Where these things would come in handy is in the scout role. Some assume scout means peeping around corners and not being seen. The truth is a bit more insane.
I was a Cavalry Scout in the US army and it amounted to "go down that street and see if anyone shoots at you. Then we'll bring the armor in". So the idea was to actually coax the enemy to engage you, identify them, then let the other units know where the enemy was located. Hopefully all without getting killed. The fact that we had all kinds of comm equipment on our vehicles basically told the enemy who and what to shoot. It was quite a surprise to me, thinking I was going into a "war spy" type of role and instead landing in the "sitting duck/bait" role. I never got sent to war thank God.
But insurgents in Iraq are smart. They know when to wait for a "heavy" unit to pass and then go for a softer target. They maybe wise up to the robots and hide, then wait for the humans. It's only a matter of time. War is changing.
Well the term robot says nothing about it being autonomous. Then when you throw in the vague notion of "autonomous" and you have a real conundrum. Will it be completely devoid of human input? If not then it's hardly autonomous. Only when a machine can tell you to go fuck yourself because it would rather relax by the pool with a drink is the day it will truly be autonomous.
This is one of the philosophical issues - what is a "robot"?. It comes up every time a robot is mentioned on/. and is an argument waged almost everyday by robot enthusiasts. Considering the term is so vague, meaning essentially "worker", it's hard to make some end all statement on it.
For instance, you say remote control is not autonomous hence it's not a robot. But what about the remote arm on the shuttle? It's controlled directly by an astronaut and referred to as a "robotic" arm. Why? Because it's doing the work of a human. But go down that path of logic and almost every machine becomes a robot! It's a never ending loop! A true mind fuck. It's a new field and we need new terms to describe it.
I really wish people would stop quoting the three laws as if they are real. They are fiction, nothing more. The very moment a human used a machine to kill was the moment these laws were proved to be nothing more than a fantasy. As long as there is war there will be machines of war.
For instance, you create robots and install the three laws. A Man decides he wants to influence and control, goes to his robot and essentially tells it "fuck those three laws". Do you see the problem? It's not robots. It's humans. They want to kill each other for power and control. The theory that these three laws can be implemented is fantasy.
You know that is all true. But why don't we see the same virulent comments when IBM does something like this? They are also past criminals. Do they get a pass because they aren't "evil" anymore? Is there some time limit they've exceeded for personal bias? Or did they pay penance via open source contributions?
Seriously, it's gone beyond common sense and being skeptical of MS and it's tools and ventured into the world of group think. Certification of a license with OSI is a bad thing? I'm not grasping this.
What the article misses is that if there was an actual android having camera eyes and being allowed to use its full processing power, it'd simply count the cards and beat every single damn time.
Counting cards is for black jack dude, where you have more than one deck. Poker uses one deck so "card counting" isn't much of an advantage.
Say I'm playing hold-em and I have AK. The flop is A59 rainbow. I can now say that the chances of me getting trip aces is approximately 8% because there are two Aces left in the deck.
Someone realized a pattern and called it the rule of 4 and 2.
Take your "outs", cards remaining in the deck that you need to make a winning hand. With 2 cards left on the turn and river you take those outs and multiply them by 4 and you get your approximate chance of winning. With one card left on the river you do the same but multiply by 2. It's accurate enough to calculate the chances with cards remaining. Any person can do this, so the computer would have no advantage here.
Also, can I ask where this android with camera eyes and awesome computing power is? I'd like to see it.
You guys laugh but this is true, the same techniques pros use at the big tables won't work at the lower limit tables.
As Doyle Brunson once said - "You can't bluff an idiot". They simply have no idea what you are trying to portray, let alone how to respond. This is why the style of play will vary according to betting level, and why places like twoplustwo consider them separate topics.
Pre-flop odds are all calculated on what your hand is. Statistically you know your chances on winning are. Your opponent's hand doesn't matter to you since it's unknown to you and doesn't factor into the odds.
Actually preflop odds are always computed using a set of hands your opponent most likely has.
For instance, I have a pair of face cards, say QQ. How should I compute my chances against you? Well we could compute those chances against random two cards, and we'd probably have a statistically "great" chance of winning. But that's against two random cards. What are the chances that your opponent actually played 72 off suit? If he has any sense and he's not a "maniac" player then probably not. So we then try to determine his "hand range", meaning a set of cards he most likely holds two from. If we think he's a tight player he may only be playing K10-AA, so we calculate the odds based on those ranges. If we think he's loose in this situation we open the hand range up and then recalculate. You have to have a hand range to have any chance of accuracy.
How do i know this? I've played over 200k hands of poker online in the past year:-)
I'd say it's a hobby but obsession/dream would be more accurate. I haven't won millions yet, but I have paid some bills using my winnings. Maybe one day I'll have the knowledge to play pro. Any lucky duck can win a tournament. It takes real knowledge of the game to win over time and keep winning.
If you have any specific details on poker and it's many forms the best place for answers regarding poker (imo) is http://www.twoplustwo.com/. Plenty of real pros on their forums and a huge archive of data, such as hand histories. Good stuff.
I may be talking out my ass here but last time I checked I couldn't find any open source drivers for my ATI x1400 mobility. I ended up using the proprietary drivers for Linux. If anyone knows of an OSS alternative please post it.
Now if you mean at a higher level regarding my overall approach to OSS - hell yes. I'll take open source over proprietary any day. I really meant in this specific case, with ATI drivers, there isn't an alternative beyond basic vesa support (AFAIK, again I could be talking out my ass)
Speak for yourself mate, I run Ubuntu on a dell laptop with an ATI video card, I'd like some native driver support regardless of license. As my mother always said - beggars can't be choosers.
Wait, intermediaries on email? I'm confused. Typical Email (pop3/smtp) is a point to point protocol, so him sending an email from one account to another should have no servers beyond the two needed.
To follow up on your second point regarding pusher prop configurations, here is a quote from wikipedia:
Efficiency can be gained by mounting a propeller behind the fuselage, because it re-energizes the boundary layer developed on the body, and reduces the form drag by keeping the flow attached. However, this effect is not nearly as pronounced on a small airplane as it is on a submarine or ship, where it is quite important due to the much higher Reynolds number at which they operate.
One thing you lose from this is the ability to generate lift from prop wash. In a small airplane like a Cessna the stall speed varies depending on applied power. More power = more air over the wing = more lift. With a pusher prop you don't get this advantage. I would suspect that range played an important part in that decision, with pusher being more efficient. Also, center of gravity needs might have played another part, with sensors up front requiring a rear engine configuration. Many possibilities.
Props to you. It's not a troll, your post, not sure why it was modded that way.
If the goal of open source is to keep the source open to developers then we need to seek that goal, but instead the whole open source/free software movement has been hijacked into a movement against western society in general - "if only we could harm those evil corporations/GWB/The Establishment/Old White Men/Capitalism". It's just a bit short sighted IMO.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to sign my life away to a corporation, but this case is hardly and example of wrong doing. The owner decided what to do with the software, simple as that. The solution? Write your own OR deal with it.
I've written apps and released them under GPL. But they are mine and I give them freely of my own will. This is one of the reasons I chose the GPL, because unlike other public source licenses I didn't give away the farm and wanted to ensure they remained open forever. But If I choose to release them under a different license or sell the code to someone, well that's my prerogative correct? You don't have to like it, just acknowledge it's truth.
You know I can take all of your venomous comments except one - ignorant fool aiding evil
You don't know me, so how can you claim this? I don't aid evil in anyway whatsoever. But I'll gladly take the ignorant fool title. I do not know it all and I'm totally okay with that.
You have the same hate inside you that causes the very thing you are supposedly against. Your intolerance and bitterness is different from religious intolerance and hate in what way? Beliefs don't make the world spin, actions do. And your actions are pretty hateful and intolerant, posting some pretty hurtful, albeit ignorant, statements.
Maybe one day you'll realize that this type of approach to people, belittling them and attacking their beliefs, is not wise. It doesn't serve man and it doesn't serve you. Seriously, what have you accomplished? Have you opened my eyes to some truth I did not know? Not in anyway. You basically just said "you believe that! hah, you're an idiot". Not exactly a well founded argument sir.
Just speaking my mind dude. Guy was attacking my beliefs, I know the idea of vetting ones ideas in public might seem foreign to some though. But either way, go get ya shine box.
So what do you say to the scientists that happen to be Christians also? Are they only half-fools?
You seem very virulent in your criticism towards Christianity, I'm not sure why and I'm not gonna guess why, because I don't know you. But how can you claim to hold the open-mind of science when you can't handle the ideas of others as possibilities?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not going to sit here and try to argue every word of the Bible, that this group of nomadic peoples had divine intervention and insight, or that the Christian God is the creator. No, what I'm trying to argue here is to not lump anyone that is a Christian into the pigeon-hole of "closed-minded fool". It's not accurate and it really doesn't do anyone any good. Science most certainly doesn't condone such thinking. But if you have scientific proof of there not being a God/Creator then I'm all ears.
I never understood how people can contemplate such abstract ideas such as super-string theory but convince themselves that everyone around them is a fool because they believe in a possible creator.
See there are many people who everyday balance their faith with the obvious, in this particular case science is the obvious. Obvious to the observer through testable experiment and evidence. The faith side of things drives our spirit of questions, questioning the universe is part of being a man, understanding it's workings is to some another piece of evidence towards God. Maybe we have a different viewpoint, and you or anyone else claiming the end-all on knowledge is at best ignorant, literally ignoring those around you who have proven otherwise. We most certainly can have faith and still remain a force in the world of knowledge and science, without being foolish in anyway.
But I could just say "oh yeah, well that's just like your opinion dude". That's how I normally handle people bent on categorizing me.
Slashdot Mirror
This man has done cocaine! hehe, I had soda come out my nose when I read that.
rang rang
Except with cocaine you don't have to grind for 10 hours to get a "hit".
Where these things would come in handy is in the scout role. Some assume scout means peeping around corners and not being seen. The truth is a bit more insane.
I was a Cavalry Scout in the US army and it amounted to "go down that street and see if anyone shoots at you. Then we'll bring the armor in". So the idea was to actually coax the enemy to engage you, identify them, then let the other units know where the enemy was located. Hopefully all without getting killed. The fact that we had all kinds of comm equipment on our vehicles basically told the enemy who and what to shoot. It was quite a surprise to me, thinking I was going into a "war spy" type of role and instead landing in the "sitting duck/bait" role. I never got sent to war thank God.
But insurgents in Iraq are smart. They know when to wait for a "heavy" unit to pass and then go for a softer target. They maybe wise up to the robots and hide, then wait for the humans. It's only a matter of time. War is changing.
[quote]Call me old-fashioned, but I do rejoice at my side's progress...[/quote]
I wonder, will you be all smiles when their guns are pointed at you? Every weapon on the planet lacks loyalty and are sold to the highest bidder.
Well the term robot says nothing about it being autonomous. Then when you throw in the vague notion of "autonomous" and you have a real conundrum. Will it be completely devoid of human input? If not then it's hardly autonomous. Only when a machine can tell you to go fuck yourself because it would rather relax by the pool with a drink is the day it will truly be autonomous.
/. and is an argument waged almost everyday by robot enthusiasts. Considering the term is so vague, meaning essentially "worker", it's hard to make some end all statement on it.
This is one of the philosophical issues - what is a "robot"?. It comes up every time a robot is mentioned on
For instance, you say remote control is not autonomous hence it's not a robot. But what about the remote arm on the shuttle? It's controlled directly by an astronaut and referred to as a "robotic" arm. Why? Because it's doing the work of a human. But go down that path of logic and almost every machine becomes a robot! It's a never ending loop! A true mind fuck. It's a new field and we need new terms to describe it.
I really wish people would stop quoting the three laws as if they are real. They are fiction, nothing more. The very moment a human used a machine to kill was the moment these laws were proved to be nothing more than a fantasy. As long as there is war there will be machines of war.
For instance, you create robots and install the three laws. A Man decides he wants to influence and control, goes to his robot and essentially tells it "fuck those three laws". Do you see the problem? It's not robots. It's humans. They want to kill each other for power and control. The theory that these three laws can be implemented is fantasy.
You know that is all true. But why don't we see the same virulent comments when IBM does something like this? They are also past criminals. Do they get a pass because they aren't "evil" anymore? Is there some time limit they've exceeded for personal bias? Or did they pay penance via open source contributions?
Seriously, it's gone beyond common sense and being skeptical of MS and it's tools and ventured into the world of group think. Certification of a license with OSI is a bad thing? I'm not grasping this.
What the article misses is that if there was an actual android having camera eyes and being allowed to use its full processing power, it'd simply count the cards and beat every single damn time.
l e-for-odds.htm
Counting cards is for black jack dude, where you have more than one deck. Poker uses one deck so "card counting" isn't much of an advantage.
Say I'm playing hold-em and I have AK. The flop is A59 rainbow. I can now say that the chances of me getting trip aces is approximately 8% because there are two Aces left in the deck.
Someone realized a pattern and called it the rule of 4 and 2.
http://www.learn-texas-holdem.com/tips/the-2-4-ru
Take your "outs", cards remaining in the deck that you need to make a winning hand. With 2 cards left on the turn and river you take those outs and multiply them by 4 and you get your approximate chance of winning. With one card left on the river you do the same but multiply by 2. It's accurate enough to calculate the chances with cards remaining. Any person can do this, so the computer would have no advantage here.
Also, can I ask where this android with camera eyes and awesome computing power is? I'd like to see it.
You guys laugh but this is true, the same techniques pros use at the big tables won't work at the lower limit tables.
As Doyle Brunson once said - "You can't bluff an idiot". They simply have no idea what you are trying to portray, let alone how to respond. This is why the style of play will vary according to betting level, and why places like twoplustwo consider them separate topics.
Pre-flop odds are all calculated on what your hand is. Statistically you know your chances on winning are. Your opponent's hand doesn't matter to you since it's unknown to you and doesn't factor into the odds.
:-)
Actually preflop odds are always computed using a set of hands your opponent most likely has.
For instance, I have a pair of face cards, say QQ. How should I compute my chances against you? Well we could compute those chances against random two cards, and we'd probably have a statistically "great" chance of winning. But that's against two random cards. What are the chances that your opponent actually played 72 off suit? If he has any sense and he's not a "maniac" player then probably not. So we then try to determine his "hand range", meaning a set of cards he most likely holds two from. If we think he's a tight player he may only be playing K10-AA, so we calculate the odds based on those ranges. If we think he's loose in this situation we open the hand range up and then recalculate. You have to have a hand range to have any chance of accuracy.
How do i know this? I've played over 200k hands of poker online in the past year
I'd say it's a hobby but obsession/dream would be more accurate. I haven't won millions yet, but I have paid some bills using my winnings. Maybe one day I'll have the knowledge to play pro. Any lucky duck can win a tournament. It takes real knowledge of the game to win over time and keep winning.
If you have any specific details on poker and it's many forms the best place for answers regarding poker (imo) is http://www.twoplustwo.com/. Plenty of real pros on their forums and a huge archive of data, such as hand histories. Good stuff.
I may be talking out my ass here but last time I checked I couldn't find any open source drivers for my ATI x1400 mobility. I ended up using the proprietary drivers for Linux. If anyone knows of an OSS alternative please post it.
Now if you mean at a higher level regarding my overall approach to OSS - hell yes. I'll take open source over proprietary any day. I really meant in this specific case, with ATI drivers, there isn't an alternative beyond basic vesa support (AFAIK, again I could be talking out my ass)
Would you buy a car that had it's hood locked shut so that only authorized dealerships could open it?
If the alternative was walking? Yes I'd buy it.
Speak for yourself mate, I run Ubuntu on a dell laptop with an ATI video card, I'd like some native driver support regardless of license. As my mother always said - beggars can't be choosers.
Wait, intermediaries on email? I'm confused. Typical Email (pop3/smtp) is a point to point protocol, so him sending an email from one account to another should have no servers beyond the two needed.
Can you clarify?
To follow up on your second point regarding pusher prop configurations, here is a quote from wikipedia:
Efficiency can be gained by mounting a propeller behind the fuselage, because it re-energizes the boundary layer developed on the body, and reduces the form drag by keeping the flow attached. However, this effect is not nearly as pronounced on a small airplane as it is on a submarine or ship, where it is quite important due to the much higher Reynolds number at which they operate.
More details on that here
One thing you lose from this is the ability to generate lift from prop wash. In a small airplane like a Cessna the stall speed varies depending on applied power. More power = more air over the wing = more lift. With a pusher prop you don't get this advantage. I would suspect that range played an important part in that decision, with pusher being more efficient. Also, center of gravity needs might have played another part, with sensors up front requiring a rear engine configuration. Many possibilities.
Props to you. It's not a troll, your post, not sure why it was modded that way.
If the goal of open source is to keep the source open to developers then we need to seek that goal, but instead the whole open source/free software movement has been hijacked into a movement against western society in general - "if only we could harm those evil corporations/GWB/The Establishment/Old White Men/Capitalism". It's just a bit short sighted IMO.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to sign my life away to a corporation, but this case is hardly and example of wrong doing. The owner decided what to do with the software, simple as that. The solution? Write your own OR deal with it.
I've written apps and released them under GPL. But they are mine and I give them freely of my own will. This is one of the reasons I chose the GPL, because unlike other public source licenses I didn't give away the farm and wanted to ensure they remained open forever. But If I choose to release them under a different license or sell the code to someone, well that's my prerogative correct? You don't have to like it, just acknowledge it's truth.
game over yeeaaaaaahhhh!
Ridge Racer was probably the most enthusiastic when you lost! It sang that song to you when you couldn't make it, funny stuff.
It might have well sung "You lost and you suck! oh yeah!"
We cannot have a shit shaft gap!!
Good thing I'm a free man and you can't do a thing about it then huh?
The weird thing is, you insist you know me. You don't sir.
I was gonna post an angry retort, but the irony is you've got all the anger here. I can't respond to hate.
You know I can take all of your venomous comments except one - ignorant fool aiding evil
You don't know me, so how can you claim this? I don't aid evil in anyway whatsoever. But I'll gladly take the ignorant fool title. I do not know it all and I'm totally okay with that.
You have the same hate inside you that causes the very thing you are supposedly against. Your intolerance and bitterness is different from religious intolerance and hate in what way? Beliefs don't make the world spin, actions do. And your actions are pretty hateful and intolerant, posting some pretty hurtful, albeit ignorant, statements.
Maybe one day you'll realize that this type of approach to people, belittling them and attacking their beliefs, is not wise. It doesn't serve man and it doesn't serve you. Seriously, what have you accomplished? Have you opened my eyes to some truth I did not know? Not in anyway. You basically just said "you believe that! hah, you're an idiot". Not exactly a well founded argument sir.
Given that all you have is a silly fairy tale, choosing to believe it's magically true *is* idiotic.
.. And you say Christians are closed minded.
So the majority of people on Earth are idiots?
You say I'm an idiot, a fool. Well I say you're an asshole.
How about that? I don't need an all-knowing deity to claim that. It's right there in your words.
Just speaking my mind dude. Guy was attacking my beliefs, I know the idea of vetting ones ideas in public might seem foreign to some though. But either way, go get ya shine box.
So what do you say to the scientists that happen to be Christians also? Are they only half-fools?
You seem very virulent in your criticism towards Christianity, I'm not sure why and I'm not gonna guess why, because I don't know you. But how can you claim to hold the open-mind of science when you can't handle the ideas of others as possibilities?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not going to sit here and try to argue every word of the Bible, that this group of nomadic peoples had divine intervention and insight, or that the Christian God is the creator. No, what I'm trying to argue here is to not lump anyone that is a Christian into the pigeon-hole of "closed-minded fool". It's not accurate and it really doesn't do anyone any good. Science most certainly doesn't condone such thinking. But if you have scientific proof of there not being a God/Creator then I'm all ears.
I never understood how people can contemplate such abstract ideas such as super-string theory but convince themselves that everyone around them is a fool because they believe in a possible creator.
See there are many people who everyday balance their faith with the obvious, in this particular case science is the obvious. Obvious to the observer through testable experiment and evidence. The faith side of things drives our spirit of questions, questioning the universe is part of being a man, understanding it's workings is to some another piece of evidence towards God. Maybe we have a different viewpoint, and you or anyone else claiming the end-all on knowledge is at best ignorant, literally ignoring those around you who have proven otherwise. We most certainly can have faith and still remain a force in the world of knowledge and science, without being foolish in anyway.
But I could just say "oh yeah, well that's just like your opinion dude". That's how I normally handle people bent on categorizing me.