Any keyboard that doesn't have the control key in the correct place -- just left of the 'a' key -- couldn't be considered the "one true keyboard".
Just left of the 'a' key? That's where the escape key goes. ctrl goes in the lower-left where you can hit it with the edge of your palm without moving your hands off the home row.
As for baiting and defense, I'm sorry, but very few defenders can block an effective snake shot even 1/3 of the time.
I've played several pro-masters including Terry Moore (first person to win a national event shooting the snake and the #2 ranked player in the world) and Billy Pappas (who not only shoots cutbacks but can walk the ball around the goal face like a euro).
Probably 2 of the more effective snakes in the world (Terry's is one of the top 5 for sure), but neither of them scored better than 50% on me. Pappas shot around 30%, me and a rookie forward took him and another pro-master, Mike Yore (reigning Open Singles champion in the US) to game 5 in a best-of-5 at NC States despite being completely dominated on the 5-bar.
When they're real hot and reading the defense well they'll score around 60-70% but that's not the norm--the trick is to make it a mental game and let your defense dictate to them which holes to shoot, but keep it random enough that they can't read it well.
I'm not saying it's easy--I think I block the snake just about as well as anyone in this area (we have no local pro-masters), though I'm far from the best goalie around given holes in other parts of my game--but if you dedicate yourself to trying to learn how to block it then you can shift the odds pretty substantially.
You're still not going to brick someone consistently but if you look at the teams that win the major tournaments they always have bad-ass goalies--that's why Todd Loffredo switched to goal after all. Moving the opponent from a 65% shooting percentage down to 45% can give your team the possessions it needs to turn a loss into a win.
That said, I still got beat because... The best defense against a good snake shot, is a better five bar....Terry Moore has one of the best 5-bars in the world (offensive _and_ defensive) and Billy Pappas's was more than adequate to tool on us.
if the table were built with sensors in each of the guys (to indicate state/current position/speed of current rotation) and a sensor in the ball (or positional sensors around the edges that could read the location of the ball), I believe that the software would win now, without any improvements.
Judging from the video, no way. It'd need _much_ better reaction time (faster motion of the rods) and some concept of how to block brush and chip passes (and shots). I also doubt the current software would even try to block an aerial even with GPS in it.
The players in the videos are using the same stupid "whack the ball" strategy as the computer and they're managing to score on it sometimes--put it up against a real player and there's no way it'd compete right now.
That said, give it perfect knowledge of the ball's location and fast enough reaction and motion times and it'll block anything. But they'd have to be a hell of a lot faster than they are now to have any hope of blocking even a rookie-level tournament player's shot (let alone pass).
The standard defense for the snake is to simply keep the defenders in constant motion and hope the shot deflects back into your 5-bar.
You must lose a lot if you use that defense against humans. It's probably the best bet against a machine that doesn't try to read the defense (shoots random holes) but a good goalie is going to use a lot of baits and stints against a human opponent.
Watch Louis Cartwright (2001 Worlds finals tape is a good one to get) or Bobby Diaz sometime--their shuffle is decidely not random, it's designed to force the opposing forward into a particular hole.
Frederico even races effectively against a lot of shooters.
The subbuteo link they give is a completely different game from table soccer or foosball.
But Frederico Collignon, who they did mention in the article, is the world champion on _many_ different kinds of tables--including the Tornado tables most prevalent in the United States, the slow-ball/pin Jupiter and Bonzini tables used in his native Belgium and France, and the fast-ball Garlando tables popular in Italy and Austria.
He made in the neighborhood of $50,000 last year in winnings at major tournaments--but like a lot of pool players his major money most likely comes from playing money games outside of tournaments. And he probably made at least $25,000 at smaller regional tournaments.
a machine that can do the three variations of the snake lightning fast and with near perfect accuracy and NO poker cues is going to score almost 2/3 of the time he gets the ball
Make that 1/3 of the time (if he's shooting a random option each time, just park on 2 of the options; if not, just move randomly on the 3 holes). 5 options off the snake (short and long push and pull, plus straight) would get it to 60% which is about what a good human shooter shoots in tournament play.
As it stands now it's pretty inept, I could slaughter it and I'm a rookie on tour.
Come on? How do you explain the fact that the following code (changed only slightly to hide the theft) appears in both SCO's code and the Linux kernel: void append_node(node *head, node *new_node) {
node *curr=head;
They can only breed with other coy-dogs or with domesticated dogs, not with coyotes or wolves. Does this reference provide actual proof to the contrary?
Well, it's a weird situation. The coyote population was expanding, which left an outwardly growing fringe with a lot of lone yotes who mated with dogs. There was never a 2nd+ generation coydog population but more of a constant first-generation population on the fringe of the expansion (and it left behinde a feral dog population with some coyote blood in it).
As far as I know this is incorrect. It's been believed, but when cases are investigated they turn out to be wolf-coyote not dog-coyote mixes.
As I said, it was not exactly common but not unheard of in the period of massive coyote range expansion from 150-1980.
See for instance: Freeman, R. C. 1976. Coyote X dog hybridization and red wolf influence in the wild Canis of Oklahoma. M. S. Thesis. University of Oklahoma.
WR 165:57
jackal hybrids (with domestic dogs and wolves) are also well-documented. And some jackal-dog hybrids are bred as airport security dogs (drug/bomb-sniffers) in Russia.
And as far as I know foxes cannot interbreed with dogs (or wolves, jackals, or coyotes). They have a different number of chromosomes (not that that stops donkeys and horses from breeding, but fox/dog isn't documented as far as I've seen).
A few coyote-dog crosses have been produced by human action, just as some wolf-dog crosses have been. And I think it's probably uncontroversial to say that it may, very rarely, happen in the wild, but to the best of my knowledge it's rare enough it's never been solidly documented.
With respect to coyote-dog crosses it's very rare in the wild but there are some populations with dog blood. New specimens are now pretty rare but from about 1950-1980 when coyotes were expanding into the eastern US they were much more common (absence of like mates breeds frustration I guess). Still not _common_, but certainly documented--but the eastern coyote is _not_ a dog hybrid as was once thought (it does contain some grey wolf ancestry).
With respect to wolf-dog crosses I don't know of any wild populations but there are sporadic individuals found--at least one well-known study concluded that a remarkably high percentage of wolf attacks on humans come from wolf-dog hybrids.
With respect to coyote-wolf crosses, interbreeding is pretty common.
my best guess would be that your 'coyotes' in this case are just wild dogs, or possibly even coy-dogs, coyote-dog hybrids themselves
There's a terminology confusion here also: more often than not, "coydog" means the abnormally large eastern coyote hybrid which was earlier thought to be a coyote-dog cross but is in fact a coyote-wolf cross.
Coyotes in Maine and eastern Canada almost all have wolf blood in them, and the wolves around Lake Superior all have coyote blood. And ALL known red wolves have coyote blood (if you find one without, call a conservationist!).
Remember, asses and horse *can* mate - but it's problematic and extremely unlikely without human intervention.
That's not true. There are so many wild mules (from wild mustang and burro congress) that they're included in U.S. federal population control measures. If you can show that you know how to care for it (and how to gentle it), you can adopt a wild mule from the Bureau of Land Management for $160 (mustangs are in the $180 range, burros are less). You can sometimes get them for less if you're willing to take an older jack-mule (the toughest to deal with and try to tame).
Google for "BLM adopt mule", "feral mules" or "wild mules" and you'll get plenty of hits.
It is more technically defined as "if two animals can interbreed and produce viable (ie fertile) offspring, they are the same species".
That would be great except that interfertility is not transitive. There are cases (in birds and mice) where population A and population B can interbreed (and produce fertile offspring) and population B and population C can do likewise, but population A and population C cannot.
The "can and do interbreed" definition isn't precise. Are wolves and coyotes seperate species under this definition? They normally don't, but they sometimes do (or did, witness the red wolf). Horses and donkeys generally don't, but sometimes do without being forced (if they're in proximity). Pumas and leopards won't normally but there have been a couple documented cases of nonpanthera pumas and leopards interbreeding in the wild.
Also, asses and horses have an additional barrier that wolves and dogs do not: asses and horses do not produce sexually viable offspring....usually. But see e.g. Krause, Old Beck, or several others (who were fertile female mules/hennies and would birth fertile genetic horses if bred by stallions and fertile genetic donkeys if bred by jacks) or the highly unusual case of a henny nicknamed Dragon Mule who gave birth to a weird mule/donkey/horse hybrid-like offspring.
(henny==mom's a horse and dad's a donkey, mule==the opposite)
There are maybe 50-100 documented cases of fertile female mules. But since the males can't breed them it's not a new species.
There are also cases of e.g. a shetland pony and a zebra breeding and other oddities.
If two animals can and do interbreed, then they are the same species.
So techies and hot chicks are different species?:-) Seriously, I'd be surprised if a chihuahua and a St Bernard bred without human intervention.
Of course, this is a ludicrous argument, because poodles/huskies/great danes etc. were all recent man-made breeding experiments, derived from wolves under 5000 years ago
I thought the most recent studies had dogs breaking off from wolves maybe 135,000 years ago and then mixed with newer wolf stock that broke off around 15,000 years ago.
Yep, and dogs can breed with jackals and coyotes too.
Fun with speciation, there are even a handful of fertile female mules out there--all but one of them seem to produce a 100% genetic horse when bred with a horse and a 100% genetic donkey when bred with a donkey, but there's one in China that produced a donkey/mule/horse weird offspring.
Generally the inside of a computer case is not a hospitable place for analog signals. There is a lot of electromagnetic interference coming from all of the other cards and devices. Even if the A/D converter in a stereo is no better than the one on a sound card the result may be superior since there is less interference.
This is true. Most interference inside of most cases comes from the video card, though, so if you're doing a headless setup you can sometimes get away with an in-case DAC (especially if you're streaming from the network and are diskless as well).
MSB makes excellent outboard DACs.
Sumner
Re:I don't know the answer, but don't use "and"!
on
Eleventy What?
·
· Score: 1
Right, now check out Columbia.
The point is that using "and" to represent the decimal point is a Bad Idea since it's a jargon limited to a small set of American mathematics professionals. Even Chicago allows it to mean something other than the decimal, and Columbia and other manuals allow that in formal writing--so clearly it's an ambiguous usage. I'd stick with:
162: one hundred sixty-two 100.62: one hundred point six two
Both are unambiguous and will communicate the idea clearly to listeners of all backgrounds--which is, after all, the point of language.
Sumner
Re:I don't know the answer, but don't use "and"!
on
Eleventy What?
·
· Score: 1
I was taught that "and" represents the decimal while studying for my math degree. It's not the "World Goverment," but I'll trust a bunch doctors of mathematics in this case.
That's like trusting a bunch of doctors of literature's opinions on a question about infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces.
You can pick up any American english style guide (e.g. the Columbia University style guide, the Associated Press guide) and see that "one hundred and one" is acceptable usage meaning "101" in formal written American English.
Using "and" to indicate the decimal point is jargon used by some American mathematics instructors but is not correct in formal written American english. I'd stay away from it entirely even in mathematics because the alternate British form is completely unambiguous--say "one hundred point one" to indicate "100.1". Non-mathematicians and both British and American mathematicians will understand it.
Actually the number "500.62" is transliterated as "five hundred and sixty two"... the number "562" is transliterated as "five hundred sixty two"
Not in formal written American English (according to any of the major style guides--e.g. Associated Press, Columbia, etc) nor in British English at all.
That usage is a jargon used by some American mathematicians but shouldn't be used if you're addressing a general audience (and is incorrect in formal standard American English, where "five hundred and sixty-two" means 562). The usage "five hundred point six two" is unambiguous for "500.62".
Sumner
Re:I don't know the answer, but don't use "and"!
on
Eleventy What?
·
· Score: 1
159 is formally "one hundred fifty nine," not "one hundred and fifty nine."
"And" is for decimal places, as in 159.7 = one hundred fifty nine and seven tenths.
You can easily pick up any of the formal writing guides (e.g The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, or the Associated Press style guide) and see that "and" is correct usage when pronouncing 159 as "one hundred and fify-nine". Any native American English speaker will agree.
The same is true in Britain for native speakers.
Some American math professors teach a jargon where "and" represents the decimal point, but that is _not_ acceptable formal English and should only be used in contexts where that jargon is likely to be understood by all listeners (e.g. mathematical journals). Even better, avoid it completely and use an unambiguous pronunciation such as "one hundred point five nine", which is what British math professors teach.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. Interesting. escape next to caps lock makes vi even better, if that can be believed.
Sumner
Any keyboard that doesn't have the control key in the correct place -- just left of the 'a' key -- couldn't be considered the "one true keyboard".
;-)
Just left of the 'a' key? That's where the escape key goes. ctrl goes in the lower-left where you can hit it with the edge of your palm without moving your hands off the home row.
I bet you use emacs, too.
Sumner
As for baiting and defense, I'm sorry, but very few defenders can block an effective snake shot even 1/3 of the time.
...Terry Moore has one of the best 5-bars in the world (offensive _and_ defensive) and Billy Pappas's was more than adequate to tool on us.
I've played several pro-masters including Terry Moore (first person to win a national event shooting the snake and the #2 ranked player in the world) and Billy Pappas (who not only shoots cutbacks but can walk the ball around the goal face like a euro).
Probably 2 of the more effective snakes in the world (Terry's is one of the top 5 for sure), but neither of them scored better than 50% on me. Pappas shot around 30%, me and a rookie forward took him and another pro-master, Mike Yore (reigning Open Singles champion in the US) to game 5 in a best-of-5 at NC States despite being completely dominated on the 5-bar.
When they're real hot and reading the defense well they'll score around 60-70% but that's not the norm--the trick is to make it a mental game and let your defense dictate to them which holes to shoot, but keep it random enough that they can't read it well.
I'm not saying it's easy--I think I block the snake just about as well as anyone in this area (we have no local pro-masters), though I'm far from the best goalie around given holes in other parts of my game--but if you dedicate yourself to trying to learn how to block it then you can shift the odds pretty substantially.
You're still not going to brick someone consistently but if you look at the teams that win the major tournaments they always have bad-ass goalies--that's why Todd Loffredo switched to goal after all. Moving the opponent from a 65% shooting percentage down to 45% can give your team the possessions it needs to turn a loss into a win.
That said, I still got beat because...
The best defense against a good snake shot, is a better five bar.
Sumner
if the table were built with sensors in each of the guys (to indicate state/current position/speed of current rotation) and a sensor in the ball (or positional sensors around the edges that could read the location of the ball), I believe that the software would win now, without any improvements.
Judging from the video, no way. It'd need _much_ better reaction time (faster motion of the rods) and some concept of how to block brush and chip passes (and shots). I also doubt the current software would even try to block an aerial even with GPS in it.
The players in the videos are using the same stupid "whack the ball" strategy as the computer and they're managing to score on it sometimes--put it up against a real player and there's no way it'd compete right now.
That said, give it perfect knowledge of the ball's location and fast enough reaction and motion times and it'll block anything. But they'd have to be a hell of a lot faster than they are now to have any hope of blocking even a rookie-level tournament player's shot (let alone pass).
Sumner
The standard defense for the snake is to simply keep the defenders in constant motion and hope the shot deflects back into your 5-bar.
You must lose a lot if you use that defense against humans. It's probably the best bet against a machine that doesn't try to read the defense (shoots random holes) but a good goalie is going to use a lot of baits and stints against a human opponent.
Watch Louis Cartwright (2001 Worlds finals tape is a good one to get) or Bobby Diaz sometime--their shuffle is decidely not random, it's designed to force the opposing forward into a particular hole.
Frederico even races effectively against a lot of shooters.
Sumner
The subbuteo link they give is a completely different game from table soccer or foosball.
But Frederico Collignon, who they did mention in the article, is the world champion on _many_ different kinds of tables--including the Tornado tables most prevalent in the United States, the slow-ball/pin Jupiter and Bonzini tables used in his native Belgium and France, and the fast-ball Garlando tables popular in Italy and Austria.
He made in the neighborhood of $50,000 last year in winnings at major tournaments--but like a lot of pool players his major money most likely comes from playing money games outside of tournaments. And he probably made at least $25,000 at smaller regional tournaments.
Sumner
a machine that can do the three variations of the snake lightning fast and with near perfect accuracy and NO poker cues is going to score almost 2/3 of the time he gets the ball
Make that 1/3 of the time (if he's shooting a random option each time, just park on 2 of the options; if not, just move randomly on the 3 holes). 5 options off the snake (short and long push and pull, plus straight) would get it to 60% which is about what a good human shooter shoots in tournament play.
As it stands now it's pretty inept, I could slaughter it and I'm a rookie on tour.
Sumner
Come on? How do you explain the fact that the following code (changed only slightly to hide the theft) appears in both SCO's code and the Linux kernel:
;-)
void append_node(node *head, node *new_node)
{
node *curr=head;
if(node==NULL) {
head=new_node;
head->next=NULL;
return;
}
while(curr->next) curr=curr->next;
curr->next=new_node;
new_node->next=NULL;
return;
}
They can only breed with other coy-dogs or with domesticated dogs, not with coyotes or wolves. Does this reference provide actual proof to the contrary?
Well, it's a weird situation. The coyote population was expanding, which left an outwardly growing fringe with a lot of lone yotes who mated with dogs. There was never a 2nd+ generation coydog population but more of a constant first-generation population on the fringe of the expansion (and it left behinde a feral dog population with some coyote blood in it).
So
Sumner
As far as I know this is incorrect. It's been believed, but when cases are investigated they turn out to be wolf-coyote not dog-coyote mixes.
As I said, it was not exactly common but not unheard of in the period of massive coyote range expansion from 150-1980.
See for instance:
Freeman, R. C. 1976. Coyote X dog hybridization and red wolf influence in the wild Canis of Oklahoma. M. S. Thesis. University of Oklahoma.
WR 165:57
Sumner
Oh, yeah, just for completeness:
jackal hybrids (with domestic dogs and wolves) are also well-documented. And some jackal-dog hybrids are bred as airport security dogs (drug/bomb-sniffers) in Russia.
And as far as I know foxes cannot interbreed with dogs (or wolves, jackals, or coyotes). They have a different number of chromosomes (not that that stops donkeys and horses from breeding, but fox/dog isn't documented as far as I've seen).
Sumner
A few coyote-dog crosses have been produced by human action, just as some wolf-dog crosses have been. And I think it's probably uncontroversial to say that it may, very rarely, happen in the wild, but to the best of my knowledge it's rare enough it's never been solidly documented.
With respect to coyote-dog crosses it's very rare in the wild but there are some populations with dog blood. New specimens are now pretty rare but from about 1950-1980 when coyotes were expanding into the eastern US they were much more common (absence of like mates breeds frustration I guess). Still not _common_, but certainly documented--but the eastern coyote is _not_ a dog hybrid as was once thought (it does contain some grey wolf ancestry).
With respect to wolf-dog crosses I don't know of any wild populations but there are sporadic individuals found--at least one well-known study concluded that a remarkably high percentage of wolf attacks on humans come from wolf-dog hybrids.
With respect to coyote-wolf crosses, interbreeding is pretty common.
my best guess would be that your 'coyotes' in this case are just wild dogs, or possibly even coy-dogs, coyote-dog hybrids themselves
There's a terminology confusion here also: more often than not, "coydog" means the abnormally large eastern coyote hybrid which was earlier thought to be a coyote-dog cross but is in fact a coyote-wolf cross.
Coyotes in Maine and eastern Canada almost all have wolf blood in them, and the wolves around Lake Superior all have coyote blood. And ALL known red wolves have coyote blood (if you find one without, call a conservationist!).
Sumner
Remember, asses and horse *can* mate - but it's problematic and extremely unlikely without human intervention.
That's not true. There are so many wild mules (from wild mustang and burro congress) that they're included in U.S. federal population control measures. If you can show that you know how to care for it (and how to gentle it), you can adopt a wild mule from the Bureau of Land Management for $160 (mustangs are in the $180 range, burros are less). You can sometimes get them for less if you're willing to take an older jack-mule (the toughest to deal with and try to tame).
Google for "BLM adopt mule", "feral mules" or "wild mules" and you'll get plenty of hits.
Sumner
It is more technically defined as "if two animals can interbreed and produce viable (ie fertile) offspring, they are the same species".
That would be great except that interfertility is not transitive. There are cases (in birds and mice) where population A and population B can interbreed (and produce fertile offspring) and population B and population C can do likewise, but population A and population C cannot.
The "can and do interbreed" definition isn't precise. Are wolves and coyotes seperate species under this definition? They normally don't, but they sometimes do (or did, witness the red wolf). Horses and donkeys generally don't, but sometimes do without being forced (if they're in proximity). Pumas and leopards won't normally but there have been a couple documented cases of nonpanthera pumas and leopards interbreeding in the wild.
Sumner
Also, asses and horses have an additional barrier that wolves and dogs do not: asses and horses do not produce sexually viable offspring. ...usually. But see e.g. Krause, Old Beck, or several others (who were fertile female mules/hennies and would birth fertile genetic horses if bred by stallions and fertile genetic donkeys if bred by jacks) or the highly unusual case of a henny nicknamed Dragon Mule who gave birth to a weird mule/donkey/horse hybrid-like offspring.
(henny==mom's a horse and dad's a donkey, mule==the opposite)
There are maybe 50-100 documented cases of fertile female mules. But since the males can't breed them it's not a new species.
There are also cases of e.g. a shetland pony and a zebra breeding and other oddities.
Sumner
If two animals can and do interbreed, then they are the same species.
:-) Seriously, I'd be surprised if a chihuahua and a St Bernard bred without human intervention.
So techies and hot chicks are different species?
Of course, this is a ludicrous argument, because poodles/huskies/great danes etc. were all recent man-made breeding experiments, derived from wolves under 5000 years ago
I thought the most recent studies had dogs breaking off from wolves maybe 135,000 years ago and then mixed with newer wolf stock that broke off around 15,000 years ago.
see e.g. http://www.ualberta.ca/~jzgurski/dog.htm
Sumner
Yep, and dogs can breed with jackals and coyotes too.
Fun with speciation, there are even a handful of fertile female mules out there--all but one of them seem to produce a 100% genetic horse when bred with a horse and a 100% genetic donkey when bred with a donkey, but there's one in China that produced a donkey/mule/horse weird offspring.
Sumner
But they should be the same species. A timber wolf is no less like a husky than a toy poodle is, and they can interbreed, etc.
Chimps and humans are def. not the same species.
Sumner
"anthropic principle"--different word from "anthropomorphic".
Sumner
Sadly, most chimps can't take advantage of the dividend tax cut. Only a handful of the richest chimps will benefit.
Generally the inside of a computer case is not a hospitable place for analog signals. There is a lot of electromagnetic interference coming from all of the other cards and devices. Even if the A/D converter in a stereo is no better than the one on a sound card the result may be superior since there is less interference.
This is true. Most interference inside of most cases comes from the video card, though, so if you're doing a headless setup you can sometimes get away with an in-case DAC (especially if you're streaming from the network and are diskless as well).
MSB makes excellent outboard DACs.
Sumner
Right, now check out Columbia.
The point is that using "and" to represent the decimal point is a Bad Idea since it's a jargon limited to a small set of American mathematics professionals. Even Chicago allows it to mean something other than the decimal, and Columbia and other manuals allow that in formal writing--so clearly it's an ambiguous usage. I'd stick with:
162: one hundred sixty-two
100.62: one hundred point six two
Both are unambiguous and will communicate the idea clearly to listeners of all backgrounds--which is, after all, the point of language.
Sumner
I was taught that "and" represents the decimal while studying for my math degree. It's not the "World Goverment," but I'll trust a bunch doctors of mathematics in this case.
That's like trusting a bunch of doctors of literature's opinions on a question about infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces.
You can pick up any American english style guide (e.g. the Columbia University style guide, the Associated Press guide) and see that "one hundred and one" is acceptable usage meaning "101" in formal written American English.
Using "and" to indicate the decimal point is jargon used by some American mathematics instructors but is not correct in formal written American english. I'd stay away from it entirely even in mathematics because the alternate British form is completely unambiguous--say "one hundred point one" to indicate "100.1". Non-mathematicians and both British and American mathematicians will understand it.
Sumner
Actually the number "500.62" is transliterated as "five hundred and sixty two"... the number "562" is transliterated as "five hundred sixty two"
Not in formal written American English (according to any of the major style guides--e.g. Associated Press, Columbia, etc) nor in British English at all.
That usage is a jargon used by some American mathematicians but shouldn't be used if you're addressing a general audience (and is incorrect in formal standard American English, where "five hundred and sixty-two" means 562). The usage "five hundred point six two" is unambiguous for "500.62".
Sumner
159 is formally "one hundred fifty nine," not "one hundred and fifty nine."
"And" is for decimal places, as in 159.7 = one hundred fifty nine and seven tenths.
You can easily pick up any of the formal writing guides (e.g The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, or the Associated Press style guide) and see that "and" is correct usage when pronouncing 159 as "one hundred and fify-nine". Any native American English speaker will agree.
The same is true in Britain for native speakers.
Some American math professors teach a jargon where "and" represents the decimal point, but that is _not_ acceptable formal English and should only be used in contexts where that jargon is likely to be understood by all listeners (e.g. mathematical journals). Even better, avoid it completely and use an unambiguous pronunciation such as "one hundred point five nine", which is what British math professors teach.
Sumner