It really has nothing to do AT ALL with the name on the icon or anything else. When their 10-year-old nephew set up the computer for them, he double-clicked on the blue 'e' and said "this is how you get to the internet". My mother-in-law has been using Juno with IE for as long as I can remember, but she seemed to be able to make the switch fairly easily when I told her to click on the FF icon to access the internet from now on. The interface differences are negligible and all of her settings and crap imported seamlessly into FF.
The bottom line is this: Most people don't care what they use to access the internet as long as it works. If somebody shows them how to use it and tells them it's the best (especially if that someone is known for being a techie), then they'll use it. It sounds overly simplistic, but really, all you have to do is train them.
I don't think that being a programmer automatically makes you more apt at poker, since playing good poker is just as much about reading players as it is about calculating odds. BUT...
I know of at least 2 exceptional professional poker players with extensive computer background: Chris "Jesus" Ferguson has a PhD in computer science, and you'll often hear him talking about how his studies in game theory have helped him at the poker table (and I'm thinking he's right, since he won the WSOP main event in 2000). Also, Barry Greenstein (he's also got 2 WSOP bracelets, iirc - neither were main event wins) is a former programmer who worked for Symantec for about 12 years through the mid-90's. As a side note, he donates every penny of his tournament winnings to charity (and I've seen him win over $1 million at a WPT event).
I've been playing poker for about 6 months now (pretty seriously, been competing in tournaments and reading some of the classic poker books), and I consider myself to be fairly accomplished (poker paid for my neuros audio computer, so I must be somewhat OK), and I'd have to say that being a programmer has helped a great deal with getting better.
As I said, being a good poker player has just as much to do with being able to understand your opponent as it does with being able to count outs and figure oods on the spot. If you can get a dead read on the guy you're in the pot with, you're in better shape than if you've got 24 outs post flop because if you know what he's holding, there's no stopping you.
I disagree, the ability to pick up on a bluff is the difference between an average player and a good/great one. It falls under the category of reading your opponent, a crucial skill in playing good poker. Granted, the odds aid in making any betting decision, but having a good idea what your opponent is holding all but solidify that decision.
Let's say we're playing hold'em, you're holding 67 of hearts on the button. I make a moderate raise pre-flop, you decide a suited connector in position is worth the call. The flop comes 5-2-9 of hearts, giving you a flush. I check, you bet, I move all in. There are *several* factors involved in your decision here, including the way I've acted and the subtlties of my body language throughout the hand up to this point. I could be holding 72 of clubs or pocket 9's or the Ace of hearts, putting me on draw. Did I stare you in the eye as i moved my chips in, implying strength? Or did I seem sheepish, encouraging a call? As far as the odds are concerned, there are only 8 hearts left unseen that can beat your hand (at this point in the hand), *and* you have a made hand, albeit a mediocre one. My behavior up to this point should be a *huge* consideration as you decide whether or not to call.
Bluffing is the second most powerful tool at the poker table (the first being a solid hand). It shouldn't be underestimated.
I used this site to replace my father-in-law's old 486 with a pentium, cost about $40. Pretty sure the power consumption will be less than a standard p4, but probably not as low as a modified appliance.
IM'ing became a phenomenon because of AOL, that's just a fact. I still use AIM as my primary means of IM (though I have accounts with all the major providers). If you don't like AOL's client program, there are *several* alternatives (and no, trillian isn't the best - far from it actually). The only thing a google instant messenger service would do is split Jabber's userbase, since only geeks would use it (or switch to it from AIM).
All the users at my office use AIM and it works just fine for them. Thinking everybody will switch just because it starts with a G is simply foolish.
So why not switch to an alternate IM system altogether? *cough*jabber*cough* If they're going to be such babies about letting *more* people use their system, let 'em. They're pretty much second fiddle to AIM, it seems...
Exactly. It's not like using Linux automatically means using Gnome/KDE, there are plenty of other options (which, after all, is part of the beauty of using Linux). Just because John Q. Windowsuser has to use Mozilla/Evolution so he doesn't feel "uncomfortable" doesn't mean I can't run w3m/firefox and mutt on a quarter of his hardware in speedy bliss.
The difference is, the base hardware requirement to run Linux isn't even close to that of Windows XP. But, if you require a GUI-tastic experience everywhere you go, you'll have to chump out the scratch to get hardware that can get the job done, it's as simple as that.
Eh, you're assuming that the spammers actually reside and do business in the US. Sure, we can lock up domestic spammers until we're all blue in the face, but that's not going to make a lick of difference to all the jackasses everywhere else.
I'd be interested to know how the physical location of the sending machine affect the culpability of the spammer (e.g., ssh/telnet'ing into a server in Canada and unleashing the mail fury).
Having anonyimity in Canada is like wearing a ski mask to an adult theater; It's great that nobody knows who you are, but nobody's really looking at you because they're all staring at the guys on horses...
agreed! For some reason, certain people don't consider mutt to be a "real" email client. The fact of the matter is, i can compose/send an email *much* faster (mostly because i don't have to wait for a GUI to load) tnan I ever could with Outlook, all while the mouse gathers dust and feels slightly neglected. I switched to mutt a couple years ago and I can't imaging using anything else...
Slashdot Mirror
I have that on my gmail account - wasn't aware that it wasn't on all of them.
[1]> (defstruct foo)
FOO
It really has nothing to do AT ALL with the name on the icon or anything else. When their 10-year-old nephew set up the computer for them, he double-clicked on the blue 'e' and said "this is how you get to the internet". My mother-in-law has been using Juno with IE for as long as I can remember, but she seemed to be able to make the switch fairly easily when I told her to click on the FF icon to access the internet from now on. The interface differences are negligible and all of her settings and crap imported seamlessly into FF.
The bottom line is this: Most people don't care what they use to access the internet as long as it works. If somebody shows them how to use it and tells them it's the best (especially if that someone is known for being a techie), then they'll use it. It sounds overly simplistic, but really, all you have to do is train them.
I don't think that being a programmer automatically makes you more apt at poker, since playing good poker is just as much about reading players as it is about calculating odds. BUT...
I know of at least 2 exceptional professional poker players with extensive computer background: Chris "Jesus" Ferguson has a PhD in computer science, and you'll often hear him talking about how his studies in game theory have helped him at the poker table (and I'm thinking he's right, since he won the WSOP main event in 2000). Also, Barry Greenstein (he's also got 2 WSOP bracelets, iirc - neither were main event wins) is a former programmer who worked for Symantec for about 12 years through the mid-90's. As a side note, he donates every penny of his tournament winnings to charity (and I've seen him win over $1 million at a WPT event).
I've been playing poker for about 6 months now (pretty seriously, been competing in tournaments and reading some of the classic poker books), and I consider myself to be fairly accomplished (poker paid for my neuros audio computer, so I must be somewhat OK), and I'd have to say that being a programmer has helped a great deal with getting better.
As I said, being a good poker player has just as much to do with being able to understand your opponent as it does with being able to count outs and figure oods on the spot. If you can get a dead read on the guy you're in the pot with, you're in better shape than if you've got 24 outs post flop because if you know what he's holding, there's no stopping you.
I disagree, the ability to pick up on a bluff is the difference between an average player and a good/great one. It falls under the category of reading your opponent, a crucial skill in playing good poker. Granted, the odds aid in making any betting decision, but having a good idea what your opponent is holding all but solidify that decision.
Let's say we're playing hold'em, you're holding 67 of hearts on the button. I make a moderate raise pre-flop, you decide a suited connector in position is worth the call. The flop comes 5-2-9 of hearts, giving you a flush. I check, you bet, I move all in. There are *several* factors involved in your decision here, including the way I've acted and the subtlties of my body language throughout the hand up to this point. I could be holding 72 of clubs or pocket 9's or the Ace of hearts, putting me on draw. Did I stare you in the eye as i moved my chips in, implying strength? Or did I seem sheepish, encouraging a call? As far as the odds are concerned, there are only 8 hearts left unseen that can beat your hand (at this point in the hand), *and* you have a made hand, albeit a mediocre one. My behavior up to this point should be a *huge* consideration as you decide whether or not to call.
Bluffing is the second most powerful tool at the poker table (the first being a solid hand). It shouldn't be underestimated.
retrobox.
I used this site to replace my father-in-law's old 486 with a pentium, cost about $40. Pretty sure the power consumption will be less than a standard p4, but probably not as low as a modified appliance.
IM'ing became a phenomenon because of AOL, that's just a fact. I still use AIM as my primary means of IM (though I have accounts with all the major providers). If you don't like AOL's client program, there are *several* alternatives (and no, trillian isn't the best - far from it actually). The only thing a google instant messenger service would do is split Jabber's userbase, since only geeks would use it (or switch to it from AIM).
All the users at my office use AIM and it works just fine for them. Thinking everybody will switch just because it starts with a G is simply foolish.
I've got *several* invites, email me (inkedmn@gmail.com) w/ your name and email addy if you want one.
So why not switch to an alternate IM system altogether? *cough*jabber*cough*
If they're going to be such babies about letting *more* people use their system, let 'em. They're pretty much second fiddle to AIM, it seems...
If you like w3m, you'll *love* elinks.
Oh, and the best damn console app ever is screen. It's a window manager for the console, and it simply rules...
Couldn't agree more, ran linux like this for over a year bofore getting cable. I got mine for $50 new, iirc at Fry's.
I might be willing to sell it for cheap (still works like a champ), email me.
grep barnyard-midget-porn.html /var/log/apache/access.log | wc -l
there's my hit count.
Or long-time email fat cats sensing their impending doom, either one...
I've got emails that my wife sent me when we first started dating, I don't ever plan on deleting those.
Though, there is something to be said for allowing freakin' pop access so we could archive our own mail...
only if they come in the cool pastels like the iPod...
Exactly. It's not like using Linux automatically means using Gnome/KDE, there are plenty of other options (which, after all, is part of the beauty of using Linux). Just because John Q. Windowsuser has to use Mozilla/Evolution so he doesn't feel "uncomfortable" doesn't mean I can't run w3m/firefox and mutt on a quarter of his hardware in speedy bliss.
The difference is, the base hardware requirement to run Linux isn't even close to that of Windows XP. But, if you require a GUI-tastic experience everywhere you go, you'll have to chump out the scratch to get hardware that can get the job done, it's as simple as that.
So *you're* the guy watching RotK in fully Dolby 5.1 in your rear-view mirror?
Eh, you're assuming that the spammers actually reside and do business in the US. Sure, we can lock up domestic spammers until we're all blue in the face, but that's not going to make a lick of difference to all the jackasses everywhere else.
I'd be interested to know how the physical location of the sending machine affect the culpability of the spammer (e.g., ssh/telnet'ing into a server in Canada and unleashing the mail fury).
If anybody comes up as matching Kevin Costner, they should include a nationwide suicide hotline in the subtext.
insert your 'size does matter' joke here
Having anonyimity in Canada is like wearing a ski mask to an adult theater; It's great that nobody knows who you are, but nobody's really looking at you because they're all staring at the guys on horses...
I don't know why we're bothering with 'D' when it seems like all the kids are using 'E' like there's no tomorrow...
agreed! For some reason, certain people don't consider mutt to be a "real" email client. The fact of the matter is, i can compose/send an email *much* faster (mostly because i don't have to wait for a GUI to load) tnan I ever could with Outlook, all while the mouse gathers dust and feels slightly neglected. I switched to mutt a couple years ago and I can't imaging using anything else...
word to the ghoppaz!!!
So it was his extraordinary gift that ended up being the cause of his untimely demise? sounds oddly like John Travolta in Phenomenon...