There is an inherent risk in online poker that the player at the other end of the connection has tools that he is using to gain a competative advantage, such as tools for counting cards
Is online poker set up in such a way that card counting can actually work? Card counting works because casinos use multiple decks to eliminate the need for time-wasting shuffling.
Surely, if the whole game exists only on computers, the virtual decks get "reshuffled" every hand.
198 KHz, Long Wave. That's just radio 4, only sometimes its a different Radio 4. On occasion Radio 4 Long Wave is used for cricket commentaries, and there are usually one or two differences in the schedule during a day (LW listeners get "Yesterday In Parliament" and a 10:30am religious broadcast, for example).
You misunderstand. I was refering to the early days of wikipedia, where a large proportion of the articles were imports from the Jargon File. Its much better than that now (which is what I said).
It's never been the encyclopedia that Slashdot built
Bollocks, mate. I was a wikipedian before you, and remember the days when it was Ayn Rand, the Jargon File, so don't patronise me with alternative histories.
Maybe you should give an actual example to give some substance to your concern.
You've greatly misinterpreted the original poster. It *looks* like he has some intelligent concerns, but from the superficiality of his comments, its pretty clear that he's more interested in getting a (+5 Not Completely Idiotic) near the top of the comments page.
how Wikipedia is gradually making so many Google searches useless... a number of "reference" sites that simply grab all the content from Wikipedia and slap advertisements on.
And for this you blame wikipedia? That's like blaming Led Zeppelin for the existence of Motley Crue and hair metal.
Turning that supposition into real science is something I hope to see happen in the next century.
Well, it is, but (seemingly) simple multi-dimensional systems have an unpleasant trend of having chaotic attractors, which limits the amount of stuff you can actually do with them.
And exactly how many of those governments are going to waste their taxpayers money debugging the code for MS, when the license under which they've seen the code, doesn't allow them to do anything with it?
<TIN FOIL HAT> and what happens when the members of a gov IT team that's licensed this code, then want to use and contribute to an Open Source project that better suits their needs -- hey! they can't! You've signed a prescriptive NDA!
Ah! (lightbulb goes on). That makes sense. I'd seen statements like 0.0_HIGH where "HIGH is a named parameter" in the documentation, but could never figure out how to get them to work
Actually, the comparison between Sendmail and Windows 95/98/ME is a good one. They're both from a more innocent time, when code could pretty much trust everything it was being fed. As such, there was little or no security designed into them, and it has had to be bolted on from the outside, in.
And look at the success they've achieved with that style. If we learn anything from Sendmail, its that security must be designed in, rather than an afterthought.
Everything that can be done in FORTRAN can be done more efficiently and just as expressively in c++
Really? How do you get around the fact that the flexibility of C/C++ pointers make it almost impossible to completely optimise/parallelise code is a safe manner?
Dynamic memory allocation is a bit quirky IMHO, but way simpler than in C
Quirky? I really like it.
i) Declare a variable allocatable. ii) Allocate it, and check IFAIL iii) Deallocate it when you're done. iv) Profit!
The real paradigm shift you need for a C programmer moving to fortran, is that nothing is passed by value and side effects are used so much. But the intent(in) and intent(out) directives are your friends for that sort of thing.
Function overloading is pretty straightforward too, once you start using modules with well defined interfaces.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely, if the whole game exists only on computers, the virtual decks get "reshuffled" every hand.
The original Infocom HHGTTG game : http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/game.shtml
198 KHz, Long Wave. That's just radio 4, only sometimes its a different Radio 4. On occasion Radio 4 Long Wave is used for cricket commentaries, and there are usually one or two differences in the schedule during a day (LW listeners get "Yesterday In Parliament" and a 10:30am religious broadcast, for example).
The BBC won't even notice a slashdotting. They're several orders of magnitude more popular than /.
You misunderstand. I was refering to the early days of wikipedia, where a large proportion of the articles were imports from the Jargon File. Its much better than that now (which is what I said).
RRP is 45 UKP, mind. Amazon.co.uk do them for 27. You can probably get similar discounts in the rest of the EU...
Well, have you tried searching with -wikipedia in your search terms???
Fool.
... Dolores!
Its far from perfect, but Wikipedia has come a long way from being the Encyclopedia That Slashdot Built...
I haven't taken it off yet, and I'm not closing the tag until I do.
And exactly how many of those governments are going to waste their taxpayers money debugging the code for MS, when the license under which they've seen the code, doesn't allow them to do anything with it?
<TIN FOIL HAT>
and what happens when the members of a gov IT team that's licensed this code, then want to use and contribute to an Open Source project that better suits their needs -- hey! they can't! You've signed a prescriptive NDA!
The C standard quite clearly states that it
if(a && func()) {block;}
is equivalent to
if(a) {
if(func()) {
block;
}}
Nothing is that clearly defined in Fortran
Ah! (lightbulb goes on). That makes sense. I'd seen statements like 0.0_HIGH where "HIGH is a named parameter" in the documentation, but could never figure out how to get them to work
Actually, the comparison between Sendmail and Windows 95/98/ME is a good one. They're both from a more innocent time, when code could pretty much trust everything it was being fed. As such, there was little or no security designed into them, and it has had to be bolted on from the outside, in.
And look at the success they've achieved with that style. If we learn anything from Sendmail, its that security must be designed in, rather than an afterthought.
Has any used it on production numerical codes? Benchmarked it against NAG or Intel compilers? Any problems with incompatibility?
i) Declare a variable allocatable.
ii) Allocate it, and check IFAIL
iii) Deallocate it when you're done.
iv) Profit!
The real paradigm shift you need for a C programmer moving to fortran, is that nothing is passed by value and side effects are used so much. But the intent(in) and intent(out) directives are your friends for that sort of thing.
Function overloading is pretty straightforward too, once you start using modules with well defined interfaces.