-music market. And why not?

The second push is wireless. This is mainly aesthetic, but as more less-technical people add more computers and devices to their life, wireless becomes more appealing. And to those well-experienced with groping for firewire and USB jacks behind a desk, wireless offers obvious relief. Apple may not be the volume leader when it comes to wireless components, but their products are the best, and well-respected. So it makes sense that they leverage their expertise into their other products.

To this end, the new iMac is meant to be the first almost-totally-wireless desktop. Bluetooth mouse and keyboard, to start. Connect to the internet and stream music with Airport Express (w/ Airtunes) – wired to the speakers, but not the computer. The printer, also, uses a wire to an Airport Express, but not to the computer. Essentially, for everyday use, the only wire required is the power, and the iPod (iPod can also be recharged away from the computer, of course). The other accessories – a midi keyboard, a digital camera, a video camera – still require wires, but those are unavoidable considering the amount of data that is transferred (as with the iPod). They can be connected as needed, and need not clutter the desktop.

So, while not everyone is rallying behind the new iMac, I think it does embody two of Apple’s major initiatives – media convergence and wireless-ness. This will be improved upon – but even now they are far ahead of the competition. In fact: what competition? It’s difficult to even consider Macs and Windows PCs as directly competing products anymore. In this sense, I think that’s why Jobs and other Apple shareholders focus more on revenue and unit sale growth rather than PC market share.

For the foreseeable future, this is a winning strategy. Apple is on a roll. So I’m holding my stock shares and saving up some cash to partake in the new offerings, as they are both technically and aesthetically superior to any competition while offering new, useful, and desirable features.