I believe there are actually laws on the books that define using a device to aid you in playing the game as "cheating" - and it will land you in jail.
You can count cards in your head, that's fine - all they can do is ask you not to play. If you bring some gizmo in to do it for you - you'll end up in jail.
Poker is a differnet beast -in poker, you are competing against the other players and the house rake. As soon as you can out-play enough people at the table to cover your rake costs, you are making money.
In poker, the casino is making money hosting the game, not directly competing against the players.
Valid point - but it would still reduce the number of blackjack players. Blackjack is insanely popular. Its' cheaper for them to keep kicking out the counters than it is to change the game and lose business.
Possibly - it's more likely just that using said machines would reduce the amount of play they get - the draw of players to blackjack, the reason it's the #1 game in the casino is because people think they can win.
Okay - but the house still has the advantage there. He was probably booted out for some other reason - like making the table boring, or they felt he was driving other customers, away, or whatever.
You've just described something like many other gambling methods.. people figure that, eventually, they'll win if they stick it out long enough.
Table limits and the house edge prevent this.
Blackjack is still the only game in the modern casino where there is enough information available for the customer to occasionally get an edge on the house.. and as to why they don't just shuffle after every hand, or something else? Blackjack is appealing - more than any other game people think they can beat it... and that draws in players, most of whom will lose.
Card counting is relatively easy - and so is getting caught.
Having software to catch counters makes sense - just as in any other industry, having software that can replace the work of a human tends to be cheaper;)
It sure does - it doesn't care what route the packets took - just that they got there. THe problem is if you split the stream over 3 links with varying latency - you won't see the performance gains you wan t- it'll more likely hurt.
If the goal is to end up with a virtual point-to-point link between two offices using multiple ISPs, you can certainly leverage multiple connections to do that. It also depends on the nature of the traffic.
You can set up multiple VPN tunnels and then run whatever protocol you want - you could do MLPPP - but that'll get ugly if the links don't have very similar characteristics.
The solution you mentioend in the end - Iv'e found that' susually the best - you can get most common *nix systems to do some kind of weighted load balancing of outgoing sessions... whether it's per-source, per-destination, per-protcol, or based on any other weird usage combination you had.
For an office situation Iw as once in - we had 1 2mbps and 1 x 4mbps lines (from separate providers) and a very high latency 1Mbps satellite connection. I gave them a web page that had four buttons on it. The first was "normal operation - 2MB + 4 MB". TCP sessions would be randomly routed over one orhte other, with double rpeference given to the 4 meg line. The ohters were "ISP1, ISP2, and Satellite" respectively. At the push of a button the routes would flip, the state tables would flush, and everything would work. For practical puproess, it worked really well.
There is no magic way to simply aggregate bandwidth from separate providers over consumer connections with meaningful results... not like bonding multiple direct lines or anything like that.... 2 + 2 won't equal 4.... but depending on the use case, it can be just about as good.
"Oddly our brokerage (Interactive Brokers) does not allow you to log in over the weekend. I wonder if it is a sort of forced vacation... In the beginning I hated that IB closed over the weekends, but now I truly, truly appreciate it."
I believe that's for system maintenance and the like - the market networks are decidedly offline and the markets closed on the weekend, so it makes perfect sense to schedule this as permanent offline-time for system work.
"If you owe them money, and you offer to pay it in legal tender, then if they refuse, you have discharged your obligations and no longer have to repay the debt."
Can you cite any precedent for that? That sounds interesting.
I don't believe that's true - though they would have no standing to take you to court or ask for any type of damages - the debt could possibly still stand.
You are not obligated to accept anything when engaging in an exchange of goods or services. Both parties can agree to settle the deal however they want.
"Legal Tender" only applies for the settling of debts.. and the creditor can insist on exact change.
So other than restaurants (where you eat first, and pay later) and possibly gas pumps (where you fill up first, then pay) - any business or transaction are free to agree to not accept whatever they want.
To put it another way - the only situation cash *MUST* be accepted in is when settling a debt.
No court will hear your whining if you refuse to accept cash from someone who owes you money. You can, however, refuse to make change and insist the precise amount be paid.
This only applies to debts.
Buying groceries at the supermarket is not a debt. Neither is clicking on some stuff on amazon. Sitting in a restaurant and eating first, then paying later - that's a debt. So is, for practical purposes, filling up your car with gas and then going inside to pay.
My government doesn't run my healthcare - my doctors do. My government just pays the bills. I don't have to call any government employees for approval for anything. There are no beurocrats in the way.
Your motivation is understandable -and my motivation is the same. I go to work so I can put good food on the plate, have nice things, drive a nice car, and go on awesome vacations.
The one thing, however, I've never had to worry about, is whether or not I can change jobs or re-locate because of my health-care situation. I worry about my *health* - but not how I'm going to pay for it when I get sick. For me, these healthcare debates are silly, because all my life, healthcare has been a universal right for me and all my neighbors.
What if we built roads only privately, and had no public schools, no public police force... would you say the same thing? Would you wall yourself away in your private world where only people who direcly paid for those resources could use them? That sounds silly, right?
I guess my point is - it's more about a shift in view about how you feel about healthcare in a society. If you view access to good healthcare as something that should be proportional to invididual income - then your view makes sense.
Do consider, though, that providing universal healthcare actually drops prices - and you'd end up paying *less* for the same, or better, healthcare, as well as having a society where healthcare ceased to be a worry.
You know.. us Canadians are pretty good at keeping our Government under a reasonable amount of control. They aren't perfect, shit happens - but I don't believe there is anywhere *near* the same level of corporate influence and/or corruption as you see in many other countries.
Most of the E-book devices out there do not use video screens - they use e-paper. No battery consumption (for the screen) unless they are changing state (pages), not back-lit, and not a source of light themselves. Digital ink, basically.
I would a) Talk to my lawyer and tell him what I want to do. b) Want to inform the bank that the information was erased, and that I had no intention of forwarding it on. It was accidental. Shit happens. If they involved a lawyer, or a mention of one, I would request that they draft an agreement, at their cost, indemnifying me as long as the information was properly erased on my end.
Again - google didn't shut downthe account - they informed their customer. If the mail was in spam, the response might be "Oh really? Hmm, let me check spam. Oh yeah, there it is. Well shit, I don't want trouble - let's delete it, and how about you hae your google lawyers confirm it was deleted, and that's the end of it?
I think we'd need way more information to come up wiht a good solution - this is an overall application architecture problem, not just a locking problem.
What are the use cases? what kind of app is it? what is it that you are trying to lock, exactly?
Basically impossible? All it takes is an adequate UPS setup, with a proper transfer switch and a diesel generator - and a proper maintenance plane to go with it. There's nothing hard or magical about it - it just costs more. Maintenance and fuel.
Plenty of places have proper backup facilities.
The main problem, at least in most of the 1st world, is that people are so used to reliable grid power that they don't think about it or see the risk. Look at any operation running somewhere where the power goes out on a frequent basis, and you'll find the above mentioned scenario very common.
No they aren't - because the engineers wisely thought of this and put in a particulate filter between the area where the platters spin and the vent hole on the outside.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe there are actually laws on the books that define using a device to aid you in playing the game as "cheating" - and it will land you in jail.
You can count cards in your head, that's fine - all they can do is ask you not to play. If you bring some gizmo in to do it for you - you'll end up in jail.
Poker is a differnet beast -in poker, you are competing against the other players and the house rake. As soon as you can out-play enough people at the table to cover your rake costs, you are making money.
In poker, the casino is making money hosting the game, not directly competing against the players.
I'm curious - what would you do if you were in charge of the casino? How would you handle the situation?
Valid point - but it would still reduce the number of blackjack players. Blackjack is insanely popular. Its' cheaper for them to keep kicking out the counters than it is to change the game and lose business.
Possibly - it's more likely just that using said machines would reduce the amount of play they get - the draw of players to blackjack, the reason it's the #1 game in the casino is because people think they can win.
Okay - but the house still has the advantage there. He was probably booted out for some other reason - like making the table boring, or they felt he was driving other customers, away, or whatever.
You've just described something like many other gambling methods.. people figure that, eventually, they'll win if they stick it out long enough.
Table limits and the house edge prevent this.
Blackjack is still the only game in the modern casino where there is enough information available for the customer to occasionally get an edge on the house.. and as to why they don't just shuffle after every hand, or something else? Blackjack is appealing - more than any other game people think they can beat it... and that draws in players, most of whom will lose.
Card counting is relatively easy - and so is getting caught.
Having software to catch counters makes sense - just as in any other industry, having software that can replace the work of a human tends to be cheaper ;)
"TCP/IP doesn't allow for that, that I know of"
It sure does - it doesn't care what route the packets took - just that they got there. THe problem is if you split the stream over 3 links with varying latency - you won't see the performance gains you wan t- it'll more likely hurt.
If the goal is to end up with a virtual point-to-point link between two offices using multiple ISPs, you can certainly leverage multiple connections to do that. It also depends on the nature of the traffic.
You can set up multiple VPN tunnels and then run whatever protocol you want - you could do MLPPP - but that'll get ugly if the links don't have very similar characteristics.
The solution you mentioend in the end - Iv'e found that' susually the best - you can get most common *nix systems to do some kind of weighted load balancing of outgoing sessions... whether it's per-source, per-destination, per-protcol, or based on any other weird usage combination you had.
For an office situation Iw as once in - we had 1 2mbps and 1 x 4mbps lines (from separate providers) and a very high latency 1Mbps satellite connection.
I gave them a web page that had four buttons on it.
The first was "normal operation - 2MB + 4 MB". TCP sessions would be randomly routed over one orhte other, with double rpeference given to the 4 meg line.
The ohters were "ISP1, ISP2, and Satellite" respectively. At the push of a button the routes would flip, the state tables would flush, and everything would work. For practical puproess, it worked really well.
There is no magic way to simply aggregate bandwidth from separate providers over consumer connections with meaningful results... not like bonding multiple direct lines or anything like that.... 2 + 2 won't equal 4.... but depending on the use case, it can be just about as good.
"Oddly our brokerage (Interactive Brokers) does not allow you to log in over the weekend. I wonder if it is a sort of forced vacation... In the beginning I hated that IB closed over the weekends, but now I truly, truly appreciate it."
I believe that's for system maintenance and the like - the market networks are decidedly offline and the markets closed on the weekend, so it makes perfect sense to schedule this as permanent offline-time for system work.
"If you owe them money, and you offer to pay it in legal tender, then if they refuse, you have discharged your obligations and no longer have to repay the debt."
Can you cite any precedent for that? That sounds interesting.
I don't believe that's true - though they would have no standing to take you to court or ask for any type of damages - the debt could possibly still stand.
You are not obligated to accept anything when engaging in an exchange of goods or services. Both parties can agree to settle the deal however they want.
"Legal Tender" only applies for the settling of debts.. and the creditor can insist on exact change.
So other than restaurants (where you eat first, and pay later) and possibly gas pumps (where you fill up first, then pay) - any business or transaction are free to agree to not accept whatever they want.
To put it another way - the only situation cash *MUST* be accepted in is when settling a debt.
No court will hear your whining if you refuse to accept cash from someone who owes you money. You can, however, refuse to make change and insist the precise amount be paid.
This only applies to debts.
Buying groceries at the supermarket is not a debt. Neither is clicking on some stuff on amazon.
Sitting in a restaurant and eating first, then paying later - that's a debt.
So is, for practical purposes, filling up your car with gas and then going inside to pay.
That still requires in-house mainframe skills - someone still has to manage the hardware.
(Canadian here)....
My government doesn't run my healthcare - my doctors do. My government just pays the bills. I don't have to call any government employees for approval for anything. There are no beurocrats in the way.
Your motivation is understandable -and my motivation is the same. I go to work so I can put good food on the plate, have nice things, drive a nice car, and go on awesome vacations.
The one thing, however, I've never had to worry about, is whether or not I can change jobs or re-locate because of my health-care situation. I worry about my *health* - but not how I'm going to pay for it when I get sick. For me, these healthcare debates are silly, because all my life, healthcare has been a universal right for me and all my neighbors.
What if we built roads only privately, and had no public schools, no public police force... would you say the same thing? Would you wall yourself away in your private world where only people who direcly paid for those resources could use them? That sounds silly, right?
I guess my point is - it's more about a shift in view about how you feel about healthcare in a society. If you view access to good healthcare as something that should be proportional to invididual income - then your view makes sense.
Do consider, though, that providing universal healthcare actually drops prices - and you'd end up paying *less* for the same, or better, healthcare, as well as having a society where healthcare ceased to be a worry.
You know.. us Canadians are pretty good at keeping our Government under a reasonable amount of control. They aren't perfect, shit happens - but I don't believe there is anywhere *near* the same level of corporate influence and/or corruption as you see in many other countries.
With CNs like www.paypal.com\0ssl.secureconnection.cc
Shouldn't the CA who issued the certificate bear *some* of the blame here?
It just seems logical....
Most of the E-book devices out there do not use video screens - they use e-paper. No battery consumption (for the screen) unless they are changing state (pages), not back-lit, and not a source of light themselves. Digital ink, basically.
A 20 year monopoly for finding out how to do something that most credible experts in the field think cannot be done? Why not?
Right.. that's fine. Except most software patents nowadays don't pass that test - they are more or less rubber-stamped.
I would
a) Talk to my lawyer and tell him what I want to do.
b) Want to inform the bank that the information was erased, and that I had no intention of forwarding it on. It was accidental. Shit happens. If they involved a lawyer, or a mention of one, I would request that they draft an agreement, at their cost, indemnifying me as long as the information was properly erased on my end.
Again - google didn't shut downthe account - they informed their customer. If the mail was in spam, the response might be "Oh really? Hmm, let me check spam. Oh yeah, there it is. Well shit, I don't want trouble - let's delete it, and how about you hae your google lawyers confirm it was deleted, and that's the end of it?
I think we'd need way more information to come up wiht a good solution - this is an overall application architecture problem, not just a locking problem.
What are the use cases? what kind of app is it? what is it that you are trying to lock, exactly?
Basically impossible? All it takes is an adequate UPS setup, with a proper transfer switch and a diesel generator - and a proper maintenance plane to go with it. There's nothing hard or magical about it - it just costs more. Maintenance and fuel.
Plenty of places have proper backup facilities.
The main problem, at least in most of the 1st world, is that people are so used to reliable grid power that they don't think about it or see the risk. Look at any operation running somewhere where the power goes out on a frequent basis, and you'll find the above mentioned scenario very common.
What was missing is colloquially called STONITH: Shoot The Other Node In The Head.
Puppet.
http://reductivelabs.com/trac/puppet/
I suspect your second reason is the major factor behind the continued use of cobol.
The systems that use it are so huge and complex that replacing them is seen as next to impossible.
Just fucks up one sector.... but it also throws up particulate matter that can cause further damage.
Once you crash a head, it's new drive time....
No they aren't - because the engineers wisely thought of this and put in a particulate filter between the area where the platters spin and the vent hole on the outside.