And we're smart enough to realize that if you sell someone a knife knowing full well that they're going to skin a child alive, you are responsible in part for that attack.
Please provide a citation proving your assumption in order to further an already disproven argument is anything other than an assumption made to further an already disproven point.
You making an assumption after the fact doesn't make your argument correct, intelligent, or anything other than disingenuous.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that you would be upset if anyone provided Iran with nuclear technology (that doesn't violate the NPT),
You'd be wrong, so that's two faulty assumptions.
though by your logic the party who gave them the nukes shouldn't be responsible for how they're used.
No, not MY logic, JUST LOGIC. Giving someone a tool doesn't make you responsible for someone else using it.
You are a liar. You accused me of using straw men when I did not, it is demonstrable as it is right there in text. The fact that YOU aren't smart enough to tell the difference between an interrogatory and a declarative changes nothing. You are lying.
This is getting to be pretty funny.
I agree, watching you contort yourself in an attempt to avoid admitting you are a liar and an asshole has been fun, although I can't imagine why you'd be so amused about demonstrating that you're an idiot to the entire internet.
Neither boxing nor fencing have any practical purpose for self-defense since the dumbest thing you can do in a fight is throw a punch and you're not likely to be in combat with a 4' metal toothpick
Spoken like someone who has never actually been trained to fight. Just so I'm clear, learning how to position oneself, move around your opponent, and use reach and speed considerations to determine the correct time to strike for maximum effect is not "practical... in warfare or self-defense."? Is that correct?
Because THAT is what boxing is, your portrayal of it as just "throwing a punch" is ignorant, and makes it clear why your post is so ridiculous, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Here is a list of sports along with a corresponding martial art:
Here is a list of posters who should be ignored when discussing this subject
I was upset when I found out my favourite came could be played better by a computer too.
That's only because you're an imbecile who doesn't know how to play, as yet, there is no computer that consistently beat a skilled human player. RTFA to reiterate that if you're too stupid to realize it by now. I've put m money up, and have no takers. That says more than any argument you have, and frankly, I'll put my money up to you too, get whatever program you like and put up a decent stake, and we'll get to it.
Don't assume everyone sucks at poker just because you suck at poker.
When I wrote that unbeatable tic tac toe program in elementary school... well, life just wasn't the same for a while. But I got over it.
I genuinely believe you're stupid enough to think a solvable game is equivalent to poker. I really do think you're that stupid.
I also notice that you failed to address every single false accusation that I refuted, and are pretending you weren't lying in your previous post.
You clearly have no idea how poker works, and are willing to say whatever you need to in order to avoid admitting that. Unfortunately, your statements are a shibboleth that you can't undo, and they clearly paint you as nothing more that a novice player with no skill or knowledge of the game at all.
Caps are caps. If they are put in place for the consumer - a vastly larger body of users than small business - then what do the caps portend for small business.
Nothing.
As for you being a moron - your post was so unclear that there is no way to tell that your argument was against a business use
Oh I see, I'm a moron because YOU can;t understand what you're reading.
That makes as much sense as your retarded argument.
Read the post(s) and, go outside and lay on an anthill.
I did read the posts, they don't make your posts any less idiotic and inapplicable.
In case you're wondering, calling me names when you're wrong and an asshole doesn't make you less wrong or less of an asshole. And telling me that I should "lay in an anthill" might as well be you saying " I know you're right, I just don't have an argument so I'll call names and tell you to lay in an anthill because that's the best I can do".
Saying 100 is equal to 7 doesn't make 100 equal to 7. Pretending that Bush = Saddam doesn't make it so.
Not enough people know that, for instance, we knowingly and intentionally provided Saddam Hussein with the chemical weapons he used to kill Iranians, which chemical weapons Saddam then used against the Kurds.
And? Every time some tool with this argument pipes up, I always think "so fucking what?" Despite what you people think, making a weapon available doesn't require its use. Saddam is responsible for USING the weapons, if he hadn't, they'd be sitting in a fucking ammo dump somewhere. People like you seem to think providing a sovereign state with weapons is equivalent to using them ourselves.
But as I've already shown you, 100 does not equal 7.
Funny enough, we had him hanged for using chemical weapons
THAT is the part that matters, please explain why you think it makes one difference where they came from?
Aren't you proud to be an American?
Yes very. But I'm smart enough to know the difference between someone who sells a knife and someone who uses it to skin a child alive. You don't appear to be that smart.
The only thing that would give me more pleasure than the "fuck off" I am delivering unto thee now would be getting you together with some of these alcoholic assholes I've had to hear way too many of these stomach-twisting stories from and let you tell them they're liars.
Why would I care that some soldiers embellished? I was addressing the point that you're a gullible fuckwit, and the fact that you forward THAT as your attempt at refutation proves me right.
You are a gullible fuckwit. And many of them ARE lying, choke on it.
Asshole.
That's nice, even when you're spewing venom you're nice enough to sign your posts.
That's a powerful argument, coming from someone who has yet to demonstrate their initial point. Why do you think saying "I win I win I win" makes you anything but pathetic? You said something wrong and failed to support it, so now all you have left is "impotent little troll".
You may now have the last word, as that is clearly what you want.
I'm not stupid, bitch, you're a woman. You don't let people have the last word, you just lie and pretend to.
So, I proved my point irrefutably, and you failed. It's no wonder you're running away.
CAN YOU READ? LIKE, THE PARAGRAPH JUST BELOW THAT ONE?
How fucking stupid are you?
"They're not arbitrary, they're designed to interfere with the pot odds, which is what the computer use to calculate how to play "perfectly". By giving the computer the pot odds necessary to call in situations where perfect play would call for it, but where the imperfect information factor makes said call wrong, you have manipulated the information the computer is receiving."
It's right there you fucking moron
So not only CAN I I DID.
You certainly can card count in poker. Good players do it all the time. Hmm... there are four spades out already, what are the odds that another one is going to show up?
That isn't card counting, you're a moron. NO it isn't, shut the fuck up.
Any decent player is also going to keep at least an intuitive idea of the betting patterns of the other players around the table.
And any other decent player knows that and will change their patterns. Stop talking because you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
Anyway, since you've degenerated to writing your post in bold face
In other words, you KNOW you're ignorant of the game and can't continue the discussion. Your petty attempt to ignore that very answer to your basic, beginner level question makes it clear you're not interested in answers, but in portraying your ignorant opinion as something other than ignorant.
nd your excuse for not being able to come up with a reasonable argument why any particular factor in poker is uncomputable
YOU ARE A LIAR. I gave you exactly what you asked for, that you pretend it's not there doesn't mean it's not there, it just makes you that much more pathetic for ignoring something that you asked for because you're too stupid to realize it's what you asked for.
is the implausibility that it is the density itself that is responsible?
What part of that isn't a question you brainless boob?
Regardless, my subject line was "no, to both". Did YOU not read that?
Yes, it didn't apply you raging moron.
I say again: stop trying to make an argument out of nothing.
And I say to you, stop accusing people of using straw men when they don't, and stop getting defensive because your reading comprehension is garbage
And THEN accusing me of being an "asshole" because I don't appreciate it.
No asshole, I called you an asshole because you are an asshole. Even IF YOU DID appreciate it, you'd be an asshole.
Look to your own behavior first, before accusing others.
The irony of your idiot ass making this statement after you wrongly accused me of using straw men astounds.
You're an idiot who got defensive for no reason and acted like an asshole, tossing around false accusations. The fact that you're trying to portray yourself as the victim is laughable, considering you were a dick with your very first response, which started this whole mess.
How about you just fuck off and I'll pretend you don't exist? Great.
What do bandwidth caps portend for small business - you don't have to be an attorney to create media - consider advertising firms, contractors, real estate - all could easily top the cap without being able to plan ahead.
As others have said, it's pointless to discuss how this cap could influence your business when you shouldn't be using it anyway, you should have a commercial account.
it is really hard to believe shit like that when I remember the tales I've heard from vets about rape and needless murder (I'm not talking about shooting a combatant here) they've witnessed...
The only issue that really says anything about is your gullibility.
Researchers using a medical scanner have worked out why a Stradivarius violin sounds so good -- it is because of the remarkably even density of the wood.
What about THAT? Well?
Since differentials in wood density affect vibration and therefore sound quality, the discovery may well explain the superiority of the Cremonese violins, they reported in the online journal PLoS ONE on Wednesday.
What about THAT? It was in the article you claimed didn't say it in case you were trying to find it.
Where do you people come from? Is there a population of you just sitting around with a mouse in your hand thinking "I know, I'll show the entire internet I'm a moron today".
In the future, if you choose to accuse someone of not reading the article, don't make the mistake of saying the article doesn't say something when it obviously says it several times.
"So you're saying you don't think the density of wood influences sound? Or is the implausibility that it is the density itself that is responsible?"
No, actually, you see those question marks? DO you know what those mean? It appears you do not, based on your attempt to portray me as "throwing straw men at you".
Why are you trying to argue with me about things I did not even imply, much less write?
I'm not, you just can't read worth a fuck. Question marks genius, don't ignore them.
Please go find people who DID say those things, and argue with them.
Why are you being an asshole when you could have chose to a) not reply or b) answer the questions I asked.?
Instead you choose to get defensive because, apparently, your reading comprehension sucks.
"If it's obvious you should be able to spell it out convincingly."
I shouldn't have to for people with more than an "espn world series of poker" understanding.
"It seems to me arbitrary sized bets give the computer more leeway to play it's perfectly calculated odds"
They'r enot arbitrary, they're designed to interfere with the pot odds, which is what the computer uss to calculate how to play "perfectly". By giving the computer the pot odds necessary to call in situations where perfect play would call for it, but where the imperfect information factor makes said call wrong, you have manipulated the information the computer is receiving.
This is the simplest example, there are others.
"Someone else pointed out that the deck is often not shuffled every hand. "
They were wrong. In fact, this would never go over in any real game, home games full of drunks at a party are the only place you'll see this. It is NOT normal, it is NOT common, and it is NOT acceptable by the rules of the game. So it can't be considered as it would NEVER happen in any game by any legitimate (or even semi-legitimate) sanctioning body.
"Even if it is, opportunities still exist for card counting. "
No, not really, apart from openly cheating. Card counting is not possible in a game that is not being cheated.
"and odds based on past betting behaviour."
These have nothing to do with pot odds and aren't considered by good players with learned opponents. You can't consider them.
"If you take all of that into account it's fairly complicated. "
I agree, but as I've explained, you don't take all of that into account, most of your numbers aren't factored, and counting doesn't exist in straight games. Cheating is irrelevant for this discussion, as no programmer would bother writing code for a machine to cheat. Players would notice immediately and never play that machine again. If you don't believe me, check out the "Absolute Poker scandal" where a player saw the other players hole cards, and was caught based on behavior. It was only after an investigation that the players were told that he did in fact have their hole cards, but they KNEW THAT ALREADY because of how he played. So cheating, which no sanctioning body would accept either, is not relevant, and therefore, your point about card counting is not relevant.
"But the (arbitrarily powerful) computer can do it precisely, without mistakes."
If your assumptions are true, but as I've shown, they aren't. In fact, apart from pot odds, your assumptions are just wrong.
The reason I asked if you played is because the points you were making betrayed a vary basic, beginner's understanding of the game, and the thought/rule/policy errors you've made only serve to reinforce that. For example, your point about "not shuffling" is comical, and would cause great amusement among people who play regularly.
I don't mean to be harsh, but you don't understand the game well enough to make any informed commentary about it.
If you call telling the truth abotu you projecting.
"BTW, you've just been trolled by a > child."
Fixed that for you, to make it reflect reality.
And honestly, you're not smart enough to continue this discussion. You;ve demonstrated that you can't even tell the difference between a company and its customers, why would I continue to debate this with someone who isn't even intelligent enough to do that?
Lastly, I realize that being a"woman" you're used to men talling you you're right so they can get in your pants, which is almost certainly what resulted in your obvious inability to intelligently defend your point (which was impossible, but a bright individual would have at least done better that to fire off rstraw man after straw man as some kind of "defense") but I have no desire to get in your pants, so the chance of me ignoring the fact that your argument is wrong and foolish is nil.
Go back out to a bar and pick up some loser, you'll get back to having people agree with your opinion no matter how stupid it is in no time, and you'll be right back in your comfort zone.
Slashdot Mirror
"So yes you can have you wife bled in a significant amount in your car for a legitimate reason."
You say this like you're refuting someone who claimed otherwise. I believe his point was that bleeding inside a car is a rare and unusual event.
Your post only serves to prove his point, unless you're having miscarriages occur in your car on a regular basis.
Please provide a citation proving your assumption in order to further an already disproven argument is anything other than an assumption made to further an already disproven point.
You making an assumption after the fact doesn't make your argument correct, intelligent, or anything other than disingenuous.
You'd be wrong, so that's two faulty assumptions.
No, not MY logic, JUST LOGIC. Giving someone a tool doesn't make you responsible for someone else using it.
You are a liar. You accused me of using straw men when I did not, it is demonstrable as it is right there in text. The fact that YOU aren't smart enough to tell the difference between an interrogatory and a declarative changes nothing. You are lying.
I agree, watching you contort yourself in an attempt to avoid admitting you are a liar and an asshole has been fun, although I can't imagine why you'd be so amused about demonstrating that you're an idiot to the entire internet.
Exactly right. Every time some ignorant fool pipes up claiming it is just brute force, I insist they watch the Sakuraba/Newton fight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVpp7PtWexk
Incredibly tactical fight with only a handful of strikes, and definitely not "just brute force".
Not only are you ruining the nerd's favorite stereotype, you're torpedoing their excuse for being scrawny nothings.
You could be the dumbest poster I've ever seen.
Spoken like someone who has never actually been trained to fight. Just so I'm clear, learning how to position oneself, move around your opponent, and use reach and speed considerations to determine the correct time to strike for maximum effect is not "practical... in warfare or self-defense."? Is that correct?
Because THAT is what boxing is, your portrayal of it as just "throwing a punch" is ignorant, and makes it clear why your post is so ridiculous, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Here is a list of posters who should be ignored when discussing this subject
neuromancer23 (1122449)
That's only because you're an imbecile who doesn't know how to play, as yet, there is no computer that consistently beat a skilled human player. RTFA to reiterate that if you're too stupid to realize it by now. I've put m money up, and have no takers. That says more than any argument you have, and frankly, I'll put my money up to you too, get whatever program you like and put up a decent stake, and we'll get to it.
Don't assume everyone sucks at poker just because you suck at poker.
I genuinely believe you're stupid enough to think a solvable game is equivalent to poker. I really do think you're that stupid.
I also notice that you failed to address every single false accusation that I refuted, and are pretending you weren't lying in your previous post.
You clearly have no idea how poker works, and are willing to say whatever you need to in order to avoid admitting that. Unfortunately, your statements are a shibboleth that you can't undo, and they clearly paint you as nothing more that a novice player with no skill or knowledge of the game at all.
Nothing.
Oh I see, I'm a moron because YOU can;t understand what you're reading.
That makes as much sense as your retarded argument.
I did read the posts, they don't make your posts any less idiotic and inapplicable.
In case you're wondering, calling me names when you're wrong and an asshole doesn't make you less wrong or less of an asshole. And telling me that I should "lay in an anthill" might as well be you saying " I know you're right, I just don't have an argument so I'll call names and tell you to lay in an anthill because that's the best I can do".
Then that's two people I can safely ignore.
Saying 100 is equal to 7 doesn't make 100 equal to 7. Pretending that Bush = Saddam doesn't make it so.
"Moron!"
Why are you introducing yourself, I already know who you are.
I KNOW THAT YOU FUCKING IDIOT. Why do you think that makes your idiotic discussion of your business any more relevant?
Attorney, fuck thyself. YOU were discussing something that has NOTHING to do with this topic, you raging imbecile.
Don't get defensive because YOU said something that had fuck all to do with the discussion and I called you loser ass on it.
As others have said, it's pointless to discuss how this cap could influence your business when you shouldn't be using it anyway, you should have a commercial account.
Use the right tool for the job chief.
Well, I am suggesting such provisions already exist in the law, so I'm not sure what you want.
I absolutely will, a little inconvenience doesn't scare me.
"That is, Texas Hold 'em always has 7 cards, 5 of them being community cards."
No it doesn't, variations of Texas hold em exist that use more, or less, than 7 cards.
I think what you meant to say was "I am unaware of..." instead of your declaration that was incorrect.
Wood Density May Explain Stradivarius Secret
Did you read THAT?
What about THAT? Well?
What about THAT? It was in the article you claimed didn't say it in case you were trying to find it.
Where do you people come from? Is there a population of you just sitting around with a mouse in your hand thinking "I know, I'll show the entire internet I'm a moron today".
In the future, if you choose to accuse someone of not reading the article, don't make the mistake of saying the article doesn't say something when it obviously says it several times.
Now go troll someone else, boy.
"So you're saying you don't think the density of wood influences sound? Or is the implausibility that it is the density itself that is responsible?"
No, actually, you see those question marks? DO you know what those mean? It appears you do not, based on your attempt to portray me as "throwing straw men at you".
I'm not, you just can't read worth a fuck. Question marks genius, don't ignore them.
Why are you being an asshole when you could have chose to a) not reply or b) answer the questions I asked.?
Instead you choose to get defensive because, apparently, your reading comprehension sucks.
"If it's obvious you should be able to spell it out convincingly."
I shouldn't have to for people with more than an "espn world series of poker" understanding.
"It seems to me arbitrary sized bets give the computer more leeway to play it's perfectly calculated odds"
They'r enot arbitrary, they're designed to interfere with the pot odds, which is what the computer uss to calculate how to play "perfectly". By giving the computer the pot odds necessary to call in situations where perfect play would call for it, but where the imperfect information factor makes said call wrong, you have manipulated the information the computer is receiving.
This is the simplest example, there are others.
"Someone else pointed out that the deck is often not shuffled every hand. "
They were wrong. In fact, this would never go over in any real game, home games full of drunks at a party are the only place you'll see this. It is NOT normal, it is NOT common, and it is NOT acceptable by the rules of the game. So it can't be considered as it would NEVER happen in any game by any legitimate (or even semi-legitimate) sanctioning body.
"Even if it is, opportunities still exist for card counting. "
No, not really, apart from openly cheating. Card counting is not possible in a game that is not being cheated.
"and odds based on past betting behaviour."
These have nothing to do with pot odds and aren't considered by good players with learned opponents. You can't consider them.
"If you take all of that into account it's fairly complicated. "
I agree, but as I've explained, you don't take all of that into account, most of your numbers aren't factored, and counting doesn't exist in straight games. Cheating is irrelevant for this discussion, as no programmer would bother writing code for a machine to cheat. Players would notice immediately and never play that machine again. If you don't believe me, check out the "Absolute Poker scandal" where a player saw the other players hole cards, and was caught based on behavior. It was only after an investigation that the players were told that he did in fact have their hole cards, but they KNEW THAT ALREADY because of how he played. So cheating, which no sanctioning body would accept either, is not relevant, and therefore, your point about card counting is not relevant.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/the-absolute-poker-cheating-scandal-blown-wide-open/
"But the (arbitrarily powerful) computer can do it precisely, without mistakes."
If your assumptions are true, but as I've shown, they aren't. In fact, apart from pot odds, your assumptions are just wrong.
The reason I asked if you played is because the points you were making betrayed a vary basic, beginner's understanding of the game, and the thought/rule/policy errors you've made only serve to reinforce that. For example, your point about "not shuffling" is comical, and would cause great amusement among people who play regularly.
I don't mean to be harsh, but you don't understand the game well enough to make any informed commentary about it.
"Projecting much, Mr McGuiggin?"
If you call telling the truth abotu you projecting.
"BTW, you've just been trolled by a > child."
Fixed that for you, to make it reflect reality.
And honestly, you're not smart enough to continue this discussion. You;ve demonstrated that you can't even tell the difference between a company and its customers, why would I continue to debate this with someone who isn't even intelligent enough to do that?
Lastly, I realize that being a"woman" you're used to men talling you you're right so they can get in your pants, which is almost certainly what resulted in your obvious inability to intelligently defend your point (which was impossible, but a bright individual would have at least done better that to fire off rstraw man after straw man as some kind of "defense") but I have no desire to get in your pants, so the chance of me ignoring the fact that your argument is wrong and foolish is nil.
Go back out to a bar and pick up some loser, you'll get back to having people agree with your opinion no matter how stupid it is in no time, and you'll be right back in your comfort zone.
But you'll still be wrong.