I've played on a card counting team in the past. It is hard, very hard, but a sufficiently intelligent person can do it with lots of practice. And anyone on a team practices a lot.
The individual counter is not a threat to the casinos and I doubt the casinos pay him much attention. Team play can be very profitable though, and believe me, the casinos pay very close attention to team counters. The team I was on once took in $1.3 over a 2 week team play. Mostly at the expense of the Rio.:)
the casinos don't know how to count cards anywhere near as well as the counters do. they would have no hope of seeing advantage before the counters did.
also, all the non-counters (roughly 99% of the players) would get quite discouraged/angry if it was known that the casinos were "stacking the deck" against players by shuffling whenever the house was at a disadvantage. RIAA/MPAA aside, most business realize that you don't make money by antagonizing most of your customers.
Wow, that story sure did dispell the biased notion that online RPG players are disfunctional failers in the real world who use these games to flee their miserable lives.
did anyone else notice that US troops didn't even have the right *color* uniforms during the recent war in Iraq?
They were wearing green jungle camo for a desert war because the US Army didn't make enough sand-colored uniforms ahead of time.
If the military can't even get its shit together enough to provide the right color uniforms to its troops, how can anyone believe they'll pull off the uniforms described in this story?
Back when you were playing Donkey Kong, adults were playing Leisure Suit Larry. There have always been games targeted to adults that are not suitable for children. This is not new.
The GTA series of games (3 and up, anyway) is for adults. They have an M rating. They are not for children. When my nephews visit me, they are not permitted to play my GTA games. We rent a Spyro the Dragon game or something like that if they want to play a video game.
If more kids are playing adult-oriented games today than they did in the past, that represents a deterioration of our society's parenting skills. It is not a deterioration of the gaming industry.
If you already own a PS2, why do you care how they're changing new units? Were you really going to buy *another* PS2 just to get that DVD-R playback capability?
Clearly you are unaware just how stupid much of the American public is. I mean, who do you think voted for Bush anyway? There aren't *that* many Enron execs in the US!
He was talking about gross, not profit. The $50 per game goes to the retailer, not to Rockstar. The retailers pay about $35-$40 per copy to Rockstar, of which $10 goes directly to Sony. So Rockstar's gross is $25-$30 per copy. Times 8.5 million gives about $250 million gross.
EULA stands for End User License Agreement, and as such it applies to licenses.
You don't license a printer, you purchase it. When you purchase something, it is yours to do with as you please. There is no license, and there is no agreement. It is yours. End of story.
To paraphrase the statute's text, all New York State government agencies must disclose to the public all info/data/documents they possess unless doing so will violate someone's privacy or would endanger someone's safety, plus a few more exceptions that don't apply to these shipwreck locations.
I mean, what can you do with a gun? Open a can of soup? Change a car tire? Connect to the internet?
The only thing you can do with a gun is shoot things. Shooting things *is* violence, ergo guns == violence.
I acknowledge your point though. Most guns are purchased by people who are not using them to kill other people.
But this does not refute my point, which was this: Which product - an M rated video game or a shotgun - has more potential for abuse in the hands of a sociopathic murderer? The exclusion of which product from Wal-Mart's shelves is more likely to increase the public good (ie, fewer murders)?
Your understanding of copyright is off. Too much exposure to the RIAA/MPAA, I suppose.
Physical objects (like digital media) can not be copyrighted. Copyright only applies to information - to the content on the media, not the media itelf.
Physical objects are property, and theft of property is a crime. But since the phyiscal media itself was never stolen, and the information on the media is not copyrightable (as you already acknowledged), no crime was committed here.
The HD manufacturers are making contradictory statements here.
On the one hand, they claim this warranty reduction is necessary to save costs; i.e. by reducing the warranty they won't have to pay to fix as many drives.
On the other hand, they're saying that most people won't be affected by this change because the drives hardly ever fail.
Both of these statements can't be true: If it's true that the drives hardyly ever fail, then reducing the warranty period isn't going to reduce costs. If it's true that reducing the warranty saves costs, then there must be a significant number of drives that fail between 1 and 3 years from purchase.
At least one of these statements must be a lie. I'm pretty sure I know which one...
Slashdot Mirror
The individual counter is not a threat to the casinos and I doubt the casinos pay him much attention. Team play can be very profitable though, and believe me, the casinos pay very close attention to team counters. The team I was on once took in $1.3 over a 2 week team play. Mostly at the expense of the Rio. :)
also, all the non-counters (roughly 99% of the players) would get quite discouraged/angry if it was known that the casinos were "stacking the deck" against players by shuffling whenever the house was at a disadvantage. RIAA/MPAA aside, most business realize that you don't make money by antagonizing most of your customers.
or, to tie in to a previous story, perhaps Otzi is a chimera?
I was unaware there was now a cromulent alternative to the word 'supposedly'.
or you could just get a free 2048-bit encrypted account at hushmail.com
Wow, that story sure did dispell the biased notion that online RPG players are disfunctional failers in the real world who use these games to flee their miserable lives.
did anyone else notice that US troops didn't even have the right *color* uniforms during the recent war in Iraq?
They were wearing green jungle camo for a desert war because the US Army didn't make enough sand-colored uniforms ahead of time.
If the military can't even get its shit together enough to provide the right color uniforms to its troops, how can anyone believe they'll pull off the uniforms described in this story?
Exactly. As I recall, the "D" in DMCA stands for "digital" not "dumpster". There's nothing digital about this case so I don't see how DMCA applies.
Spend $40 for the PS2 network adapter and get free online gaming in perpetuity.
Spend $70 for an Xbox "startup kit" and get online gaming for one year, $50 more for each year thereafter.
How is the Xbox option a good deal?
Back when you were playing Donkey Kong, adults were playing Leisure Suit Larry. There have always been games targeted to adults that are not suitable for children. This is not new.
The GTA series of games (3 and up, anyway) is for adults. They have an M rating. They are not for children. When my nephews visit me, they are not permitted to play my GTA games. We rent a Spyro the Dragon game or something like that if they want to play a video game.
If more kids are playing adult-oriented games today than they did in the past, that represents a deterioration of our society's parenting skills. It is not a deterioration of the gaming industry.
If you already own a PS2, why do you care how they're changing new units? Were you really going to buy *another* PS2 just to get that DVD-R playback capability?
Clearly you are unaware just how stupid much of the American public is. I mean, who do you think voted for Bush anyway? There aren't *that* many Enron execs in the US!
It is also true that if the government shot jaywalkers on sight there'd be less jaywalking. Does that mean they should be allowed to do so?
He was talking about gross, not profit. The $50 per game goes to the retailer, not to Rockstar. The retailers pay about $35-$40 per copy to Rockstar, of which $10 goes directly to Sony. So Rockstar's gross is $25-$30 per copy. Times 8.5 million gives about $250 million gross.
Yes, that is exactly the point smiff was making with his rhetorical question, which you appear to have mistaken for a literal one.
Three separate mail-in rebates on a pack of CD-Rs??!?! WTF?
What these companies are doing is requiring you to give them 2-3 month loans, interest free, in return for a good price on their merchandise.
That paper is meaningless because you didn't license the printer from them, you bought it from them.
There is no such thing as an End User Purchase Agreement - when you buy something it is yours without restriction.
You don't license a printer, you purchase it. When you purchase something, it is yours to do with as you please. There is no license, and there is no agreement. It is yours. End of story.
To paraphrase the statute's text, all New York State government agencies must disclose to the public all info/data/documents they possess unless doing so will violate someone's privacy or would endanger someone's safety, plus a few more exceptions that don't apply to these shipwreck locations.
I mean, what can you do with a gun? Open a can of soup? Change a car tire? Connect to the internet?
The only thing you can do with a gun is shoot things. Shooting things *is* violence, ergo guns == violence.
I acknowledge your point though. Most guns are purchased by people who are not using them to kill other people.
But this does not refute my point, which was this: Which product - an M rated video game or a shotgun - has more potential for abuse in the hands of a sociopathic murderer? The exclusion of which product from Wal-Mart's shelves is more likely to increase the public good (ie, fewer murders)?
Yet they happily sell guns. Anyone else think this is fcuked up?
Your understanding of copyright is off. Too much exposure to the RIAA/MPAA, I suppose.
Physical objects (like digital media) can not be copyrighted. Copyright only applies to information - to the content on the media, not the media itelf.
Physical objects are property, and theft of property is a crime. But since the phyiscal media itself was never stolen, and the information on the media is not copyrightable (as you already acknowledged), no crime was committed here.
I think you meant "textual". Unless they've been given a patent for sticking pieces of fabric on a web page, that is.
The HD manufacturers are making contradictory statements here.
On the one hand, they claim this warranty reduction is necessary to save costs; i.e. by reducing the warranty they won't have to pay to fix as many drives.
On the other hand, they're saying that most people won't be affected by this change because the drives hardly ever fail.
Both of these statements can't be true: If it's true that the drives hardyly ever fail, then reducing the warranty period isn't going to reduce costs. If it's true that reducing the warranty saves costs, then there must be a significant number of drives that fail between 1 and 3 years from purchase.
At least one of these statements must be a lie. I'm pretty sure I know which one...
If AMD is interested in selling more of their high-end chips, maybe they should try **RELEASING THEM**!!!
I've been itching to build a new box around an XP 2400 ever since its "launch". It's been a month since then, and there are still no chips!