No, card counting is cheating. Blackjack is a game that you are supposed to play hand to hand, and you are to bet on the situation. In fact, many, but not all, casino's will sell a 'cheat sheet' that shows what the odds are in each situation.
For example, The dealer is showing a 6, and you have been dealt 15. The card will tell you whether to hit, stand, split, or double down. In this situation you can't split, doubling down and hitting are nearly a sure bust, so the card would say stand (the dealer must take a card on 16 and below, since there are only eight cards that could beat the dealer and only four that could help, he/she is likely to bust)
You can keep this card on the table (in some places, again, not all) and bet by it exclusivly if you like. Card counting is slightly different than playing the straight odds. If you are counting cards, you are keeping track of what cards what been played until the deck now contains more favorable cards for the player than the dealer. It would be like playing euchre but seeing the cards that weren't turned up before calling trump. You would have a very good idea of what is in everyone else's hand, and what the best suit to call trump would be. In blackjack, counting cards means you now have the unfair advantage.
Another method casinos are using to combat card counting? Single deck Blackjack. (If you can't count 52 cards, don't play) Most tables run between 6 and 8 decks, so at some point a favorable situation will come up. In single deck blackjack, it doesn't matter if you count cards. The advantage doesn't carry over, since the deck is immediatly reshuffled. Does the game encourage counting? sure. But the advantage there is always to the house.
Technology like this isn't designed to go after good players, it goes after cheats. There are very few people that can sit at a table and count cards by themselves, without any outside assistance. Players have been caught using small computers in their shoes (simple binary counters, a switch on the top and bottm of the toe of their shoe, all wired to a pager) or working in teams of three or four, each giving signals to the others once the deck had reached a favorable status.
Once the cheats have a hot deck, they ramp up their bets to take the house for all they can. they *know* the deck will pay out, and they adjust their bet to take as much money as they can. That's a pretty clear definition of cheating, and stopping that behavior is the goal. using extra cameras to catch some tiny tick (hrmm, the guy at table 15 in the blue shirt only drinks when he has an ace) or to better monitor a players betting has been standard practice since the beginning of the electronics age.
Privacy concerns and false positives? If you don't like showing up on video cameras, Don't set foot near a casino. Facial recognition has probably been in place for ten years, and is likely two steps ahead of where the casino's are admitting to right now.
The UK, and Canada, have been much more liberal regarding gambling. Hell, gambling winnings aren't even taxed in Canada (last time I checked, there was talk of a tax to help fund Canadian NHL teams). Attempts at 'cracking down' on organized crime have stiffened the gaming industry in this country.
Keep in mind that gambling is not necessarily connected to crime
Gambling, outside of Casinos and websites, isn't legal. Sportsbook in particular has a nasty and well founded reputation as being syndicate connected. Illegal sports betting outpaces legal sports betting by a long shot in even the most generous estimates, though i'll grant it's hard to fairly estimate the amount of money illicit gambling brings in.
in fact it's not that much different than the stock market. Then again you are probably confused from living in the US where it seems both are.
No, it's not. Though the stock market has insider trader, who know ahead of time what a stock will do. In sports you're dealing with insider knowledge of injuries / point shaving, which isn't quite as sure.
Confused? No, probably more like shell shocked from the sheer volume of asinine or stupid things we see on a daily basis.
I always thought it would be awesome to be a bookie
No, it wouldn't be. If you are running numbers or making book, you are dealing in organized crime, not that i have any particular objections to that. (note to self, check slashdot username lists for "don", "vinnie", and "* the *"). Think your town doesn't have mob connections? Ask around about putting some cash down on this weekend's games. Someone will know someone, and there's a very good chance that person has some connection to the organized crime operations in the nearest major city. Gambling has long been the bread and butter for organzied crime, paying out consistantly, and being somewhat safer than narcotics.
Now, what happens when you start making book in someone's territory? That friend of your friend's cousin may let slip to his regular bookie that he can get better odds from you. Then you'll have a couple of gentlemen come and explain to you a definition of "monopoly" in agressivly microsoftian terms, sans-lawyers.
Oh, and what about that poor buddy of yours that can never seem to come up with the cash when he looses a bet, but demands his money that minute when he wins? At what point will you be willing to beat holy fuck out of him for your money?
Now, if someone wants to deal in criminal activities, it's not my place to play morality cop (I do my betting in vegas, where my money goes to legitimate criminals). But there is no such thing as easy money.
Go talk to a car dealer. Act interested in a car and have them run a credit report. They'll show you the results, and generally let you keep them. Since you don't care about the results unless your score has dropped 400 points in three months, you're just there for the fun of it. Plus you get to act like you've got money.
I used one of the euro FTP's and had the file in an hour or so. I've got it torrent'd now, every little T1 helps. Spiking at 60 and 70k up, averaging 8-12.
If you've got the full version, put it on torrent anyway. share files that aren't copyrighted for once.
Knoppix was great for my last trip to best buy. I threw it in a couple of laptops to make sure i wouldn't be buying into a hardware nightmare. Of course I couldn't seem to flag down a sales person actually willing to sell me the item, and once I finally recieved assistance I was told they were out of stock.
Circuit city appriciated the business I gave them though, and they knocked some money of the price of the laptop (they weren't offering the same credit terms). YMMV, chain retail stores are a crap shoot.
These physicists from the University of Michigan and other labs made a quantum dot by using a thin gallium arsenide layer stuck between two aluminium gallium arsenide barriers.
A major advance in quantum computing is nice and all. But, would it kill U of M to get another college football (real / american) national championship? I mean, Ohio State's got a shiney new one. Ours is from 1997.
Sigh. Such is the mentality. (thankfully it's not a prevalent at U of M as it is at other universities)
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was adopted in 1982 and was "(almost universally) accepted on 16 November 1994"
Sealand's claims were made in 1967. I can't make up a law, then decide that something you did 35 years ago is now illegal and bring you up on charges of breaking the law i just made. I think the phrase is 'ex post facto.'
I can't declare an oil rig an independant nation now. I could 21 years ago.
You are right on one count. Sealand exists only because no one has found it worth their trouble to kick the folks off by force. But breaking out the lawyers would be a royal pain in the ass at this moment, especially if a barstool lawyer like myself can throw out this amny objections and points of contention by sitting at a laptop for ten minutes at a time.
Just a few other mentions of sealand from other sources:
When asked about the status of Sealand, the British Home Office (Britain's equivalent to the Department of Internal Affairs) has, for thirty years, referred people to the Foreign Office as Sealand wasn't considered part of the United Kingdom. Until the HavenCo announcement on June 5 last year.
A paper discussing jurisdiction as it pertains to sealand.
This all goes back to jurisdiction. If you go by the ruling in the 25 November 1968 case, in which shots were fired from Sealand in warning towards ships of the British navy, then Sealand has a good case for sovereignty.
The court declared that it was not competent in Roy of Sealand's case as it could not exert any jurisdiction outside of British national territory
For Home Office spokesman Tim Watkinson, the situation is clear: "The [United Kingdom] does not recognize Sealand as an independent state, it is within our territorial waters and as such subject to UK law."
As was laid out earlier, the island sits 7-10 miles off shore. It's "declaration of sovereignty" came in 1967, When territorial waters extended only to 3 miles. England would have had no authority until October 1st, 1987, when they moved their border to 12 miles. If we go by the 1968 ruling, England still has no rights over the island.
The fort itself was considered derilect, and as such open to claim.
This would have been prior to england extending it's territorial waters claim from 3 to 12 miles. International law forbids territory of another nation from being claimed simply by extending waters. I believe, though i have no links to back it, that the decision to move England's territorial waters out to 12 miles was based in part on preventing any further claims to small coastal islands, man made or otherwise. I'd be glad to be proven wrong.
Overall this is a unique situation. Any legal preceedings would have to face an uphill climb to establish jurisdiction. If they can indeed prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Sealand does fall under English law, everything else becomes a mute point. Until such time as they can prove Sealand doesn't fit criteria as an independand nation, they have no jurisdiction.
Although its legal status is unclear, Sealand lies within the territorial boundary of 10 miles claimed by England.
It's legal status was determined a long time ago. here is a good place to start.
"On October 1st, 1987, Britain extended its territorial waters from 3 to 12 nautical miles. At nearly the same time, Prince Roy declared the extension of Sealand's territorial waters to be a like 12 nautical miles, so that right of way from the open sea to Sealand would not be blocked by British claimed waters. No treaty has been signed between Britain and Sealand to divide up the overlapping areas, but a general policy of dividing the area between the two countries down the middle can be assumed. International law does not allow the claim of new land during the extension of sea rights, so Sealand's sovereignty was safely "grandfathered" in. Britain has no more right to Sealand's territory than Sealand has to the territory of the British coastline that falls within its claimed 12 nautical mile arc."
Since sealand was outside the initial 3 mile border when it was first claimed, England cannot claim sealand for itself. It would be similar to the United States attempting to annex Cuba by extending the border a further 90 miles south.
"Some nations might have tried to use this as an excuse to try to claim all of the territory of the weaker and not well recognized nation regardless of international law, however, this has not been the case. Britain has made no attempt to take Sealand, and the British government still treats it as an independent State. Prince Roy continues to pay no British National Insurance during the time he resides on Sealand subsequent to a ruling by the British Department of Health and Social Security's solicitors branch. Also, there was another fire arms incident in 1990 when a ship strayed too near Sealand and warning shots were again fired. The ship's crew made complaints to British authorities and a newspaper article ran detailing the incident. Yet despite Britain's severe prohibition of firearms, British authorities have never pursued the matter. This is a clear indication that Britain's Home Office still considers Sealand to be outside their zone of control."
Announcer 1: Welcome back to the staples center where we're in the middle of the SCO-redhat cage match for the undisputed heavyweight rights to Unix! SCO Goes for the ankle lock, but Redhat counters. Redhat's climbing to the top rope (crown moans) Oh and a cheap shot by SCO to the groin! SCO is going for the reverse boston crab, things are not looking good for Redhat...
Announcer 2: OHMYGOD! Look at this!
Announcer 1: It's SuSE! SuSE is coming to the ring to make the save!
Announcer 2: Look out, he's got a folding chair....
Mike Tyson has announced he will sue all of his former opponents, as they were not 'forthcoming' about their intentions to hit back.
McBride ended his letter somewhat vaguely by suggesting that Red Hat's "decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux."
Yeah, Defending your company's business practices is a horrible way to stay in business. You should attack other people's practices.
We at the SCO are disappointed you did not roll over and die when we used the word lawyers.
We are awaiting further instruction from out legal team, however this may be delayed as our current course of action provided by our lawyers lists only the phrase "2. ???" for our next step. We are awaiting clarification from them before continuing.
bingo. The greater point, the one that keeps getting glossed over, is this; how many devices right now NEED an IP?
Are there four billion devices out there right now, that can use an IP address? no. Maybe two or three billion, but I doubt seriously that chicken little is right, and that we'll be out of IP's tomorrow.
At this moment, Every other person on earth could have their own IP address. And we'd still have a billion IP's to spare.
Throw NAT into the equation just for fun.
With proper addressing schemes, IPv4 still has a ton of life left in it. It's nice to know IP6 is out there. But just because it's better doesn't mean it will ever gain world wide acceptance.
Just ask Preston Tucker, The makers of the Betamax, The Newton development team, etc
The idea you're talking about is a canary trap (even the dumbest canary won't get caught, so long as it keeps its mouth shut), and is much older than tom clancy. I seem to remember that coming up in either cardinal of the kermlin or, more likely, patriot games.
Bruce almighty was kicking Neo's ass for the two weeks before nemo came out.
They've had their tails handed to them first by Jim Carry in a throwaway vehicle flick, then an Animated fish in a rush job, product tie in film that was easily the worst Pixar flick to date.
Neo's the one alright. One as in the number of weeks reloaded spent on top of the earnings chart.
Slashdot Mirror
No, card counting is cheating. Blackjack is a game that you are supposed to play hand to hand, and you are to bet on the situation. In fact, many, but not all, casino's will sell a 'cheat sheet' that shows what the odds are in each situation.
For example, The dealer is showing a 6, and you have been dealt 15. The card will tell you whether to hit, stand, split, or double down. In this situation you can't split, doubling down and hitting are nearly a sure bust, so the card would say stand (the dealer must take a card on 16 and below, since there are only eight cards that could beat the dealer and only four that could help, he/she is likely to bust)
You can keep this card on the table (in some places, again, not all) and bet by it exclusivly if you like. Card counting is slightly different than playing the straight odds. If you are counting cards, you are keeping track of what cards what been played until the deck now contains more favorable cards for the player than the dealer. It would be like playing euchre but seeing the cards that weren't turned up before calling trump. You would have a very good idea of what is in everyone else's hand, and what the best suit to call trump would be. In blackjack, counting cards means you now have the unfair advantage.
Another method casinos are using to combat card counting? Single deck Blackjack. (If you can't count 52 cards, don't play) Most tables run between 6 and 8 decks, so at some point a favorable situation will come up. In single deck blackjack, it doesn't matter if you count cards. The advantage doesn't carry over, since the deck is immediatly reshuffled. Does the game encourage counting? sure. But the advantage there is always to the house.
Technology like this isn't designed to go after good players, it goes after cheats. There are very few people that can sit at a table and count cards by themselves, without any outside assistance. Players have been caught using small computers in their shoes (simple binary counters, a switch on the top and bottm of the toe of their shoe, all wired to a pager) or working in teams of three or four, each giving signals to the others once the deck had reached a favorable status.
Once the cheats have a hot deck, they ramp up their bets to take the house for all they can. they *know* the deck will pay out, and they adjust their bet to take as much money as they can. That's a pretty clear definition of cheating, and stopping that behavior is the goal. using extra cameras to catch some tiny tick (hrmm, the guy at table 15 in the blue shirt only drinks when he has an ace) or to better monitor a players betting has been standard practice since the beginning of the electronics age.
Privacy concerns and false positives? If you don't like showing up on video cameras, Don't set foot near a casino. Facial recognition has probably been in place for ten years, and is likely two steps ahead of where the casino's are admitting to right now.
"May as well call it whitejack" I love that line.
Wow, I too was thinking of building a nuclear power plant on mars.
And, just like Russia, I'M TOO FSCKING POOR TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN FEED MYSELF!
But it's nice to dream.
The UK, and Canada, have been much more liberal regarding gambling. Hell, gambling winnings aren't even taxed in Canada (last time I checked, there was talk of a tax to help fund Canadian NHL teams). Attempts at 'cracking down' on organized crime have stiffened the gaming industry in this country.
Keep in mind that gambling is not necessarily connected to crime
Gambling, outside of Casinos and websites, isn't legal. Sportsbook in particular has a nasty and well founded reputation as being syndicate connected. Illegal sports betting outpaces legal sports betting by a long shot in even the most generous estimates, though i'll grant it's hard to fairly estimate the amount of money illicit gambling brings in.
in fact it's not that much different than the stock market. Then again you are probably confused from living in the US where it seems both are.
No, it's not. Though the stock market has insider trader, who know ahead of time what a stock will do. In sports you're dealing with insider knowledge of injuries / point shaving, which isn't quite as sure.
Confused? No, probably more like shell shocked from the sheer volume of asinine or stupid things we see on a daily basis.
one of those 'god says gambling is wrong' people
You may fire when ready, Gridley.
I always thought it would be awesome to be a bookie
No, it wouldn't be. If you are running numbers or making book, you are dealing in organized crime, not that i have any particular objections to that. (note to self, check slashdot username lists for "don", "vinnie", and "* the *"). Think your town doesn't have mob connections? Ask around about putting some cash down on this weekend's games. Someone will know someone, and there's a very good chance that person has some connection to the organized crime operations in the nearest major city. Gambling has long been the bread and butter for organzied crime, paying out consistantly, and being somewhat safer than narcotics.
Now, what happens when you start making book in someone's territory? That friend of your friend's cousin may let slip to his regular bookie that he can get better odds from you. Then you'll have a couple of gentlemen come and explain to you a definition of "monopoly" in agressivly microsoftian terms, sans-lawyers.
Oh, and what about that poor buddy of yours that can never seem to come up with the cash when he looses a bet, but demands his money that minute when he wins? At what point will you be willing to beat holy fuck out of him for your money?
Now, if someone wants to deal in criminal activities, it's not my place to play morality cop (I do my betting in vegas, where my money goes to legitimate criminals). But there is no such thing as easy money.
Go talk to a car dealer. Act interested in a car and have them run a credit report. They'll show you the results, and generally let you keep them. Since you don't care about the results unless your score has dropped 400 points in three months, you're just there for the fun of it. Plus you get to act like you've got money.
I used one of the euro FTP's and had the file in an hour or so. I've got it torrent'd now, every little T1 helps. Spiking at 60 and 70k up, averaging 8-12.
If you've got the full version, put it on torrent anyway. share files that aren't copyrighted for once.
Knoppix was great for my last trip to best buy. I threw it in a couple of laptops to make sure i wouldn't be buying into a hardware nightmare. Of course I couldn't seem to flag down a sales person actually willing to sell me the item, and once I finally recieved assistance I was told they were out of stock.
Circuit city appriciated the business I gave them though, and they knocked some money of the price of the laptop (they weren't offering the same credit terms). YMMV, chain retail stores are a crap shoot.
This is the second plane from this year's batch. TAM's 1, 2, and 3 were launched last year. TAM 4 crashed only a few weeks ago.
These physicists from the University of Michigan and other labs made a quantum dot by using a thin gallium arsenide layer stuck between two aluminium gallium arsenide barriers.
A major advance in quantum computing is nice and all. But, would it kill U of M to get another college football (real / american) national championship? I mean, Ohio State's got a shiney new one. Ours is from 1997.
Sigh. Such is the mentality. (thankfully it's not a prevalent at U of M as it is at other universities)
Does the 1982 UN convention superceed the 1958 ruling?
Out of this entire thread this is the first set of post's I've seen that have made a good challege on a strong legal basis.
Roy may still have some agument based on "de facto" recognition of soverignty, but that wouldn't hold up as well.
There's a loophole for this as well.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was adopted in 1982 and was "(almost universally) accepted on 16 November 1994"
Sealand's claims were made in 1967. I can't make up a law, then decide that something you did 35 years ago is now illegal and bring you up on charges of breaking the law i just made. I think the phrase is 'ex post facto.'
I can't declare an oil rig an independant nation now. I could 21 years ago.
You are right on one count. Sealand exists only because no one has found it worth their trouble to kick the folks off by force. But breaking out the lawyers would be a royal pain in the ass at this moment, especially if a barstool lawyer like myself can throw out this amny objections and points of contention by sitting at a laptop for ten minutes at a time.
Just a few other mentions of sealand from other sources:
When asked about the status of Sealand, the British Home Office (Britain's equivalent to the Department of Internal Affairs) has, for thirty years, referred people to the Foreign Office as Sealand wasn't considered part of the United Kingdom. Until the HavenCo announcement on June 5 last year.
Free radical
A paper discussing jurisdiction as it pertains to sealand.
This all goes back to jurisdiction. If you go by the ruling in the 25 November 1968 case, in which shots were fired from Sealand in warning towards ships of the British navy, then Sealand has a good case for sovereignty.
The court declared that it was not competent in Roy of Sealand's case as it could not exert any jurisdiction outside of British national territory
A paper concerning abortion laws as they pertain to the EU. From 2000, but it does contain an interesting line.
For Home Office spokesman Tim Watkinson, the situation is clear: "The [United Kingdom] does not recognize Sealand as an independent state, it is within our territorial waters and as such subject to UK law."
As was laid out earlier, the island sits 7-10 miles off shore. It's "declaration of sovereignty" came in 1967, When territorial waters extended only to 3 miles. England would have had no authority until October 1st, 1987, when they moved their border to 12 miles. If we go by the 1968 ruling, England still has no rights over the island.
The fort itself was considered derilect, and as such open to claim.
This would have been prior to england extending it's territorial waters claim from 3 to 12 miles. International law forbids territory of another nation from being claimed simply by extending waters. I believe, though i have no links to back it, that the decision to move England's territorial waters out to 12 miles was based in part on preventing any further claims to small coastal islands, man made or otherwise. I'd be glad to be proven wrong.
Overall this is a unique situation. Any legal preceedings would have to face an uphill climb to establish jurisdiction. If they can indeed prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Sealand does fall under English law, everything else becomes a mute point. Until such time as they can prove Sealand doesn't fit criteria as an independand nation, they have no jurisdiction.
It's legal status was determined a long time ago. here is a good place to start.
"On October 1st, 1987, Britain extended its territorial waters from 3 to 12 nautical miles. At nearly the same time, Prince Roy declared the extension of Sealand's territorial waters to be a like 12 nautical miles, so that right of way from the open sea to Sealand would not be blocked by British claimed waters. No treaty has been signed between Britain and Sealand to divide up the overlapping areas, but a general policy of dividing the area between the two countries down the middle can be assumed. International law does not allow the claim of new land during the extension of sea rights, so Sealand's sovereignty was safely "grandfathered" in. Britain has no more right to Sealand's territory than Sealand has to the territory of the British coastline that falls within its claimed 12 nautical mile arc."
Since sealand was outside the initial 3 mile border when it was first claimed, England cannot claim sealand for itself. It would be similar to the United States attempting to annex Cuba by extending the border a further 90 miles south.
"Some nations might have tried to use this as an excuse to try to claim all of the territory of the weaker and not well recognized nation regardless of international law, however, this has not been the case. Britain has made no attempt to take Sealand, and the British government still treats it as an independent State. Prince Roy continues to pay no British National Insurance during the time he resides on Sealand subsequent to a ruling by the British Department of Health and Social Security's solicitors branch. Also, there was another fire arms incident in 1990 when a ship strayed too near Sealand and warning shots were again fired. The ship's crew made complaints to British authorities and a newspaper article ran detailing the incident. Yet despite Britain's severe prohibition of firearms, British authorities have never pursued the matter. This is a clear indication that Britain's Home Office still considers Sealand to be outside their zone of control."
It's SCO RAW!
Announcer 1: Welcome back to the staples center where we're in the middle of the SCO-redhat cage match for the undisputed heavyweight rights to Unix! SCO Goes for the ankle lock, but Redhat counters. Redhat's climbing to the top rope (crown moans) Oh and a cheap shot by SCO to the groin! SCO is going for the reverse boston crab, things are not looking good for Redhat...
Announcer 2: OHMYGOD! Look at this!
Announcer 1: It's SuSE! SuSE is coming to the ring to make the save!
Announcer 2: Look out, he's got a folding chair....
Mike Tyson has announced he will sue all of his former opponents, as they were not 'forthcoming' about their intentions to hit back.
McBride ended his letter somewhat vaguely by suggesting that Red Hat's "decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux."
Yeah, Defending your company's business practices is a horrible way to stay in business. You should attack other people's practices.
We at the SCO are disappointed you did not roll over and die when we used the word lawyers.
We are awaiting further instruction from out legal team, however this may be delayed as our current course of action provided by our lawyers lists only the phrase "2. ???" for our next step. We are awaiting clarification from them before continuing.
Woohoo! The unitied states isn't country where short sighted idiotic laws are passed!
Are there four billion devices out there right now, that can use an IP address? no. Maybe two or three billion, but I doubt seriously that chicken little is right, and that we'll be out of IP's tomorrow.
Available number of IPv4 addresses: 4.2 billion
Number of people on earth: 6.35 Billion according to ibilio
At this moment, Every other person on earth could have their own IP address. And we'd still have a billion IP's to spare.
Throw NAT into the equation just for fun.
With proper addressing schemes, IPv4 still has a ton of life left in it. It's nice to know IP6 is out there. But just because it's better doesn't mean it will ever gain world wide acceptance.
Just ask Preston Tucker, The makers of the Betamax, The Newton development team, etc
April 2004? I am not an accountant, but don't fiscal years rollover on July 1st?
Sounds like quite a beast.
The idea you're talking about is a canary trap (even the dumbest canary won't get caught, so long as it keeps its mouth shut), and is much older than tom clancy. I seem to remember that coming up in either cardinal of the kermlin or, more likely, patriot games.
Funny, I saw no statements from T. Herman Zweibel regarding the state of The Onion...
You're forgetting something.
Weekend totals for the year.
Bruce almighty was kicking Neo's ass for the two weeks before nemo came out.
They've had their tails handed to them first by Jim Carry in a throwaway vehicle flick, then an Animated fish in a rush job, product tie in film that was easily the worst Pixar flick to date.
Neo's the one alright. One as in the number of weeks reloaded spent on top of the earnings chart.
And nothing excuses poor maintenance, no matter how old your car.
Point made. And taken.
Were you towing that Rio on your website through MI today?