Re:Where, exactly, is modding prohibited?
on
XBox Linux HOWTOs
·
· Score: 1
Your point about the DMCA is valid, but the rest of your post is not.
It does not matter what is written on a product you buy. You can do whatever you want with it within the bounds of the law, regardless of what the manufacturer writes on the box.
It is not illegal to drive a car without seatbelts because the manufacturer says not to. It's illegal because laws have been passed that make it illegal. Likewise with spraypaint. There are anti-drug laws and anti-graffiti laws which make using spraypaint in those ways illegal. Nothing that the manufacturer writes on the can makes it so.
There is no EULA on an Xbox. An "End User License Agreement" defines the terms of a license. You don't license an Xbox, you buy it, and there's no such thing as a EUBA.
Re:Where, exactly, is modding prohibited?
on
XBox Linux HOWTOs
·
· Score: 1
Right, what I'm saying is not just that Microsoft's user agreement can't prohibit modding. It's that there is no user agreement. The only "agreement" between Microsoft and the buyer is that the buyer hands over some money and Microsoft hands over an Xbox.
Once that transaction takes place, neither side has any say over what the other side does. The buyer is free to mod the Xbox, and Microsoft is free to hand the cash over to "pro-business" Republican politicians.
Re:Where, exactly, is modding prohibited?
on
XBox Linux HOWTOs
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Modding isn't prohibited, because it can't be prohibited.
You don't *license* Xbox hardware from Microsoft, you *buy* it. When you buy something, you *own* it, and can do whatever the hell you want with/to it. So there is not and can not be a "license agreement".
Now, Xbox Live is a different story. Xbox live is a service, not a piece of hardware. Microsoft can legally define the terms of that service, and one of the terms can be that only non-modded Xboxes are allowed to use it.
To summarize: modding Xboxes is/can not be prohibited. Using modded Xboxes on Xbox Live can and probably will be prohibited.
Re:What you really need to know about Card Countin
on
MIT vs. Las Vegas
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
In late 2000/early 2001 I spent 6 months playing on the team that MIT has since been rolled into. The Wired article, while admittedly full of dazzle and drama, is mostly dead-on.
Your facts are not quite correct:
Fact #1: Maybe you don't have to be a math genius, but you have to be pretty f-ing sharp. The count you've described is only the first step in a real counting sytem. Your "knockout system" is called the "running count"; the "true count" is the running count divided by the number of decks remaining in the shoe (which is determined by subtracting the number of decks in the discard tray from the total number of decks per shoe) rounded down to the nearests whole number. The true count determines your bet - you multiply the true count times your base unit (say $100) to determine your bet for the next hand. Today's team counter has to do all this on the fly, instantaneously, while simultaneously chatting up the dealer, checking out the waitress's cleavage, and doing whatever else it takes to look like the average Joe Gambler. Then he has to signal his BP to make the appropriate bet and vary his play according to the count. It requires significant mental resources!
Fact #2: Your math is correct, but there is a way to make money at blackjack without having a huge bankroll. You play on a team - a few senior members can provide most of the bankroll (and take most of the profits, alas).
Fact #3: I've always found counting to be a bizarre mix of boredom and pure adrenal high. Yes, you're repetitively processing the same data stream for hours on end. But you're also this undercover superhero of sorts - using your superior abilities to make gobs of money under the unsuspecting (well, when things go well) noses of these greedy corporate thugs. It's the purest form of excitement I've ever found.
Fact #4: I've never counted solo, but being on the inside of a successful team is quite glamorous. There's just too much money around for it not to be.
FAct #5: Possibly true. Counting only works if the casinos don't stop you, and they only don't stop you if they don't realize you're counting. When mainstream magazines start publishing articles about your system, it ain't too clandestine anymore! Counters are in a continual arms race with the casinos, and this particular weapon is about obsolete. Counters are still inventing new ones, but things like continuous shufflers and facial recognition software are getting harder and harder to counter. It may be that we're reaching the point where a counter and his mind can't beat the technological countermeasures used by the casinos.
In past stories about PVRs, slashdot posters always got modded way up for saying something along the lines of:
"It's not my fault the TV networks' business model is obsolete. If I want to skip commercials I will and if the networks don't like it they should stop whining and come up with a better business model."
Well, here's that better business model you asked for. If you don't like it, stop whining and come up with a better PVR!
Have you heard anything about this news? It was news to me when I read it a couple days ago in the Post, but apparently all the rosey economic news that's been coming from China the last few years is starting to smell a bit fishy.
Your comment about investing in AMD stock is contradictory. You warn potential investors to be in it for the long haul and also to prepare for the insane price swings.
But it is precisely because of those insane price swings that investors *don't* have to be in it for the long haul. Those price swings provide a serious return on investment in very little time.
Buy now at $15/share, then sell a month from now when the price inevitably hits $20. You just made a 33% profit! Try to do that with Intel stock!
If you'd like to ride again, wait a month for the price to fall back down to $12, then buy some more. Lather, rinse repeat.
No, you can argue as to whether their actions were wrong, unethical, or immoral. But the *legality* of Microsoft's actions has been decided. It is the courts that define what is legal and what is not - that's what they do.
No, it's not arguable whether Microsoft's business practices were illegal. Microsoft has been found guilty in federal court of breaking federal anti-trust laws.
That's what this AOL suit is all about. In essence their suit is saying "You were found guilty of breaking anti-trust laws. Now we want to be compensated for our loss that resulted from your illegal actions."
I'll bet Square offers free modems and possibly harddrives to subscribers of their PlayOnline service, just as Sega once gave away free Dreamcasts with a three-year SegaNet subscription. Square knows as well as everyone else that the real money is in monthly subscription fees, not hardware sales.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a "legal principal", but there certainly isn't any LAW in the US that says no one can be made to pay taxes to a government in which the payer is not represented.
Here in Washington DC we pay all the same federal income and payroll taxes as other US citizens, but we have no representatives in the US Senate and only a non-voting (ie useless) representative in the House of Representatives. We get to vote in Presidential elections, but that's it.
We are a literal example of taxation without representation.
A 30-second visit to price comparison sites like MySimon, PriceWatch, or PriceScan would have saved you more than $500 on the components you already bought. The TV you paid $2500 for can be had for $2000, and your $300 DVD player sells elsewhere for $235. After you decide on the best audio components, shop around for the best *price* as well.
A major issue in this election has been the impending Social Security "crisis"- that in about 15 years Social Security will be taking in less money each year than it pays out in benefits.
But there is a very important fact that has been completely ignored by every candidate I've heard speak on the issue. Social Security currently collects more money each year than it pays out in benefits. This has always been the case, and will continue to be the case for the next 15 years, until the "crisis" hits. The problem is that the government has always spent this extra money on other, non-Social Security programs. This is fraud, plain and simple. The government is collecting X dollars in the name of Social Security, and then only spending some fraction of X on Social Security, with the rest going to other programs.
If, instead of siphoning off the extra money collected by Social Security, we were to invest (or simply *save*) it for use when Social Security's books go into the red, the program would stay solvent for a significantly longer time than is currently being projected.
My questions are: Why aren't each of you exposing the government's fraud with regard to Social Security's funds? And why isn't anyone announcing the simple solution to the impending "crisis"- stop spending the Social Security surplus on non-Social Security programs?
The 100 pages of PDFs include the final chapter of the text as well as 2 appendices.
This last chapter covers plotting methods and controls (very important in the creation of maps!) and there is no valid reason to exclude it from the printed material.
Also, the book weighs in at a not-very-hefty 550 pages, and the list price is over $50 US, so I don't think publishing expense is a valid argument for this tactic.
According to this story in the NY Times, the Democrats have given up their attempt to append the illegal immigrant legislation to the H-1B visa bill. They are instead planning to attach it to an appropriations bill. The H-1B bill is now assured of easy passage through Congress; American corporations have once again bribed the federal government to fsck over the american worker.
from the article: "Balls help it find its way around in space."
I remember hearing about studies that suggested men are better at visualizing spatial relationships than women. It seems these researchers have finally determined *why* men are better at it: it's all in the balls!:)
Slashdot Mirror
Your point about the DMCA is valid, but the rest of your post is not.
It does not matter what is written on a product you buy. You can do whatever you want with it within the bounds of the law, regardless of what the manufacturer writes on the box.
It is not illegal to drive a car without seatbelts because the manufacturer says not to. It's illegal because laws have been passed that make it illegal. Likewise with spraypaint. There are anti-drug laws and anti-graffiti laws which make using spraypaint in those ways illegal. Nothing that the manufacturer writes on the can makes it so.
There is no EULA on an Xbox. An "End User License Agreement" defines the terms of a license. You don't license an Xbox, you buy it, and there's no such thing as a EUBA.
Right, what I'm saying is not just that Microsoft's user agreement can't prohibit modding. It's that there is no user agreement. The only "agreement" between Microsoft and the buyer is that the buyer hands over some money and Microsoft hands over an Xbox.
Once that transaction takes place, neither side has any say over what the other side does. The buyer is free to mod the Xbox, and Microsoft is free to hand the cash over to "pro-business" Republican politicians.
Modding isn't prohibited, because it can't be prohibited.
You don't *license* Xbox hardware from Microsoft, you *buy* it. When you buy something, you *own* it, and can do whatever the hell you want with/to it.
So there is not and can not be a "license agreement".
Now, Xbox Live is a different story. Xbox live is a service, not a piece of hardware. Microsoft can legally define the terms of that service, and one of the terms can be that only non-modded Xboxes are allowed to use it.
To summarize: modding Xboxes is/can not be prohibited. Using modded Xboxes on Xbox Live can and probably will be prohibited.
In late 2000/early 2001 I spent 6 months playing on the team that MIT has since been rolled into. The Wired article, while admittedly full of dazzle and drama, is mostly dead-on.
Your facts are not quite correct:
Fact #1: Maybe you don't have to be a math genius, but you have to be pretty f-ing sharp. The count you've described is only the first step in a real counting sytem. Your "knockout system" is called the "running count"; the "true count" is the running count divided by the number of decks remaining in the shoe (which is determined by subtracting the number of decks in the discard tray from the total number of decks per shoe) rounded down to the nearests whole number. The true count determines your bet - you multiply the true count times your base unit (say $100) to determine your bet for the next hand. Today's team counter has to do all this on the fly, instantaneously, while simultaneously chatting up the dealer, checking out the waitress's cleavage, and doing whatever else it takes to look like the average Joe Gambler. Then he has to signal his BP to make the appropriate bet and vary his play according to the count. It requires significant mental resources!
Fact #2: Your math is correct, but there is a way to make money at blackjack without having a huge bankroll. You play on a team - a few senior members can provide most of the bankroll (and take most of the profits, alas).
Fact #3: I've always found counting to be a bizarre mix of boredom and pure adrenal high. Yes, you're repetitively processing the same data stream for hours on end. But you're also this undercover superhero of sorts - using your superior abilities to make gobs of money under the unsuspecting (well, when things go well) noses of these greedy corporate thugs. It's the purest form of excitement I've ever found.
Fact #4: I've never counted solo, but being on the inside of a successful team is quite glamorous. There's just too much money around for it not to be.
FAct #5: Possibly true. Counting only works if the casinos don't stop you, and they only don't stop you if they don't realize you're counting. When mainstream magazines start publishing articles about your system, it ain't too clandestine anymore! Counters are in a continual arms race with the casinos, and this particular weapon is about obsolete. Counters are still inventing new ones, but things like continuous shufflers and facial recognition software are getting harder and harder to counter. It may be that we're reaching the point where a counter and his mind can't beat the technological countermeasures used by the casinos.
AP Reporter: Wow! 0.1 microns! How small is that?
IBM marketroid: That's almost as small as some gas molecules. In fact, you could say these new chips are just VAPOR.
In past stories about PVRs, slashdot posters always got modded way up for saying something along the lines of:
"It's not my fault the TV networks' business model is obsolete. If I want to skip commercials I will and if the networks don't like it they should stop whining and come up with a better business model."
Well, here's that better business model you asked for. If you don't like it, stop whining and come up with a better PVR!
Somebody's a little confused I think.
Have you heard anything about this news? It was news to me when I read it a couple days ago in the Post, but apparently all the rosey economic news that's been coming from China the last few years is starting to smell a bit fishy.
Your comment about investing in AMD stock is contradictory. You warn potential investors to be in it for the long haul and also to prepare for the insane price swings.
But it is precisely because of those insane price swings that investors *don't* have to be in it for the long haul. Those price swings provide a serious return on investment in very little time.
Buy now at $15/share, then sell a month from now when the price inevitably hits $20. You just made a 33% profit! Try to do that with Intel stock!
If you'd like to ride again, wait a month for the price to fall back down to $12, then buy some more. Lather, rinse repeat.
They've essentially reinvented a commercial app that's been on the market for about 5 years - deciBel Planner.
No, you can argue as to whether their actions were wrong, unethical, or immoral. But the *legality* of Microsoft's actions has been decided. It is the courts that define what is legal and what is not - that's what they do.
No, it's not arguable whether Microsoft's business practices were illegal. Microsoft has been found guilty in federal court of breaking federal anti-trust laws.
That's what this AOL suit is all about. In essence their suit is saying "You were found guilty of breaking anti-trust laws. Now we want to be compensated for our loss that resulted from your illegal actions."
Square has already decided that their PlayOnline service will be subscription-based. Most gaming sites carried this news last week:
7 0, 2836013,00.html
http://www.thegia.com/news/0201/n04a.html
http://www.planetps2.com/news/#PQN343753
http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,108
I'll bet Square offers free modems and possibly harddrives to subscribers of their PlayOnline service, just as Sega once gave away free Dreamcasts with a three-year SegaNet subscription. Square knows as well as everyone else that the real money is in monthly subscription fees, not hardware sales.
Can you use a standard PS/2 (or USB?) keyboard and mouse or do you have to buy Sega-branded devices that use a proprietary interface?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a "legal principal", but there certainly isn't any LAW in the US that says no one can be made to pay taxes to a government in which the payer is not represented.
Here in Washington DC we pay all the same federal income and payroll taxes as other US citizens, but we have no representatives in the US Senate and only a non-voting (ie useless) representative in the House of Representatives. We get to vote in Presidential elections, but that's it.
We are a literal example of taxation without representation.
A 30-second visit to price comparison sites like MySimon, PriceWatch, or PriceScan would have saved you more than $500 on the components you already bought. The TV you paid $2500 for can be had for $2000, and your $300 DVD player sells elsewhere for $235. After you decide on the best audio components, shop around for the best *price* as well.
it's the EFF of the offline world!
A major issue in this election has been the impending Social Security "crisis"- that in about 15 years Social Security will be taking in less money each year than it pays out in benefits.
But there is a very important fact that has been completely ignored by every candidate I've heard speak on the issue. Social Security currently collects more money each year than it pays out in benefits. This has always been the case, and will continue to be the case for the next 15 years, until the "crisis" hits. The problem is that the government has always spent this extra money on other, non-Social Security programs. This is fraud, plain and simple. The government is collecting X dollars in the name of Social Security, and then only spending some fraction of X on Social Security, with the rest going to other programs.
If, instead of siphoning off the extra money collected by Social Security, we were to invest (or simply *save*) it for use when Social Security's books go into the red, the program would stay solvent for a significantly longer time than is currently being projected.
My questions are: Why aren't each of you exposing the government's fraud with regard to Social Security's funds? And why isn't anyone announcing the simple solution to the impending "crisis"- stop spending the Social Security surplus on non-Social Security programs?
The 100 pages of PDFs include the final chapter of the text as well as 2 appendices.
This last chapter covers plotting methods and controls (very important in the creation of maps!) and there is no valid reason to exclude it from the printed material.
Also, the book weighs in at a not-very-hefty 550 pages, and the list price is over $50 US, so I don't think publishing expense is a valid argument for this tactic.
According to this story in the NY Times, the Democrats have given up their attempt to append the illegal immigrant legislation to the H-1B visa bill. They are instead planning to attach it to an appropriations bill. The H-1B bill is now assured of easy passage through Congress; American corporations have once again bribed the federal government to fsck over the american worker.
washboard-like pectorals muscles would look pretty bizarre.
from the article: "Balls help it find its way around in space."
:)
I remember hearing about studies that suggested men are better at visualizing spatial relationships than women. It seems these researchers have finally determined *why* men are better at it: it's all in the balls!