"No limit and multiple opponents might make the problem harder, even MUCH harder, but I don't see that either one introduces a factor into the game that would give a person an advantage over an arbitrarily powerful computer."
I do, I see several in fact. Bet sizing being the most obvious.
"When the computation becomes more complex human performance will suffer but the arbitrarily powerful computer will continue to calculate the ideal course of action."
This is rare. Most poker calculations are simple, and even the difficult ones aren't terribly difficult.
"Therein lies your ultimate hypocrisy: you're talking about caring about the environment and then acting like you have a god-given right to drive around on dino juice"
No he isn't, he's talking about building infrastructure that will continue to see use after the end of gas powered vehicles. Electric cars still drive on roads.
If you look closely, it is YOU who is foisting the straw man of "dino juice" upon him. There are more kinds of pollution than what comes out of a tailpipe. Noise, heat, etc. Taking palliative measures to reduce these things, which still exist with electric vehicles isn't the vile idea your screed makes it out to be.
You just jumped on your high horse and assumed you had the answer, when you didn't even understand the question. If there's anything I dislike about this new environmentalism, it's how often I see people doing exactly that.
What's more, people don't realize that "playing perfectly" is a misnomer. It deals with making statistically correct decisions given the available information, which in poker, is not all of the information.
People familiar with the game understand that perfect play doesn't mean "you always get it right". It means you are playing based on the idea of expected value. This is discussed in the theory of poker.
When you talk about multiway play, you also are overlooking that decision making changes significantly in multiway pots, which is discussed in Morton's theorem.
I'm also at reasonably sure that given time, a pattern of "perfect play" would be found to be exploitable. Since the computer is using incomplete information, it must make assumptions. These assumptions, if anticipated, could be used to influence the computer's decisions.
Since this story is about limit, it's no wonder the computer has so much success. The structure of limit makes it a very straight mathematical game, where you're frequently calling river bets when you are certain you are beaten, simply because statistically it is correct to do so.
This structure is not present on all poker games, and indeed, many of the most popular games are not limit, but pot limit or no limit instead. I'd be interested to see what kind of progress is being made on those games, which strike me as vastly harder problems.
"Oh? And how is that "without interacting with AVG AT ALL" then?"
Don't be a douche just because you're wrong. Just because it's possible to do it without interacting with AVg doesn't mean that's the only way, or even the easiest.
You just don't get it.
No I get it, you're a childish troll who can't admit he's wrong.
"actually, Java has been playing "perfect" poker (all variants) for years now."
Thanks for the laugh, I enjoyed it. However, if you'd like to pick any Java based player (or several, I'm open) and put up some money, I'll happily help you prove your point playing some OH8. You can even choose the stakes (real money please, no pissant stakes, say 10-20?).
oh sure, all that has to be done is to educate every single person who downloaded the software aimed specifically at lusers.
Or send it out as part of the automatic update. That AVG does at least once a week.
It's so easy and so simple, I'm surprised you haven't already taken care of that.
It is, and I did. You make it seem like it's splitting the atom or something, which to you, I suppose it could be.
Someone looks like an ass, alright.
Ah the old "I know you are but what am I" retort. Should have seen that coming based on your posts.
The "computer guys" defending the snake oil producers.
Please point out, if you can, where I defended anyone. I simply pointed out where the issue was occurring instead of thoughtlessly lashing out like a petulant child. If you can't be bothered to think beyond the first level, and regard immature raving as a substitute for intelligent commentary, then I don't see why you're bothering to comment at all.
So learn better and do better -- that's what separates the merely ignorant from the terminally stupid, get it now?
So what you're saying is since you haven't learned that there is a difference between a company and its customers, a product and its users, that you are "terminally stupid"?
"If GM sold a car with a deadly fault which could be easily fixed with a small adjustment would you argue that because it can be easily fixed by anyone who takes the time to learn about the flaw and how to fix it that GM is not the responsible party?"
You're assigning blame, which, honestly, I don't care about. It seems important to you, but I don't care.
Is "GM" the saem group as "owners of GM vehicles"?
No, they are not, as I said. It appears that you are so consumed with blaming someone that it never occurred to you that people who are not consumed with blaming someone can see that they are two separate groups, and thus when you said "Yes, that is the complaint, and no, you're the one being disingenuous." you were wrong, the complaint that is actually being made is that users of AVG are spamming the internet, NOT AVG themselves.
You can say "it's AVG by proxy" or "it's AVG's fault" but that's only partially true as the problem could be solved without interacting with AVG AT ALL.
EIther you are able to differentiate between a company and its customers, or you are not. Telling someone else they "must be hallucinating" when it's your own failure to see the subtleties is arrogant and thoughtless, and makes you look like an ass.
"Right, well then either you did not read the text or you are not a very bright person."
Listen dick, YOU made claims, with NO proof, in direct opposition to MY posted evidence.
THEN you posted a link to a law, that DIDN't say what you claim, THEN you pretended it did say what you claimed because it was the best you could do.
The reason you "won't waste any more time on you" is because I caught you lying, and you have nothing better to prove your point. WHen I didn't swallow it because I DID read it and realized you wee lying, you got pissy and ran away.
You were wrong, I proved it. Unless you have something better than a law you don't understand, that doesn't say what you claim, then you can fuck off.
But I'm not going anywhere. I don't need to because I have EVIDENCE that PROVES me right. In that regard, I can see why you think you need to run away.
Why does it not surprise that a frog like you would run away?
Are you not capapble of telling the difference between the users of AVG and AVG themselves? That's the only explanation for why you think what you do even though you're wrong
I don't agree with the OP's reasoning, but your inability to see that AVG and it's users are separate groups doesn't make your point accurate.
"This one sounds no more plausible than the others."
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?
If it's the first, then no. There's nothing implausible about claiming the primary material influences the final characteristics. If it's the second, I think that's more reasonable, as it's akin to saying it's the pigments that made Picasso's art what it was, or it's the marble that made Donatello's sculpture what it was.
An artist takes pieces and assembles them into a whole, which is art. Claiming that it is the pieces that are the determining factor misses the point.
Another broad piece of the law is the provision applying to workplaces that "any document that contains obligations for the employee or provisions whose knowledge is necessary for the performance of one's work must be written in French."
Sorry, but you are wrong again, looks like you should have paid closer attention in school.
What happens when a large number of people who are either directly or indirectly associated with you begin volunteering information that they don't know/think encroaches on your privacy, and may not actually encroach on your privacy, but when aggregated, gives a clear picture of activities that you'd like to avoid making public?
And you do understand that the concept of selling something, is a majority of the concept of reselling something... right? I mean reselling something, is SELLING something again, right?
Yes, they are different, I agree, that was my point.
So "Not for individual sale" means not for individual sale OR resale. It is hard to resell something without selling it. Duh.
That "duh" is classy, thanks. Now to get to the meat of your "argument", can you please show a legal decision that demonstrates your claim, or are you simply assuming that you think they're close enough so they're close enough? The law is built on semantics, so while it may be "duh" to you that thay are similar, it is "duh" to anyone with an informed understanding of the law that they are different until ruled otherwise, since, semantically they are undeniably not the same.
So please post a link to the court case that shows a sale is legally the same as a resale.
However, all three have specific rules and regulations regarding the use of, and the sale of, and the RESALE of (since you want to insist that those two things are not related)... and you are bound by those rules without signing anything.
Which has nothing to do with your point, and isn't even strictly accurate. You were discussing contract law, and now you're straying off into blue laws and potentially (almost certainly) unconstitutional restrictions that are in place for purposes of public safety. You're conflating two different arguments and pretending they're the same, and that rules regarding potentially hazardous chemicals somehow apply to handbags.
Thanks for playing.
Wow, being wrong really pisses you off if you have to be that snarky just to protect your Slashutation.
They got too greedy and pushed too far and that is what will actually give people the motivation to push back.
While I understand your point, I would assert that people already had the motivation (college students are notoriously poor and cheap) and it was the change in technology coupled with different societal norms. I mean, honestly, you think this wouldn't have occurred even if the prices were say, half of what they are? Or, that it wouldn't have occurred thirty years ago if there were an easier way than photocopying the pages?
The technology made it easy, and society is increasingly making it acceptable (regardless of your personal opinion on the morality) so I find the idea that the publisher's greed is the culprit to a be dubious justification at best.
This ruling came down against eBay on two fronts. The court faulted the online company for "guilty negligence," for not doing enough to prevent fake goods from being sold on its site. The court also ruled that eBay was responsible for the "illicit sale" of perfumes from the LVMH empire, which can be sold only through the brands' "selective distribution networks."
The Yahoo blurb left that part out, which is where you got your misinformation from. So no, when you say "Still in France I can sell stuff I buy from LVMH, as soon as I buy it it is mine (first sale doctrine ?)" you are not correct.
Each one states quite clearly on the packaging that they are not for individual sale.
Yes, however it does not say "not for individual re-sale". So your point falls apart there. This is, of course, outside of the fact that your example is labeled that way for nutritional reasons, nothing more.
More importantly, and I suspect you know this, onerous contracts are illegal. Without a specific legal ruling stating that a contract can restrict me from reselling my property, I have to call shenanigans on your speculation.
So, is that process like, a sentence in English followed by a sentence in French, or is it all done in one language then the other, or what exactly? I can't see how I would stay in a meeting that had already presented the information to me in my native language. I'd probably just leave after the English portion (or alternately, the French if that were my native language).
Slashdot Mirror
"No limit and multiple opponents might make the problem harder, even MUCH harder, but I don't see that either one introduces a factor into the game that would give a person an advantage over an arbitrarily powerful computer."
I do, I see several in fact. Bet sizing being the most obvious.
"When the computation becomes more complex human performance will suffer but the arbitrarily powerful computer will continue to calculate the ideal course of action."
This is rare. Most poker calculations are simple, and even the difficult ones aren't terribly difficult.
May I ask, do you play?
"Therein lies your ultimate hypocrisy: you're talking about caring about the environment and then acting like you have a god-given right to drive around on dino juice"
No he isn't, he's talking about building infrastructure that will continue to see use after the end of gas powered vehicles. Electric cars still drive on roads.
If you look closely, it is YOU who is foisting the straw man of "dino juice" upon him. There are more kinds of pollution than what comes out of a tailpipe. Noise, heat, etc. Taking palliative measures to reduce these things, which still exist with electric vehicles isn't the vile idea your screed makes it out to be.
You just jumped on your high horse and assumed you had the answer, when you didn't even understand the question. If there's anything I dislike about this new environmentalism, it's how often I see people doing exactly that.
What's more, people don't realize that "playing perfectly" is a misnomer. It deals with making statistically correct decisions given the available information, which in poker, is not all of the information.
People familiar with the game understand that perfect play doesn't mean "you always get it right". It means you are playing based on the idea of expected value. This is discussed in the theory of poker.
When you talk about multiway play, you also are overlooking that decision making changes significantly in multiway pots, which is discussed in Morton's theorem.
I'm also at reasonably sure that given time, a pattern of "perfect play" would be found to be exploitable. Since the computer is using incomplete information, it must make assumptions. These assumptions, if anticipated, could be used to influence the computer's decisions.
Since this story is about limit, it's no wonder the computer has so much success. The structure of limit makes it a very straight mathematical game, where you're frequently calling river bets when you are certain you are beaten, simply because statistically it is correct to do so.
This structure is not present on all poker games, and indeed, many of the most popular games are not limit, but pot limit or no limit instead. I'd be interested to see what kind of progress is being made on those games, which strike me as vastly harder problems.
"Oh? And how is that "without interacting with AVG AT ALL" then?"
Don't be a douche just because you're wrong. Just because it's possible to do it without interacting with AVg doesn't mean that's the only way, or even the easiest.
No I get it, you're a childish troll who can't admit he's wrong.
"actually, Java has been playing "perfect" poker (all variants) for years now."
Thanks for the laugh, I enjoyed it. However, if you'd like to pick any Java based player (or several, I'm open) and put up some money, I'll happily help you prove your point playing some OH8. You can even choose the stakes (real money please, no pissant stakes, say 10-20?).
Well?
Only to find out it's Wii tennis, a very small subset of "tennis"
The statements made regarding this subject apply only to the subset of poker being played, seven-card limit Texas Hold'em.
Or send it out as part of the automatic update. That AVG does at least once a week.
It is, and I did. You make it seem like it's splitting the atom or something, which to you, I suppose it could be.
Ah the old "I know you are but what am I" retort. Should have seen that coming based on your posts.
Please point out, if you can, where I defended anyone. I simply pointed out where the issue was occurring instead of thoughtlessly lashing out like a petulant child. If you can't be bothered to think beyond the first level, and regard immature raving as a substitute for intelligent commentary, then I don't see why you're bothering to comment at all.
So what you're saying is since you haven't learned that there is a difference between a company and its customers, a product and its users, that you are "terminally stupid"?
Would you be upset if I agreed with you?
"If GM sold a car with a deadly fault which could be easily fixed with a small adjustment would you argue that because it can be easily fixed by anyone who takes the time to learn about the flaw and how to fix it that GM is not the responsible party?"
You're assigning blame, which, honestly, I don't care about. It seems important to you, but I don't care.
Is "GM" the saem group as "owners of GM vehicles"?
No, they are not, as I said. It appears that you are so consumed with blaming someone that it never occurred to you that people who are not consumed with blaming someone can see that they are two separate groups, and thus when you said "Yes, that is the complaint, and no, you're the one being disingenuous." you were wrong, the complaint that is actually being made is that users of AVG are spamming the internet, NOT AVG themselves.
You can say "it's AVG by proxy" or "it's AVG's fault" but that's only partially true as the problem could be solved without interacting with AVG AT ALL.
EIther you are able to differentiate between a company and its customers, or you are not. Telling someone else they "must be hallucinating" when it's your own failure to see the subtleties is arrogant and thoughtless, and makes you look like an ass.
Thanks, have a nice day.
"Right, well then either you did not read the text or you are not a very bright person."
Listen dick, YOU made claims, with NO proof, in direct opposition to MY posted evidence.
THEN you posted a link to a law, that DIDN't say what you claim, THEN you pretended it did say what you claimed because it was the best you could do.
The reason you "won't waste any more time on you" is because I caught you lying, and you have nothing better to prove your point. WHen I didn't swallow it because I DID read it and realized you wee lying, you got pissy and ran away.
You were wrong, I proved it. Unless you have something better than a law you don't understand, that doesn't say what you claim, then you can fuck off.
But I'm not going anywhere. I don't need to because I have EVIDENCE that PROVES me right. In that regard, I can see why you think you need to run away.
Why does it not surprise that a frog like you would run away?
Are you not capapble of telling the difference between the users of AVG and AVG themselves? That's the only explanation for why you think what you do even though you're wrong
I don't agree with the OP's reasoning, but your inability to see that AVG and it's users are separate groups doesn't make your point accurate.
"This one sounds no more plausible than the others."
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?
If it's the first, then no. There's nothing implausible about claiming the primary material influences the final characteristics. If it's the second, I think that's more reasonable, as it's akin to saying it's the pigments that made Picasso's art what it was, or it's the marble that made Donatello's sculpture what it was.
An artist takes pieces and assembles them into a whole, which is art. Claiming that it is the pieces that are the determining factor misses the point.
I don't believe you've proven anything with that, it doesn't refute my point at all.
"No obligation to hold meetings in French."
And you add this, which is not in the text, without demonstrating it is so. Your text does not say what you are claiming it says.
Except that is one of the reasons they sued, did you even RTFA?
If I knew who you were I'd offer to buy you a beer, nicely done.
I suggest you read the link I posted, you'll find out that repeatedly saying "nu uh" doesn't make you correct.
No it isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toubon_Law
Sorry, but you are wrong again, looks like you should have paid closer attention in school.
"by Anonymous Coward"
In case you're unsure why no one cares about your post.
If you read the rest of his replies, you'll see he doesn't seem to understand the difference.
What happens when a large number of people who are either directly or indirectly associated with you begin volunteering information that they don't know/think encroaches on your privacy, and may not actually encroach on your privacy, but when aggregated, gives a clear picture of activities that you'd like to avoid making public?
I geonanoblog, which is easily a thousand times cooler.
Yes, they are different, I agree, that was my point.
That "duh" is classy, thanks. Now to get to the meat of your "argument", can you please show a legal decision that demonstrates your claim, or are you simply assuming that you think they're close enough so they're close enough? The law is built on semantics, so while it may be "duh" to you that thay are similar, it is "duh" to anyone with an informed understanding of the law that they are different until ruled otherwise, since, semantically they are undeniably not the same.
So please post a link to the court case that shows a sale is legally the same as a resale.
Which has nothing to do with your point, and isn't even strictly accurate. You were discussing contract law, and now you're straying off into blue laws and potentially (almost certainly) unconstitutional restrictions that are in place for purposes of public safety. You're conflating two different arguments and pretending they're the same, and that rules regarding potentially hazardous chemicals somehow apply to handbags.
Wow, being wrong really pisses you off if you have to be that snarky just to protect your Slashutation.
While I understand your point, I would assert that people already had the motivation (college students are notoriously poor and cheap) and it was the change in technology coupled with different societal norms. I mean, honestly, you think this wouldn't have occurred even if the prices were say, half of what they are? Or, that it wouldn't have occurred thirty years ago if there were an easier way than photocopying the pages?
The technology made it easy, and society is increasingly making it acceptable (regardless of your personal opinion on the morality) so I find the idea that the publisher's greed is the culprit to a be dubious justification at best.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422673041
The Yahoo blurb left that part out, which is where you got your misinformation from. So no, when you say "Still in France I can sell stuff I buy from LVMH, as soon as I buy it it is mine (first sale doctrine ?)" you are not correct.
Yes, however it does not say "not for individual re-sale". So your point falls apart there. This is, of course, outside of the fact that your example is labeled that way for nutritional reasons, nothing more.
More importantly, and I suspect you know this, onerous contracts are illegal. Without a specific legal ruling stating that a contract can restrict me from reselling my property, I have to call shenanigans on your speculation.
So, is that process like, a sentence in English followed by a sentence in French, or is it all done in one language then the other, or what exactly? I can't see how I would stay in a meeting that had already presented the information to me in my native language. I'd probably just leave after the English portion (or alternately, the French if that were my native language).