Friendly would be were you let people get away with a few mistakes now and then. Where you are playing more for the fun than the money (of course there has to be money, and it has to be at stakes which aren't trivial or else poker isn't enoyable in the first place).
In a friendly game you probably wouldn't notice their tell in the first place, since you are paying more attention to getting your fair share of the snacks than the other players...
You can have a freidnly game of "go fish" and you can have an unfriendly game of "go fish" too.
But even if population growth is a direct consequence of scientific progress, that GDP growth is a direct consequence of population growth just shows an indirect link from scientific progress to GDP growth. So that doesn't count as "directly from science".
One wonders why the Mayors of Chicago and Boston go off on fundamentalist Christian Chick-Fil-A, which voices opposition to gay marriage, but are silent against fundamentalist Islam extermination of gays themselves.
Because as things get closer to home they become more important.
For example, my child cutting himself on some broken glass is more important to me than an African child starving to death. In fact it's more important to me than hundreds of African children starving to death. Sure that sounds terrible (and probably is). But I will drop everything and take my kid to the hospital/doctor to get some stitches, I won't drop everything when I see something on TV about someone overseas starving.
To be even more extreme, my kid going to the swimming pool is more important to me than a thousand African kids starving to death. After all I spend more of my time and money taking him there, than I do on helping starving Africans.
Similarly mayors of chicago and boston are more likely to care about statement from a company that operates in their jurisdictions than actions of foreigners who do not.
Just one, Air Force Capt. Jeffrey Haney, who crashed in Alaska in 2010. Of course that crash mightn't have the same underlying cause, but it was due to the pilot's oxygen supply failing.
Because it's measuring how fast the engine is running. That it is passed "fast enough" is meaningless, since it isn't trying to measure anything related to playability.
Plus of course more headroom means you can have more stuff being rendered.
If you did it more than once clearly it isn't a friendly game and hence "rules are rules" applies (or you are too drunk and shouldn't be playing a "friendly" game still:). If you are cheating it clearly isn't a friendly game.
There are usually more no limit tables than limit tables playing at the casinos I go to, so I don't think no-limit is less common.
And yes "[a] $2 poker game" is ambigious it could be $1/$2 limit or $2/$4 limit or no limit with $2 big blinds (or even if you squint enough no limit with $2 small blinds?) - the context completely resolves the ambiguity though so I didn't see a need to specify.
That's the point, they do get do-overs. Which is ridiculous because the rest of us don't. Since they get do-overs they take more risks which screws up the system for everyone else.
If a stock exchange or the trading software has safeguard rules that's a different story - since in that case the offer doesn't hit the exchange.
Because they weren't told to hold them within X time periods, so they haven't disobeyed the order yet. Apparently the court is dumber than most five year olds.
Don't cancel the trades. If some idiotic "investment" firm lets a computer program spend hundreds of millions of dollars in seconds then good for them. They get to keep the profits and the losses.
If one of your human trader makes a typo or a computer program has a bug then bad luck, they should have had checks and limits to make sure it doesn't do too much damage to them.
The rest of us don't get do-overs.
Heck just last month I when trying to limp in $2 poker game I picked up two $100 chips and threw them forward by mistake - I didn't get do-over even though everyone at the table new I made a mistake, my $198 raise into a $5 pot plays.
I'm pretty sure if I accidentally typed 100 instead of 10 when making a trade on schwab.com I'm not getting a do-over if the trade completes.
He was elected president after he had already illegally become President so that's irrelevant to whether *everything* he did was legal.
He became Chancellor perfectly legally. He got wide ranging powers as Chancellor perfectly legally. But becoming Fuhrer was illegal. The then constitution trumped legislation, even if the legislation said otherwise.
Hitler was legally granted stupidly large amounts of power, but overriding the consitutional processes that occur on the death of the President was not one of them.
Sure he created a law saying he would be President, but that law was not valid since it violated the constitution and the Enabling Act. Certain parts of the consitution of the had been gutted the Reichstarg Fire Decree and the Enabling Act but not that part. And of the course the Enabling Act expicitely stated that the President was excluded from the constitutional overrides - so not only was it illegal according to the consititution is was illegal according to the law that was nullifying most of the consitution. Hence unifying Chancellor and President was not a legal action.
Of course no one was in any position to do anything about it. That does not make it legal though.
The problem with patent trolls is not the inability of defendants to get costs. It is that trolls often wage licensing campaigns by bringing highly questionable claims but set the costs of licenses below the cost to defend an action in court. Companies typically choose to go the economical route and take a license.
If you can be awarded costs that lowers the expected cost of taking it to court, and hence lowers the cost of the licenses offered. Surely that's a good thing?
If the claims really are highly questionable and there's a good chance you'll get costs awarded the cost of defending approaches zero (as the probability of being awarded costs increases) after all.
Because you would expect soldiers to try and stand out from their surroundings. That's what camouflage is for, right?
Of course sometimes high contrast works as camouflage by breaking up outlines or giving up hiding entirely and going for making it hard to tell direction, speed, and distance (such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_West_Mahomet)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm married. It's purely a civil state. Some forms were filed with the government, nothing was done involving a religious institution at all.
So clearly, marriage is not just "a religious state".
Because the CEO is also the founder and chairman and it's a private company.
Surely a critically panned, unsuccessful game is exactly what qualifies you to judge if something is going to tank?
Friendly would be were you let people get away with a few mistakes now and then. Where you are playing more for the fun than the money (of course there has to be money, and it has to be at stakes which aren't trivial or else poker isn't enoyable in the first place).
In a friendly game you probably wouldn't notice their tell in the first place, since you are paying more attention to getting your fair share of the snacks than the other players...
You can have a freidnly game of "go fish" and you can have an unfriendly game of "go fish" too.
But even if population growth is a direct consequence of scientific progress, that GDP growth is a direct consequence of population growth just shows an indirect link from scientific progress to GDP growth. So that doesn't count as "directly from science".
Because as things get closer to home they become more important.
For example, my child cutting himself on some broken glass is more important to me than an African child starving to death. In fact it's more important to me than hundreds of African children starving to death. Sure that sounds terrible (and probably is). But I will drop everything and take my kid to the hospital/doctor to get some stitches, I won't drop everything when I see something on TV about someone overseas starving.
To be even more extreme, my kid going to the swimming pool is more important to me than a thousand African kids starving to death. After all I spend more of my time and money taking him there, than I do on helping starving Africans.
Similarly mayors of chicago and boston are more likely to care about statement from a company that operates in their jurisdictions than actions of foreigners who do not.
Just one, Air Force Capt. Jeffrey Haney, who crashed in Alaska in 2010. Of course that crash mightn't have the same underlying cause, but it was due to the pilot's oxygen supply failing.
Wow, you aren't very smart are you?
Population growth.
Because it's measuring how fast the engine is running. That it is passed "fast enough" is meaningless, since it isn't trying to measure anything related to playability.
Plus of course more headroom means you can have more stuff being rendered.
If you did it more than once clearly it isn't a friendly game and hence "rules are rules" applies (or you are too drunk and shouldn't be playing a "friendly" game still :). If you are cheating it clearly isn't a friendly game.
Yes, but if you are likely to win costs then the threshold where the licensing cost makes it worth going to court is lower.
There are usually more no limit tables than limit tables playing at the casinos I go to, so I don't think no-limit is less common.
And yes "[a] $2 poker game" is ambigious it could be $1/$2 limit or $2/$4 limit or no limit with $2 big blinds (or even if you squint enough no limit with $2 small blinds?) - the context completely resolves the ambiguity though so I didn't see a need to specify.
That's the point, they do get do-overs. Which is ridiculous because the rest of us don't. Since they get do-overs they take more risks which screws up the system for everyone else.
If a stock exchange or the trading software has safeguard rules that's a different story - since in that case the offer doesn't hit the exchange.
It was in a casino. Where the rules are the rules - as they should be when an investment bank buys or sells stocks.
Sure in a friendly game at home you'd expect to say "oops, I'm an idiot" and swap the $100 chips with $1 chips.
Because they weren't told to hold them within X time periods, so they haven't disobeyed the order yet. Apparently the court is dumber than most five year olds.
Don't cancel the trades. If some idiotic "investment" firm lets a computer program spend hundreds of millions of dollars in seconds then good for them. They get to keep the profits and the losses.
If one of your human trader makes a typo or a computer program has a bug then bad luck, they should have had checks and limits to make sure it doesn't do too much damage to them.
The rest of us don't get do-overs.
Heck just last month I when trying to limp in $2 poker game I picked up two $100 chips and threw them forward by mistake - I didn't get do-over even though everyone at the table new I made a mistake, my $198 raise into a $5 pot plays.
I'm pretty sure if I accidentally typed 100 instead of 10 when making a trade on schwab.com I'm not getting a do-over if the trade completes.
Any "retail investor" trading in the first few days of an IPO deserves to lose their money.
Of course that doesn't mean fraud is acceptable to ensure that happens, but it's really just speeding up the inevitable.
He was elected president after he had already illegally become President so that's irrelevant to whether *everything* he did was legal.
He became Chancellor perfectly legally. He got wide ranging powers as Chancellor perfectly legally. But becoming Fuhrer was illegal. The then constitution trumped legislation, even if the legislation said otherwise.
Hitler was legally granted stupidly large amounts of power, but overriding the consitutional processes that occur on the death of the President was not one of them.
Sure he created a law saying he would be President, but that law was not valid since it violated the constitution and the Enabling Act. Certain parts of the consitution of the had been gutted the Reichstarg Fire Decree and the Enabling Act but not that part. And of the course the Enabling Act expicitely stated that the President was excluded from the constitutional overrides - so not only was it illegal according to the consititution is was illegal according to the law that was nullifying most of the consitution. Hence unifying Chancellor and President was not a legal action.
Of course no one was in any position to do anything about it. That does not make it legal though.
If you can be awarded costs that lowers the expected cost of taking it to court, and hence lowers the cost of the licenses offered. Surely that's a good thing?
If the claims really are highly questionable and there's a good chance you'll get costs awarded the cost of defending approaches zero (as the probability of being awarded costs increases) after all.
Except for all the things that weren't. You know minor things like becoming Fuhrer
Because you would expect soldiers to try and stand out from their surroundings. That's what camouflage is for, right?
Of course sometimes high contrast works as camouflage by breaking up outlines or giving up hiding entirely and going for making it hard to tell direction, speed, and distance (such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_West_Mahomet)
If your phone company undercharged you one month would you complain? What if they overcharged you several thousand dollars?
Amazing that you would invest different amount of efforts into resolving those situations. Amazing I say!
Because advertising on craigslist is more underground and shady than not advertising on craigslist?
I shall have to have another look at such phones again then.