the unfair advantage comes when bots collude with eachother thru a back channel. the bots share profiling data on other players. if the bots are at the same table, the estimations they make become much more accurate since there are less 'unseen cards'.
even one-on-one, you would probably be suprised how well a "bot" can play poker. most people think a bot would be easily predictable only playing weighted pot odds with arbitrary confidence. but todays poker playing programs employ seriously complicated algorithms and collect hundreds or thousands of metrics to model their opponents. it can then launch an opponent-specific defense against any metrics you may be collecting yourself.
software developers are playing poker at a whole different level. I think their should be an online poker site for bots only. humans really dont stand a chance.
I know how you feel. I've used nothing but microsoft natural ergonomic (the kind with the big split in the middle) keyboards for 5 years and I can't go back. This particular model is the "Natural Keyboard Pro" and I'm so used to the placement of certain keys (enter, right shift, ctrl, insert, delete and the arrow keys) any new keyboard mixes the location of these keys all around!
It's rediculous how hard it is to find a new one. Forget about buying it through commercial retail channels. It's ebay or going-out-of-business office sales.
1) Does the player try to take over any other formats than just Real's own?
It associates itself with all the "popular" file extensions.
2) Does it install an icon to the tasktray?
Like it's 1995, yes.
3) How many desktop icons does it install?
just a Upgrade to Real Player Professional shortcut
4) How many processes does it startup on boot?
one to reclaim its file associations every 20 seconds. one to keep a tray icon visible at all times. one to check for updates. and one that sends "usage statistics" back to Real. all 4 are added to the startup registry everytime the player is launched.
5) Does it integrate the codec into the operating system so that any codec-aware player can use it?
Of course not. That would make it too easy to compare against other codecs.
6) How much data does it send back to Real's servers?
Just what your watching, when your watching it and the location of your mouse cursor.
7) Is the installation process simple and straightforward with a single checkbox to opt-in? Or is it a long series of dialog boxes with hidden checkboxes all over the place?
It's completely automated with a final messagebox stating that your computer will now be rebooted and a single OK button.
8) Does it play videos inline in the browser?
Sometimes.
9) When I close the player (assuming it requires opening the player to watch the media), does it try to stay memory resident?
It tries, but then it throws a general protection fault and takes your instance of explorer with it.
10) Is it still Real that makes this? (this is a deal breaker)
All development was outsourced to India.. although I hear the new version was outsourced to Russia
actually any standards-compliant browser will produce the same output given standards-compliant html or css.
Early on, browser developers made a huge mistake - accepting invalid html and making a best-effort to render it by assuming defaults for uninitialized values. These days it's perfectly acceptable to throw a page up consisting of 100% invalid html because all currently available browsers will still display something (the same thing hopefully, depending how complicated your html is).
I would much rather have browsers handle invalid html the way invalid XML data is handled. That is, with a big fat ugly error message! Any flaw in XML data no matter how benign or subtle causes the entire stream to be rejected outright. If this were the case with html and css there would be far less "best viewed with "
30ms to fall within 10% of the requested value. the pixel still changes from whatever color within 4ms or less thus eliminating ghosting. Read the page I linked directly to.
what would a "real 12ms" be? the fact of the matter is that the response of an lcd is too complicated to sum up in a single metric.
The latest lcd panel is 4ms and is in fact 4ms. Look at this graph produced by THG Showing the pixel intensity changing from 0 to 210 in 4.3ms but since the requested value was 175 they dont count it as 4.3ms instead they wait until the pixel is 178. Now the mfg figured out how to get the pixel to change in 4ms they are damn well going to slap 4ms on the box.
It's not a lie it's just a semantic. Tom's tells you that it is more important that the pixel be within 10% of the requested value before it should count as having changed at all - now that's a lie. Your eyes do not notice the pixel being 210 instead of 175 for 4ms, your eyes notice the complete and utter lack of ghosting.
actually the viewsonic vx924 does in fact eliminate ghosting by responding in about 4-5ms. The tom's article pointed out that it still takes an avg of 16ms for the pixel to be within 10% of the requested color.
I have 3 of these things and I can assure you they are nothing short of amazing. Set the refresh rate to 85hz and compare side by side with a CRT and there is absolutely no ghosting what-so-ever.
Even the tom's article gives some credit here IMO they were way to calm about this monitor! people dont RTFA either, just look at the pictures and go "HA more lies!"
they aren't lies. get a vx924, set the refresh to 85hz and try it out.
The picture shows the lady holding up a mirror and you see a different channel in the reflection.
What if the tv split the image for one channel so that if you use a mirror you see the entire channel on a screen twice its actual size.
Only problem is that you couldn't look at it straight on. well, it's a better idea than what they're trying to sell it for.. watching two channels at once with ear phones wtf?
why does everything have to be a browser plugin? I use bitcomet. It's associated with the torrent extension. If I click a torrent link it opens in bitcomet. If bc was already loaded it gets added and it even stays minimized in the tray. The same exact thing happens if I click on a torrent link from an email or from miranda. I couldn't think of a better integration.. how would a browser plugin improve on that experience?
the universe simulator works great up until the point where humans invent the universe simulator then it gets stuck in an infinite loop. so you can only predict the past with it, and even then only up to the point where the universe simulator is created
I think what you want already exists in the form of optimizer hints.
you can specify the index to use and even the join method via hints like so: select * from sometable (index=someindex) inner hash join othertable (index=...) inner merge join....
the last trick is to use "forceplan" which will cause the executer to join the tables in the order you have them listed in the query. this makes SQL less declarative and more procedural in a way.
here's an example of a "new" problem. Take an event, let it have some properties.. when, what, where, who, etc. Now put 100 billion of them into a table.
If we've kept it simple we have one table with 100 billion records in it, and our attempts at producing summary reports (table scan w/aggregates) fail miserably (by taking too damn long, or causing the tempdb to expand until something breaks).
In fact, any new problem is only a problem because of current RDBMS's inability to scale. The solution to the above problem is to dimensionalize the data, keep one scalar 'fact table' and one or more 'periodic snapshot' tables. This adds lots of complexity for the purpose of being able to run summary reports more than once every 30 something hours. Not to mention using way less overall system resources.
I'm curious why you mention poor performance and no scalability as drawbacks of a "new" system. The new system proposed by TFA is hypothetical. I also wonder if you even know what scalability means?
I can't think of any situation where the simplest method is also the most scalable. Especially in database scenerios where working around the IO bottleneck requires some novel approach. Of course, I don't think anybody in their right mind would refer to today's RDBMS's as "simple" either.
some of them are good programmers, sure. there exists good programmers all over the world. but for the most part, indian programmers are just cheap labor. the good programmers are quick to disassociate themselves from the diploma mill programmer making machine that is pumping out monkey after monkey.
think of the fastest-factorization-algorithm-known-to-man-kind as a sort of high score.
many different people occupy the slot, if you want to give the entire population of indian programmers credit because one indian happens to currently occupy it (and somehow insinuate that makes them better programmers then "us"), then you sir are a racist.
Brent's Factorization Method, Class Group Factorization Method, Continued Fraction Factorization Algorithm, Direct Search Factorization, Dixon's Factorization Method, Elliptic Curve Factorization Method, Euler's Factorization Method, Excludent Factorization Method, Fermat's Factorization Method, Legendre's Factorization Method, Lenstra Elliptic Curve Method, Number Field Sieve, Pollard p-1 Factorization Method, Pollard Rho Factorization Method, Prime Factorization, Prime Number, Quadratic Sieve, Quiteprime, Trial Division, Veryprime, Williams p Plus 1 Factorization Method
Slashdot Mirror
your passion is dead. the passionate people are more than happy to be waken up at 3am if something has gone wrong
the unfair advantage comes when bots collude with eachother thru a back channel. the bots share profiling data on other players. if the bots are at the same table, the estimations they make become much more accurate since there are less 'unseen cards'.
even one-on-one, you would probably be suprised how well a "bot" can play poker. most people think a bot would be easily predictable only playing weighted pot odds with arbitrary confidence. but todays poker playing programs employ seriously complicated algorithms and collect hundreds or thousands of metrics to model their opponents. it can then launch an opponent-specific defense against any metrics you may be collecting yourself.
software developers are playing poker at a whole different level. I think their should be an online poker site for bots only. humans really dont stand a chance.
just use your gmail login and dont forget to use SSL
and for 4k less I'll put NOS and a turbo in a Honda Civic CRX and smoke your evo!
There is an MMORPG popular in most eastern counties with over 40 million subscribers. It's called Mu
it's not BFG's fault your fedex delivery guy hates you
I know how you feel. I've used nothing but microsoft natural ergonomic (the kind with the big split in the middle) keyboards for 5 years and I can't go back. This particular model is the "Natural Keyboard Pro" and I'm so used to the placement of certain keys (enter, right shift, ctrl, insert, delete and the arrow keys) any new keyboard mixes the location of these keys all around!
It's rediculous how hard it is to find a new one. Forget about buying it through commercial retail channels. It's ebay or going-out-of-business office sales.
all I see are giant pixels moving around the screen!
seriously that video is 256x144 15.00fps.. is it from 1995?!
1) Does the player try to take over any other formats than just Real's own?
It associates itself with all the "popular" file extensions.
2) Does it install an icon to the tasktray?
Like it's 1995, yes.
3) How many desktop icons does it install?
just a Upgrade to Real Player Professional shortcut
4) How many processes does it startup on boot?
one to reclaim its file associations every 20 seconds. one to keep a tray icon visible at all times. one to check for updates. and one that sends "usage statistics" back to Real. all 4 are added to the startup registry everytime the player is launched.
5) Does it integrate the codec into the operating system so that any codec-aware player can use it?
Of course not. That would make it too easy to compare against other codecs.
6) How much data does it send back to Real's servers?
Just what your watching, when your watching it and the location of your mouse cursor.
7) Is the installation process simple and straightforward with a single checkbox to opt-in? Or is it a long series of dialog boxes with hidden checkboxes all over the place?
It's completely automated with a final messagebox stating that your computer will now be rebooted and a single OK button.
8) Does it play videos inline in the browser?
Sometimes.
9) When I close the player (assuming it requires opening the player to watch the media), does it try to stay memory resident?
It tries, but then it throws a general protection fault and takes your instance of explorer with it.
10) Is it still Real that makes this? (this is a deal breaker)
All development was outsourced to India.. although I hear the new version was outsourced to Russia
..It has the same problems with Safari 2.0
..And Konqueror 3.4.1
..And from Opera 8.01 on Suse Linux 9.3
ah the greatness of AJAX
I also wanted to point out that even the acid2 test consists of invalid code. What good is a test like this?
actually any standards-compliant browser will produce the same output given standards-compliant html or css.
Early on, browser developers made a huge mistake - accepting invalid html and making a best-effort to render it by assuming defaults for uninitialized values. These days it's perfectly acceptable to throw a page up consisting of 100% invalid html because all currently available browsers will still display something (the same thing hopefully, depending how complicated your html is).
I would much rather have browsers handle invalid html the way invalid XML data is handled. That is, with a big fat ugly error message! Any flaw in XML data no matter how benign or subtle causes the entire stream to be rejected outright. If this were the case with html and css there would be far less "best viewed with "
this should've been a survey
how many famous programmers can you think of? (relatively famous, not hollywood famous)
WOZ
linus torvalds
john carmack
tim sweeney
paul hsieh
michael abrash
thats off the top of my head.. I'm sure there are a some more, but ts just anecdotal evidence that the list is very small
30ms to fall within 10% of the requested value. the pixel still changes from whatever color within 4ms or less thus eliminating ghosting. Read the page I linked directly to.
what would a "real 12ms" be? the fact of the matter is that the response of an lcd is too complicated to sum up in a single metric.
The latest lcd panel is 4ms and is in fact 4ms. Look at this graph produced by THG Showing the pixel intensity changing from 0 to 210 in 4.3ms but since the requested value was 175 they dont count it as 4.3ms instead they wait until the pixel is 178. Now the mfg figured out how to get the pixel to change in 4ms they are damn well going to slap 4ms on the box.
It's not a lie it's just a semantic. Tom's tells you that it is more important that the pixel be within 10% of the requested value before it should count as having changed at all - now that's a lie. Your eyes do not notice the pixel being 210 instead of 175 for 4ms, your eyes notice the complete and utter lack of ghosting.
actually the viewsonic vx924 does in fact eliminate ghosting by responding in about 4-5ms. The tom's article pointed out that it still takes an avg of 16ms for the pixel to be within 10% of the requested color.
I have 3 of these things and I can assure you they are nothing short of amazing. Set the refresh rate to 85hz and compare side by side with a CRT and there is absolutely no ghosting what-so-ever.
Even the tom's article gives some credit here IMO they were way to calm about this monitor! people dont RTFA either, just look at the pictures and go "HA more lies!"
they aren't lies. get a vx924, set the refresh to 85hz and try it out.
The picture shows the lady holding up a mirror and you see a different channel in the reflection.
What if the tv split the image for one channel so that if you use a mirror you see the entire channel on a screen twice its actual size.
Only problem is that you couldn't look at it straight on. well, it's a better idea than what they're trying to sell it for.. watching two channels at once with ear phones wtf?
why does everything have to be a browser plugin? I use bitcomet. It's associated with the torrent extension. If I click a torrent link it opens in bitcomet. If bc was already loaded it gets added and it even stays minimized in the tray. The same exact thing happens if I click on a torrent link from an email or from miranda. I couldn't think of a better integration.. how would a browser plugin improve on that experience?
thats global thermo nuclear war
the universe simulator works great up until the point where humans invent the universe simulator then it gets stuck in an infinite loop. so you can only predict the past with it, and even then only up to the point where the universe simulator is created
I think what you want already exists in the form of optimizer hints.
....
you can specify the index to use and even the join method via hints like so:
select * from
sometable (index=someindex)
inner hash join othertable (index=...)
inner merge join
the last trick is to use "forceplan" which will cause the executer to join the tables in the order you have them listed in the query. this makes SQL less declarative and more procedural in a way.
KISS never scales.
here's an example of a "new" problem. Take an event, let it have some properties.. when, what, where, who, etc. Now put 100 billion of them into a table.
If we've kept it simple we have one table with 100 billion records in it, and our attempts at producing summary reports (table scan w/aggregates) fail miserably (by taking too damn long, or causing the tempdb to expand until something breaks).
In fact, any new problem is only a problem because of current RDBMS's inability to scale. The solution to the above problem is to dimensionalize the data, keep one scalar 'fact table' and one or more 'periodic snapshot' tables. This adds lots of complexity for the purpose of being able to run summary reports more than once every 30 something hours. Not to mention using way less overall system resources.
I'm curious why you mention poor performance and no scalability as drawbacks of a "new" system. The new system proposed by TFA is hypothetical. I also wonder if you even know what scalability means?
I can't think of any situation where the simplest method is also the most scalable. Especially in database scenerios where working around the IO bottleneck requires some novel approach. Of course, I don't think anybody in their right mind would refer to today's RDBMS's as "simple" either.
some of them are good programmers, sure. there exists good programmers all over the world. but for the most part, indian programmers are just cheap labor. the good programmers are quick to disassociate themselves from the diploma mill programmer making machine that is pumping out monkey after monkey.
think of the fastest-factorization-algorithm-known-to-man-kind as a sort of high score.
many different people occupy the slot, if you want to give the entire population of indian programmers credit because one indian happens to currently occupy it (and somehow insinuate that makes them better programmers then "us"), then you sir are a racist.
Brent's Factorization Method, Class Group Factorization Method, Continued Fraction Factorization Algorithm, Direct Search Factorization, Dixon's Factorization Method, Elliptic Curve Factorization Method, Euler's Factorization Method, Excludent Factorization Method, Fermat's Factorization Method, Legendre's Factorization Method, Lenstra Elliptic Curve Method, Number Field Sieve, Pollard p-1 Factorization Method, Pollard Rho Factorization Method, Prime Factorization, Prime Number, Quadratic Sieve, Quiteprime, Trial Division, Veryprime, Williams p Plus 1 Factorization Method