I paid (well, my company) $250 a night for a shithole in Excalibur next door to the Luxor. The conference was in the Excalibur, so we had to stay there, the conference room is free if enough saps stay in the full-rate lowest-quality rooms. Or something like that. For tomorrow night, the best price I could find for a Luxor suite was $443, marked down from $633. Booking site doesn't let me link the price I'm seeing. I'm not sure how you paid $90 in Luxor and 500 in Rome. I paid much less than that in Rome for a nice place. Looking now, the prices are reversed.
The players get to keep items comped by the casino. Bad call. The casino "comp"ensates you for playing a game that they are favored in. They were cheating. The players broke their obligation.
The Casino comps you to keep you playing, assuming you'll eventually lose. That their assumption was wrong doesn't change the offer of free goods. Next you'll tell me that if I take a "Free test drive" I'm obligated to buy the car, or I stole the test drive, because the dealership assumed I'd like their piece of shit. It was "comp"limentary, not "comp"ensation. https://www.merriam-webster.co...
No. The odds never changed. The knowledge of the outcome of the hand changed. When the dealer plays by the standard blackjack rules, if all cards were dealt face-up, the odds don't change, but the knowledge of the cards does.
No different than getting casino to use dice you provide that pass the casino's checks for loaded dice but you otherwise know something special about that increase your odds playing craps.
If one learns that blowing on the dice for luck changes the outcome (say the breath causes that side of the die to be stickier), then the player, without touching the dice asks the dealer to let someone, anyone, blow on them, and you note the side that's blown on, and change your bet accordingly, you've not changed the long-term odds of the game, but have increased your knowledge of the next outcome of the roll.
The problem with these laws is that they confuse the short-term odds, the long-term odds, the odds of winning, and the odds of pulling a random card. Card counting is explicitly legal. Using skill to "change the odds" is explicitly legal. These people used a skill to change the odds. They didn't didn't change any element of chance. They didn't stack the deck. They just used x-ray vision to look at the cards, when the house still thought them unknown. The house played the wrong odds with them, but they did nothing that altered the fundamental element of chance. They could have lost money with this trick. Each hand was random. The house had just mis-calculated the odds with these skilled players. That doesn't sound like cheating to me. It sounds like using skill to gain an advantage in a game of chance, much like counting cards in blackjack.
You are close, forging a token, or using a fake coin in a slot would meet that definition. Though, increasing (or decreasing) a bet after "no more bets" has been called may also qualify.
Yes (to all, though I've never tried to build an entire house). But my father, who grew up on a farm could only fix his own car (back when there were no computers or fuel injectors), and he grew up on a farm. If they needed work done, they'd pay neighbors. Same as most rural places. Someone may get only one of those skills, and the rest they'd trade from neighbors.
Urban folks panic when their iPhone loses signal and whine that government needs to protect them and make sure nobody jams their precious cell signal in a movie theatre.
Just like the government protects the people if someone cuts the phone lines of someone in a rural area. Active jammers are explicitly illegal, and it's insane that you are attacking those who think they should remain so.
The lack of generalization isn't an urban-only problem. It's a side-effect of progress, and why so many Luddites hate progress. It's impossible to be competent in every topic, though 2000 years ago, it would have been possible.
The slots are rigged. They appear "random". They are not. They are programmed to show a near-jackpot for every loss. This tricks the human brain into thinking they are doing better than they are. If they literally displayed a random result, they'd be legit. But the outcome is statistically determined, and the losses are deliberately rigged to show a near-jackpot to trick people into playing more.
If casinos weren't cheating, they'd actually display random results for every win and loss. They don't. They are cheating, and they know it. They cheat as much as allowed by law. That it's legal cheating doesn't make it non-cheating.
Nope. It's actually rigged. Watch the slots. They'll almost always "stop" one away from a big win. They are programmed to win a certain amount of the time, but being one away from a big win counts as a 100% loss to the count, while counting as a "win" in the human brain.
They exploit human weakness in a deliberate manner to harm those that play the games. That's "rigged" even if it doesn't explicitly change the payout numbers.
It will never be "cost effective" for companies to train Americans. Like a reverse-tragedy of the commons, rather than everyone over-grazing the shared pasture, the tragedy is that nobody will seed the shared pasture (because if they did, their neighbors would benefit from their efforts as much or more than they do). It's always cheaper to have someone else train, then poach. So even if it's "cheaper" to train, nobody will. Somebody has to. The current "free market" solution is that the companies assume the workers will self-fund their training, and train for jobs that may not exist when the training is done, and they won't get because some H1-B already has. The result is nobody is training for the skills shortages
If you make it "cheaper" for companies to train, rather than contract, they'll still contract, until someone else trains.
Like the government-solutions being required to manage the tragedy of the commons over-use, the government is the only solution to the tragedy of the commons re-seeding. Shared resources will always be improperly managed by the free market. They will always devolve into an unworkable tragedy of the commons.
I've talked with people in the insurance industry that controlled the policies. They said that when ACA was passed, they made every policy the worst it could possibly be under ACA, to punish their policy holders, hoping for a revolt against ACA. The oligopoly had all the carriers do the same thing, punishing the country for letting ACA pass. The barriers of entry for new insurance companies are so high, competition is impossible. So, what are you going to do?
EPO is HMO coverage at PPO prices. Before ACA, my company policy (the cost to the company, not the employee co-pay) doubled in 3 years, then after ACA, the cost was halved. ACA halved the cost of health care for a company plan. The companies have the resources to negotiate and will shop plans annually, while individuals have a harder time comparison shopping (at least before ACA, when the marketplaces were set up). But the oligopoly and public comparison shopping allows overt and deliberate collusion without breaking any laws. Matching a competitor's published price isn't illegal collusion, when privately agreeing on the public price is. Privately agreeing to match public prices may or may not be illegal collusion, but has never been prosecuted (probably because it's so hard to prove, not because it's legal).
Unfortunately, ACA ended my HDHP, as the company found a cheaper plan that provided more coverage, so I "lost" my HSA. My HSA is still there, but it's illegal for me to save more in the tax-exempt account (tax exempt contributions, with tax exempt withdrawals is the best tax status of any retirement account possible. I went HDHP because it was a great way to put $5k a year into the most tax-advantaged account possible, Roth is post-tax contributions with tax-free withdrawals, and 401(k) is tax-free contributions, with taxed withdrawals. But lost that with ACA, as the low-deductable plans dropped significantly under ACA, so the company chose to not select an HDHP option.
That's another reason to abandon the employment-based health plans. Actual freedom for the consumer. I can pay a lot more for non-employer insurance (with lots of disadvantages), or pick from the 2-3 choices they offer. ACA didn't help (or hurt) this, as nothing is working on a single-payer or independent insurance plan.
Much of that was done after public researched named the treatment and method. Then that was "bought" by a private firm, sealed off from the public that paid for the research, and the private company just did the work to pass the FDA, and get the exclusive license from the FDA, and block all others from providing the same treatment that was discovered with public funds.
That's like saying that you'll sell your car, then replace it with something better. Usually, someone "trading up" would literally trade up. Repealing ACA under the promise of something better is simply insane. Pass the "something better", and it'll, by definition, replace ACA. But we'll see a repeal of ACA under promises of "something better" and the "something better" will never come. We should demand that "something better" be passed *as* the replacement of ACA, rather than the repeal of ACA followed by "something better" at some future time.
Without subsidies from the cities, you'd have no paved roads, no Internet, no phones, and no power. Sure, with cows, horses, and such you could be self sufficient. Stone-age self sufficient, but self sufficient. Cities pre-dated (and enabled) the bronze age and after. Would you really rather live in the stone age?
Rural people pay about 1/5th the amount of taxes cities do (per person). Land value in the cities is much higher, so property tax is higher. Incomes are higher, so income tax is higher. Because the people are more densely packed in cities, less is spent on roads in cities (per person) than rural areas. Without the extraction of tax from the urban areas, to have the same level of services in rural areas, expect your taxes to go up 5x to 10x. Or drop services by similar amounts.
Note, in about the same time, one could have said the same about open voting. But now "secret ballot" is considered a Constitutional Right (despite none of the founding fathers having lived to seen its widespread adoption in the US).
How does the federal government providing a service "take away" anything from the states? There's no requirement that the state do anything differently, unless you are talking about federal doctors providing abortions in a state where the state abolished abortion.
But that's a separate issue from the feds opening at least one hospital in every town more than 50 miles from another hospital and with more than 10,000 served users. I'm honestly curious how that would "take away" power from the states.
Single payer is cheaper and better. I'm sure his children will set up a medical company 37 seconds before than announcement (and it will be named as that single payer, using a private company, since that's more "efficient" in terms of bribes, than using the government).
mass transportation needs to be able to pay its own way or it isn't something we should be putting in.
So if I could spend $10 on mass transit that reduced the road budget by $20 and got people where they wanted to go, we shouldn't save money, because that doesn't hate mass transit enough?
The government's definition of a defensive use requires either party to discharge a firearm. Under that definition, there are very few defensive uses of firearms. If you don't like that definition, talk to the Republicans. They have held all 3 branches multiple times since those rules were written, and could change them if they wished.
The H1-B would never be "unemployed". The H1-B would be free to find other work (in the same job/field). If it's an essential need, others would have that need.
He's too ignorant to even ask his contractor to make it secure, but is a cybersecurity advisor? He probably knows nothing on the topic. That's the issue,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... It's been around for years. Why write your own, when you could have just extended someone else's work and claim innocence?
Slashdot Mirror
I paid (well, my company) $250 a night for a shithole in Excalibur next door to the Luxor. The conference was in the Excalibur, so we had to stay there, the conference room is free if enough saps stay in the full-rate lowest-quality rooms. Or something like that. For tomorrow night, the best price I could find for a Luxor suite was $443, marked down from $633. Booking site doesn't let me link the price I'm seeing. I'm not sure how you paid $90 in Luxor and 500 in Rome. I paid much less than that in Rome for a nice place. Looking now, the prices are reversed.
The players get to keep items comped by the casino. Bad call. The casino "comp"ensates you for playing a game that they are favored in. They were cheating. The players broke their obligation.
The Casino comps you to keep you playing, assuming you'll eventually lose. That their assumption was wrong doesn't change the offer of free goods. Next you'll tell me that if I take a "Free test drive" I'm obligated to buy the car, or I stole the test drive, because the dealership assumed I'd like their piece of shit. It was "comp"limentary, not "comp"ensation. https://www.merriam-webster.co...
The Casino played with marked cards. He just noticed and used that to his advantage. If the house marks the cards, is it illegal to read the marks?
No different than getting casino to use dice you provide that pass the casino's checks for loaded dice but you otherwise know something special about that increase your odds playing craps.
If one learns that blowing on the dice for luck changes the outcome (say the breath causes that side of the die to be stickier), then the player, without touching the dice asks the dealer to let someone, anyone, blow on them, and you note the side that's blown on, and change your bet accordingly, you've not changed the long-term odds of the game, but have increased your knowledge of the next outcome of the roll.
The problem with these laws is that they confuse the short-term odds, the long-term odds, the odds of winning, and the odds of pulling a random card. Card counting is explicitly legal. Using skill to "change the odds" is explicitly legal. These people used a skill to change the odds. They didn't didn't change any element of chance. They didn't stack the deck. They just used x-ray vision to look at the cards, when the house still thought them unknown. The house played the wrong odds with them, but they did nothing that altered the fundamental element of chance. They could have lost money with this trick. Each hand was random. The house had just mis-calculated the odds with these skilled players. That doesn't sound like cheating to me. It sounds like using skill to gain an advantage in a game of chance, much like counting cards in blackjack.
You are close, forging a token, or using a fake coin in a slot would meet that definition. Though, increasing (or decreasing) a bet after "no more bets" has been called may also qualify.
Urban folks panic when their iPhone loses signal and whine that government needs to protect them and make sure nobody jams their precious cell signal in a movie theatre.
Just like the government protects the people if someone cuts the phone lines of someone in a rural area. Active jammers are explicitly illegal, and it's insane that you are attacking those who think they should remain so.
The lack of generalization isn't an urban-only problem. It's a side-effect of progress, and why so many Luddites hate progress. It's impossible to be competent in every topic, though 2000 years ago, it would have been possible.
The slots are rigged. They appear "random". They are not. They are programmed to show a near-jackpot for every loss. This tricks the human brain into thinking they are doing better than they are. If they literally displayed a random result, they'd be legit. But the outcome is statistically determined, and the losses are deliberately rigged to show a near-jackpot to trick people into playing more.
If casinos weren't cheating, they'd actually display random results for every win and loss. They don't. They are cheating, and they know it. They cheat as much as allowed by law. That it's legal cheating doesn't make it non-cheating.
Nope. It's actually rigged. Watch the slots. They'll almost always "stop" one away from a big win. They are programmed to win a certain amount of the time, but being one away from a big win counts as a 100% loss to the count, while counting as a "win" in the human brain.
They exploit human weakness in a deliberate manner to harm those that play the games. That's "rigged" even if it doesn't explicitly change the payout numbers.
It will never be "cost effective" for companies to train Americans. Like a reverse-tragedy of the commons, rather than everyone over-grazing the shared pasture, the tragedy is that nobody will seed the shared pasture (because if they did, their neighbors would benefit from their efforts as much or more than they do). It's always cheaper to have someone else train, then poach. So even if it's "cheaper" to train, nobody will. Somebody has to. The current "free market" solution is that the companies assume the workers will self-fund their training, and train for jobs that may not exist when the training is done, and they won't get because some H1-B already has. The result is nobody is training for the skills shortages
If you make it "cheaper" for companies to train, rather than contract, they'll still contract, until someone else trains.
Like the government-solutions being required to manage the tragedy of the commons over-use, the government is the only solution to the tragedy of the commons re-seeding. Shared resources will always be improperly managed by the free market. They will always devolve into an unworkable tragedy of the commons.
I've talked with people in the insurance industry that controlled the policies. They said that when ACA was passed, they made every policy the worst it could possibly be under ACA, to punish their policy holders, hoping for a revolt against ACA. The oligopoly had all the carriers do the same thing, punishing the country for letting ACA pass. The barriers of entry for new insurance companies are so high, competition is impossible. So, what are you going to do?
EPO is HMO coverage at PPO prices. Before ACA, my company policy (the cost to the company, not the employee co-pay) doubled in 3 years, then after ACA, the cost was halved. ACA halved the cost of health care for a company plan. The companies have the resources to negotiate and will shop plans annually, while individuals have a harder time comparison shopping (at least before ACA, when the marketplaces were set up). But the oligopoly and public comparison shopping allows overt and deliberate collusion without breaking any laws. Matching a competitor's published price isn't illegal collusion, when privately agreeing on the public price is. Privately agreeing to match public prices may or may not be illegal collusion, but has never been prosecuted (probably because it's so hard to prove, not because it's legal).
Unfortunately, ACA ended my HDHP, as the company found a cheaper plan that provided more coverage, so I "lost" my HSA. My HSA is still there, but it's illegal for me to save more in the tax-exempt account (tax exempt contributions, with tax exempt withdrawals is the best tax status of any retirement account possible. I went HDHP because it was a great way to put $5k a year into the most tax-advantaged account possible, Roth is post-tax contributions with tax-free withdrawals, and 401(k) is tax-free contributions, with taxed withdrawals. But lost that with ACA, as the low-deductable plans dropped significantly under ACA, so the company chose to not select an HDHP option.
That's another reason to abandon the employment-based health plans. Actual freedom for the consumer. I can pay a lot more for non-employer insurance (with lots of disadvantages), or pick from the 2-3 choices they offer. ACA didn't help (or hurt) this, as nothing is working on a single-payer or independent insurance plan.
Much of that was done after public researched named the treatment and method. Then that was "bought" by a private firm, sealed off from the public that paid for the research, and the private company just did the work to pass the FDA, and get the exclusive license from the FDA, and block all others from providing the same treatment that was discovered with public funds.
That's like saying that you'll sell your car, then replace it with something better. Usually, someone "trading up" would literally trade up. Repealing ACA under the promise of something better is simply insane. Pass the "something better", and it'll, by definition, replace ACA. But we'll see a repeal of ACA under promises of "something better" and the "something better" will never come. We should demand that "something better" be passed *as* the replacement of ACA, rather than the repeal of ACA followed by "something better" at some future time.
Without subsidies from the cities, you'd have no paved roads, no Internet, no phones, and no power. Sure, with cows, horses, and such you could be self sufficient. Stone-age self sufficient, but self sufficient. Cities pre-dated (and enabled) the bronze age and after. Would you really rather live in the stone age?
Rural people pay about 1/5th the amount of taxes cities do (per person). Land value in the cities is much higher, so property tax is higher. Incomes are higher, so income tax is higher. Because the people are more densely packed in cities, less is spent on roads in cities (per person) than rural areas. Without the extraction of tax from the urban areas, to have the same level of services in rural areas, expect your taxes to go up 5x to 10x. Or drop services by similar amounts.
Imported food from places without rural electricity and telephone, who aren't entitled whiners like yourself.
You sound like a southern slave owner in 1859.
Note, in about the same time, one could have said the same about open voting. But now "secret ballot" is considered a Constitutional Right (despite none of the founding fathers having lived to seen its widespread adoption in the US).
How does the federal government providing a service "take away" anything from the states? There's no requirement that the state do anything differently, unless you are talking about federal doctors providing abortions in a state where the state abolished abortion.
But that's a separate issue from the feds opening at least one hospital in every town more than 50 miles from another hospital and with more than 10,000 served users. I'm honestly curious how that would "take away" power from the states.
Single payer is cheaper and better. I'm sure his children will set up a medical company 37 seconds before than announcement (and it will be named as that single payer, using a private company, since that's more "efficient" in terms of bribes, than using the government).
mass transportation needs to be able to pay its own way or it isn't something we should be putting in.
So if I could spend $10 on mass transit that reduced the road budget by $20 and got people where they wanted to go, we shouldn't save money, because that doesn't hate mass transit enough?
If you hover over the link, it tells you what it is. You should learn how to use a mouse.
Worst food poisoning I ever had was from a Hard Rock Cafe. By your logic, the US will only be safe when purged of Americans.
The government's definition of a defensive use requires either party to discharge a firearm. Under that definition, there are very few defensive uses of firearms. If you don't like that definition, talk to the Republicans. They have held all 3 branches multiple times since those rules were written, and could change them if they wished.
The H1-B would never be "unemployed". The H1-B would be free to find other work (in the same job/field). If it's an essential need, others would have that need.
He's too ignorant to even ask his contractor to make it secure, but is a cybersecurity advisor? He probably knows nothing on the topic. That's the issue,
Damage done by guns can be tremendous, it's the manufacturers that really do deserve severe penalties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... It's been around for years. Why write your own, when you could have just extended someone else's work and claim innocence?