I have a lifetime $1200 positive average at roulette (I don't bet large amounts) in my local tribal casino. I've never been to vegas, but I'd imagine the casinos have better resources there. When I play roulette, I look for wheels that aren't level or on wobbly tables (tilt reduces randomness), watch for croupiers with a habitual spin pattern (also reduces randomness), and observe for a long enough time to feel reasonably comfortable with the pattern. Then, and this is the absolute most important part, I walk away when I hit my goal, usually $50 or $100. I've failed to walk away letting the emotion of winning overcome me, and have usually lost my winnings that way.
The thing is, it turns out to be so much work that it feels more like a second job than an entertaining Friday night. As a result, I think I've only played twice in the last two years. Gambling is about a mental state where one thinks about "easy money". When you have to work at it, the easy money glitter goes away and it quickly becomes boring repetitive work. Anyway, to your question, a skilled croupier could easily destroy all the work a player makes at observing wheel/croupier patterns. I know there were certain croupiers I simply would not play against.
As for the math, if a croupier is dropping the ball on one half of the board 75% of the time, and playing every number in that sector gives you a 47% chance of winning (double zero wheel), you'd be an idiot not to bet. But it takes a while to find the lazy croupiers and you have to watch over many visits to make sure it wasn't a fluke. Toward the end, Friday morning began to feel almost exactly like Sunday night does when you hate your job. So I quit.
The concise version of this: Murdock opted-in by publishing on the net. He has a simple opt-out for various consequences of publishing on the net. So asking "why should he have to opt-out" ignores the basic structure of publishing anything on the internet.
Why should anyone have to create a file and add specific content to it to opt-out of anything?
By default, the web is not a private data warehouse where only invited guests may enter. It is in fact, the exact opposite -- by default everything on the web is viewable by anyone. We have developed ways of limiting access, but any limit on access is intentionally bolted on because the default mode is "public space".
As for robots.txt, in the real world, if you want to control access, you put up fences, walls, doors, locks, etc. etc. Adding a few characters to a text file is trivial compared to stringing razor wire. So, bad analogy time: let's say you put up a big sign facing a public road. If you don't want people to read the sign, you can not put it up in the first place, or you could build a big wall in front of it so people can't see it. If your goal is to disseminate info or an opinion, it will clearly be more successful without the wall because people will look when they go by. If your goal is to make money from people reading the sign, add a door to the wall and charge admission. Just don't be surprised when very few passersby think what you have to say is worth the cost.
Murdoch has put up a big sign on a public road, but he is pissed that people read the sign when they drive by without paying. So, instead of taking responsibility for his actions, and walling off his sign or not erecting it in the first place, he wants every innocent user of the public road to pay him a toll. That's why people rightly think he is a sack-o-shit.
I've been thinking similar things, and although I would be loathe to go back to the days of having to head down to the library and look through cards to find a book that answers a question I can get an answer for from google in seconds, the search trail I leave says a lot about me. Anyone who actually played around with the AOL search data realizes this.
My first thought when thinking about a network of tiny robots, was that someone in some government in this world will definitely turn this into a surveillance and data gathering tool. So while I love technology and the ease it brings to my life, I am also becoming more aware that my privacy is at much greater risk now than it was even as recently as the early/middle 90s. As technology becomes more pervasive, the ability to abuse it becomes more pervasive and I'm worried about that, in a non-Luddite fashion.
Old macs that wouldn't boot: The "bios" battery is dead (probably). Those old macs won't boot with a dead battery -- well, I should qualify that: I once got a "won't boot" late 90s PowerMac to boot by making a holder for some AAA batteries and connecting them up. Then it booted fine. I don't know if the SE requires a battery or not to boot.
Other old companies: scanning the list it seems that the vast majority, more than 95% at least, are companies which either make something (wine, beer), extract resources (minerals, salt), refine materials (metallurgy), or provide a service related to essential human functions (shelter/food/baths). There is a smattering of banking early on, but it isn't till the 1700s that more abstract businesses join the list (notary (1816), legal services (1743), real estate(1743)).
The cryo business seems fairly abstract -- one could argue that it is like shelter or food, but there is no evidence that it works. It would be more like a cafe which serves "nourishing vapor" but we never get to see if the customers actually don't starve, so I'd have trouble putting it into an essential service type business.
Yeah, it makes sense that an old tank destroy an old smaller car. But as you mention, modern cars protect better in bad crashes. Thing is, we don't get to choose our accidents so I'd choose a modern car for any crash. Besides, even in small crashes there is more than one collision going -- the one between the cars, and the one between the occupants and the interior of their cars. Modern cars do better at creating a box that isn't crushed and protecting occupants from slamming up against the inside of that box.
Yeah, that's like "popularity nerd" or "football nerd" or "cheerleader nerd". Now, I have no qualms letting the guys who engineered this thing be considered nerds, but your average Bud-guzzling-jacked-up-F250-driving-NASCAR fan is not a nerd, and I feel offended that such a person who never likely felt the negative social impact of nerdiness would latch on to the term.
Well, in WA the counties tax everything as property. I literally pay property tax on everything in my office from the desks to my reams of paper and staples as property tax. These licenses are property. Tax them on a property basis rather than an export basis.
I'm sick of fucks like you who think that the because a business is large, they have no duty to pay taxes like all the small businesses. My employees buy things, have places to live, and do other tax generating activities -- I still have to pay taxes though. Why not MS? Because it is huge. Not a valid reason.
So what? I have employees. Should I be exempt from my own tax burden because my employees pay taxes? That is a "lame excuse" not a "good reason" for MS to be using state resources, enjoying the advantages of being in WA State (one of the prettiest and most alluring places in the world), and not contributing a bit upkeep.
This isn't a liberal tax and spend issue. This is an issue of a giant company guzzling state services (fire, water, police, increased road traffic, etc. etc. etc.) and letting the little guys pick up the tab. You know what? If MS isn't interested in paying its way, than fuck 'em. And yeah, they could move to Oklahoma or India, but how many of the really valuable employees are going to want to live in a backwards locality? It could be a death sentence for MS just because of the brain drain, not to mention the turmoil caused by moving.
No state income tax. Instead, WA taxes the shit out of small business. It can be especially hard on retailers because the state B&O tax is based on gross revenue, not profit. In other words, it is totally possible to run a money losing business and owe taxes on top of that. As a small business owner in WA (profitable thankfully), this story has me totally pissed.
Email is easy enough to offer but shared address books and calendaring may give Exchange the edge.
Darwin Calendar Server. Open Source, free, runs on Linux. I thought I read in the mailing list that address book sharing is coming, though I can't be positive on that. Still, makes a great calendar server and it works with Thunderbird, though Thunderbird is not an awesome calendar client.
Some howtos for installation: http://dcswiki.org/
That's only because they didn't have youtube. Imagine getting to see the dorky things did as a teenager. 50 years from now, historical documentaries will rock!
If the shape is such that a top movie gets only 1% of the market, top movies won't make enough profit to justify hiring Tom Cruise and it's a problem for him.
Tom Cruise is his own reason to justify not hiring Tom Cruise.
Would it be prudent for an unemployed person with a huge mortgage, no savings, and a credit card, to eat out on the card (presuming this is on a day in which said person is not going to an interview or doing anything beyond leisure activities)? You have to make a living before living it up. In terms of our economy, we aren't making a living -- we're just borrowing personally and nationally, to maintain a lifestyle we grew to enjoy in decades past when we made stuff. The debts grow exponentially but our ability to work does not.
What are you talking about? When oil was $10/bbl (latter 90s), gas was under a buck a gallon. I remember paying $1.20/gal when I was in HS (graduated 1987). Minimum wage when I was in HS was around $3/hr (2.5gal/hr). Minimum wage in the late 90s was maybe $6/hr (6gal/hr). Minimum wage now is $8.55/hr (WA), and gas is $3/gal (2.85gal/hr). Clearly, kids these days have it better than I did when I was a kid, but not so great as kids in the late 90s.
To look at it another way, gas was $1/gal when oil was $10/bbl. 15 minutes ago as I'm typing this, oil was 72.27/bbl. That's 7x more than the 90s price, yet gas is only 3x more expensive.
We're getting a bargain price but people are so energy greedy they don't even realize it. Whine whine, whine, but for what you get from fossil fuel, it's a deal at thrice the price. Seriously, go ahead and dig a 10x10x6 foot hole with a shovel, then watch it being done with an excavator -- you'll get an instant appreciation for the power of oil.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously no. But since I quit, I won! ;-)
I have a lifetime $1200 positive average at roulette (I don't bet large amounts) in my local tribal casino. I've never been to vegas, but I'd imagine the casinos have better resources there. When I play roulette, I look for wheels that aren't level or on wobbly tables (tilt reduces randomness), watch for croupiers with a habitual spin pattern (also reduces randomness), and observe for a long enough time to feel reasonably comfortable with the pattern. Then, and this is the absolute most important part, I walk away when I hit my goal, usually $50 or $100. I've failed to walk away letting the emotion of winning overcome me, and have usually lost my winnings that way.
The thing is, it turns out to be so much work that it feels more like a second job than an entertaining Friday night. As a result, I think I've only played twice in the last two years. Gambling is about a mental state where one thinks about "easy money". When you have to work at it, the easy money glitter goes away and it quickly becomes boring repetitive work. Anyway, to your question, a skilled croupier could easily destroy all the work a player makes at observing wheel/croupier patterns. I know there were certain croupiers I simply would not play against.
As for the math, if a croupier is dropping the ball on one half of the board 75% of the time, and playing every number in that sector gives you a 47% chance of winning (double zero wheel), you'd be an idiot not to bet. But it takes a while to find the lazy croupiers and you have to watch over many visits to make sure it wasn't a fluke. Toward the end, Friday morning began to feel almost exactly like Sunday night does when you hate your job. So I quit.
The concise version of this: Murdock opted-in by publishing on the net. He has a simple opt-out for various consequences of publishing on the net. So asking "why should he have to opt-out" ignores the basic structure of publishing anything on the internet.
By default, the web is not a private data warehouse where only invited guests may enter. It is in fact, the exact opposite -- by default everything on the web is viewable by anyone. We have developed ways of limiting access, but any limit on access is intentionally bolted on because the default mode is "public space".
As for robots.txt, in the real world, if you want to control access, you put up fences, walls, doors, locks, etc. etc. Adding a few characters to a text file is trivial compared to stringing razor wire. So, bad analogy time: let's say you put up a big sign facing a public road. If you don't want people to read the sign, you can not put it up in the first place, or you could build a big wall in front of it so people can't see it. If your goal is to disseminate info or an opinion, it will clearly be more successful without the wall because people will look when they go by. If your goal is to make money from people reading the sign, add a door to the wall and charge admission. Just don't be surprised when very few passersby think what you have to say is worth the cost.
Murdoch has put up a big sign on a public road, but he is pissed that people read the sign when they drive by without paying. So, instead of taking responsibility for his actions, and walling off his sign or not erecting it in the first place, he wants every innocent user of the public road to pay him a toll. That's why people rightly think he is a sack-o-shit.
I've been thinking similar things, and although I would be loathe to go back to the days of having to head down to the library and look through cards to find a book that answers a question I can get an answer for from google in seconds, the search trail I leave says a lot about me. Anyone who actually played around with the AOL search data realizes this.
My first thought when thinking about a network of tiny robots, was that someone in some government in this world will definitely turn this into a surveillance and data gathering tool. So while I love technology and the ease it brings to my life, I am also becoming more aware that my privacy is at much greater risk now than it was even as recently as the early/middle 90s. As technology becomes more pervasive, the ability to abuse it becomes more pervasive and I'm worried about that, in a non-Luddite fashion.
Old macs that wouldn't boot: The "bios" battery is dead (probably). Those old macs won't boot with a dead battery -- well, I should qualify that: I once got a "won't boot" late 90s PowerMac to boot by making a holder for some AAA batteries and connecting them up. Then it booted fine. I don't know if the SE requires a battery or not to boot.
Other old companies: scanning the list it seems that the vast majority, more than 95% at least, are companies which either make something (wine, beer), extract resources (minerals, salt), refine materials (metallurgy), or provide a service related to essential human functions (shelter/food/baths). There is a smattering of banking early on, but it isn't till the 1700s that more abstract businesses join the list (notary (1816), legal services (1743), real estate(1743)).
The cryo business seems fairly abstract -- one could argue that it is like shelter or food, but there is no evidence that it works. It would be more like a cafe which serves "nourishing vapor" but we never get to see if the customers actually don't starve, so I'd have trouble putting it into an essential service type business.
Modern car crash: $1000 for bumper and $0.10 for bandaid, total: $1000.10
Old car crash: $50 to mend scratch on bumper, $7500 for head injury, untold lost earning power because now you're an idiot, total: $7550+
Yeah, it makes sense that an old tank destroy an old smaller car. But as you mention, modern cars protect better in bad crashes. Thing is, we don't get to choose our accidents so I'd choose a modern car for any crash. Besides, even in small crashes there is more than one collision going -- the one between the cars, and the one between the occupants and the interior of their cars. Modern cars do better at creating a box that isn't crushed and protecting occupants from slamming up against the inside of that box.
Well, if your employer exposed you to 151 dB, it WOULD be against the law (scroll down for table G-16 and read the footnote, maximum impulse noise level is 140 dB):
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=standards&p_id=9735
Also note that OSHA standards are weak. Most otolaryngolgists will tell you that 80dB for an 8 hour period is injurious. OSHA allows for 90dB.
Yeah, that's like "popularity nerd" or "football nerd" or "cheerleader nerd". Now, I have no qualms letting the guys who engineered this thing be considered nerds, but your average Bud-guzzling-jacked-up-F250-driving-NASCAR fan is not a nerd, and I feel offended that such a person who never likely felt the negative social impact of nerdiness would latch on to the term.
Well, in WA the counties tax everything as property. I literally pay property tax on everything in my office from the desks to my reams of paper and staples as property tax. These licenses are property. Tax them on a property basis rather than an export basis.
So why then does the state have to pay half the cost of a bridge to it's worksite? http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/31/bridge.microsoft/
(yes -- federal stimulus money, but do you really think that wouldn't be used for other roads and bridges?)
I'm sick of fucks like you who think that the because a business is large, they have no duty to pay taxes like all the small businesses. My employees buy things, have places to live, and do other tax generating activities -- I still have to pay taxes though. Why not MS? Because it is huge. Not a valid reason.
Simply deem the licenses created in WA and sent to NV where they were sold. A license is sort of fictional anyway. Tax the exported licenses.
So what? I have employees. Should I be exempt from my own tax burden because my employees pay taxes? That is a "lame excuse" not a "good reason" for MS to be using state resources, enjoying the advantages of being in WA State (one of the prettiest and most alluring places in the world), and not contributing a bit upkeep.
This isn't a liberal tax and spend issue. This is an issue of a giant company guzzling state services (fire, water, police, increased road traffic, etc. etc. etc.) and letting the little guys pick up the tab. You know what? If MS isn't interested in paying its way, than fuck 'em. And yeah, they could move to Oklahoma or India, but how many of the really valuable employees are going to want to live in a backwards locality? It could be a death sentence for MS just because of the brain drain, not to mention the turmoil caused by moving.
No state income tax. Instead, WA taxes the shit out of small business. It can be especially hard on retailers because the state B&O tax is based on gross revenue, not profit. In other words, it is totally possible to run a money losing business and owe taxes on top of that. As a small business owner in WA (profitable thankfully), this story has me totally pissed.
Way to blame MS for using state resources without contributing to that cost.
As I mentioned, it looks like an address book server is near: http://www.nabble.com/Darwin-CardDAV-Server-to25243546.html#a25243546
Darwin Calendar Server. Open Source, free, runs on Linux. I thought I read in the mailing list that address book sharing is coming, though I can't be positive on that. Still, makes a great calendar server and it works with Thunderbird, though Thunderbird is not an awesome calendar client. Some howtos for installation: http://dcswiki.org/
That's only because they didn't have youtube. Imagine getting to see the dorky things did as a teenager. 50 years from now, historical documentaries will rock!
Tom Cruise is his own reason to justify not hiring Tom Cruise.
Would it be prudent for an unemployed person with a huge mortgage, no savings, and a credit card, to eat out on the card (presuming this is on a day in which said person is not going to an interview or doing anything beyond leisure activities)? You have to make a living before living it up. In terms of our economy, we aren't making a living -- we're just borrowing personally and nationally, to maintain a lifestyle we grew to enjoy in decades past when we made stuff. The debts grow exponentially but our ability to work does not.
What are you talking about? When oil was $10/bbl (latter 90s), gas was under a buck a gallon. I remember paying $1.20/gal when I was in HS (graduated 1987). Minimum wage when I was in HS was around $3/hr (2.5gal/hr). Minimum wage in the late 90s was maybe $6/hr (6gal/hr). Minimum wage now is $8.55/hr (WA), and gas is $3/gal (2.85gal/hr). Clearly, kids these days have it better than I did when I was a kid, but not so great as kids in the late 90s.
To look at it another way, gas was $1/gal when oil was $10/bbl. 15 minutes ago as I'm typing this, oil was 72.27/bbl. That's 7x more than the 90s price, yet gas is only 3x more expensive.
We're getting a bargain price but people are so energy greedy they don't even realize it. Whine whine, whine, but for what you get from fossil fuel, it's a deal at thrice the price. Seriously, go ahead and dig a 10x10x6 foot hole with a shovel, then watch it being done with an excavator -- you'll get an instant appreciation for the power of oil.