You're missing that the bot is playing against people (presumably). Don't think of poker as being like blackjack, think of it as being like chess. There is always a right play in blackjack. In poker, as with chess, there are plays that are better than others but not necessarily a right play. The randomness of the cards is not a significant factor (the poker bot would only make "good" bets (reward>risk)), but the randomness of the players is. A check-raise bluff might be a good move, but a bot can't predict whether the player who is on tilt is going to call, re-raise or fold. Nor can it force players to play rationally and therein lies the problem. Look at players like Gus Hansen and Dan Negreanu who are completely unpredictable but win money because they can bully the table around.
A bot could run disadvantaged blackjack (you can't count cards online, so the best you can do is play perfect basic strategy and eat the ~0.5% house advantage), but that's an inherently losing proposition (and the casinos have banned them now anyway).
Also, LOTS of good reading at the Home Theater Forums (the Linux forum is embedded under that link).
All of the above systems allow you to use on-screen listings, search for programs by schedule, name, category, etc. They learn favorites and do everything tivo does, best I've been able to tell.
I've been a Tivo user for a year and a half now. Couldn't live without it - until I get my HTPC set up and running the DVR for me on my home network. Just got the green light from my fiancee for that summer project.
Good Math Reads (not an oxymoron)
on
A Good Summer Read?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If you're interested in hacking, I think you might find some books on math interesting. There has been a slew of books lately that have done an excellent job of making seemingly inaccessible math issues very comprehensible to the layman. To put it in context, I have philosophy and law degrees and the last math class I took was half a year of calculus in high school a long time ago. Nonetheless, I found the following fascinating:
The Code Book: The Science of Secrecy from Ancient Egypt to Quantum Cryptography by Simon Singh - Singh does a great job of tracing codes and codebreaking through history without getting too heavy on the math. Great for historical context.
Fermat's Enigma: The Epic Quest to Solve the World's Greatest Mathematical Problem, also by Singh - I never knew mathematicians had such personality. Great story of centuries of failed efforts and finally personal triumph.
History of Pi by Petr Beckman - Beckman is a bit zealous and manages to make his politics come through even in this book that does nothing more than explain how different cultures first realized the relationship between the diameter of a circle and its circumference and then how they figured out how to calculate it. Very interesting for its blend of math, history and cultural relativism.
Along with one picture, they have the following commentary (go to the link above if you want to follow the many informative embedded links they have):
Explanation: This stunning image shows remarkable and mysterious details near the dark central region of a planet-sized sunspot in one of the sharpest views ever of the surface of the Sun. Just released, the picture was made using the Swedish Solar Telescope now in its first year of operation on the Canary Island of La Palma. Along with features described as hairs and canals are dark cores visible within the bright filaments that extend into the sunspot, representing previously unknown and unexplored solar phenomena. The filaments' newly revealed dark cores are seen to be thousands of kilometers long but only about 100 kilometers wide. Resolving features 100 kilometers wide or less is a milestone in solar astronomy and has been achieved here using sophisticated adaptive optics, digital image stacking, and processing techniques to counter the blurring effect of Earth's atmosphere. At optical wavelengths, these images are sharper than even current space-based solar observatories can produce. Recorded on 15 July 2002, the sunspot shown is the largest of the group of sunspots cataloged as solar active region AR 10030.
Insider trading basically means taking advantage (profiting or avoiding a loss) of material non-public information. You have to get the information (directly or indirectly) from an insider. Now, the definition of an insider is pretty broad (it can even be a copy shop employee), but you have to have reason to know (or can't deliberately avoid finding out) that the person disclosing is an insider. You're allowed to trade on information you overheard in line for coffee, for example.
More importantly, I'd argue that once it's posted on a website such as this, it's not non-public information anyway. Theoretically, it could be argued that the information was obtained through less than kosher practices, but even then, you'd have to have reason to know it was not properly obtained.
It can't be that hard to find, as I picked up a copy within the last two years or so, sorry I can't remember where. Expect it to be republished very soon in light of its "prescience" with respect to middle eastern-types infiltrating the US and working on biological weapons. Be forewarned though, it really is an early work and not nearly as well written as the larger releases (Snow Crash, Diamond Age, Cryptonomicon, etc.) but it is FAR better written than The Big U, which was just horrible. That being said, the plot and premise are compelling, even if the characters are a bit flat.
If it helps your search, I have a US edition Bantam Spectra published in September 1997; ISBN: 0553575457
BTW, if you're doing a search for other works by Stephen Bury, don't get thrown off by the Head of of Modern English Collections, Stephen Bury, who has a book coming out this month.
Are YOU kidding? Are we talking about the US Supreme Court here? The US Supreme Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It can only hear the "cases and controversies" which it has been empowered to hear by the Constitution. Generally, the US Supreme (and the inferior federal courts) can only hear actions relating to the following (this is right out of Article 2 of the Constitution, PLEASE read it and the Judiciary Act before commenting on this): All cases in law and equity: - arising under the Consitution, - the Laws of the United States (these are federal laws, not laws of each of the several states), - and Treaties made under the foregoing, - all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, - all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, - all controversies to which the United States (again, this is the whole federal government, not an action in which an individual state is a party, unless...), - to controversies between two or more states - between a state and citizens of another state (this reference to "another state" means another one of the united states, e.g., New York, not France) - between citizens of different states (e.g., New Yorker v. New Jerseyan, not New Yorker v. Frenchy or French v. Brit for that matter) - between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states (almost completely irrelevant these days) - between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or subjects.
The Judiciary Act adds a few things and various statutes and other parts of the constitution add other capabilities, but to say that the US Supreme Court is the "final arbiters of all law" is grossly misleading. Unless there is an aspect of a case that brings you within the jurisidiction of the Court, they are not going to hear it and they certainly DO NOT "have the power to strike down and/or interpret any law or legal decision whatsoever." Any first-year law student who has taken Constitutional law can tick off half a dozen cases in US History carving out the scope of Supreme Court jurisdiction.
For example, the US Supreme Court will not review a state law having to do with fines for scooping up your dog's crap off the sidewalk _unless_ you can come up with some sort of constitutional reason for them to hear it (e.g., the fine is so excessive as to be cruel & unusual, dogshit on the sidewalk is your way of expressing free speech). This is not because the case is trivial (which my example clearly is), but because the court simply has no authority to review laws which are not within its ENUMERATED POWERS (buzzword alert).
At various points in the past 225+ odd years the court has been more and less active in expanding its jurisdiction, but at no time has it ever even come close to the power to which it has been attributed in the post to which I'm replying.
And it's really not clear what is meant by "law"... Ever heard of the Miranda doctrine? It's a rather hot topic right now, because, as happens all the time in common law countries such as the US, it is law created by the courts. Part of any legal framework in which courts are allowed to interpret statutes and those interpretations are both binding and published is that doctrine (a/k/a "law") arises through judicial construction. The importance of publication is that it allows for review and reliance upon the decision by later parties. In fact, most statutes are intentionally drafted in such a manner that allows the court to refine the "law" within the constraints of its jurisdictions. Yes, courts cannot draft statutes but they absolutely, unequivocally DO create law.
As far as the original message goes, I believe the comment was talking about "original" jurisdiction which means something specific which was also clearly missed in the previous message. The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction over: Cases affecting ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party (of the cases listed above). This is right out of Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution. Over everything else the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is appellate. As in, "there must be a trial first." This has been narrowed a bit in the past two centuries, by the way.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing that the bot is playing against people (presumably). Don't think of poker as being like blackjack, think of it as being like chess. There is always a right play in blackjack. In poker, as with chess, there are plays that are better than others but not necessarily a right play. The randomness of the cards is not a significant factor (the poker bot would only make "good" bets (reward>risk)), but the randomness of the players is. A check-raise bluff might be a good move, but a bot can't predict whether the player who is on tilt is going to call, re-raise or fold. Nor can it force players to play rationally and therein lies the problem. Look at players like Gus Hansen and Dan Negreanu who are completely unpredictable but win money because they can bully the table around.
A bot could run disadvantaged blackjack (you can't count cards online, so the best you can do is play perfect basic strategy and eat the ~0.5% house advantage), but that's an inherently losing proposition (and the casinos have banned them now anyway).
xmltv for open source listings. Read about it here.
Works with the front end of your choice (a few suggestions)
Linux:
MythTV.
Freevo.
Windows:
SageTV.
MyHTPC.
Also, LOTS of good reading at the Home Theater Forums (the Linux forum is embedded under that link).
All of the above systems allow you to use on-screen listings, search for programs by schedule, name, category, etc. They learn favorites and do everything tivo does, best I've been able to tell.
I've been a Tivo user for a year and a half now. Couldn't live without it - until I get my HTPC set up and running the DVR for me on my home network. Just got the green light from my fiancee for that summer project.
If you're interested in hacking, I think you might find some books on math interesting. There has been a slew of books lately that have done an excellent job of making seemingly inaccessible math issues very comprehensible to the layman. To put it in context, I have philosophy and law degrees and the last math class I took was half a year of calculus in high school a long time ago. Nonetheless, I found the following fascinating:
The Code Book: The Science of Secrecy from Ancient Egypt to Quantum Cryptography by Simon Singh - Singh does a great job of tracing codes and codebreaking through history without getting too heavy on the math. Great for historical context.
Fermat's Enigma: The Epic Quest to Solve the World's Greatest Mathematical Problem, also by Singh - I never knew mathematicians had such personality. Great story of centuries of failed efforts and finally personal triumph.
History of Pi by Petr Beckman - Beckman is a bit zealous and manages to make his politics come through even in this book that does nothing more than explain how different cultures first realized the relationship between the diameter of a circle and its circumference and then how they figured out how to calculate it. Very interesting for its blend of math, history and cultural relativism.
This was today's Astronmy Picture of the Day over at NASA.
Along with one picture, they have the following commentary (go to the link above if you want to follow the many informative embedded links they have):
Explanation: This stunning image shows remarkable and mysterious details near the dark central region of a planet-sized sunspot in one of the sharpest views ever of the surface of the Sun. Just released, the picture was made using the Swedish Solar Telescope now in its first year of operation on the Canary Island of La Palma. Along with features described as hairs and canals are dark cores visible within the bright filaments that extend into the sunspot, representing previously unknown and unexplored solar phenomena. The filaments' newly revealed dark cores are seen to be thousands of kilometers long but only about 100 kilometers wide. Resolving features 100 kilometers wide or less is a milestone in solar astronomy and has been achieved here using sophisticated adaptive optics, digital image stacking, and processing techniques to counter the blurring effect of Earth's atmosphere. At optical wavelengths, these images are sharper than even current space-based solar observatories can produce. Recorded on 15 July 2002, the sunspot shown is the largest of the group of sunspots cataloged as solar active region AR 10030.
Insider trading basically means taking advantage (profiting or avoiding a loss) of material non-public information. You have to get the information (directly or indirectly) from an insider. Now, the definition of an insider is pretty broad (it can even be a copy shop employee), but you have to have reason to know (or can't deliberately avoid finding out) that the person disclosing is an insider. You're allowed to trade on information you overheard in line for coffee, for example.
More importantly, I'd argue that once it's posted on a website such as this, it's not non-public information anyway. Theoretically, it could be argued that the information was obtained through less than kosher practices, but even then, you'd have to have reason to know it was not properly obtained.
It can't be that hard to find, as I picked up a copy within the last two years or so, sorry I can't remember where. Expect it to be republished very soon in light of its "prescience" with respect to middle eastern-types infiltrating the US and working on biological weapons. Be forewarned though, it really is an early work and not nearly as well written as the larger releases (Snow Crash, Diamond Age, Cryptonomicon, etc.) but it is FAR better written than The Big U, which was just horrible. That being said, the plot and premise are compelling, even if the characters are a bit flat.
If it helps your search, I have a US edition Bantam Spectra published in September 1997; ISBN: 0553575457
BTW, if you're doing a search for other works by Stephen Bury, don't get thrown off by the Head of of Modern English Collections, Stephen Bury, who has a book coming out this month.
Are YOU kidding? Are we talking about the US Supreme Court here? The US Supreme Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It can only hear the "cases and controversies" which it has been empowered to hear by the Constitution. Generally, the US Supreme (and the inferior federal courts) can only hear actions relating to the following (this is right out of Article 2 of the Constitution, PLEASE read it and the Judiciary Act before commenting on this):
All cases in law and equity:
- arising under the Consitution,
- the Laws of the United States (these are federal laws, not laws of each of the several states),
- and Treaties made under the foregoing,
- all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
- all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,
- all controversies to which the United States (again, this is the whole federal government, not an action in which an individual state is a party, unless...),
- to controversies between two or more states
- between a state and citizens of another state (this reference to "another state" means another one of the united states, e.g., New York, not France)
- between citizens of different states (e.g., New Yorker v. New Jerseyan, not New Yorker v. Frenchy or French v. Brit for that matter)
- between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states (almost completely irrelevant these days)
- between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or subjects.
The Judiciary Act adds a few things and various statutes and other parts of the constitution add other capabilities, but to say that the US Supreme Court is the "final arbiters of all law" is grossly misleading. Unless there is an aspect of a case that brings you within the jurisidiction of the Court, they are not going to hear it and they certainly DO NOT "have the power to strike down and/or interpret any law or legal decision whatsoever." Any first-year law student who has taken Constitutional law can tick off half a dozen cases in US History carving out the scope of Supreme Court jurisdiction.
For example, the US Supreme Court will not review a state law having to do with fines for scooping up your dog's crap off the sidewalk _unless_ you can come up with some sort of constitutional reason for them to hear it (e.g., the fine is so excessive as to be cruel & unusual, dogshit on the sidewalk is your way of expressing free speech). This is not because the case is trivial (which my example clearly is), but because the court simply has no authority to review laws which are not within its ENUMERATED POWERS (buzzword alert).
At various points in the past 225+ odd years the court has been more and less active in expanding its jurisdiction, but at no time has it ever even come close to the power to which it has been attributed in the post to which I'm replying.
And it's really not clear what is meant by "law"... Ever heard of the Miranda doctrine? It's a rather hot topic right now, because, as happens all the time in common law countries such as the US, it is law created by the courts. Part of any legal framework in which courts are allowed to interpret statutes and those interpretations are both binding and published is that doctrine (a/k/a "law") arises through judicial construction. The importance of publication is that it allows for review and reliance upon the decision by later parties. In fact, most statutes are intentionally drafted in such a manner that allows the court to refine the "law" within the constraints of its jurisdictions. Yes, courts cannot draft statutes but they absolutely, unequivocally DO create law.
As far as the original message goes, I believe the comment was talking about "original" jurisdiction which means something specific which was also clearly missed in the previous message. The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction over:
Cases affecting ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party (of the cases listed above).
This is right out of Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution. Over everything else the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is appellate. As in, "there must be a trial first." This has been narrowed a bit in the past two centuries, by the way.
Just trying to clear up a few things.