Supposedly the secret to video poker is to bet the max and almost always try for the full house. That is supposed to be near even odds.
So with Ace, Ace, King, 8, 3, you hold the Ace King (assuming they are the same suit) hoping for the full house.
Clearly you're not a poker player, or even a video poker player.
A full house is a five card hand consisting of three of one rank plus a pair of another, e.g. AAA KK.
You're pretty clearly thinking of a royal flush, which is a specific instance of the larger class of straight flushes, five card hands consisting of an uninterrupted run of sequential cards, all of the same suit. (Specifically a royal flush is a straight flush with the sequence ten through ace.)
It's possible, in fact, that they'll bill for 500 hours of reading these papers when they don't bother to read any of it at all; how would SCO prove that they didn't do it?
Based on prior behavior, I'm guessing that SCO would just claim to have super-duper extra-secret evidence proving their case against the lawyers and that the burden of proof was therefore on the law firm to discredit evidence no-one had seen. I mean, why mess with a so-far successful formula?
Tactics like the above, plus listing artificially inflated "retail" prices to make their pricing look like impressive discounting have rightly earned them the moniker Scamazon.
Don't forget their highly opportunistic variable pricing scheme, where different customers are charged different amounts for the same item. A few months ago my sister asked for help ordering an item she'd found at Amazon, priced at $125. I went to their site to make the purchase and found the item priced at $165, a 32% increase. So I deleted all of the Amazon.com cookies from my browser and went and found the item again.. Voila! $125!
I do not like tigerdirect as they only offer UPS shipping (which is often broken.)
I don't live in Canada but I know the feeling.. Many's the fantastic deal I've found from some web retailer, only to be foiled at checkout by an outrageous UPS or FedEx shipping charge to my home in Alaska (and that's for the vendors that will ship here at all.. Pet peeve alert: vendors whose ads say they ship to the "continental United States" and then refuse to ship to Alaska. What continent do you think we're on, guys? Maybe the word you're looking for is "contiguous"..)
If a shipper offers USPS as an option I'm usually good -- Priority Mail costs pretty much the same whether you ship it across the street or up to my island here in the rainforest. I can't blame UPS, Airborne, and FedEx for demanding a mint to deliver a package here but I wish more retailers were aware of our existence.. Hawaii residents have got to have the same problems (or worse..)
As a random side note I've held the same (supposedly dynamic) IP address on Roadrunner for seven months now. Explain to me the value of them using dynamic addresses again?
I work for a small ISP on an island off the coast of Alaska. We're about to make some major changes to our network, changing our own service provider and moving to a new block of addresses at the same time. Without DHCP there would be no hope of making the transition smoothly because coordinating an address change with thousands of customers, many of them technologically challenged, would totally overwhelm our staff. Thanks to DHCP we can get nearly everyone using the new address block with no effort on the customer's part and only a brief interruption in service for most folks and save our energy to concentrate on the small business and advanced home-use customers who have elected to pay extra for a static address.
A music player that doesn't handle OGG is like an automobile that doesn't make toast.
This is Slashdot. Without knowing whether you're an emacs user or not we can't tell whether you think it would actually be appropriate for an automobile to also make toast..
Well if someone else is willing to do your work for less pay, then yes, to compete you'll have to do more for less pay.
I wonder how many well-educated, experienced people would be willing to do Carly Fiorina's job for, say, 50% of her compensation package.. And yet somehow I bet you the supposedly iron-clad laws of supply and demand don't worry Ms. Fiorina the way they do the engineers in her labs or the workers in her factories.
I think that installing the equipment at each betting spot on the table to read the different IDs, lookup the dollar value in a central database and do the math to figure out total bet would be a little much.... Having a few readers in the cage to verify authenticity before giving out cash in exchange, would be a much more efficient use of RFID.
Won't work. You need to have the RFIDs at every point of exchange for the scheme to be much good.
Let me give an example:
Imagine I've invented a way to make a very convincing-looking $500 chip, but have not successfully embedded a fake RFID. If I go to the craps table and start wagering my fake chips, one of two things is going to happen.
I win my wager and am paid in genuine chips redeemable for cash at the cage. Big lose for the casino.. -or-
I lose my wager and surrender my valueless chips and try again. Meantime, my valueless chips have worked their way into the table chip rack, where they will be used to pay out winning bets from other customers, some of whom will eventually take them to the cashier's cage where the casino will refuse to honor them. Smaller immediate loss for the casino, but a huge problem when the state gaming commissions start getting interested in why they're not paying out on bets the way they're supposed to. Eventually, also a major headache for the casinos.
Chip verification probably needs to be done at (nearly?) every stage of the process to be an effective counterfeiting countermeasure.
(ii) post, store, send, transmit, or disseminate any information or material which a reasonable person could deem to be objectionable, offensive, indecent, pornographic, harassing, threatening, embarrassing, distressing, vulgar, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or otherwise inappropriate, regardless of whether this material or its dissemination is unlawful;
>>If we don't like you or your opinions, we can pull the plug.
Although it's perfectly in line with Comcast's "it's our network, and if you're nice we'll let you play on it" attitude, offended customers can console themselve with the possibility that that policy will blow up in Comcast's face one day.
Common carrier status is one of the most powerful legal protections available to ISPs but it's a fragile thing -- if it turns out that they're making service decisions about whose traffic to carry based on their assessment of lawful (but possibly distasteful) content they can lose that protection entirely.
Unfortunately I don't know of a free codec that can play DVDs, thanks to the RIAA's work on DeCSS.
I know these days you need a scorecard to keep the villainous industry groups straight, but for DeCSS I think you want to direct your ire towards the MPAA, not the RIAA..
I'll pay for technology that I like, I don't feel I should be forced to pay for technology I don't like,
I must've missed the part of your post where you went into detail about who was forcing you..
As I pointed out, DRM technologies may not restrict you, but they have restricted me in the past, and I refuse to pay for them.
Well, OK, but you must be that very rare Slashdot poster who doesn't have a DVD player, a Playstation or Xbox, or any other consumer electronics device that incorporates any kind of anti-piracy measures.
OK, so I'm being a bit snarky, but I do have a point above and beyond picking on you.. The thing is, very few of us have the kind of ideological commitment that, say, a Richard Stallman has. We fool ourselves into thinking that we're irreconcilably opposed, in principle, to DRM technology in our music and yet we go out and buy DVDs or videogames. There are few among us who aren't willing to compromise on this issue at some point on the convenience spectrum and it's really unhelpful to deceive ourselves into thinking that we're not. It's even more of a problem when we convince ourselves, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the rest of the consumers are with us and ready to fight the good fight against DRM because it's The Right Thing to Do (tm).
If there's to be any chance of the very small minority of us who are concerned about these matters influencing the market towards a solution that doesn't totally suck we need to have a good idea what the rest of the market, both producers and consumers, will or won't stand for.
McLaughlin casts the debate over sitefinder in terms of 'innovation' versus the status quo and threatens that stifling 'innovation' will lead to a weaker internet."
Hmmm.. Let me see if I've got this straight: not letting companies unilaterally violate, for their own advantage, established internet practices and protocols that everyone depends on will lead to a weaker Internet?
Doubleplusgood one, Mark!
"The Crying of Lot 49" was good, and also short - it's a fast read. And you'll start to understand why occasional email systems are named "Trystero"
..and why every system I've ever administered has a "Potsmaster" address in its sendmail alias list. Yet another recommendation for The Crying of Lot 49
you forgot the suggested: 2 viruses = virii 3 viruses = viriii and so on...
i guess an unknown quantity of viruses would be vir(i*)...
No, no, no.. It's inelegant to extend a latin root by just adding extra "i"s.. To be true to the spirit of the language, surely it would be more appropriate to proceed thusly:
Funny I don't get this. I have many copies of XP, for several clients and they only contain one cd. This is for the complete install! How can recovery take 12 cds?
Maybe they were including the bug fixes and security updates..:-p
All of the hardware can be had for well under $100, and the software is Free as in GPL and can't legally be sold at a profit.
People sure seem to have some funny ideas about what the free software licenses allow and prohibit. Perhaps"Mr. Uptime" is mistaken or maybe I simply don't understand, but one of us seems to be wildly mistaken about what the GPL actually says.
Why can't the software be sold at a profit? As far as I'm aware, the GPL doesn't prevent you from selling GPL'ed software for any price you and a buyer can agree upon. According to my understanding, the GPL mainly (a) prevents you from prohibiting recipients from redistributing the software themselves, and (b) requires that if you distribute GPL'ed software or derivative works you make source code available for free. Neither of those requirements is necessarily incompatible with for-profit sales.
For someone titling their post "Your priorities are fuckup," you could probably use a dose of perspective yourself. You write:
>..if I had the choice of saving one Sumatran Tiger & saving all the Americans on the planet, I pick the Tiger without hesitation..
Thank god, then, that you'll never have the choice. Of course it's at least 100,000 times more likely that you're just a troll engaging in a bit of posturing than the alternative -- that you're a full-blown psychopath capable of condemning 250,000,000 people to death "without hesitation," but in my opinion it doesn't say much for the readers of Slashdot that your tired extremism has been modded up several points.
In the end, it's opinions such as yours that opponents of conservation use to discredit more moderate environmental positions, by associating them with whichever category is more appropriate for your statement - ignorant nonsense or psychopathic diatribe - neither choice being very palatable to the vast undecided majority.
If you honestly care about the Sumatran tiger, find some way to save it that doesn't rely on making an either/or choice between the tiger and the 280M people of the United States or the 230M people of Indonesia.
You're talking about the proposed settlement between Microsoft and attorneys representing clients in the class-action suits. The rest of us are talking about the anti-trust settlement efforts between Microsoft, the federal Department of Justice, and several state Attorneys General. As far as I can tell, nobody here is talking about European Union anti-trust actions -- yet -- but pretty soon it's gonna be hard to tell the players without a scorecard..
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly you're not a poker player, or even a video poker player.
A full house is a five card hand consisting of three of one rank plus a pair of another, e.g. AAA KK.
You're pretty clearly thinking of a royal flush, which is a specific instance of the larger class of straight flushes, five card hands consisting of an uninterrupted run of sequential cards, all of the same suit. (Specifically a royal flush is a straight flush with the sequence ten through ace.)
Based on prior behavior, I'm guessing that SCO would just claim to have super-duper extra-secret evidence proving their case against the lawyers and that the burden of proof was therefore on the law firm to discredit evidence no-one had seen. I mean, why mess with a so-far successful formula?
The butler did it..
If a shipper offers USPS as an option I'm usually good -- Priority Mail costs pretty much the same whether you ship it across the street or up to my island here in the rainforest. I can't blame UPS, Airborne, and FedEx for demanding a mint to deliver a package here but I wish more retailers were aware of our existence.. Hawaii residents have got to have the same problems (or worse..)
Enjoy it while it lasts..
Q: What is the Scribus?
A: Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Scribus is. You have to see it for yourself.
3X as thick, twice as long, hmmm?
Sounds like the barrage of spam has had a subliminal effect on the Microsoft product designers..
This is Slashdot. Without knowing whether you're an emacs user or not we can't tell whether you think it would actually be appropriate for an automobile to also make toast..
I wonder how many well-educated, experienced people would be willing to do Carly Fiorina's job for, say, 50% of her compensation package.. And yet somehow I bet you the supposedly iron-clad laws of supply and demand don't worry Ms. Fiorina the way they do the engineers in her labs or the workers in her factories.
Common carrier status is one of the most powerful legal protections available to ISPs but it's a fragile thing -- if it turns out that they're making service decisions about whose traffic to carry based on their assessment of lawful (but possibly distasteful) content they can lose that protection entirely.
I know these days you need a scorecard to keep the villainous industry groups straight, but for DeCSS I think you want to direct your ire towards the MPAA, not the RIAA..
I must've missed the part of your post where you went into detail about who was forcing you..
Well, OK, but you must be that very rare Slashdot poster who doesn't have a DVD player, a Playstation or Xbox, or any other consumer electronics device that incorporates any kind of anti-piracy measures.
OK, so I'm being a bit snarky, but I do have a point above and beyond picking on you.. The thing is, very few of us have the kind of ideological commitment that, say, a Richard Stallman has. We fool ourselves into thinking that we're irreconcilably opposed, in principle, to DRM technology in our music and yet we go out and buy DVDs or videogames. There are few among us who aren't willing to compromise on this issue at some point on the convenience spectrum and it's really unhelpful to deceive ourselves into thinking that we're not. It's even more of a problem when we convince ourselves, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the rest of the consumers are with us and ready to fight the good fight against DRM because it's The Right Thing to Do (tm).
If there's to be any chance of the very small minority of us who are concerned about these matters influencing the market towards a solution that doesn't totally suck we need to have a good idea what the rest of the market, both producers and consumers, will or won't stand for.
Yet another recommendation for The Crying of Lot 49
No, no, no.. It's inelegant to extend a latin root by just adding extra "i"s.. To be true to the spirit of the language, surely it would be more appropriate to proceed thusly:
4 viruses = viriv
9 viruses = virix
1001 viruses = virmi
etc..
Maybe they were including the bug fixes and security updates..
People sure seem to have some funny ideas about what the free software licenses allow and prohibit. Perhaps"Mr. Uptime" is mistaken or maybe I simply don't understand, but one of us seems to be wildly mistaken about what the GPL actually says.
Why can't the software be sold at a profit? As far as I'm aware, the GPL doesn't prevent you from selling GPL'ed software for any price you and a buyer can agree upon. According to my understanding, the GPL mainly (a) prevents you from prohibiting recipients from redistributing the software themselves, and (b) requires that if you distribute GPL'ed software or derivative works you make source code available for free. Neither of those requirements is necessarily incompatible with for-profit sales.
For someone titling their post "Your priorities are fuckup," you could probably use a dose of perspective yourself. You write:
..if I had the choice of saving one Sumatran Tiger & saving all the Americans on the planet, I pick the Tiger without hesitation..
>
Thank god, then, that you'll never have the choice. Of course it's at least 100,000 times more likely that you're just a troll engaging in a bit of posturing than the alternative -- that you're a full-blown psychopath capable of condemning 250,000,000 people to death "without hesitation," but in my opinion it doesn't say much for the readers of Slashdot that your tired extremism has been modded up several points.
In the end, it's opinions such as yours that opponents of conservation use to discredit more moderate environmental positions, by associating them with whichever category is more appropriate for your statement - ignorant nonsense or psychopathic diatribe - neither choice being very palatable to the vast undecided majority.
If you honestly care about the Sumatran tiger, find some way to save it that doesn't rely on making an either/or choice between the tiger and the 280M people of the United States or the 230M people of Indonesia.
Valid points, perhaps,but wrong settlement.
You're talking about the proposed settlement between Microsoft and attorneys representing clients in the class-action suits. The rest of us are talking about the anti-trust settlement efforts between Microsoft, the federal Department of Justice, and several state Attorneys General. As far as I can tell, nobody here is talking about European Union anti-trust actions -- yet -- but pretty soon it's gonna be hard to tell the players without a scorecard..