If you are too close they look grainy. My friend had one. It is really cool, but you have to sit so far away for it not to look pixelated.
Plus can you get an HDTV projector?
Also, then you have to deal with hanging it or mounting it soemwhere. It looks tacky. People movign around in front of it block the image for everyone.
I was speaking on a general case. Naturally current circumstances changes the overall odds of the hand, which a bot would take into consideration.
Even if that wasn't the case, at the end of the day if you win more than you lose, you are ahead of the game. Playing tight (not taking chances, playing based on the odds) will ensure that happens. Why? Because the bot is playing against humans. These humans will take time to learn how the bot plays, and will let emotion get in the way of how they should play. Plus we're talking about a poker room, so the human players are constantly changing.
I also disagree with you assessment of poker programs. If an uber-smart bot can be written to play and win at chess (which is FAR more complex than poker), then this is child's play.
That is not entirely true. It depends on what is showing in the community cards. If the board paired up, even if your flush comes out, there is a chance that you lose to the full house or a four of a kind. So if you bet 20 times, you might now win those 2 times.
But that is besides the point, because you in fact proved what I was saying. By the odds, if I have a 1 in 10 chance to win 200 dollars chasing a hand, then it is advantageous for me to stay in. This is one of the things a bot can take into consideration:
The odds that you hand will win, given the current situation.
The odds of what possible hands will come out if the bot stays in
The odds of if the payout is worth chasing vs cutting its losses
etc...
What you described has no human emotion, but is going strictly by the odds.
I'd have to disagree with you here. If you play card strictly by the odds, you have a really good chance of making money or at the very least break even. It is the human aspect that allows you to make A LOT of money, or lose A LOT of money.
The greater the risk, the greater the pay off. Playing by the odds, it is not a good idea to chase flushes or straights in Hold'em because most of the time it won't pan out for you. However, given some circumstances a human player might take the chance and get burned, or win big. Is the bot a worse poker player or better for not taking the chance?
Poker bots are problematic for other players, not he casino. You don't play against the house when you play poker, you play against other players. The house then take a 'rake' of the pot, that is a % of the pot.
So, yes bots are problematic in poker because if I play, I want to play against another human, not some computer simulation that can calculate the odds down to the decimal. Granted some humans exist like that, but not many.
Linux has very few, but don't act like it is the holy grail. If people wanted to write viruses for it, they would, but why? I love Linux, but let's not paint an unrealistic picture here.
Yea, thanks captain obvious. Since you never learned how to think pro-activly and draw your own conclusions... I was refering to a computer / console game based on Rifts.
No. Americans just don't know history. We always pull out the 'duh, the French always surrender, duh' shit, and it pisses me off.
The French put up with a lot of shit in WWI and should be commended for it. WWII was a different story. Some good intelligence had them commit their military elsewhere, which would have worked if the German's didn't change their attack plan about 48 hrs before they invaded.
They didn't have to surrender, and probably had a good chance of holding off the Germans (I don't think they would have been victorious given the situation, but it woulda been a hell-of-a-fight). The main reason for surrender (at least from what I read) was to preserve the French culture. If they fought back, Paris would have been flattened along with many other important cities.
That happened to me once about a year ago. It was my display driver. It would crash at the craziest times. Basically, XP freaked out cuz the driver was bad, didn't know what to do and would reboot (sometiems bluescreen).
Rolling back the driver didn't seem to help. I had to totally get rid of the current driver (by swapping video cards, blah blah...) and then re-install it (well the stable version of it). Worked awesome after that.
You are right. In many cases the OS is only as good as the drivers and software that runs on it. I've had a problem with XP maybe once or twice in the past 6 - 9 months...and that was probably due to a bad driver or something.
Plus what is the polling criteria? 12% is awfully high. If this were 95 or 98 I'd be surprised the number was so low. But these numbers are worthless without what the are testing for.
Are the randomly asking users 'how often does your computer crash?' Well, how would a normal 'average-joe' user even know if his computer crashed due to software, driver, or OS mismanagement?
Why is everyone saying this? Why do people always throw Lucas and Speilberg into the same 'style'. They are nothing alike.
Nothing could be further from the truth! Are you saying Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List were bad? Or maybe you're thinking of Minority Report (who's budget wasn't that big). No? His earlier films like Always and Close Encounters? Maybe Jaws?
Aw man, you were so close to being funny, but I think you are confusing Spielberg (such films as Jaws, Always, Schinler's List, Close Encounters, Saving Private Ryan, etc...) with George Lucas.
Spielberg makes good movies without inflated budgets and casts Tom Hanks, not Ashton Kutcher as the lead actor.:)
If you has said Lucas, it would have been funny. Off-topic, but funny (and true).
Slashdot Mirror
If you are too close they look grainy. My friend had one. It is really cool, but you have to sit so far away for it not to look pixelated.
Plus can you get an HDTV projector?
Also, then you have to deal with hanging it or mounting it soemwhere. It looks tacky. People movign around in front of it block the image for everyone.
Just some thoughts.
I was speaking on a general case. Naturally current circumstances changes the overall odds of the hand, which a bot would take into consideration.
Even if that wasn't the case, at the end of the day if you win more than you lose, you are ahead of the game. Playing tight (not taking chances, playing based on the odds) will ensure that happens. Why? Because the bot is playing against humans. These humans will take time to learn how the bot plays, and will let emotion get in the way of how they should play. Plus we're talking about a poker room, so the human players are constantly changing.
I also disagree with you assessment of poker programs. If an uber-smart bot can be written to play and win at chess (which is FAR more complex than poker), then this is child's play.
But that is besides the point, because you in fact proved what I was saying. By the odds, if I have a 1 in 10 chance to win 200 dollars chasing a hand, then it is advantageous for me to stay in. This is one of the things a bot can take into consideration:
The odds that you hand will win, given the current situation.
The odds of what possible hands will come out if the bot stays in
The odds of if the payout is worth chasing vs cutting its losses
etc...
What you described has no human emotion, but is going strictly by the odds.
Bush: Kerry = socialist dictatiorship regime! Vote for me.
Kerry: Bush = facist dictatorship regime! Vote for me.
The sad thing is they are both right.
I'd have to disagree with you here. If you play card strictly by the odds, you have a really good chance of making money or at the very least break even. It is the human aspect that allows you to make A LOT of money, or lose A LOT of money.
The greater the risk, the greater the pay off. Playing by the odds, it is not a good idea to chase flushes or straights in Hold'em because most of the time it won't pan out for you. However, given some circumstances a human player might take the chance and get burned, or win big. Is the bot a worse poker player or better for not taking the chance?
How are bots morally neutral? If I suck at playing poker and write a bot to do it for me, I am essentially cheating.
Poker bots are problematic for other players, not he casino. You don't play against the house when you play poker, you play against other players. The house then take a 'rake' of the pot, that is a % of the pot.
So, yes bots are problematic in poker because if I play, I want to play against another human, not some computer simulation that can calculate the odds down to the decimal. Granted some humans exist like that, but not many.
There are a few Linux viruses out there...
a few worms, look at them wiggle.
There are a few Linux viruses out there...
a few worms
So, why don't you stop spreading FUD?
a few worms
Linux has very few, but don't act like it is the holy grail. If people wanted to write viruses for it, they would, but why? I love Linux, but let's not paint an unrealistic picture here.
My foot hurts. I'm sure you are glad I shared that, but it really, really hurts.
Yea, thanks captain obvious. Since you never learned how to think pro-activly and draw your own conclusions... I was refering to a computer / console game based on Rifts.
Why does the rifts game have to be for the NGage... I've been waiting for a game based on Rifts for years!!
Very true. I'm not saying they weren't fooled or anything, I was just commening on the stereotype which isn't very valid.
No. Americans just don't know history. We always pull out the 'duh, the French always surrender, duh' shit, and it pisses me off.
The French put up with a lot of shit in WWI and should be commended for it. WWII was a different story. Some good intelligence had them commit their military elsewhere, which would have worked if the German's didn't change their attack plan about 48 hrs before they invaded.
They didn't have to surrender, and probably had a good chance of holding off the Germans (I don't think they would have been victorious given the situation, but it woulda been a hell-of-a-fight). The main reason for surrender (at least from what I read) was to preserve the French culture. If they fought back, Paris would have been flattened along with many other important cities.
That happened to me once about a year ago. It was my display driver. It would crash at the craziest times. Basically, XP freaked out cuz the driver was bad, didn't know what to do and would reboot (sometiems bluescreen).
Rolling back the driver didn't seem to help. I had to totally get rid of the current driver (by swapping video cards, blah blah...) and then re-install it (well the stable version of it). Worked awesome after that.
You are right. In many cases the OS is only as good as the drivers and software that runs on it. I've had a problem with XP maybe once or twice in the past 6 - 9 months...and that was probably due to a bad driver or something.
Plus what is the polling criteria? 12% is awfully high. If this were 95 or 98 I'd be surprised the number was so low. But these numbers are worthless without what the are testing for.
Are the randomly asking users 'how often does your computer crash?' Well, how would a normal 'average-joe' user even know if his computer crashed due to software, driver, or OS mismanagement?
Bah. This is FUD.
No, those are all excellent too. You're more of a 'classics' kinda guy. :)
:)
Das Boot is excellent. As is Alien. Hell, everything you listed is good.
You're officially "OK" in my book.
Wow. Those are a huge cross-section of films.
... one of the best science fiction movies out there in my opinion.
Do you just not like the style of the film or the genres? The acting?
I mean, SPR is probalby the most accurate war movie ever made.
Schindler's List was your classic man vs. man struggle and also quite revered.
Minority Report (granted the worst of the ones I listed) was a typical by fun action movie.
Close Encounters
Jaws...again, the classic man vs. beast film. One of the best in that category.
What movies would you place above them (staying consistent with genre)?
Yousa mean yousa don't likie da George Lucas?
Good god. I'd gouge out my eyes if he did.
How about Brits using Brit accents when they are suppose to be Russian?
Also, when did he warp a story before? Your argument is much more effective when you give examples... Because he didn't do U571, as you implied...
Why is everyone saying this? Why do people always throw Lucas and Speilberg into the same 'style'. They are nothing alike.
Nothing could be further from the truth! Are you saying Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List were bad? Or maybe you're thinking of Minority Report (who's budget wasn't that big). No? His earlier films like Always and Close Encounters? Maybe Jaws?
I fail to see the connection.
Yea, but that is only true if Spielberg was a bad director, which he isn't, so you're wrong...
:)
Hacking is bad? This is slashdot, how could you say such a thing.
Aw man, you were so close to being funny, but I think you are confusing Spielberg (such films as Jaws, Always, Schinler's List, Close Encounters, Saving Private Ryan, etc...) with George Lucas.
:)
Spielberg makes good movies without inflated budgets and casts Tom Hanks, not Ashton Kutcher as the lead actor.
If you has said Lucas, it would have been funny. Off-topic, but funny (and true).
You can't. They are already sold out:
W00t!