The "stakes" are only as high as you make them. If someone has a foolproof method to cheat and make money, I can *guarantee* they are playing at higher limits than I play online.:) The cheating in this case was on tables where hundreds of thousands of dollars was being wagered.
Umm, poker rooms (whether live or online) have no "advantage" statistically. They aren't "loose" or "tight" like you'd think of in slots.
The house takes a fixed amount of every pot, called the "rake". Sure, some casinos take more than others, but it's not because the software is fixed one way or the other - it's because they've said upfront that they are going to take X% out of every pot.
That's a big reason a lot of us love poker - you aren't playing against the house. *Any* game you play against the house, you will be losing money in the long run - a casino isn't going to spread a game that it will statistically lose money on. (Card counters in blackjack being a rare exception, where they can eak out an overall 1% return on investment if they get away with it).
Poker you play against other players. Sure, there's luck and variance involved, but in the long-term if you are more skillful at the game than other players enough to beat the rake, you will make money, guaranteed. That's why there are professional poker players - they are good enough to make a consistent living at the game. No such thing as professional roulette or slots players - as much as some people might try!:)
Yup, it should be legal, licensed, and regulated. Exactly right.
And they should allow cardrooms in all states, just like California does. Basically, if you aren't playing against the house (playing only against other players), it should be a legal game to spread. That's generally how it works in California (overgeneralizing here, but you get my point). No slots, no blackjack, roulette, etc, but poker and other card games where you play other players only.
"Making reads on people" is only a small part of the game. Sure it's an important part to make certain borderline decisions, but there are far more important considerations - hand selection, betting strategies, pot odds, etc...
Yes, playing online takes away non-verbal tells. But it also gives you ammo in the form of hand histories, betting patterns, etc. You can gain far more information about an opponent if you know how he's played in the past than you ever could off a potentially deceptive tell.
Also, if you're wondering why some people play online, it's because there's far more diversity of games - typical live poker rooms these days are just $1/$2 NL HoldEm fests, with very few other tables. Plus many players enjoy the faster rate of the game, and some even multitable, having numerous tables open at once. You can play *far* more hands per hour online than in a live game.
With that said, I do enjoy live poker more, and I would play it more often - if only it was legal and regulated in my state. Too bad I have to drive three hours to find the closest poker room.
The weird thing is that it is spelled out in the "Read More" full listing... but not on the main page summary - even though it looks like a copy/paste. I guess you get what you pay for...
I have Verizon FIOS for Internet and phone right now, and the moment they offer TV, I can be done with Comcast for good... they got their TV franchise here a few months ago, should be a month or two, and then we'll be Comcast free, and everything will be running over the nice fiber pipe.
So glad there's finally some real competition for Comcast. I guess it takes one monopoly to take down another monopoly.
You know the right answer. The fact that you're even asking here means you already know deep down that the best thing to do is RedHat or SuSE.
With that said, use SuSE. The last thing we need is more RedHat customers. Competition is vital to keep Linux from turning into a RedHat-only proposition (in the enterprise). Support SuSE, at least keep it a duopoly between Novell and RedHat - they'll beat each other up and keep things fair.
Let's face it - none of us like forking over our hard-earned cash every month just to use the phone
Hahahaha. What an entitlement complex? You expect someone to hand you phone service for free? Along with your free cable, free rent, and free groceries?
I personally *like* handing over my hard-earned cash for phone service, along with everything else. I choose what I want, I pay for it - it's called capitalism.
First of all, given that this is in the *future*, who are any of us to say what they do and do not have, until it's established. Maybe they *do* have 6 shooter rail guns then. Silly I know, but until it's in the show one way or the other.
I also saw a post somewhere - maybe on the Usenet group - that someone said the revolver chamber wasn't actually revolving. Didn't see that myself, but if so..
Oh well, it's just a show, and I'm far over-analyzing...
Hehehe, didn't want to be overly familar...:) I'll be better from now on and call him Joss.
Does Vera make the "ping" noise? Perhaps Jayne is so attached to "her" because she's the real deal.
But you're right, it's all a reach, as I pretty much said. Of course, I'm waiting for the explanation on how anti-gravity works. Heck, if they can do that, why not zero-point energy extraction in a handgun.:)
My guess is that most of the guns are probably minature rail guns - using magnetic acceleration to propel the bullets.
Actually makes sense in a way. Assuming that we don't end up with phasers or some other energy-based weapon:
We'll inevitably continue the current bullet-kevlar battle... as they make better stronger kevlar, people will keep developing bullets to pierce it
Next assumption: At some point, the kevlar gets good enough that nothing you can do to the bullet lets you pierce it. Might break a few ribs, but no penetration.
So what's the next step? Add more energy to the bullet. Can't really increase the mass, so increase the speed... assuming no massive improvements in gunpowder efficiency are available, the next logical step is to dump gunpowder, and go with something next-gen, like magnetic acceleration.
Granted, this could all just be my pipe-dream, but it makes sense.
(And Whedon, if you see this, feel free to name the inventor of the magnetic guns after me in an aside from one of the characters... I'd prefer Kaylee. Thanks.)
In a way, we're already doing this (well, not the nuclear weapons).
Specifically, legitimate Internet users in China and other Asian nations are finding it harder and harder to send legitimate e-mails to Western-based ISPs which have blacklisted them. Boom, automatic international sanctions, from the ground up.
As a result, they are going to start increasing pressure on their governments to deal with the problem. And if there's one nice thing about an authoritarian government, it's that they are very good at dealing with "problems". We fine someone $2000, they use the gulag... hmmm.. spammers in the gulag. That I'd like to see.
In response to the people criticizing the information about the protocol used...
Now someone can't even mention general characteristics of a hack without being criticized for giving information to "script kiddies" or "trojan writers"?
We know that security through obscurity is a poor excuse. I'd rather have this stuff out in the open so I and others can deal with it, than have it known only to a few...
Yes, I had a cool history teacher who let me get away with things like that, but other teachers were not so great...
My econ teacher (referenced above) was also my government teacher. We had a Mock Congress. I chose to be a Republican after losing a week-long fight to be a Libertarian ("No, we're only doing the two real parties", she says).
So I'm the Senate Minority Leader, with 22 Republicans (this is Northern California). I manage to get my friend elected as the Senate President Pro-Temp, primarily by telling all the Democrats I knew that I would *hate* for her to get elected - so they voted for her.
She then turns around, and to be "fair", gives the Republicans HALF of the committee chairs. Not none, like in real life, or even 20% as a fair ratio, but 50%! As you can imagine, the committee chairs killed every single Democratic bill.
When we got to the floor, I used every trick in the book to kill bills. I made sure my two whips were the student body leader and the football team captain and suddenly Democrats were defecting left and right. I even pulled off a fillibuster.
End result: Two bills passed that Senate. And they were both Republican bills. That's with 22 out of 100 members... pretty darn successful.
And my grade? I got a D. Why? Because, in the words of the teacher, "I wasn't being cooperative and participating in a constructive manner.."
I was the MINORITY leader!! Since when am I supposed to be cooperative?!?!?!
Anyways, sorry for the long rant, but some of these teachers... some of them are great, but others just need to learn about the real world before trying to teach it to others.
Exactly. It seems like we'd have a lot more luck if people would just start figuring out the most humane way to "thin the herd" in advance, instead of pretending you can stop me from buying that nice huge plasma-screen HDTV I saw today. *Drool*
This reminds me of an econ assignment in high school that I "failed". We were given a set number of resource units, and told to distribute them throughout the town. Most people gave food to everyone, TVs to most everyone, and luxury cars to a few. I gave two or three luxury cars and TVs to a few people, and let something like a third of the town starve to death.
I defended my homework as a more realistic portrait of the world than any of my neo-socialist classmates, but I still failed since my solution wasn't "nice". So sad...
From the article: The report offers a vivid warning that either people curb their extravagant lifestyles or risk leaving the onus on scientists to locate another planet that can sustain human life. Since this is unlikely to happen, the only option is to cut consumption now.
Okay, does this strike anyone as leaving out the most likely option? It's highly unlikely we'll massively change our ways. It's also highly unlikely that we'll colonize other planets in the next 50 years.
What's that leave? Simple! Massive resource wars! Woohoo!
It just amazes me that the whole article ignores the inevitable outcome... we'll all fight over dwindling resources, thus thinning the population down to sustainable levels.
Okay, call me naive, but there might actually be uses for this phone that aren't sick and/or twisted.
I mean, how often have I wanted to describe something to someone else, but just can't seem to get the right words? Assuming this is integrated well enough, just snap a picture and send it along... it's often not worth it to dig out the digital camera, snap a shot, hook it up to the PC, grab the pic, scale it, e-mail it, wait for the other person to get it, etc, etc...
The key of course, would be wide-spread acceptance of this technology, combined with some sort of open standard so that you can avoid a "Let me send this picture... oh you have a Nokia? I have a Sprint... darn..." problem.
Slashdot Mirror
The "stakes" are only as high as you make them. If someone has a foolproof method to cheat and make money, I can *guarantee* they are playing at higher limits than I play online. :) The cheating in this case was on tables where hundreds of thousands of dollars was being wagered.
Umm, poker rooms (whether live or online) have no "advantage" statistically. They aren't "loose" or "tight" like you'd think of in slots.
:)
The house takes a fixed amount of every pot, called the "rake". Sure, some casinos take more than others, but it's not because the software is fixed one way or the other - it's because they've said upfront that they are going to take X% out of every pot.
That's a big reason a lot of us love poker - you aren't playing against the house. *Any* game you play against the house, you will be losing money in the long run - a casino isn't going to spread a game that it will statistically lose money on. (Card counters in blackjack being a rare exception, where they can eak out an overall 1% return on investment if they get away with it).
Poker you play against other players. Sure, there's luck and variance involved, but in the long-term if you are more skillful at the game than other players enough to beat the rake, you will make money, guaranteed. That's why there are professional poker players - they are good enough to make a consistent living at the game. No such thing as professional roulette or slots players - as much as some people might try!
Yup, it should be legal, licensed, and regulated. Exactly right.
And they should allow cardrooms in all states, just like California does. Basically, if you aren't playing against the house (playing only against other players), it should be a legal game to spread. That's generally how it works in California (overgeneralizing here, but you get my point). No slots, no blackjack, roulette, etc, but poker and other card games where you play other players only.
"Making reads on people" is only a small part of the game. Sure it's an important part to make certain borderline decisions, but there are far more important considerations - hand selection, betting strategies, pot odds, etc...
Yes, playing online takes away non-verbal tells. But it also gives you ammo in the form of hand histories, betting patterns, etc. You can gain far more information about an opponent if you know how he's played in the past than you ever could off a potentially deceptive tell.
Also, if you're wondering why some people play online, it's because there's far more diversity of games - typical live poker rooms these days are just $1/$2 NL HoldEm fests, with very few other tables. Plus many players enjoy the faster rate of the game, and some even multitable, having numerous tables open at once. You can play *far* more hands per hour online than in a live game.
With that said, I do enjoy live poker more, and I would play it more often - if only it was legal and regulated in my state. Too bad I have to drive three hours to find the closest poker room.
Do you mean JungleDisk? I Googled for GorillaDisk, and couldn't find it...
Looks cool... I might have to check them out for my backups...
The weird thing is that it is spelled out in the "Read More" full listing... but not on the main page summary - even though it looks like a copy/paste. I guess you get what you pay for...
For a long time, I had an apartment facing the wrong way.
But now, it's mainly because I like to watch TV even when the wind is blowing or it's raining. Instead of garbled static.
I have a fiber-optic cable going into my house - why the heck would I want to rely on a satellite for anything?
I have Verizon FIOS for Internet and phone right now, and the moment they offer TV, I can be done with Comcast for good... they got their TV franchise here a few months ago, should be a month or two, and then we'll be Comcast free, and everything will be running over the nice fiber pipe.
So glad there's finally some real competition for Comcast. I guess it takes one monopoly to take down another monopoly.
Hint: If you actually read the article, it will answer your question.
You know the right answer. The fact that you're even asking here means you already know deep down that the best thing to do is RedHat or SuSE.
With that said, use SuSE. The last thing we need is more RedHat customers. Competition is vital to keep Linux from turning into a RedHat-only proposition (in the enterprise). Support SuSE, at least keep it a duopoly between Novell and RedHat - they'll beat each other up and keep things fair.
Let's face it - none of us like forking over our hard-earned cash every month just to use the phone
Hahahaha. What an entitlement complex? You expect someone to hand you phone service for free? Along with your free cable, free rent, and free groceries?
I personally *like* handing over my hard-earned cash for phone service, along with everything else. I choose what I want, I pay for it - it's called capitalism.
If I didn't want it, I wouldn't pay for it.
Hehehe.. okay. Got a link for that writer's guide? Sounds interesting..
:)
So let's call a truce, and just declare the gun pings to be created by magic as well.
First of all, given that this is in the *future*, who are any of us to say what they do and do not have, until it's established. Maybe they *do* have 6 shooter rail guns then. Silly I know, but until it's in the show one way or the other.
I also saw a post somewhere - maybe on the Usenet group - that someone said the revolver chamber wasn't actually revolving. Didn't see that myself, but if so..
Oh well, it's just a show, and I'm far over-analyzing...
Hehehe, didn't want to be overly familar... :) I'll be better from now on and call him Joss.
:)
Does Vera make the "ping" noise? Perhaps Jayne is so attached to "her" because she's the real deal.
But you're right, it's all a reach, as I pretty much said. Of course, I'm waiting for the explanation on how anti-gravity works. Heck, if they can do that, why not zero-point energy extraction in a handgun.
My guess is that most of the guns are probably minature rail guns - using magnetic acceleration to propel the bullets.
Actually makes sense in a way. Assuming that we don't end up with phasers or some other energy-based weapon:
We'll inevitably continue the current bullet-kevlar battle... as they make better stronger kevlar, people will keep developing bullets to pierce it
Next assumption: At some point, the kevlar gets good enough that nothing you can do to the bullet lets you pierce it. Might break a few ribs, but no penetration.
So what's the next step? Add more energy to the bullet. Can't really increase the mass, so increase the speed... assuming no massive improvements in gunpowder efficiency are available, the next logical step is to dump gunpowder, and go with something next-gen, like magnetic acceleration.
Granted, this could all just be my pipe-dream, but it makes sense.
(And Whedon, if you see this, feel free to name the inventor of the magnetic guns after me in an aside from one of the characters... I'd prefer Kaylee. Thanks.)
In a way, we're already doing this (well, not the nuclear weapons).
Specifically, legitimate Internet users in China and other Asian nations are finding it harder and harder to send legitimate e-mails to Western-based ISPs which have blacklisted them. Boom, automatic international sanctions, from the ground up.
As a result, they are going to start increasing pressure on their governments to deal with the problem. And if there's one nice thing about an authoritarian government, it's that they are very good at dealing with "problems". We fine someone $2000, they use the gulag... hmmm.. spammers in the gulag. That I'd like to see.
This will work in the U.S.... ... when we all agree to pay a per-minute charge for local phone calls.
Wait? What's that you say? We all like paying a flat rate for unlimited local calling?
Hmm.. I suppose this means this model will never work in the U.S. after all.
GoLive... bah.
Build the site graphically in Photoshop using real tools, slice it out, and import into DreamWeaver for the rest.
Dreamweaver... bah... Build the graphics with whatever, then use vi to write the page.
In response to the people criticizing the information about the protocol used...
Now someone can't even mention general characteristics of a hack without being criticized for giving information to "script kiddies" or "trojan writers"?
We know that security through obscurity is a poor excuse. I'd rather have this stuff out in the open so I and others can deal with it, than have it known only to a few...
Yes, I had a cool history teacher who let me get away with things like that, but other teachers were not so great...
My econ teacher (referenced above) was also my government teacher. We had a Mock Congress. I chose to be a Republican after losing a week-long fight to be a Libertarian ("No, we're only doing the two real parties", she says).
So I'm the Senate Minority Leader, with 22 Republicans (this is Northern California). I manage to get my friend elected as the Senate President Pro-Temp, primarily by telling all the Democrats I knew that I would *hate* for her to get elected - so they voted for her.
She then turns around, and to be "fair", gives the Republicans HALF of the committee chairs. Not none, like in real life, or even 20% as a fair ratio, but 50%! As you can imagine, the committee chairs killed every single Democratic bill.
When we got to the floor, I used every trick in the book to kill bills. I made sure my two whips were the student body leader and the football team captain and suddenly Democrats were defecting left and right. I even pulled off a fillibuster.
End result: Two bills passed that Senate. And they were both Republican bills. That's with 22 out of 100 members... pretty darn successful.
And my grade? I got a D. Why? Because, in the words of the teacher, "I wasn't being cooperative and participating in a constructive manner.."
I was the MINORITY leader!! Since when am I supposed to be cooperative?!?!?!
Anyways, sorry for the long rant, but some of these teachers... some of them are great, but others just need to learn about the real world before trying to teach it to others.
Exactly. It seems like we'd have a lot more luck if people would just start figuring out the most humane way to "thin the herd" in advance, instead of pretending you can stop me from buying that nice huge plasma-screen HDTV I saw today. *Drool*
This reminds me of an econ assignment in high school that I "failed". We were given a set number of resource units, and told to distribute them throughout the town. Most people gave food to everyone, TVs to most everyone, and luxury cars to a few. I gave two or three luxury cars and TVs to a few people, and let something like a third of the town starve to death.
I defended my homework as a more realistic portrait of the world than any of my neo-socialist classmates, but I still failed since my solution wasn't "nice". So sad...
From the article:
The report offers a vivid warning that either people curb their extravagant lifestyles or risk leaving the onus on scientists to locate another planet that can sustain human life. Since this is unlikely to happen, the only option is to cut consumption now.
Okay, does this strike anyone as leaving out the most likely option? It's highly unlikely we'll massively change our ways. It's also highly unlikely that we'll colonize other planets in the next 50 years.
What's that leave? Simple! Massive resource wars! Woohoo!
It just amazes me that the whole article ignores the inevitable outcome... we'll all fight over dwindling resources, thus thinning the population down to sustainable levels.
Okay, call me naive, but there might actually be uses for this phone that aren't sick and/or twisted.
I mean, how often have I wanted to describe something to someone else, but just can't seem to get the right words? Assuming this is integrated well enough, just snap a picture and send it along... it's often not worth it to dig out the digital camera, snap a shot, hook it up to the PC, grab the pic, scale it, e-mail it, wait for the other person to get it, etc, etc...
The key of course, would be wide-spread acceptance of this technology, combined with some sort of open standard so that you can avoid a "Let me send this picture... oh you have a Nokia? I have a Sprint... darn..." problem.
PG-13. LEGO women don't have breasts.
Which of course, should be considered cruelty to LEGO men.
Google getting Slashdotted? The day that happens is the day CmdrTaco can declare himself lord and ruler of the whole Internet.
What'd they say on another post here? 10,000 computers in their server farm?
Hmm... are there any sites out there that can take more traffic than Google? (Maybe something like Akamai?) I'm out of my league on that question..