Ordinarily I'd let comments like these go, but In this case I'm pretty sure you didn't read the first paragraph of my post.
Yes, I did. Twice. You were comparing the church's suppression of science to today's scientists disagreeing with the church when, and suggesting that both were for the same reasons when, in fact, the two are completely unrelated. The church suppressed science because it reduced their power. Science disagrees with the church because their claims are unsupported.
I get the impression that some well meaning but over zealous christian did something to you in the past to really make you mad... and now you're just venting.
Isn't it so much easier to just discount my argument out of hand, attributing it to some childhood tragedy, than to actually think about it and respond to it? I'm surprised you didn't accuse me of Slashdot "groupthink"...
On the other hand, I took geology in a state-funded university and left pretty convinced that modern science has no well supported idea how old the world really is.
Scientists may dispute its actual age, but none of them think it's only six thousand years old.
it has to ta in consideration every side of the subject.
Not without considering the merits of every side it doesn't. Offering opposing viewpoints as if they are all equally valid when they are, in fact, not is misleading and irresponsible and the point behind the whole article.
Today, scientists can't say anything that appears to agree with the church, because they'll loose their funding, their credibility and possibly their lives.
Stop. Just stop. And learn something about how science really works before you start on the persecution complex, okay?
Scientists can say anything they bloody well want providing they have the evidence to support the statement. That's how science works. That most of science does not agree with the church is entirely because the church's claims are supported by little to no evidence. Even the most respected scientists in the world must support their claims with evidence. And even Steven Hawking can be wrong.
This has been going on for as long as "news" has been supported by advertising. "News" shows pay more attention to the latest study that shows how X can [cause|reduce the risk of] cancer even though it's a single study that hasn't undergone peer review and invariably ends with "more research is necessary" because it gets people to watch.
"What you don't know about 'Y' can kill you!" -- Fear sells.
That everyone has an opinion does not mean each opinion is equally valid. The New Dark Age starts.... now.
Whenever there's any article on slashdot concerning microsoft, some ignant ass mother fucking basement troll needs to come out and make stupid comments.
Don't forget the corollary: any disparaging remark about Microsoft will immediately be discredited as "bashing" regardless of any actual merit in the statement.
They are doing the bare minimum they should be doing and no more. If there is any infringing code in Microsoft products, it could only have come from Microsoft. They are responsible and should be held responsible.
Though I'm sure they will spin it to their advantage,
It's the old "taking credit for what you should be doing anyway" bit. I'm reminded of a Chris Rock routine: "I take care of my family", "Dammit, you're supposed to!".
MS gets sued over patent infringement regularly, and some of the IP holders have threatened to go after individual users.
This is what's broken about the whole patent system in general: that the users, who could not have put the infringing code there and could not have known it was there, should be held responsible for it being there. It's ridiculous.
So basically what you're saying is, regardless of the wishes of the producer, if the consumer of content wants the content free, he's entitled to it?
No, I'm saying the person who was never going to purchase the work receiving an illegal copy of it isn't harming anyone. I'm saying that as long as the producers are still producing, then copyright is doing its intended job and the existence of illegal copies is immaterial.
The producer sets the terms.
No they don't. The law does. The producer can set the price but the law is very clear on what rights copyright gives them.
I didn't say rights. I said freedoms. Copyright functions by restricting the freedoms of others.
Throughout the rest of your comment, you say that it's okay for the artist to make a profit, but only to a point. You then proceed to call this the free market.
Um, no, I didn't. I never claimed there should be a limit on how much an artist could make. My claim is that the ability to profit, by the restriction of others' freedoms, should be limited, ideally, to only that which is absolutely necessary to encourage them to produce. Right now, it is far, far, far beyond that.
Again, why is it okay for people to earn money off their creations for a little while, but not for their whole life,
Because the deal was we'll give you the ability to profit from it and in return it will enter the public domain so that society may benefit from it fully. Otherwise, why do I care if anyone publishes?
even if it's in demand for their whole life?
That people are willing to pay for it does not, in and of itself, give anyone the right to charge for it. Few people would refuse to pay $1 in order to avoid being shot. This doesn't give anyone the right to hold a gun to their heads and demand the dollar. "Value" does not mean "right".
Are you saying that Tolkein should have only made money off his first million books, despite the fact that they are generally considered to be the foundation of the entire modern Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre?
No. I'm saying the protection should only last long enough to make writing the books worthwhile and not one second longer.
If the answer to my "why's" is that you just don't believe it's morally right, then come out and say it,
It depends on your definition of morally right. I believe that copyright, in the form that I've described, is beneficial to society. That form should give creator's incentive to publish their works and share them with society so that society may use the ideas contained within, expound on them, expand them, and discuss them. This cannot happen if the protection is permanent[1]. It was never, nor should it ever, be intended to create property rights out of something that is inherently different from property. And the idea that someone not paying to hear a song has somehow stolen something is tragically and fundamentally flawed.
But within the contexts of a free market system, there is nothing, I repeat nothing that says it shouldn't happen. If you want the free market limited, write your senator, but I think you'll get some opposition.
First, my comments about the free market concerned only the profit the artist received as a means of encouraging "good" works. Second, I never advocated limiting the free market, but the free market is already limited by law: you cannot defraud consumers, for example, and there are anti-trust laws which (despite any recent lack of enforcement thereof) prevent sellers of products from gaining an unfair advantage in the marketplace. If it were truly a free market, then anyone would be able to sell copies of any work. But that's not how it is. Copyright gives the author a limited monopoly on the sales of that work. That is a limitation of the free market.
A breach in ettiquette, I know, but I will respond to a reply you make later in the thread here:
You make a good case for the original intent of copyright. But I still think that the way that society has evolved around it has shown that's not what we want from it.
What we want from it has nothing to do with how copyright has evolved. Content producers have spent no end of money getting copyright extended both in scope and duration, essentially creating property rights for copyrighted content. To presume that, because it exists, the people want it this
Ideally for the consumer maybe, but not for the creator.
Copyright was intended to benefit society, not create an artificial market for people without otherwise marketable skills. It need only be beneficial enough to the creator to encourage him to create. I see no reason to restrict my freedoms even further so that he can have a slightly bigger mansion.
Society has evolved to a point where there is so much "creative work" out there that it isn't good enough just to put your work out there. If you want people to see it, you have to have someone finance and hype it, or else you'll probably be ignored. Hence the rise of production and advertising companies in the entertainment industry.
I didn't say otherwise. This all falls under "enough to make it worthwhile". Everything you mention is a cost of doing business. If he can't make enough to cover that cost plus a reasonable profit, it isn't worthwhile.
Now, you can argue that since this material is "art" and not a "rivalrous resource" that the creator's financial benefit shouldn't be proportional to the level of consumption of his work.
It should be proportional to a point. A creator that produces something a lot of people like should make more than someone who produces something very few people like. That's the free market. It encourages the production of "good" works while discouraging the production of "bad" works[1].
But nothing says they are entitled to profit from every instance of consumption. And nothing says they are entitled to profit from the consumption of their work forever, regardless of whether or not it can still make money. They are allowed to make some profit because it benefits society for them to do so, and for no other reason.
But there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people out there who disagree and are plenty willing to pay what they consider to be a fair price for the art they consume.
Which is exactly my point. They are still paying for it so the argument over whether or not piracy is hurting anyone is pretty much settled. It's not.
[1] "Good" and "bad" are necessarily defined, in this case, as "popular" and "unpopular" respectively, since that is pretty much the basis of capitalism in general.
Classic Fallacy: copyrighted content is not a rivalrous resource. Comparing it to rivalrous resources is a fundamental flaw and completely invalidates the argument.
Why should Joe have the privledge of enjoying music/movies/anything that he can't pay for?
Because it doesn't cost them anything for him to do so.
Copyright was invented for the sole purpose of encouraging people to share their creative works with others. The ability to profit from those works is the incentive, not the goal, and it was never designed to be perfect control.
Ideally, the producers of copyrighted works need only be paid just enough to make the producing worthwhile. Guess what, they're still producing. Despite the "rampant piracy", Hollywood is still making movies, authors are still writing, musicians are still composing. They are evidently making enough money to make it worthwhile. As long as they are, who gives a shit if another million copies go unpaid for? It doesn't cost them a dime.
I didn't say I was surprised, I said I was amused, so why should I stop?
I never said you should stop. I just fail to see the amusement factor in people moderating you for what you chose to put in every single message you post.
Since I've been using this signature, I've never gotten so many 50/50 mods... I could post the most enlightening thing and get 50% flamebait, 25% interesting, 25% insightful. It's really quite amusing... being modded for your signature instead of the content of your post.
So, in other words, you chose a signature that was deliberately designed to provoke a reaction and are then surprised that it does?
But the power of the President to "set the debate" does *not* stem from the Constitution directly.
Depends on what you mean by "set the debate". The President, as outlined in the Constitution, is responsible for giving Congress the State of the Union and making recommendations that he thinks are necessary. Many would consider this, at least paritally, "setting the debate". But that really isn't important.
The OP was making the claim:
The president's only role in the legislative process is to approve bills that have passed both houses of Congress, and that can even be bypassed
essentially stating that, despite what Kerry says he will do to the DMCA, he doesn't have the power to do it. Which is clearly not the case, whether or not this power to set the debate comes directly from the Constitution.
Taft got less than 25% of the popular vote and less than 2% of the electoral vote. He wasn't in the running. It was, however, the best an independent candidate (Roosevelt) had done, but he had already been president as a Republican once...
1860: Lincoln, Douglas, Breckinridge, Bell
Bell got less than 13% of the popular vote and about 13% of the electoral vote. But it was a landslide for Lincoln. He had no chance. The best showing by a third place candidate, but we had to go back almost 150 years to find him.
1968: Nixon, Humphrey, Wallace
Wallace: less than 15% of the popular vote and 9% of the electoral. No chance.
1992: Clinton, Bush, Perot
Perot: Less than 20% of the popular vote, no electoral votes. Again, no chance.
There is nothing more infuriating that being sucked out at the River by a clown that had no business remaining in the hand.
For every hand the clown beats you, you beat him many times over. You want him drawing to hands without odds. It's only a problem when you have a "conspiracy of callers": a number of people sucking out to where the odds of your top-pair or two-pair winning drop dramatically. My preferred method of dealing with this is to move to another table. But if that isn't an option, play looser before the flop and much tighter after. Realize that top pair is not likely to be the best hand. In a word: adjust.
It's tempting to play the higher limit tables, thinking that the players there will be more seasoned, that they'll have a better understanding of the game, and that they'll be less likely to stay involved in hands that they shouldn't be in.
The other side to that is the more experienced players won't be in the pots they don't have a chance to win, so the pot sizes go down (relative to the limits). More experienced players are harder to beat. But worse hands are more likely to win. Higher limits does not automatically mean better players, though. You'll still get a fair share of suckout dogs that just have more money.
The remaining issue is: What if I suck, and I only win because I suck less than the rest of the amateurs at the $2-4 tables?
You do;-) But you won't get any better by playing worse players. It's like skiing: if you're not falling down, you're not learning. If you're consistently the best player at the table, you won't get any better.
I guess the only thing to do is pony up, and get an answer to the question.
My general rule is to have 30 big bets as a bank roll. At a.25-.50 game I bring $15. At a 3-6 game I bring $180. I won't move up to a higher limit until I've built that bankroll at the lower table. If you're playing 2-4 and want to move to 3-6, wait until you've won $180 playing 2-4. If you lose it, move back down and work your way up again. It's okay to lose providing you learn from it.
The president cannot directly write make a law at all. Only members of the House and Senate can nominate bills for consideration. (When the "President's Budget" comes every year, some member of the House must support the bill enough to put it into "the hopper" or it doesn't get off the ground.) The president's only role in the legislative process is to approve bills that have passed both houses of Congress, and that can even be bypassed
[The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; [source]
The President cannot directly write any law. But he can direct Congress in any way he sees fit. No, they don't have to listen to them, but he can be very influential. His power in this area comes from making recommendations on what Congress should be spending its time on. You can be sure that if the President wants to fix the DMCA, it will get a lot of attention from Congress.
But every single top-level player I've ever heard asked has said that the mathematics of it are relatively simple comparing to knowing (and 'playing') the players.
Top-level players are playing a different game. There is a world of difference between no-limit professionals and low-limit amateurs. Being able to tell whether your opponent thinks he has a good hand is useless if he doesn't know himself. The people I play against think nothing of reraising with bottom two pair when three of their cards are on the board. I've sat next to people with a pocket pair of 4's raising to the showdown and can't understand how the guy with a matched six beat him. The ability to read people can only help you if the people you are reading know how to play.
Of course Doyle Brunsen and Sam Farha claim that reading the other people is more important than the odds: they are playing against people who know the game very well. They will both tell you, however, that they play better against better players. When you play against inexperienced players, the odds are much more important.
Intelligence (or geek skills) isn't the sole requirement. Knowledge will get you so far, but your ability to play the game (primarily the social aspect as you said). At the professional level, so much comes down to reading the other man, and controlling your reactions to how the cards and bets are played out. You can know odds and betting patterns, but hiding that grin when you make a good hand is worth so much more...
At the professional level of no-limit, yes, I fully agree. But at the low-limit amateur level, where most people by far are playing, the cards and the odds matter a whole lot more than reading the other players. Keep in mind that the player himself has to know whether or not the hand is any good before you can tell whether or not his hand is any good by reading him.
At the limits I play ($.25-$.50), very few hands get decided without a showdown. At some point, you are going to have to have the cards and the limit structure of the game makes it damned near impossible to raise someone out of a hand. The only way to win in the long run is play the odds.
In the study, which was conducted at Insurance Office of America's headquarters in Orlando, Fla.,
News flash: People in Florida like it warm. They are acclimated to warmer temperatures. This is a city whose average high is 73 in December and it rarely gets below 45. Take the same study to Burlington, Vermont for instance, and they'll find out that people work better at 68 rather than 77.
As an analogy of unprofitable collusion, I could win the World Series of Poker by hiring enough shills and paying their time and entry fees. I would lose money by doing this, probably more than I could recoup with post-tournament income via endorsements/books/whatever.
A better analogy would be one where you and a number of friends entered the WSOP and your friends all lost to you (whenever they were at the same table as you). Whatever you won from the tournament you would split with your friends. A bigger bank roll in no-limit poker gives you a significant advantage over other players. By sacrificing themselves, they give you the opportunity to win more than they are likely to win by acting alone which is what, in essence, the S/M programs were doing and in fact has a better chance of doing since they are guaranteed to play against each other.
One of the interesting things in game theory is how it can be used to analyze how a player's best interests can be served by playing to lose.
I'm not sure, but I don't think they moved the pedals. I worked at an Audi dealership when the whole thing happened. The first thing they did was change the model number, and add a shift lock that prevented the driver from shifting into drive unless the brake was depressed. The problem went away.
Perhaps you're claiming that the wear is not commensurate with the amount of braking you think he should have attempted, but given that a single touch on the brakes is supposed to stop a cruise control system until you hit resume (assuming a cruise control with resume, which is not necessarily a safe assumption) it's not entirely unlikely that having attempted to use the brakes the driver would have given up.
Even if the brakes didn't disengage the cruise control, they still should have slowed down the car. I don't know about you, but if I was behind the wheel of a car going 120mph all by itself I'd be standing on the freaking brake pedal until the pads disintegrated.
Slashdot Mirror
Ordinarily I'd let comments like these go, but In this case I'm pretty sure you didn't read the first paragraph of my post.
Yes, I did. Twice. You were comparing the church's suppression of science to today's scientists disagreeing with the church when, and suggesting that both were for the same reasons when, in fact, the two are completely unrelated. The church suppressed science because it reduced their power. Science disagrees with the church because their claims are unsupported.
I get the impression that some well meaning but over zealous christian did something to you in the past to really make you mad... and now you're just venting.
Isn't it so much easier to just discount my argument out of hand, attributing it to some childhood tragedy, than to actually think about it and respond to it? I'm surprised you didn't accuse me of Slashdot "groupthink"...
On the other hand, I took geology in a state-funded university and left pretty convinced that modern science has no well supported idea how old the world really is.
Scientists may dispute its actual age, but none of them think it's only six thousand years old.
"Fact": from Latin factum, neuter past participle of facere "to make; to do". Facts are created, not discovered.
That the word meant that in an ancient, dead language does not mean that is how it is used in English today.
it has to ta in consideration every side of the subject.
Not without considering the merits of every side it doesn't. Offering opposing viewpoints as if they are all equally valid when they are, in fact, not is misleading and irresponsible and the point behind the whole article.
Today, scientists can't say anything that appears to agree with the church, because they'll loose their funding, their credibility and possibly their lives.
Stop. Just stop. And learn something about how science really works before you start on the persecution complex, okay?
Scientists can say anything they bloody well want providing they have the evidence to support the statement. That's how science works. That most of science does not agree with the church is entirely because the church's claims are supported by little to no evidence. Even the most respected scientists in the world must support their claims with evidence. And even Steven Hawking can be wrong.
This has been going on for as long as "news" has been supported by advertising. "News" shows pay more attention to the latest study that shows how X can [cause|reduce the risk of] cancer even though it's a single study that hasn't undergone peer review and invariably ends with "more research is necessary" because it gets people to watch.
.... now.
"What you don't know about 'Y' can kill you!" -- Fear sells.
That everyone has an opinion does not mean each opinion is equally valid. The New Dark Age starts
Whenever there's any article on slashdot concerning microsoft, some ignant ass mother fucking basement troll needs to come out and make stupid comments.
Don't forget the corollary: any disparaging remark about Microsoft will immediately be discredited as "bashing" regardless of any actual merit in the statement.
even the GPL specifically disclaims any warranties concerning fitness for purpose.
I would like to see EULAS ammended to read no warranty concerning fitness for a particular purpose including what our advertising claims it will do.
For once, MS is doing a good thing,
They are doing the bare minimum they should be doing and no more. If there is any infringing code in Microsoft products, it could only have come from Microsoft. They are responsible and should be held responsible.
Though I'm sure they will spin it to their advantage,
It's the old "taking credit for what you should be doing anyway" bit. I'm reminded of a Chris Rock routine: "I take care of my family", "Dammit, you're supposed to!".
MS gets sued over patent infringement regularly, and some of the IP holders have threatened to go after individual users.
This is what's broken about the whole patent system in general: that the users, who could not have put the infringing code there and could not have known it was there, should be held responsible for it being there. It's ridiculous.
So basically what you're saying is, regardless of the wishes of the producer, if the consumer of content wants the content free, he's entitled to it?
No, I'm saying the person who was never going to purchase the work receiving an illegal copy of it isn't harming anyone. I'm saying that as long as the producers are still producing, then copyright is doing its intended job and the existence of illegal copies is immaterial.
The producer sets the terms.
No they don't. The law does. The producer can set the price but the law is very clear on what rights copyright gives them.
Specifically what rights are you talking about?
I didn't say rights. I said freedoms. Copyright functions by restricting the freedoms of others.
Throughout the rest of your comment, you say that it's okay for the artist to make a profit, but only to a point. You then proceed to call this the free market.
Um, no, I didn't. I never claimed there should be a limit on how much an artist could make. My claim is that the ability to profit, by the restriction of others' freedoms, should be limited, ideally, to only that which is absolutely necessary to encourage them to produce. Right now, it is far, far, far beyond that.
Again, why is it okay for people to earn money off their creations for a little while, but not for their whole life,
Because the deal was we'll give you the ability to profit from it and in return it will enter the public domain so that society may benefit from it fully. Otherwise, why do I care if anyone publishes?
even if it's in demand for their whole life?
That people are willing to pay for it does not, in and of itself, give anyone the right to charge for it. Few people would refuse to pay $1 in order to avoid being shot. This doesn't give anyone the right to hold a gun to their heads and demand the dollar. "Value" does not mean "right".
Are you saying that Tolkein should have only made money off his first million books, despite the fact that they are generally considered to be the foundation of the entire modern Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre?
No. I'm saying the protection should only last long enough to make writing the books worthwhile and not one second longer.
If the answer to my "why's" is that you just don't believe it's morally right, then come out and say it,
It depends on your definition of morally right. I believe that copyright, in the form that I've described, is beneficial to society. That form should give creator's incentive to publish their works and share them with society so that society may use the ideas contained within, expound on them, expand them, and discuss them. This cannot happen if the protection is permanent[1]. It was never, nor should it ever, be intended to create property rights out of something that is inherently different from property. And the idea that someone not paying to hear a song has somehow stolen something is tragically and fundamentally flawed.
But within the contexts of a free market system, there is nothing, I repeat nothing that says it shouldn't happen. If you want the free market limited, write your senator, but I think you'll get some opposition.
First, my comments about the free market concerned only the profit the artist received as a means of encouraging "good" works. Second, I never advocated limiting the free market, but the free market is already limited by law: you cannot defraud consumers, for example, and there are anti-trust laws which (despite any recent lack of enforcement thereof) prevent sellers of products from gaining an unfair advantage in the marketplace. If it were truly a free market, then anyone would be able to sell copies of any work. But that's not how it is. Copyright gives the author a limited monopoly on the sales of that work. That is a limitation of the free market.
A breach in ettiquette, I know, but I will respond to a reply you make later in the thread here:
You make a good case for the original intent of copyright. But I still think that the way that society has evolved around it has shown that's not what we want from it.
What we want from it has nothing to do with how copyright has evolved. Content producers have spent no end of money getting copyright extended both in scope and duration, essentially creating property rights for copyrighted content. To presume that, because it exists, the people want it this
Ideally for the consumer maybe, but not for the creator.
Copyright was intended to benefit society, not create an artificial market for people without otherwise marketable skills. It need only be beneficial enough to the creator to encourage him to create. I see no reason to restrict my freedoms even further so that he can have a slightly bigger mansion.
Society has evolved to a point where there is so much "creative work" out there that it isn't good enough just to put your work out there. If you want people to see it, you have to have someone finance and hype it, or else you'll probably be ignored. Hence the rise of production and advertising companies in the entertainment industry.
I didn't say otherwise. This all falls under "enough to make it worthwhile". Everything you mention is a cost of doing business. If he can't make enough to cover that cost plus a reasonable profit, it isn't worthwhile.
Now, you can argue that since this material is "art" and not a "rivalrous resource" that the creator's financial benefit shouldn't be proportional to the level of consumption of his work.
It should be proportional to a point. A creator that produces something a lot of people like should make more than someone who produces something very few people like. That's the free market. It encourages the production of "good" works while discouraging the production of "bad" works[1].
But nothing says they are entitled to profit from every instance of consumption. And nothing says they are entitled to profit from the consumption of their work forever, regardless of whether or not it can still make money. They are allowed to make some profit because it benefits society for them to do so, and for no other reason.
But there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people out there who disagree and are plenty willing to pay what they consider to be a fair price for the art they consume.
Which is exactly my point. They are still paying for it so the argument over whether or not piracy is hurting anyone is pretty much settled. It's not.
[1] "Good" and "bad" are necessarily defined, in this case, as "popular" and "unpopular" respectively, since that is pretty much the basis of capitalism in general.
If Joe stole a Ferarri
Classic Fallacy: copyrighted content is not a rivalrous resource. Comparing it to rivalrous resources is a fundamental flaw and completely invalidates the argument.
Why should Joe have the privledge of enjoying music/movies/anything that he can't pay for?
Because it doesn't cost them anything for him to do so.
Copyright was invented for the sole purpose of encouraging people to share their creative works with others. The ability to profit from those works is the incentive, not the goal, and it was never designed to be perfect control.
Ideally, the producers of copyrighted works need only be paid just enough to make the producing worthwhile. Guess what, they're still producing. Despite the "rampant piracy", Hollywood is still making movies, authors are still writing, musicians are still composing. They are evidently making enough money to make it worthwhile. As long as they are, who gives a shit if another million copies go unpaid for? It doesn't cost them a dime.
I didn't say I was surprised, I said I was amused, so why should I stop?
I never said you should stop. I just fail to see the amusement factor in people moderating you for what you chose to put in every single message you post.
I've got the karma to burn, baby!
Oh, you're a troll. That explains it then...
Since I've been using this signature, I've never gotten so many 50/50 mods... I could post the most enlightening thing and get 50% flamebait, 25% interesting, 25% insightful. It's really quite amusing... being modded for your signature instead of the content of your post.
So, in other words, you chose a signature that was deliberately designed to provoke a reaction and are then surprised that it does?
Depends on what you mean by "set the debate". The President, as outlined in the Constitution, is responsible for giving Congress the State of the Union and making recommendations that he thinks are necessary. Many would consider this, at least paritally, "setting the debate". But that really isn't important.
The OP was making the claim:
essentially stating that, despite what Kerry says he will do to the DMCA, he doesn't have the power to do it. Which is clearly not the case, whether or not this power to set the debate comes directly from the Constitution.
1912: T. Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson
Taft got less than 25% of the popular vote and less than 2% of the electoral vote. He wasn't in the running. It was, however, the best an independent candidate (Roosevelt) had done, but he had already been president as a Republican once...
1860: Lincoln, Douglas, Breckinridge, Bell
Bell got less than 13% of the popular vote and about 13% of the electoral vote. But it was a landslide for Lincoln. He had no chance. The best showing by a third place candidate, but we had to go back almost 150 years to find him.
1968: Nixon, Humphrey, Wallace
Wallace: less than 15% of the popular vote and 9% of the electoral. No chance.
1992: Clinton, Bush, Perot
Perot: Less than 20% of the popular vote, no electoral votes. Again, no chance.
Copyright is a monopoly.
Copyright is a (at least theoretically) limited monopoly.
Is everything Lexmark creates in public domain from now on?
Copyright doesn't apply to printers, which is kind of the point. It's why the DMCA plainly does not apply as they claimed it did.
There is nothing more infuriating that being sucked out at the River by a clown that had no business remaining in the hand.
;-) But you won't get any better by playing worse players. It's like skiing: if you're not falling down, you're not learning. If you're consistently the best player at the table, you won't get any better.
.25-.50 game I bring $15. At a 3-6 game I bring $180. I won't move up to a higher limit until I've built that bankroll at the lower table. If you're playing 2-4 and want to move to 3-6, wait until you've won $180 playing 2-4. If you lose it, move back down and work your way up again. It's okay to lose providing you learn from it.
For every hand the clown beats you, you beat him many times over. You want him drawing to hands without odds. It's only a problem when you have a "conspiracy of callers": a number of people sucking out to where the odds of your top-pair or two-pair winning drop dramatically. My preferred method of dealing with this is to move to another table. But if that isn't an option, play looser before the flop and much tighter after. Realize that top pair is not likely to be the best hand. In a word: adjust.
It's tempting to play the higher limit tables, thinking that the players there will be more seasoned, that they'll have a better understanding of the game, and that they'll be less likely to stay involved in hands that they shouldn't be in.
The other side to that is the more experienced players won't be in the pots they don't have a chance to win, so the pot sizes go down (relative to the limits). More experienced players are harder to beat. But worse hands are more likely to win. Higher limits does not automatically mean better players, though. You'll still get a fair share of suckout dogs that just have more money.
The remaining issue is: What if I suck, and I only win because I suck less than the rest of the amateurs at the $2-4 tables?
You do
I guess the only thing to do is pony up, and get an answer to the question.
My general rule is to have 30 big bets as a bank roll. At a
The President cannot directly write any law. But he can direct Congress in any way he sees fit. No, they don't have to listen to them, but he can be very influential. His power in this area comes from making recommendations on what Congress should be spending its time on. You can be sure that if the President wants to fix the DMCA, it will get a lot of attention from Congress.
But every single top-level player I've ever heard asked has said that the mathematics of it are relatively simple comparing to knowing (and 'playing') the players.
Top-level players are playing a different game. There is a world of difference between no-limit professionals and low-limit amateurs. Being able to tell whether your opponent thinks he has a good hand is useless if he doesn't know himself. The people I play against think nothing of reraising with bottom two pair when three of their cards are on the board. I've sat next to people with a pocket pair of 4's raising to the showdown and can't understand how the guy with a matched six beat him. The ability to read people can only help you if the people you are reading know how to play.
Of course Doyle Brunsen and Sam Farha claim that reading the other people is more important than the odds: they are playing against people who know the game very well. They will both tell you, however, that they play better against better players. When you play against inexperienced players, the odds are much more important.
Intelligence (or geek skills) isn't the sole requirement. Knowledge will get you so far, but your ability to play the game (primarily the social aspect as you said). At the professional level, so much comes down to reading the other man, and controlling your reactions to how the cards and bets are played out. You can know odds and betting patterns, but hiding that grin when you make a good hand is worth so much more...
At the professional level of no-limit, yes, I fully agree. But at the low-limit amateur level, where most people by far are playing, the cards and the odds matter a whole lot more than reading the other players. Keep in mind that the player himself has to know whether or not the hand is any good before you can tell whether or not his hand is any good by reading him.
At the limits I play ($.25-$.50), very few hands get decided without a showdown. At some point, you are going to have to have the cards and the limit structure of the game makes it damned near impossible to raise someone out of a hand. The only way to win in the long run is play the odds.
In the study, which was conducted at Insurance Office of America's headquarters in Orlando, Fla.,
News flash: People in Florida like it warm. They are acclimated to warmer temperatures. This is a city whose average high is 73 in December and it rarely gets below 45. Take the same study to Burlington, Vermont for instance, and they'll find out that people work better at 68 rather than 77.
As an analogy of unprofitable collusion, I could win the World Series of Poker by hiring enough shills and paying their time and entry fees. I would lose money by doing this, probably more than I could recoup with post-tournament income via endorsements/books/whatever.
A better analogy would be one where you and a number of friends entered the WSOP and your friends all lost to you (whenever they were at the same table as you). Whatever you won from the tournament you would split with your friends. A bigger bank roll in no-limit poker gives you a significant advantage over other players. By sacrificing themselves, they give you the opportunity to win more than they are likely to win by acting alone which is what, in essence, the S/M programs were doing and in fact has a better chance of doing since they are guaranteed to play against each other.
One of the interesting things in game theory is how it can be used to analyze how a player's best interests can be served by playing to lose.
I'm not sure, but I don't think they moved the pedals. I worked at an Audi dealership when the whole thing happened. The first thing they did was change the model number, and add a shift lock that prevented the driver from shifting into drive unless the brake was depressed. The problem went away.
Perhaps you're claiming that the wear is not commensurate with the amount of braking you think he should have attempted, but given that a single touch on the brakes is supposed to stop a cruise control system until you hit resume (assuming a cruise control with resume, which is not necessarily a safe assumption) it's not entirely unlikely that having attempted to use the brakes the driver would have given up.
Even if the brakes didn't disengage the cruise control, they still should have slowed down the car. I don't know about you, but if I was behind the wheel of a car going 120mph all by itself I'd be standing on the freaking brake pedal until the pads disintegrated.