the current average human life span is PLENTY for achieving dreams, enjoyment, and personal betterment
Speak for yourself. Some of us have bigger goals.
instead of trying to extend life, these guys should be out there LIVING.
Yeah, let's convert the NIH into a building for raves rather than all that pointless curing cancer stuff.
if we're going to evolve, let's evolve along the lines of cybernetics, improving the quality of life for the here and now, instead of hanging around longer
As if they're mutually exclusive. Many people's quality of life would be greatly improved if their parents were still alive and healthy. Look, if you think aging and death is a beautiful natural process, nobody's going to stop you. Just stay out of the way of the rest of us.
it seems like the longer people live, the worse shape they become
Which is exactly what anti-aging programs seek to correct. The goal isn't to add years to the end of your life, it's to add them in the middle when you're healthy.
Food companies like to blame the problem instead of the cause. They will blame obesity for poor health instead of the quality of their products. If we want better health we need a more advanced food industry which actually designs foods to be as health as possible instead of food that is plain addictive.
The fast food joints actually tried to offer a bunch of healthy (well, healthier) selections a few years ago; the only problem was people really do like burgers and fries better than salads. They're giving us exactly what we want, which is food that tastes good even if it eventually kills us.
Itis. PVR=no commercials. As they become more common, ad-funded TV will wither and die, and good riddance. Commercials are a lousy way to fund programs, a key reason being that they force networks to appeal to the lowest common denominator. 10 million viewers of a random sitcom get higher priority than 5 million devoted Firefly fans, even though the Firefly fans would be willing to collectively pay more.
I have no problem making it illegal to misuse confidential data, but as we've seen with the DMCA, anti-circumvention laws interfere with a large number of otherwise legitimate activities. Murder is illegal; baseball bats aren't.
DRM is the REALITY- because the studios (music/movies) are going to insist upon it.
They're bluffing. Remember how the networks weren't going to produce anything in HD unless the broadcast flag was mandated? Funny how they haven't stopped even after the FCC got slapped down.
Although DRM is a double edged sword, it's benefits to privacy far outweigh the *AA uses for it
Huh? You can encrypt your files today, without DRM. You *cannot* give information to someone you don't trust and then prevent them from exploiting it, even with DRM.
DRM would let the 3rd-party access the data on a one-time use basis.
Yes, except that's completely impossible. Once the 3rd party sees the data, there is absolutely no way to prevent them from copying it, even if they have to use a circumvention device such as a pencil.
There have also been accusations of poker sites doing the cheating. By altering the odds, they can generate bigger pots and therefore bigger rakes. Take a simple example. Deal one player pocket aces and another player pocket kings.
That's an interesting theory, and I've heard it before. I don't believe it actually happens though, particularly since players can track and analyze all the hands they play. (This is a very good tracker if you're on a Mac). If I have KK at a 10 player table, there's something like a 4% chance that somebody else has AA. If I look at my stats and discover that it's actually happening 15% of the time, I'm going to be suspicious and compare notes with others, and if they're seeing the same thing the site is going to have some explaining to do. Now maybe they could get away with 6%, but at that point the potential gain is probably too small to justify the risk.
My general view is that established poker sites can make so much money in rake running fair games that I don't see it being in their best interest to cheat.
Any poker book will tell you to never go all-in on a friendly game where everybody stays in and holds out to the showdown.
Get better books. Er, on second thought don't, and just play at my tables:) Seriously, if you have AA preflop and know that everybody will call you regardless of your bet, you should move all in every single time. Yes, if 9 people call you with random hands you'll only win 30% of the time. But you win 9 times your bet when you do, which more than makes up for the 70% of the time you lose.
Anyone have information as to how cheating scanning relates to online poker?
It's actually harder than it appears to collude effectively. Knowing your accomplice's hand will give you slightly better knowledge of the odds of the remaining cards, but that's generally not an overwhelming advantage. It might turn a marginal fold into a marginal call or vice versa, which isn't a huge gain. The best way to collude would be for cheaters to trap a victim between them. For example, cheater A bets with a strong hand. Victim who is next to act calls with a weaker hand. Cheater B has absolutely nothing, but raises in order to make the victim call an extra bet. The problem with this is that it's pretty easy to detect with any sort of betting pattern analysis, and the other players at the table will catch on if it's too obvious.
I consistently win at low limit online poker playing by the book. If my opponents are colluding, they're not doing a very good job of it.
Tell us in what way Mac OS {10-n } was a) buggy b) unstable and c) single-threaded?
(a) is a matter of opinion. (b) isn't; an OS where a single application failure can easily bring down the whole system is unstable by definition. (c) is technically false, but effectively true. The Thread Manager only supported cooperative threads, which doesn't really count. You could create preemptive threads with the multiprocessing API, but they were very limited as to what they could do (no memory allocation IIRC).
I'm a Mac fan too, but there's no denying that the internals of Mac OS pre-X sucked. I still preferred it to Windows because of the UI, but I'm very pleased that with OS X I no longer have to make that tradeoff.
there are other reasons but these are the ones off the top of my head.
The big one for me is lack of consideration. A contract isn't supposed to be valid unless both parties receive something of value. The typical EULA gives the customer *nothing* she didn't already have. No, the right to run the software doesn't count, because you already have that right by virtue of purchasing it. (See 17 USC 117). EULAs try an end run around this by pretending to retroactively convert what is clearly a sale (see Softman v Adobe) into a "license", and under any sane legal system that should be laughed out of court.
just waiting for some real judges to throw these legal hogwash EULAs out.
That would be nice, but I suspect we're going to be waiting for a long time.
Nope. It concerns redistribution, not use, and doesn't attempt to remove any of your existing rights. You don't have to agree to the GPL to use software covered by it, although there's no reason you wouldn't.
in order to produce the quality that they must to stay competitive, they _must_ limit their hardware install base, or they _must_ grow to being the size of Microsoft overnight.
Absolutely right. If Apple goes for OS X on commodity PCs they're betting the company, because they'll have to *vastly* increase their market share to compensate for the loss of hardware sales. As OS/2, Be, and NeXT 1.0 have shown, this is extremely hard to do in the face of the MS monopoly, even if you have clear technical superiority.
The fantasy of Adam Smith has been proven to be untenable, the invisible hand is usually in the pants pocket of the poor, filching their wallets.
What an astounding creationist-level denial of reality. Because of capitalism, the "poor" in the first world have computers, cell phones, and multiple TVs, and one of their biggest problems is obesity. The blatantly obvious lesson of the 20th century is that capitalism pretty much works, and socialism doesn't. In the best case of the latter you get a stagnant economy; in the worst case you get millions of people murdered by their own governments.
Even if you don't decide to really invest and get pure investment properties, you should get a house if at all possible. When you rent, your money goes nowhere. It just dissappears to your landlord every month. You live there for 10 years and leave with nothing. However if you own a place, your money goes to paying for it, as well as going to pay the bank's intrest charges.
And that interest also disappears. (True, you might get some back via tax deductions). Then there's closing costs, property taxes, insurance, and the money and time spent on maintenance. Buying a house doesn't get you out of nonrecoverable costs, and especially in today's wacky markets it's not a no-brainer.
Anyone reading the linked article might note the following:
"It is a holy place, there is no doubt about it," Kimmitt added. "It has a special status under the Geneva Convention that it can't be attacked.
"However, it can be attacked when there is a military necessity brought on by the fact that the enemy is storing weapons, using weapons, inciting violence and executing violence from its grounds," he said.
Once you start attacking people whilst hiding in what would normally be considered a neutral or protected structure, any neutrality or protection that structure previously enjoyed goes out the window at the discretion of those you attacked.
In other words you can't start whining when someone drops a JDAM or Paveway into the mosque you've been firing RPGs at them from.
Slashdot Mirror
the current average human life span is PLENTY for achieving dreams, enjoyment, and personal betterment
Speak for yourself. Some of us have bigger goals.
instead of trying to extend life, these guys should be out there LIVING.
Yeah, let's convert the NIH into a building for raves rather than all that pointless curing cancer stuff.
if we're going to evolve, let's evolve along the lines of cybernetics, improving the quality of life for the here and now, instead of hanging around longer
As if they're mutually exclusive. Many people's quality of life would be greatly improved if their parents were still alive and healthy. Look, if you think aging and death is a beautiful natural process, nobody's going to stop you. Just stay out of the way of the rest of us.
it seems like the longer people live, the worse shape they become
Which is exactly what anti-aging programs seek to correct. The goal isn't to add years to the end of your life, it's to add them in the middle when you're healthy.
Food companies like to blame the problem instead of the cause. They will blame obesity for poor health instead of the quality of their products. If we want better health we need a more advanced food industry which actually designs foods to be as health as possible instead of food that is plain addictive.
The fast food joints actually tried to offer a bunch of healthy (well, healthier) selections a few years ago; the only problem was people really do like burgers and fries better than salads. They're giving us exactly what we want, which is food that tastes good even if it eventually kills us.
So why hasn't it?
It is. PVR=no commercials. As they become more common, ad-funded TV will wither and die, and good riddance. Commercials are a lousy way to fund programs, a key reason being that they force networks to appeal to the lowest common denominator. 10 million viewers of a random sitcom get higher priority than 5 million devoted Firefly fans, even though the Firefly fans would be willing to collectively pay more.
I have no problem making it illegal to misuse confidential data, but as we've seen with the DMCA, anti-circumvention laws interfere with a large number of otherwise legitimate activities. Murder is illegal; baseball bats aren't.
DRM is the REALITY- because the studios (music/movies) are going to insist upon it.
They're bluffing. Remember how the networks weren't going to produce anything in HD unless the broadcast flag was mandated? Funny how they haven't stopped even after the FCC got slapped down.
Although DRM is a double edged sword, it's benefits to privacy far outweigh the *AA uses for it
Huh? You can encrypt your files today, without DRM. You *cannot* give information to someone you don't trust and then prevent them from exploiting it, even with DRM.
DRM would let the 3rd-party access the data on a one-time use basis.
Yes, except that's completely impossible. Once the 3rd party sees the data, there is absolutely no way to prevent them from copying it, even if they have to use a circumvention device such as a pencil.
Excellent idea, seriously proposed here by the same guy who came up with the unfairly-maligned "terrorism futures" market.
There have also been accusations of poker sites doing the cheating. By altering the odds, they can generate bigger pots and therefore bigger rakes. Take a simple example. Deal one player pocket aces and another player pocket kings.
That's an interesting theory, and I've heard it before. I don't believe it actually happens though, particularly since players can track and analyze all the hands they play. (This is a very good tracker if you're on a Mac). If I have KK at a 10 player table, there's something like a 4% chance that somebody else has AA. If I look at my stats and discover that it's actually happening 15% of the time, I'm going to be suspicious and compare notes with others, and if they're seeing the same thing the site is going to have some explaining to do. Now maybe they could get away with 6%, but at that point the potential gain is probably too small to justify the risk.
My general view is that established poker sites can make so much money in rake running fair games that I don't see it being in their best interest to cheat.
Any poker book will tell you to never go all-in on a friendly game where everybody stays in and holds out to the showdown.
:) Seriously, if you have AA preflop and know that everybody will call you regardless of your bet, you should move all in every single time. Yes, if 9 people call you with random hands you'll only win 30% of the time. But you win 9 times your bet when you do, which more than makes up for the 70% of the time you lose.
Get better books. Er, on second thought don't, and just play at my tables
How does that bet work? Clearly if you have a choice of directly betting aginst the shooter, you make that ~1.3%.
You lose a "pass" bet on double sixes, but don't win a "don't pass".
Anyone have information as to how cheating scanning relates to online poker?
It's actually harder than it appears to collude effectively. Knowing your accomplice's hand will give you slightly better knowledge of the odds of the remaining cards, but that's generally not an overwhelming advantage. It might turn a marginal fold into a marginal call or vice versa, which isn't a huge gain. The best way to collude would be for cheaters to trap a victim between them. For example, cheater A bets with a strong hand. Victim who is next to act calls with a weaker hand. Cheater B has absolutely nothing, but raises in order to make the victim call an extra bet. The problem with this is that it's pretty easy to detect with any sort of betting pattern analysis, and the other players at the table will catch on if it's too obvious.
I consistently win at low limit online poker playing by the book. If my opponents are colluding, they're not doing a very good job of it.
Tell us in what way Mac OS {10-n } was a) buggy b) unstable and c) single-threaded?
(a) is a matter of opinion. (b) isn't; an OS where a single application failure can easily bring down the whole system is unstable by definition. (c) is technically false, but effectively true. The Thread Manager only supported cooperative threads, which doesn't really count. You could create preemptive threads with the multiprocessing API, but they were very limited as to what they could do (no memory allocation IIRC).
I'm a Mac fan too, but there's no denying that the internals of Mac OS pre-X sucked. I still preferred it to Windows because of the UI, but I'm very pleased that with OS X I no longer have to make that tradeoff.
there are other reasons but these are the ones off the top of my head.
The big one for me is lack of consideration. A contract isn't supposed to be valid unless both parties receive something of value. The typical EULA gives the customer *nothing* she didn't already have. No, the right to run the software doesn't count, because you already have that right by virtue of purchasing it. (See 17 USC 117). EULAs try an end run around this by pretending to retroactively convert what is clearly a sale (see Softman v Adobe) into a "license", and under any sane legal system that should be laughed out of court.
just waiting for some real judges to throw these legal hogwash EULAs out.
That would be nice, but I suspect we're going to be waiting for a long time.
The GPL is a EULA.
Nope. It concerns redistribution, not use, and doesn't attempt to remove any of your existing rights. You don't have to agree to the GPL to use software covered by it, although there's no reason you wouldn't.
Exactly. Government officials ignorant of basic economics, what are the odds?
in order to produce the quality that they must to stay competitive, they _must_ limit their hardware install base, or they _must_ grow to being the size of Microsoft overnight.
Absolutely right. If Apple goes for OS X on commodity PCs they're betting the company, because they'll have to *vastly* increase their market share to compensate for the loss of hardware sales. As OS/2, Be, and NeXT 1.0 have shown, this is extremely hard to do in the face of the MS monopoly, even if you have clear technical superiority.
The fantasy of Adam Smith has been proven to be untenable, the invisible hand is usually in the pants pocket of the poor, filching their wallets.
What an astounding creationist-level denial of reality. Because of capitalism, the "poor" in the first world have computers, cell phones, and multiple TVs, and one of their biggest problems is obesity. The blatantly obvious lesson of the 20th century is that capitalism pretty much works, and socialism doesn't. In the best case of the latter you get a stagnant economy; in the worst case you get millions of people murdered by their own governments.
Howard Stern is perfectly safe on satellite frequencies; it's just that a lot of people don't want him on public radio frequencies.
Nope; there are plenty of would-be censors calling for regulation of cable and satellite just like broadcast.
This country wasn't founded on totalitarianism, it was founded on the rights of the individual. The right not to listen to smut is one of those.
Quite so. Which is why I oppose the bill requiring all citizens to listen to Howard Stern for 60 minutes every day. Oh wait.
Sweet. I'll have to see if it will run in qemu on my Mac.
So what the world needs is a match-making service for geeks. Maybe /. would consider it?
Minor problem with supply and demand...
Even if you don't decide to really invest and get pure investment properties, you should get a house if at all possible. When you rent, your money goes nowhere. It just dissappears to your landlord every month. You live there for 10 years and leave with nothing. However if you own a place, your money goes to paying for it, as well as going to pay the bank's intrest charges.
And that interest also disappears. (True, you might get some back via tax deductions). Then there's closing costs, property taxes, insurance, and the money and time spent on maintenance. Buying a house doesn't get you out of nonrecoverable costs, and especially in today's wacky markets it's not a no-brainer.
There exists little, concise proof, that humans evolved from ape.
Humans did not evolve from apes. Humans and apes have a common ancestor.
Best of all, stop stating the theory of human evolution as fact. Simple fact is, it's a THEORY!
So is gravity.