Poker is not a card game, it's a people game (aka don't play the cards, play the people). It's all about bluffing and reading other people's bluffs. I'm baffled that people even bother playing poker on the internet. Even with webcams the game wouldn't be the same at all.
Read the article, then learn to play poker. All of the "tells" and related nonsense play very well in the Hollywood rendition of poker, but they hold very little weight in the vast majority of cardrooms in real life or online. It's true that poker is more a people game than a card game. But "playing the man*, not the cards" means watching your opponent's betting patterns and encouraging them to make mistakes.
Example: I was in Atlantic City for July 4. I was playing $1-$5 7-card stud. There were eight people at the table. Four of them folded immediately; myself and three others called the opening $3 bet. On fourth street, nobody bet. On fifth street, I caught an Ace, giving me a pair of aces and the opening bet. I checked, the guy next to me checked, this guy who looked like he had a straight checked, and the fourth guy bet $5. According to the cards, I should have folded, but I raised to $10. Why? Because I knew the guy with the straight wasn't aggressive enough to call a $10 bet, and the guy who bet $5 had a history of trying to steal pots. They all folded to my raise, and I won $17. I played the men, not the cards. A computer could quite easily emulate the play I made.
* I notice that women don't get taken very seriously at poker, especially attractive women. Therefore, those who know how to play poker generally do better than they should. Let's see a computer do that!:)
Just because it's a slam-dunk doesn't mean it's going to work. Remember he's up against Microsoft. Microsoft could fairly easily dismiss the case, or just ignore the judgement like they usually do.
I flew to the US 4 months ago on one of Virgins new A600 Airbuses and they take off like a bloody rocket!
Um. I think you mean an A340-600. Damn nice plane, unless you happen to be 6 feet tall and enjoy having legroom.
A340s actually aren't that loud for 4-engine jets. And it has about the same runway performance as the louder 747-400, so new noise abatement procedures weren't necessary.
The upcomming A380, however, may be a little different. Talk about cramming people into a small space...
On Sept 11, Mr. Bush said that the terrorists wanted to take away our freedom. Congress then decided to take away our freedom by passing the USA Patriot Act.
The United States government supports terrorism!
Re:Popular Front for the Liberation of Europe
on
Building the A380
·
· Score: 1
Of the big 5 carriers in the US, United, American, and USAir all own A320s. USAir also owns A330s. Continental and Delta do not. Both of their non-regional jet fleets is all-Boeing (at least now that McDonnel-Douglas is owned by Boeing).
The A320 is the best medium-range airliner ever made. Boeing needs to compete with that. However, they really have little reason to compete with the A380. Most of their customers are trying to make more use of their smaller planes rather than their bigger ones (except Delta, who is now flying 767s into LGA?!). Also, the A380 is designed for destinations from Europe that the 777-200LR can already make from the US, like Tokyo and Sydney.
The money for Boeing right now is in two things: cargo planes, and a plane which is more cost-effective and easier to fly than the A320.
But at least they got rid of that Sonic Cruiser crap:)
Yeah, US Airlines pander to Boeing and European airlines pander to Airbus. Tell that to Northwest and United, the two biggest operators of A320s, or British Airways, who until recently did not operate any non-Boeing planes (besides the Concorde).
Re:Popular Front for the Liberation of Europe
on
Building the A380
·
· Score: 1
I was only talking about the A380. FedEx doesn't own any smaller Airbuses, as it happens.
The part of OS X that uses BSD code is open-source. You can download the source to Darwin, make changes, recompile, and submit bug fixes to Apple (not sure how long it takes them to implement them). The part of OS X that is closed-source is the user interface layer, and that is presumably proprietary code.
Apple did borrow from BSD, but they did it (mostly) right.
That's a very good plan. They claimed to be opt-in but weren't, so sue them. Nice. Kind of how they got Al Capone for tax avoision, not racketeering or murder. It's a lot easier to prove the former.
Um. "avoision" is only a word if you have a heavy Brooklyn accent and meant to speak of "aversion". Al Capone was the boss of Chicago, and tax aversion itself is not a crime.
"Who can deny that the best thing that ever happened to this bump-in-the-road, lackluster, infantile, wannabe tricky-dick administration was Osama Bin Laden?"
Which is why I'm starting to believe that Mr. Bin Laden and Al-Queida are figments of the imagination of Mr. Bush.
If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Re:educational value
on
LFS 4.0 Released
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I beg to differ. I'm running LFS (a CVS version from early August) on a small-time production web/email server. It was much simpler to set up than RedHat because I knew exactly what was being installed where, and I had configured everything myself. It took the better part of the day to compile LFS and the other packages necessary to set up the server, but it was ready to go the minute I was done compiling.
It's been up and serving for 38 days straight. It was up for a month straight before that, but I had to bring it down to add memory and remove the cdrom drive.
I'm also running LFS on a desktop machine. It's not as pleasant to use as the server (KDE took 8 hours to compile), but it was definitely worth the effort it took to set up in terms of learning, stability, and configuration flexibility.
I appreciated package management a LOT more before I started using LFS. I got into LFS originally because I got sick of Mandrake installing hundreds of packages I didn't recognize or need. I want to know exactly what's on my system and why. And I hate when a package refuses to compile or install due to dependencies which shouldn't be failing. I've never had that happen in LFS.
LFS definitely has a steeper learning curve than pre-built distros. But what it loses in initial ease-of-use, it more than gains in long-term stability and simplicity. I wouldn't recommend that someone do their first (or second or third or fourth) LFS build on a production server, but after experimenting with it and really learning how it works, I can't go back.
YMMV, obviously. Not everyone is paranoid and anal like I am.
No, parent post was correct. If you are required by law to pay money to someone (court settlement, child support, alimony, taxes, etc) and you don't do so, the court can garnish your wages, meaning that they money you are suposed to be paying is deducted from your paycheck befor you recieve it.
Actually, Apple isn't dead yet for the opposite reason.
You're correct that they don't force average users to upgrade every year like Microsoft/Intel/AMD try to do. But Apple also has a much larger percentage of it's total users who actually need a lot of power. A lot of people who are still using Macs are doing so for video or desktop publishing work which benefits from things like dual processors and 1000+ MHz G4s. So it's worthwhile and cost-effective for them to upgrade often, paying top-of-the-line prices each time.
Re:Just in time - a collection of Spam Haiku!!!
on
Haiku vs Spam
·
· Score: 2
Posters on slashdot Have too much time on their hands. At least they don't spam.
No. They are refusing to carry inbound traffic which is known to cause harm to their network. Content-based filtering is refusal to carry outbound traffic. Big difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Read the article, then learn to play poker. All of the "tells" and related nonsense play very well in the Hollywood rendition of poker, but they hold very little weight in the vast majority of cardrooms in real life or online. It's true that poker is more a people game than a card game. But "playing the man*, not the cards" means watching your opponent's betting patterns and encouraging them to make mistakes.
Example: I was in Atlantic City for July 4. I was playing $1-$5 7-card stud. There were eight people at the table. Four of them folded immediately; myself and three others called the opening $3 bet. On fourth street, nobody bet. On fifth street, I caught an Ace, giving me a pair of aces and the opening bet. I checked, the guy next to me checked, this guy who looked like he had a straight checked, and the fourth guy bet $5. According to the cards, I should have folded, but I raised to $10. Why? Because I knew the guy with the straight wasn't aggressive enough to call a $10 bet, and the guy who bet $5 had a history of trying to steal pots. They all folded to my raise, and I won $17. I played the men, not the cards. A computer could quite easily emulate the play I made.
* I notice that women don't get taken very seriously at poker, especially attractive women. Therefore, those who know how to play poker generally do better than they should. Let's see a computer do that! :)
Your .sig is very appropriate for the situation.
Just because it's a slam-dunk doesn't mean it's going to work. Remember he's up against Microsoft. Microsoft could fairly easily dismiss the case, or just ignore the judgement like they usually do.
Under the GPL, all parties are on equal footing, and have equal insentive to share their work.
OTOH, this is slashdot, where nobody has any incentive to learn how to spell.
I flew to the US 4 months ago on one of Virgins new A600 Airbuses and they take off like a bloody rocket!
Um. I think you mean an A340-600. Damn nice plane, unless you happen to be 6 feet tall and enjoy having legroom.
A340s actually aren't that loud for 4-engine jets. And it has about the same runway performance as the louder 747-400, so new noise abatement procedures weren't necessary.
The upcomming A380, however, may be a little different. Talk about cramming people into a small space...
You could always swear in your code.
/usr/src/linux
grep -ri shit
There are only 7 words you can't say on the radio (in the US at least). That isn't enough to reimplement brainfuck.
That could actually be cool...nmap says your server is a solaris-sparc machine, sshd is running on freeBSD, the web server is on OS X...
...some of the stuff that goes on in Congress.
On Sept 11, Mr. Bush said that the terrorists wanted to take away our freedom. Congress then decided to take away our freedom by passing the USA Patriot Act.
The United States government supports terrorism!
Of the big 5 carriers in the US, United, American, and USAir all own A320s. USAir also owns A330s. Continental and Delta do not. Both of their non-regional jet fleets is all-Boeing (at least now that McDonnel-Douglas is owned by Boeing).
:)
The A320 is the best medium-range airliner ever made. Boeing needs to compete with that. However, they really have little reason to compete with the A380. Most of their customers are trying to make more use of their smaller planes rather than their bigger ones (except Delta, who is now flying 767s into LGA?!). Also, the A380 is designed for destinations from Europe that the 777-200LR can already make from the US, like Tokyo and Sydney.
The money for Boeing right now is in two things: cargo planes, and a plane which is more cost-effective and easier to fly than the A320.
But at least they got rid of that Sonic Cruiser crap
Yeah, US Airlines pander to Boeing and European airlines pander to Airbus. Tell that to Northwest and United, the two biggest operators of A320s, or British Airways, who until recently did not operate any non-Boeing planes (besides the Concorde).
I was only talking about the A380. FedEx doesn't own any smaller Airbuses, as it happens.
Now the Eurpoeans are building something so ridiculously big that no Americans want it.
Talk about role-reversal.
Um. Airbus is a French company. The only American carrier to order them thus far is FedEx.
Nah. life in state prison happens to be a punishment which fits the crime here.
The part of OS X that uses BSD code is open-source. You can download the source to Darwin, make changes, recompile, and submit bug fixes to Apple (not sure how long it takes them to implement them). The part of OS X that is closed-source is the user interface layer, and that is presumably proprietary code.
Apple did borrow from BSD, but they did it (mostly) right.
I'm not sure this is still accurate, but last I heard Darwin/x86 would not run under VMWare because there was no video driver available.
Um. "avoision" is only a word if you have a heavy Brooklyn accent and meant to speak of "aversion". Al Capone was the boss of Chicago, and tax aversion itself is not a crime.
"Who can deny that the best thing that ever happened to this bump-in-the-road, lackluster, infantile, wannabe tricky-dick administration was Osama Bin Laden?" Which is why I'm starting to believe that Mr. Bin Laden and Al-Queida are figments of the imagination of Mr. Bush. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
I beg to differ. I'm running LFS (a CVS version from early August) on a small-time production web/email server. It was much simpler to set up than RedHat because I knew exactly what was being installed where, and I had configured everything myself. It took the better part of the day to compile LFS and the other packages necessary to set up the server, but it was ready to go the minute I was done compiling.
It's been up and serving for 38 days straight. It was up for a month straight before that, but I had to bring it down to add memory and remove the cdrom drive.
I'm also running LFS on a desktop machine. It's not as pleasant to use as the server (KDE took 8 hours to compile), but it was definitely worth the effort it took to set up in terms of learning, stability, and configuration flexibility.
I appreciated package management a LOT more before I started using LFS. I got into LFS originally because I got sick of Mandrake installing hundreds of packages I didn't recognize or need. I want to know exactly what's on my system and why. And I hate when a package refuses to compile or install due to dependencies which shouldn't be failing. I've never had that happen in LFS.
LFS definitely has a steeper learning curve than pre-built distros. But what it loses in initial ease-of-use, it more than gains in long-term stability and simplicity. I wouldn't recommend that someone do their first (or second or third or fourth) LFS build on a production server, but after experimenting with it and really learning how it works, I can't go back.
YMMV, obviously. Not everyone is paranoid and anal like I am.
No, parent post was correct. If you are required by law to pay money to someone (court settlement, child support, alimony, taxes, etc) and you don't do so, the court can garnish your wages, meaning that they money you are suposed to be paying is deducted from your paycheck befor you recieve it.
Actually, Apple isn't dead yet for the opposite reason.
You're correct that they don't force average users to upgrade every year like Microsoft/Intel/AMD try to do. But Apple also has a much larger percentage of it's total users who actually need a lot of power. A lot of people who are still using Macs are doing so for video or desktop publishing work which benefits from things like dual processors and 1000+ MHz G4s. So it's worthwhile and cost-effective for them to upgrade often, paying top-of-the-line prices each time.
Posters on slashdot
Have too much time on their hands.
At least they don't spam.
No. They are refusing to carry inbound traffic which is known to cause harm to their network. Content-based filtering is refusal to carry outbound traffic. Big difference.
I'd be on easy street if I could get paid to troll like the guy who wrote that article :)