No, you bought a product made by Apple. They develop their products as they see fit for their target audience. While you can do what you want with their product, they do not need to support your use case. You need to find a product that meets your needs. It doesn't sound like Apple develops what you are looking for.
The last thing we need is the government telling Apple to waste time and money making their product do things that their target market doesn't care about.
Mac & Windows have them built in, but they are a minority.
Don't be dense. Given the context of the subject we're definitely talking about consumer OS's. Every modern OS for the demographic that is relevant to the topic at hand has a bundled media player, web browser, file exporer, and all sorts of things that make a computer useful to consumers.
It's impossible to install Windows, and nearly impossible to get the Microsoft published updates for their terribly secure OS, without Internet Explorer.
It's an outrage. You can't update Microsoft's software on 3rd party platforms! To make things worse, Windows update only works on Windows! They force you to use their platform to update their platform! It doesn't even work on Linux!
There's no doubt that test-first is hard, especially with UI's and whatnot. But like any skill test-first takes time to master. At first it is a bit overwhelming, but the effort over the long term is definitely worth it.
There's almost a decade of experience with different agile methods. There's decades of experience with many other methods failing by a long shot. The software industry is too new for anything to be "proven" yet, and therefore you have to try new things - not because they are "hot", but because they make sense. There is a lot about the different agile methodologies out there that make a lot of sense, and it's worth trying to implement them in a way that fits your team and project.
I admit that it's been a while since I've used XCode, but I can't imagine that in 18 months it blows away VS 2005 (even with Apple's ability to rapidly improve products). I agree with most of what you said about Apple, but this statement honestly made me laugh.
Microsoft to deprecate t-sql for C# stored procedures.
No they are not. They have made great enhancements to T-SQL in 2005 and every message I've heard is that T-SQL is the primary language for interacting with the database. C# sprocs exist for edge cases that used to required unmanaged extended stored procedures, as well as some other small use cases such as intense data manipulation using complex logic that is not suited for T-SQL. However the vast majority (I recall a manager stating "about 90%" at PDC 2003) of your code should still be T-SQL.
Assuming you truely agree not to cheat and that the definition of what cheating is not subject to interpretation, I think it's hard to say that deception (a quality that lends to an upper hand in many games) is immoral. Whether it's deception about how you're getting the upper hand (game hacks) or social deception, I'm not sure how one can prove that such an act is immoral.
but upon doing the math, it's obvious they're just milking this whole Linux thing for their own personal gain
What the hell do you think IBM, Sun, and every other business is using Linux for? None of these companys care about Linux per se, they see huge free asset and seek to profit off of it.
$10K for 15 days work? I dunno, that seems rather good for one person.
A good developer can command way more than the $83/hour they're offering (assuming 8hr/day, but you'd probably have to work more to complete this task), unless that developer is going through a contracting body shop which takes as much as 70% of your billrate.
It looks like this is going to be almost unusable on anything less that a 1280x1024 screen. As a laptop user, I dread this.
Do they even still make laptops below 1280x1024? For those using archaic laptops*, I believe the toolbar can auto-hide.
*Yes I'm being a bit unfair. At the same time Office 12 isn't coming out for a good year or so. I want future software to take advantage of the products of today which have resolutions much higher than 1280x1024. Even my 2 year old laptop has a 1400x1050 display.
Your example completely ignores Xml Schema Validation, which can be used not only to help prevent things like spelling errors but also help discover what is supported for configuration without having to pour through (potentially outdated) documentation.
httpd.conf is a pseudo XML. I don't see how it could possibly be a more pleasant than XML. It's almost the same thing, but less structured and more error prone.
In the days of IIS 4 and 5, I preferred hacking perl scripts to manage httpd.conf's. Yes, httpd.conf is easy. But after working with IIS6 (and now looking forward to IIS7) I can say that having a strongly typed object model to code against is a lot less error prone with features that are a lot easier to discover thanks to intellisense. Text just doesn't scale.
It's not even really his fault; it's just human nature.
Just because it's human nature doesn't mean that there's no fault. Humans are capable of learning and discipline. Humans are also capable of attempting objectivity as to not be blinded by passionate bias. The OP's remarks regarding Vista's requirement of a new type of computer monitor shows that the OP lacks emotional discipline. He could not see past his feelings about something so that he could understand the facts. The OP's ignorance is most definitely his own fault.
The big money in online poker isn't from reading a book and playing off of statistics charts and pot odds. It's not in learning to read into your counterparts bets. It's in cheating.
There are extremely successful players who make great livings online without cheating. Those who cheat usually need a decent size team who's very good at what they do. A couple hole cards doesn't help your odds much, while half dealt cards does. Your type of sophisticated cheating is very uncommon and very detectable. The two college students in their dorm sharing hole cards is hardly worth worrying about. Their edge is so small and they probably don't even know what to do with the extra bit of information.
Make sure the site you are playing on actively pursues colluders. Anti-collusion software is getting more sophisticated. There are people working on collusion detection on the client side as well, although this is more difficult because you have a lot less information available. As of yet I haven't seen anything too great. The best thing to do is keep your eye out. Don't forget to do this in a casino as well, as this is where the most sophisticated colluders exist. The casinos rarely pursue these players because of the naive trust people have in B&M casino's, plus they don't know the elaborate communication systems used (it's a lot easier to make the connection with instant messaging, for example). Online casino's are much more active about this because collusion is a concern of their customers, and they want to earn customers trust.
It constantly amazes me how quick people are to post theories about why they think online poker is on the down. None of these people have obviously spent much more time than reading the headline to come up with these "+5 insightful" theories. As the parent poster correctly points out, the only thing slowing down is Party Poker's growth, not online poker in general. The poker craze is so big, dozens of sites, many endorsed by big named professionals, have entered the market. The market has become more competitive, and Party Poker is not the only trusted name in town anymore.
Sometimes half of the fun is the money involved. I love poker, but it wouldn't be nearly as fun if money wasn't involved. It's not just the gamble, it adds another psychological element to the game that many find quite entertaining. If I consistantly lost a trivial amount playing poker, I wouldn't stop. It's not a business venture, it's entertainment.
As always remember that poker games are situational. A lot of online ring games play differently than live ring games, and you have to adjust. I've crushed ring games live only to lose to similar level games online. It took my a while to adjust and start winning consistantly online. I play both limit and no limit. You most likely won't find bots on no limit. And if you do, it's probably a good thing. Even in limit games I really don't mind them. Power to the author if he can write a program to outplay me. As far as collusion goes, two people colluding is a *tiny* edge and can be spotted if they're trapping a lot. The same goes for live games. There are many colluders live and I'd go as far as to say that B&M's do a lot less to prevent it than most online sites. Online it's much more difficult to get the 5-6 colluders needed to make colluding worthwhile. Software can monitor player behavior much better than casino managers. To be honest, I look for it a lot more at B&M's than I do online. I find I profit more by simply pay attention to people's playing style than I do worrying about a couple of college kids in a dorm room sharing hole cards.
On the topic of tournament and bankrolls, it's very possible that you are a better tournament player than you are a ring game player and therefore have not seen as much variance as you have in ring games. It's pretty difficult however to argue that tournaments in general have less variance than ring games. You usually have to play through 90% of the field to get paid, whereas in ring games you just need to stick to simple +EV decisions. I think you could argue that tournaments are a bit more profitable for various reasons, such as the rise of tournaments on TV. So if your game is tournaments, play on!
I would encourage you not to blame other factors for your lack of profits in online ring games. "Solid play" is a very subjective term - even dangerous when self evaluating. We can see that good ring game players are consistantly making thousands of dollars a month online, so we know it's possible even if cheating, "action pots", and bots" are legitimate concerns. Of course you should stick to the games in which you have the best of it, but maybe you would enjoy the challenge of a ring game again sometime in the future.
Ring games (cash games) have much less variance, especially at the lower limits. My tournament profits are much more volatile, although I agree that a good tournament player may be able to make more money than a ring game players assuming a large enough bankroll to pad the much larger variance. Ring games are simple to profit from online. I would review your "solid play" before blaming any other factor.
1 Million complete hands from one single site and version would take aprox 9 years to gather at 24 hours per day of play.
I play at least 250 hands/hour and I know people who clear 500/hour. Depending on how many hours a day/week you play it's not unreasonable to assert that you can clear 1 million hands within 1-2 years.
If you are playing for fun with a $20 or $50 buy in go for it. I just wouldn't in a million years play high stakes poker relying on software to deal virtual cards.
I dunno, Eric Lindergen wasn't complaining with the $10K+/month he was making online earlier this century. Poker pro's play online with large sums all the time.
To be honest the way this thread is going I think it comes down to there are a bunch of people who are so fond of Internet poker they are going to insist until their dieing day that its impossible for it to be crooked.
It's not impossible, it's just highly unlikely and we have absolutely no evidence that this sort of behavior is occuring.
If Internet poker is 100% trustworthy it would be the only form of gambling in history that ever was.
So you're really just anti-gambling then. Gambling in general may attract some cheaters and scammers, but when I go to Vegas, or make a bet, or play poker, the odds are the odds. I know what they are, it's all upfront. Gambling is not inherintly untrustworthy" as you claim.
You're free to have your opinion and choose to stay away from gambling, but please don't make arguemnts about a subject in which you clearly have little understanding of.
It would seem to me if you do it online you give up that assurance and are back to a game where the house can set the percentage they take.
Except that, while an interesting conspiracy theory, no one has ever shown evidence of this occuring. There are many threads on the internet with well thought out arguments that essentially make this theory worthless. There's no need to rehash it all here - these "house player" and "modified deck" theories have been debunked multiple times.
Slashdot Mirror
I bought a ***COMPUTER*** not a MacOS box.
No, you bought a product made by Apple. They develop their products as they see fit for their target audience. While you can do what you want with their product, they do not need to support your use case. You need to find a product that meets your needs. It doesn't sound like Apple develops what you are looking for.
The last thing we need is the government telling Apple to waste time and money making their product do things that their target market doesn't care about.
> Every modern OS has one built in.
That's not true.
Mac & Windows have them built in, but they are a minority.
Don't be dense. Given the context of the subject we're definitely talking about consumer OS's. Every modern OS for the demographic that is relevant to the topic at hand has a bundled media player, web browser, file exporer, and all sorts of things that make a computer useful to consumers.
It's impossible to install Windows, and nearly impossible to get the Microsoft published updates for their terribly secure OS, without Internet Explorer.
It's an outrage. You can't update Microsoft's software on 3rd party platforms! To make things worse, Windows update only works on Windows! They force you to use their platform to update their platform! It doesn't even work on Linux!
+1 Matvei. Very well written.
There's no doubt that test-first is hard, especially with UI's and whatnot. But like any skill test-first takes time to master. At first it is a bit overwhelming, but the effort over the long term is definitely worth it.
There's almost a decade of experience with different agile methods. There's decades of experience with many other methods failing by a long shot. The software industry is too new for anything to be "proven" yet, and therefore you have to try new things - not because they are "hot", but because they make sense. There is a lot about the different agile methodologies out there that make a lot of sense, and it's worth trying to implement them in a way that fits your team and project.
And XCode blows away Visual Studio
I admit that it's been a while since I've used XCode, but I can't imagine that in 18 months it blows away VS 2005 (even with Apple's ability to rapidly improve products). I agree with most of what you said about Apple, but this statement honestly made me laugh.
Microsoft to deprecate t-sql for C# stored procedures.
No they are not. They have made great enhancements to T-SQL in 2005 and every message I've heard is that T-SQL is the primary language for interacting with the database. C# sprocs exist for edge cases that used to required unmanaged extended stored procedures, as well as some other small use cases such as intense data manipulation using complex logic that is not suited for T-SQL. However the vast majority (I recall a manager stating "about 90%" at PDC 2003) of your code should still be T-SQL.
Assuming you truely agree not to cheat and that the definition of what cheating is not subject to interpretation, I think it's hard to say that deception (a quality that lends to an upper hand in many games) is immoral. Whether it's deception about how you're getting the upper hand (game hacks) or social deception, I'm not sure how one can prove that such an act is immoral.
but upon doing the math, it's obvious they're just milking this whole Linux thing for their own personal gain
What the hell do you think IBM, Sun, and every other business is using Linux for? None of these companys care about Linux per se, they see huge free asset and seek to profit off of it.
Without a spec you won't know what you're being asked to build...
I develop software according to my customer's requirements, not specifications.
$10K for 15 days work? I dunno, that seems rather good for one person.
A good developer can command way more than the $83/hour they're offering (assuming 8hr/day, but you'd probably have to work more to complete this task), unless that developer is going through a contracting body shop which takes as much as 70% of your billrate.
It looks like this is going to be almost unusable on anything less that a 1280x1024 screen. As a laptop user, I dread this.
Do they even still make laptops below 1280x1024? For those using archaic laptops*, I believe the toolbar can auto-hide.
*Yes I'm being a bit unfair. At the same time Office 12 isn't coming out for a good year or so. I want future software to take advantage of the products of today which have resolutions much higher than 1280x1024. Even my 2 year old laptop has a 1400x1050 display.
Your example completely ignores Xml Schema Validation, which can be used not only to help prevent things like spelling errors but also help discover what is supported for configuration without having to pour through (potentially outdated) documentation.
Java innovates but in a different area. There is a lot of emphasis on extending Java with Aspect Oriented Programming (AOP).
.NET as well.
AspectJ is not part of the Java language. There are many AOP solutions for
httpd.conf is a pseudo XML. I don't see how it could possibly be a more pleasant than XML. It's almost the same thing, but less structured and more error prone.
In the days of IIS 4 and 5, I preferred hacking perl scripts to manage httpd.conf's. Yes, httpd.conf is easy. But after working with IIS6 (and now looking forward to IIS7) I can say that having a strongly typed object model to code against is a lot less error prone with features that are a lot easier to discover thanks to intellisense. Text just doesn't scale.
It's not even really his fault; it's just human nature.
Just because it's human nature doesn't mean that there's no fault. Humans are capable of learning and discipline. Humans are also capable of attempting objectivity as to not be blinded by passionate bias. The OP's remarks regarding Vista's requirement of a new type of computer monitor shows that the OP lacks emotional discipline. He could not see past his feelings about something so that he could understand the facts. The OP's ignorance is most definitely his own fault.
The big money in online poker isn't from reading a book and playing off of statistics charts and pot odds. It's not in learning to read into your counterparts bets. It's in cheating.
There are extremely successful players who make great livings online without cheating. Those who cheat usually need a decent size team who's very good at what they do. A couple hole cards doesn't help your odds much, while half dealt cards does. Your type of sophisticated cheating is very uncommon and very detectable. The two college students in their dorm sharing hole cards is hardly worth worrying about. Their edge is so small and they probably don't even know what to do with the extra bit of information.
Make sure the site you are playing on actively pursues colluders. Anti-collusion software is getting more sophisticated. There are people working on collusion detection on the client side as well, although this is more difficult because you have a lot less information available. As of yet I haven't seen anything too great. The best thing to do is keep your eye out. Don't forget to do this in a casino as well, as this is where the most sophisticated colluders exist. The casinos rarely pursue these players because of the naive trust people have in B&M casino's, plus they don't know the elaborate communication systems used (it's a lot easier to make the connection with instant messaging, for example). Online casino's are much more active about this because collusion is a concern of their customers, and they want to earn customers trust.
It constantly amazes me how quick people are to post theories about why they think online poker is on the down. None of these people have obviously spent much more time than reading the headline to come up with these "+5 insightful" theories. As the parent poster correctly points out, the only thing slowing down is Party Poker's growth, not online poker in general. The poker craze is so big, dozens of sites, many endorsed by big named professionals, have entered the market. The market has become more competitive, and Party Poker is not the only trusted name in town anymore.
[Games should be fun -- not business, IMHO.]
Sometimes half of the fun is the money involved. I love poker, but it wouldn't be nearly as fun if money wasn't involved. It's not just the gamble, it adds another psychological element to the game that many find quite entertaining. If I consistantly lost a trivial amount playing poker, I wouldn't stop. It's not a business venture, it's entertainment.
As always remember that poker games are situational. A lot of online ring games play differently than live ring games, and you have to adjust. I've crushed ring games live only to lose to similar level games online. It took my a while to adjust and start winning consistantly online. I play both limit and no limit. You most likely won't find bots on no limit. And if you do, it's probably a good thing. Even in limit games I really don't mind them. Power to the author if he can write a program to outplay me. As far as collusion goes, two people colluding is a *tiny* edge and can be spotted if they're trapping a lot. The same goes for live games. There are many colluders live and I'd go as far as to say that B&M's do a lot less to prevent it than most online sites. Online it's much more difficult to get the 5-6 colluders needed to make colluding worthwhile. Software can monitor player behavior much better than casino managers. To be honest, I look for it a lot more at B&M's than I do online. I find I profit more by simply pay attention to people's playing style than I do worrying about a couple of college kids in a dorm room sharing hole cards.
On the topic of tournament and bankrolls, it's very possible that you are a better tournament player than you are a ring game player and therefore have not seen as much variance as you have in ring games. It's pretty difficult however to argue that tournaments in general have less variance than ring games. You usually have to play through 90% of the field to get paid, whereas in ring games you just need to stick to simple +EV decisions. I think you could argue that tournaments are a bit more profitable for various reasons, such as the rise of tournaments on TV. So if your game is tournaments, play on!
I would encourage you not to blame other factors for your lack of profits in online ring games. "Solid play" is a very subjective term - even dangerous when self evaluating. We can see that good ring game players are consistantly making thousands of dollars a month online, so we know it's possible even if cheating, "action pots", and bots" are legitimate concerns. Of course you should stick to the games in which you have the best of it, but maybe you would enjoy the challenge of a ring game again sometime in the future.
Ring games (cash games) have much less variance, especially at the lower limits. My tournament profits are much more volatile, although I agree that a good tournament player may be able to make more money than a ring game players assuming a large enough bankroll to pad the much larger variance. Ring games are simple to profit from online. I would review your "solid play" before blaming any other factor.
1 Million complete hands from one single site and version would take aprox 9 years to gather at 24 hours per day of play.
I play at least 250 hands/hour and I know people who clear 500/hour. Depending on how many hours a day/week you play it's not unreasonable to assert that you can clear 1 million hands within 1-2 years.
If you are playing for fun with a $20 or $50 buy in go for it. I just wouldn't in a million years play high stakes poker relying on software to deal virtual cards.
I dunno, Eric Lindergen wasn't complaining with the $10K+/month he was making online earlier this century. Poker pro's play online with large sums all the time.
To be honest the way this thread is going I think it comes down to there are a bunch of people who are so fond of Internet poker they are going to insist until their dieing day that its impossible for it to be crooked.
It's not impossible, it's just highly unlikely and we have absolutely no evidence that this sort of behavior is occuring.
If Internet poker is 100% trustworthy it would be the only form of gambling in history that ever was.
So you're really just anti-gambling then. Gambling in general may attract some cheaters and scammers, but when I go to Vegas, or make a bet, or play poker, the odds are the odds. I know what they are, it's all upfront. Gambling is not inherintly untrustworthy" as you claim.
You're free to have your opinion and choose to stay away from gambling, but please don't make arguemnts about a subject in which you clearly have little understanding of.
It would seem to me if you do it online you give up that assurance and are back to a game where the house can set the percentage they take.
Except that, while an interesting conspiracy theory, no one has ever shown evidence of this occuring. There are many threads on the internet with well thought out arguments that essentially make this theory worthless. There's no need to rehash it all here - these "house player" and "modified deck" theories have been debunked multiple times.