Apple has a pretty strong claim on the idea of dragging a GUI interface icon into a trash can to signal a request to delete a binary object... so much so that in MS-Windows, they clearly label their similar object as a "Recycle Bin" instead.
Apple is pretty much here describing what's unique about the iPod UI so that anybody else who wants to make a competiting music player had better design their own UI rather than copy the iPod's. It's not that hard, just avoid the using the same menu structure and same "spin and click" structure and you'll be all set.
Yes, but given the odds paid in this game, if any player can sucessfully predict any three spots where the ball won't land, they will have done enough to create a player advantage.
It depends from jurisdiction to jurisdiction what casinos are allowed to do with players they don't like, such as card counters...
In Las Vegas, for example, they can simply tell a card counter they're no longer welcome there and force them to leave. In Atlantic City, they cannot, but they are allowed to annoy a card counter out of their casino with tactics such as a shuffle after every hand.
One of the key elements of the MIT Blackjack scheme was that taken as individuals, each member of the team behaved like a typical casino customer. The spotters played a consistant value at the tables they were playing. When they spotted good cards due, instead of increasing their own bets like an individual counter would, they signaled for a "whale player" to come in and make a few big bets, which is what rich people tend to do at a casino as well.
Any analysis looking for individual card counters would turn up nothing interesting going on... and trying to determine that a team was in play posed the problem of identifying team members while there was noise from other casino customers moving through the same tables.
A game with a.25% advantage in favor of the player would still require a high number of games be played before the player is assured victory. The game could take a random walk unfavorable to the player, just like some lucky people can win big despite playing blackjack poorly according to book logic just because they happened to hit a random walk in their favor.
Randomness is really sometimes just a proxy for "too complex to be understood". Afterall, in any form of mixing bin, all of the balls inside do have to obey the laws of physics. If you knew the starting positions and details about all of the activities that are going on in the bin, you could possibly solve for which ball is going to be the one selected.
That's why it's essential that some details of the mixing situation should not be disclosed to the public while betting is still going on. I think what makes most daily blower-bin based lotto games unpredictible is the fact that the exact to-the-nanosecond time at which the bin is opened is being determined by a presenter who is also responsible for talking at the same time. Therefore, they can't possibly have enough control of their hands know what exactly their influence on the outcome is going to do. Since nobody else can really predict down to the fraction of a second what the presenter is going to do, everybody's on a level playing field.
I think the ultimate solution to this roulette wheel issue will be to call a stop to betting before the ball and wheel are put into motion. Therefore, by the time the information needed to determine the result of this spin is available, it will be too late to act upon it.
One person cannot forcefully overthrow a government alone. The first step in an insurrection is organizing people who are like-minded that the government needs to be replaced.
People like to say "The Internet treats any form of censorship as damage and tries to route around it." and in most cases that's true. If a router is refusing to allow access to another address, the router before it will attempt to find another way to get the packets to where they're supposed to go.
However, if the only ways out of the house/building/campus/country on the network are all controled by the same sensoring authority, there's no way to get there from here. So, Tyranical goverments just need to maintain control of all wires leaving their country, and prevent people from owning satellite dishes and then they'll be all set at blocking sites that they don't like.
Network storage drives aren't as much about performance as much as simplicity. Afterall, if speed really matters to you, the data should already be local to your PC if possible.
This is just a way to eliminate the needless parts from a low-end simple file server. Who needs to use a full-blown OS for that? Simpler software is often the most secure and faster.
Why does this device need to be both wired and wireless? Most users will use the device either by the wire, or as part of a purely WiFi network... who would use both interfaces? Seems like this device could be cheaper if it came in two different versions, one with the wired ports and the other with the WiFi parts.
This brings up a very interesting question. People used to theorise about what would happen if somebody left a laptop full of WiFi-shared MP3s in a coffee shop... but who needs a full laptop to do that, this makes the theoretical cost of such a device close to $200...
Blah Blah blah. Tell me more about Linux and gaming.
Linux isn't everything. In fact, this is a situation which makes you wonder if your file server really needs to be running Linux. If all your file server is doing is connecting an HD to your network, then this device can do it in hardware alone.
This is an interesting reminder about the "network data storage device" market. Cut those things open, and there's a standard HD plus the interface hardware it takes so that the drive can be reached over the network. In fact, cut open a USB 2.0 or Firewire HD and you'll find pretty much the same thing, and the same goes for external CD or DVD drives.
So, for $150 plus the cost of whatever HD you'd like to use you can build your own "network data storage device". If you just want a HD hanging on the network, without any need for the rest of the features of a full grown file server, then this is the part you want.
In fact I have... it's just like any other form of counterfiet products. See, most smokers cannot tell the difference from one brand of cigarette to another. There aren't that many things you can change about a cigarette anyway to make it different from another brand. So, if you take a generic cigarette and apply Marlboro trademarks to its packaging, you're going to fool most observers.
You don't know what PM had because the store owners didn't take them to court and make them show their hand. They may in fact have had proof that the store did sell one of their agents such mislabeled goods, or maybe they were just bluffing. You didn't call their bet, you folded and you've got to pay to see those cards.
They likely dealt with that supplier because they offered the lowest price. However, buying from the low cost supplier without seeking proof that they're selling the real thing leads to thise kind of trouble.
He bought into the FUD from SCO at the time of the deal. The purchase deal of those IP licenses in no way protected them from SCO lawsuits. We've seen the text of SCO license deals on Groklaw, and they never grant any kind of immunity like that.
Facts not in evidence. You haven't seen this deal on Groklaw...
I don't feel much pity for those who were sued for doing wrong. Were they not aware that the goods they were selling labeled with PM brands were not coming from PM?
Redhat's indemnification policy doesn't solve all fear-of-SCO situations. If SCO were to get an injunction from a crazy judge that orders a hosting center shut down, even if that ruling is voided by appeals courts 18 hours later, 18 hours of downtime with the possiblity of more would seriously ruin EV1's reputation.
Uhm... how is EV1's announcement not to follow their lead not going to cause problems for SCO in the future? I think he found a way to get back at SCO without violating his contract.
Actually, there's a threshhold below which most companies don't send any representive when sued... figuring that it's just not worth it to the company, and they'll take their chances of getting a default judgement against them as a result. Simply put, the ammount in despute is less than the price of finding or sending a lawyer to appear in that court.
Well, he's been hosting my site for close to a year now, and I can't hold him accountable for anything breaking on my server because, well, nothing has broken.
It's that kind of track record that his business runs on. They don't make any SLA pledge that you're server won't totally fall apart, but they just have a volume of customers whose servers haven't fallen apart in the past.
He'd have a hard time doing so, since he's not allowed to release information about how much he really gave to SCO. Even if he gave double the actual ammount, people might still claim he gave less and he'd have no way of proving otherwise.
Even if SCO's IP claims are totally invalid, it's still not a no-cost proposition to decline when they come seeking a license from your company. Turning down such a deal is the path to being the next company sued, as AutoZone has apparently found out the hard way.
Even though SCO doesn't really have anything to stand on, they're still trying to prop up their case, and they've yet to be dealt the devastating legal defeat that'll end this once and for all. The problem is, the company that wins the lawsuit that deals SCO it's leathal blow is still going to be a loser in the long term. Knocking out SCO's FUD in a courtroom is not a trivial thing, and the bill for those legal services is going to arrive at the foot of the one defendant in that case, even though the whole world is going to be better off from the death of SCO.
If SCO were to have sued OSDN, think of the consequences. Even though OSDN would never bow down to SCO... just where would they get the money to stay in business after spending so much on a lawsuit?
What he has done is the biggest thing to get in the way of SCO's future sales he could... taking away SCO's ability to use his name in their marketing, because he's now on record as saying it's not as good as it appears.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple has a pretty strong claim on the idea of dragging a GUI interface icon into a trash can to signal a request to delete a binary object... so much so that in MS-Windows, they clearly label their similar object as a "Recycle Bin" instead.
Apple is pretty much here describing what's unique about the iPod UI so that anybody else who wants to make a competiting music player had better design their own UI rather than copy the iPod's. It's not that hard, just avoid the using the same menu structure and same "spin and click" structure and you'll be all set.
It's the job of Microsoft's marketing people to come up with literature that says their programs are better than anything else out there.
Yes, but given the odds paid in this game, if any player can sucessfully predict any three spots where the ball won't land, they will have done enough to create a player advantage.
It depends from jurisdiction to jurisdiction what casinos are allowed to do with players they don't like, such as card counters...
In Las Vegas, for example, they can simply tell a card counter they're no longer welcome there and force them to leave. In Atlantic City, they cannot, but they are allowed to annoy a card counter out of their casino with tactics such as a shuffle after every hand.
One of the key elements of the MIT Blackjack scheme was that taken as individuals, each member of the team behaved like a typical casino customer. The spotters played a consistant value at the tables they were playing. When they spotted good cards due, instead of increasing their own bets like an individual counter would, they signaled for a "whale player" to come in and make a few big bets, which is what rich people tend to do at a casino as well.
Any analysis looking for individual card counters would turn up nothing interesting going on... and trying to determine that a team was in play posed the problem of identifying team members while there was noise from other casino customers moving through the same tables.
A game with a .25% advantage in favor of the player would still require a high number of games be played before the player is assured victory. The game could take a random walk unfavorable to the player, just like some lucky people can win big despite playing blackjack poorly according to book logic just because they happened to hit a random walk in their favor.
Randomness is really sometimes just a proxy for "too complex to be understood". Afterall, in any form of mixing bin, all of the balls inside do have to obey the laws of physics. If you knew the starting positions and details about all of the activities that are going on in the bin, you could possibly solve for which ball is going to be the one selected.
That's why it's essential that some details of the mixing situation should not be disclosed to the public while betting is still going on. I think what makes most daily blower-bin based lotto games unpredictible is the fact that the exact to-the-nanosecond time at which the bin is opened is being determined by a presenter who is also responsible for talking at the same time. Therefore, they can't possibly have enough control of their hands know what exactly their influence on the outcome is going to do. Since nobody else can really predict down to the fraction of a second what the presenter is going to do, everybody's on a level playing field.
I think the ultimate solution to this roulette wheel issue will be to call a stop to betting before the ball and wheel are put into motion. Therefore, by the time the information needed to determine the result of this spin is available, it will be too late to act upon it.
One person cannot forcefully overthrow a government alone. The first step in an insurrection is organizing people who are like-minded that the government needs to be replaced.
BBC News broadcasts are also distributed by many public television stations in the USA and also on the BBC America cable channel.
People like to say "The Internet treats any form of censorship as damage and tries to route around it." and in most cases that's true. If a router is refusing to allow access to another address, the router before it will attempt to find another way to get the packets to where they're supposed to go.
However, if the only ways out of the house/building/campus/country on the network are all controled by the same sensoring authority, there's no way to get there from here. So, Tyranical goverments just need to maintain control of all wires leaving their country, and prevent people from owning satellite dishes and then they'll be all set at blocking sites that they don't like.
Network storage drives aren't as much about performance as much as simplicity. Afterall, if speed really matters to you, the data should already be local to your PC if possible.
This is just a way to eliminate the needless parts from a low-end simple file server. Who needs to use a full-blown OS for that? Simpler software is often the most secure and faster.
Why does this device need to be both wired and wireless? Most users will use the device either by the wire, or as part of a purely WiFi network... who would use both interfaces? Seems like this device could be cheaper if it came in two different versions, one with the wired ports and the other with the WiFi parts.
This brings up a very interesting question. People used to theorise about what would happen if somebody left a laptop full of WiFi-shared MP3s in a coffee shop... but who needs a full laptop to do that, this makes the theoretical cost of such a device close to $200...
Blah Blah blah. Tell me more about Linux and gaming.
Linux isn't everything. In fact, this is a situation which makes you wonder if your file server really needs to be running Linux. If all your file server is doing is connecting an HD to your network, then this device can do it in hardware alone.
This is an interesting reminder about the "network data storage device" market. Cut those things open, and there's a standard HD plus the interface hardware it takes so that the drive can be reached over the network. In fact, cut open a USB 2.0 or Firewire HD and you'll find pretty much the same thing, and the same goes for external CD or DVD drives.
So, for $150 plus the cost of whatever HD you'd like to use you can build your own "network data storage device". If you just want a HD hanging on the network, without any need for the rest of the features of a full grown file server, then this is the part you want.
In fact I have... it's just like any other form of counterfiet products. See, most smokers cannot tell the difference from one brand of cigarette to another. There aren't that many things you can change about a cigarette anyway to make it different from another brand. So, if you take a generic cigarette and apply Marlboro trademarks to its packaging, you're going to fool most observers.
You don't know what PM had because the store owners didn't take them to court and make them show their hand. They may in fact have had proof that the store did sell one of their agents such mislabeled goods, or maybe they were just bluffing. You didn't call their bet, you folded and you've got to pay to see those cards.
They likely dealt with that supplier because they offered the lowest price. However, buying from the low cost supplier without seeking proof that they're selling the real thing leads to thise kind of trouble.
He bought into the FUD from SCO at the time of the deal. The purchase deal of those IP licenses in no way protected them from SCO lawsuits. We've seen the text of SCO license deals on Groklaw, and they never grant any kind of immunity like that. Facts not in evidence. You haven't seen this deal on Groklaw...
I don't feel much pity for those who were sued for doing wrong. Were they not aware that the goods they were selling labeled with PM brands were not coming from PM?
Redhat's indemnification policy doesn't solve all fear-of-SCO situations. If SCO were to get an injunction from a crazy judge that orders a hosting center shut down, even if that ruling is voided by appeals courts 18 hours later, 18 hours of downtime with the possiblity of more would seriously ruin EV1's reputation.
Uhm... how is EV1's announcement not to follow their lead not going to cause problems for SCO in the future? I think he found a way to get back at SCO without violating his contract.
Actually, there's a threshhold below which most companies don't send any representive when sued... figuring that it's just not worth it to the company, and they'll take their chances of getting a default judgement against them as a result. Simply put, the ammount in despute is less than the price of finding or sending a lawyer to appear in that court.
Well, he's been hosting my site for close to a year now, and I can't hold him accountable for anything breaking on my server because, well, nothing has broken.
It's that kind of track record that his business runs on. They don't make any SLA pledge that you're server won't totally fall apart, but they just have a volume of customers whose servers haven't fallen apart in the past.
He'd have a hard time doing so, since he's not allowed to release information about how much he really gave to SCO. Even if he gave double the actual ammount, people might still claim he gave less and he'd have no way of proving otherwise.
Even if SCO's IP claims are totally invalid, it's still not a no-cost proposition to decline when they come seeking a license from your company. Turning down such a deal is the path to being the next company sued, as AutoZone has apparently found out the hard way.
Even though SCO doesn't really have anything to stand on, they're still trying to prop up their case, and they've yet to be dealt the devastating legal defeat that'll end this once and for all. The problem is, the company that wins the lawsuit that deals SCO it's leathal blow is still going to be a loser in the long term. Knocking out SCO's FUD in a courtroom is not a trivial thing, and the bill for those legal services is going to arrive at the foot of the one defendant in that case, even though the whole world is going to be better off from the death of SCO.
If SCO were to have sued OSDN, think of the consequences. Even though OSDN would never bow down to SCO... just where would they get the money to stay in business after spending so much on a lawsuit?
What he has done is the biggest thing to get in the way of SCO's future sales he could... taking away SCO's ability to use his name in their marketing, because he's now on record as saying it's not as good as it appears.