The problem isn't so much how to count cards -- it's how to count them without letting your betting patterns get noticed. Presumably you're spending money and time on a card-counting hardware/software system with the intention of using it semi-regularly, so this is an important consideration if you want to win more than a few dollars here and there without getting attention from the eyes above and the eyes on the floor.
Let's say you're using a well-established counting method like hi-lo, or something like it of your own devising. Given that this is Slashdot, the latter is probably more likely, regardless of whether or not it's actually any better.
So whatever your system is, you have a hot shoe at this table. Your computer is buzzing your arm or shocking your ass or whatever it does to get your attention, and you want to abruptly drop a set of big bets to cash in on the improved but fleeting odds your computer has identified. You're going to get some unwanted attention if over the course of a few hours you "randomly" drop a big pile of chips in the center of the table a bunch of times. Particularly when you keep jerking up from the table as if you've been shocked in the ass.
That is, unless your system has some method of wager management that lets you blend in while reacting quickly to good odds. That seems pretty tough.
Maybe the computer could establish what appears to the casual observer/dealer as an idiotic, repeating pattern of wager quantities, thereby identifying you to all around as a grade-A moron and eliminating alarm when you change your betting quantities abruptly. Many easily recognized patterns would suffice. By changing these patterns in only moderate ways, it could be possible to eke out smaller but still positive expected returns than in elementary, obvious-to-keen-eyes card counting. You'd have to stick around the tables for a long time, though, to take advantage of a razor-thin advantage.
Oh, wait, that's how I do it. Albeit without computer assistance or the anal probe. So I guess I shouldn't have posted this.
Hmm, cable connecter was about 1 foot long. At 88mph, total maximum contact time (Assuming the car didnt vanish half way through the connection - if it did less power was needed) was less then 1/100th of a second. Total power used by the car was therefore 1.21*10^9/10^2 - 12.1MJ. (1 watt is a measure of power, not energy - 1 joule per second)
Don't forget about arcing, which would effectively have made the "contact" time longer. There was definitely a small but visible arc, so the total energy needs might have been somewhat higher, though probably within the same order of magnitude.
But I suspect the total energy angle on this whole thing is inaccurate. Doc Emmitt L. Brown, ever the perfectionist, only claimed that there was a power requirement, not a total energy requirement. It may be that the total amount of time over which the power is applied (and therefore the total energy necessary) is irrelevant, so long as the flux capacitor's apparently-very-short time constant is covered. There may be only a localized power threshold relevant to the flux dispersal process, beyond which space-time warping and attendant temporal displacement are initiated instantaneously.
Thus, one could supply a tiny amount of energy in an incredibly short amount of time to achieve temporal displacement, allowing Marty to return home to 1985 using a fairly small capacitor cleverly engineered by Doc to discharge in one ten-billionth of a second. This would have made for a somewhat less interesting movie.
"One point twenty-one gigawatts!?! It can't be done! Can it? Oh, wait, gimme the battery from your digital watch. Okay, we're all set. You'll be home by lunch. Oh, and, uh, I'll take care of your parents."
There have been a lot of reports of people getting neurological injuries on coasters [ama-assn.org] already.
From the very same report cited above:
This is the first reported case, to our knowledge, of multiple cerebral contusions and subarachnoid hemorrhage occurring in a healthy person following a roller coaster ride.
I think the rest of the country would do good to follow New Jersey's lead.
This person must be trolling. Please, let this person be trolling.
Read up on the details. New Jersey has NOT outlawed "this type of ride." Rather, they have legislated caps on the G forces a ride is allowed to impose upon its riders, if that ride is to operate in the state. Cedar Point's new ride is comfortably within that maximum, and would be able to operate in New Jersey if a park there had the height variances, the business mandate and the cash required to build such a structure. Oh, and incidentally, New Jersey's G-force law will not prevent most of the injuries it is supposed to eliminate. Compare the nature of the cited injuries -- and the rides on which they occurred -- to the nature of the law's restrictions. There's little connection.
And while I'm here -- if you believe that their law against self-service at gas stations has a positive effect on public safety, you are wrong. It has a positive effect on PERCEIVED public safety, employment rates and other metrics with no bearing on your physical welfare. Self-serve is statistically quite a bit safer than full-serve. If you don't believe that, ask yourself why money-hungry insurance companies in 48 states (minus New Jersey and Oregon, where self-serve is a vicious crime against society) charge NO MORE to insure self-serve stations than full-serve stations.
So if you think this ride is dangerous, stay out of the line for it. Allow those of us who wish to "injure" ourselves to follow through on our folly. Someday you can look back wistfully on all the great experiences you watched other people have.
Don't even get me started on New Jersey's implementation of no-fault insurance. You'll never catch me owning a car in that state. Or stopping for gas there, either.
Well, I don't think MIT turns out too many politicians - they turn out exclusively scientists and engineers.
Try looking slightly beyond the boundaries of the U.S. Having accomplished that initial feat, I suppose the name Netanyahu might ring a bell. Or the names of past presidents of Colombia, Puerto Rico, or Costa Rica. Or, come to think of it, the names of significant non-Presidential U.S. politicians.
Not to be an ass, but... The MIT paper "The Tech" has a running list of notable politicians from MIT, for those who want to do 30 seconds of research before posting. It is not comprehensive, but it's a good start.
One more reason I'm glad I didn't go to MIT for grad school.
If you're worried about problems like MIT's current flap, then I suppose you didn't go anywhere for grad school. Name a significant research institution that doesn't occasionally find ways to put itself in this situation.
A friend of mine went on opening night and told me it was probably the best movie he had ever seen. I went to see it a week later, came home and laughed in his face.
Dig the love story tacked onto the last 5 minutes of the film. Brilliant. Never saw that one coming. And as for Keanu Reeves... I think Bill Cosby was more impressive in Leonard Part 6.
Reeves' single expression throughout the film ("Dull surprise!") is tedious enough without having his face blown up to IMAX proportions. And I imagine his monotone delivery does not benefit from having 30 kW of sound behind it.
But go ahead and queue up for it. The more people there are waiting for The Matrix in IMAX, the fewer there will be waiting in front of me for a better movie at the theater down the street.
Come to think of it -- EVERYONE GO SEE THE IMAX MATRIX AS FREQUENTLY AS POSSIBLE.
I guarantee you that you didn't black out due to negative Gs.
And I further guarantee you that even if you were particularly sensitive to negative Gs, you certainly would not experience them on Nitro at Six Flags New Jersey. Not even at the top of a hill; not even on the first drop.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem isn't so much how to count cards -- it's how to count them without letting your betting patterns get noticed. Presumably you're spending money and time on a card-counting hardware/software system with the intention of using it semi-regularly, so this is an important consideration if you want to win more than a few dollars here and there without getting attention from the eyes above and the eyes on the floor.
Let's say you're using a well-established counting method like hi-lo, or something like it of your own devising. Given that this is Slashdot, the latter is probably more likely, regardless of whether or not it's actually any better.
So whatever your system is, you have a hot shoe at this table. Your computer is buzzing your arm or shocking your ass or whatever it does to get your attention, and you want to abruptly drop a set of big bets to cash in on the improved but fleeting odds your computer has identified. You're going to get some unwanted attention if over the course of a few hours you "randomly" drop a big pile of chips in the center of the table a bunch of times. Particularly when you keep jerking up from the table as if you've been shocked in the ass.
That is, unless your system has some method of wager management that lets you blend in while reacting quickly to good odds. That seems pretty tough.
Maybe the computer could establish what appears to the casual observer/dealer as an idiotic, repeating pattern of wager quantities, thereby identifying you to all around as a grade-A moron and eliminating alarm when you change your betting quantities abruptly. Many easily recognized patterns would suffice. By changing these patterns in only moderate ways, it could be possible to eke out smaller but still positive expected returns than in elementary, obvious-to-keen-eyes card counting. You'd have to stick around the tables for a long time, though, to take advantage of a razor-thin advantage.
Oh, wait, that's how I do it. Albeit without computer assistance or the anal probe. So I guess I shouldn't have posted this.
Anyway, good luck building the glasses!
"Score a touchdown 1,2,3?"
Is that really the Eagles fight song?
Was it selected in a contest among eastern Pennsylvania elementary schools?
Hmm, cable connecter was about 1 foot long. At 88mph, total maximum contact time (Assuming the car didnt vanish half way through the connection - if it did less power was needed) was less then 1/100th of a second. Total power used by the car was therefore 1.21*10^9/10^2 - 12.1MJ. (1 watt is a measure of power, not energy - 1 joule per second)
Don't forget about arcing, which would effectively have made the "contact" time longer. There was definitely a small but visible arc, so the total energy needs might have been somewhat higher, though probably within the same order of magnitude.
But I suspect the total energy angle on this whole thing is inaccurate. Doc Emmitt L. Brown, ever the perfectionist, only claimed that there was a power requirement, not a total energy requirement. It may be that the total amount of time over which the power is applied (and therefore the total energy necessary) is irrelevant, so long as the flux capacitor's apparently-very-short time constant is covered. There may be only a localized power threshold relevant to the flux dispersal process, beyond which space-time warping and attendant temporal displacement are initiated instantaneously.
Thus, one could supply a tiny amount of energy in an incredibly short amount of time to achieve temporal displacement, allowing Marty to return home to 1985 using a fairly small capacitor cleverly engineered by Doc to discharge in one ten-billionth of a second. This would have made for a somewhat less interesting movie.
"One point twenty-one gigawatts!?! It can't be done! Can it? Oh, wait, gimme the battery from your digital watch. Okay, we're all set. You'll be home by lunch. Oh, and, uh, I'll take care of your parents."
There have been a lot of reports of people getting neurological injuries on coasters [ama-assn.org] already.
From the very same report cited above:
This is the first reported case, to our knowledge, of multiple cerebral contusions and subarachnoid hemorrhage occurring in a healthy person following a roller coaster ride.
Um, yeah. Quick, let's pass some laws!
Prepare ship for ludicrous speed!
I think the rest of the country would do good to follow New Jersey's lead.
This person must be trolling. Please, let this person be trolling.
Read up on the details. New Jersey has NOT outlawed "this type of ride." Rather, they have legislated caps on the G forces a ride is allowed to impose upon its riders, if that ride is to operate in the state. Cedar Point's new ride is comfortably within that maximum, and would be able to operate in New Jersey if a park there had the height variances, the business mandate and the cash required to build such a structure. Oh, and incidentally, New Jersey's G-force law will not prevent most of the injuries it is supposed to eliminate. Compare the nature of the cited injuries -- and the rides on which they occurred -- to the nature of the law's restrictions. There's little connection.
And while I'm here -- if you believe that their law against self-service at gas stations has a positive effect on public safety, you are wrong. It has a positive effect on PERCEIVED public safety, employment rates and other metrics with no bearing on your physical welfare. Self-serve is statistically quite a bit safer than full-serve. If you don't believe that, ask yourself why money-hungry insurance companies in 48 states (minus New Jersey and Oregon, where self-serve is a vicious crime against society) charge NO MORE to insure self-serve stations than full-serve stations.
So if you think this ride is dangerous, stay out of the line for it. Allow those of us who wish to "injure" ourselves to follow through on our folly. Someday you can look back wistfully on all the great experiences you watched other people have.
Don't even get me started on New Jersey's implementation of no-fault insurance. You'll never catch me owning a car in that state. Or stopping for gas there, either.
Well, I don't think MIT turns out too many politicians - they turn out exclusively scientists and engineers.
Try looking slightly beyond the boundaries of the U.S. Having accomplished that initial feat, I suppose the name Netanyahu might ring a bell. Or the names of past presidents of Colombia, Puerto Rico, or Costa Rica. Or, come to think of it, the names of significant non-Presidential U.S. politicians.
Not to be an ass, but... The MIT paper "The Tech" has a running list of notable politicians from MIT, for those who want to do 30 seconds of research before posting. It is not comprehensive, but it's a good start.
One more reason I'm glad I didn't go to MIT for grad school.
If you're worried about problems like MIT's current flap, then I suppose you didn't go anywhere for grad school. Name a significant research institution that doesn't occasionally find ways to put itself in this situation.
Gimme a break.
Dig the love story tacked onto the last 5 minutes of the film. Brilliant. Never saw that one coming. And as for Keanu Reeves... I think Bill Cosby was more impressive in Leonard Part 6.
Reeves' single expression throughout the film ("Dull surprise!") is tedious enough without having his face blown up to IMAX proportions. And I imagine his monotone delivery does not benefit from having 30 kW of sound behind it.
But go ahead and queue up for it. The more people there are waiting for The Matrix in IMAX, the fewer there will be waiting in front of me for a better movie at the theater down the street.
Come to think of it -- EVERYONE GO SEE THE IMAX MATRIX AS FREQUENTLY AS POSSIBLE.
I guarantee you that you didn't black out due to negative Gs.
And I further guarantee you that even if you were particularly sensitive to negative Gs, you certainly would not experience them on Nitro at Six Flags New Jersey. Not even at the top of a hill; not even on the first drop.