Tibet was first unified politically with China in the 13th century, under the Yuan dynasty, by Khublai Khan. Up through the Qing dynasty, it was much more of an semi-autonomous territory than an independent state. The 1911 Constitution which succeeded the Qing claims it as an integral part of China, and thus the Republic of China (aka 'Taiwan') claims it just as the PRC does.
Re:You still loose at blackjack
on
Geeks and Poker?
·
· Score: 1
Pocker of course is the best way to earn money because, unlike blackjack, you are playing against other players, not the house and thus, your odds are as good as anyone elses so it comes down to skill. Of course the house takes a cut so the table loses overall, but, generally, if you want to earn money gambeling you need to find a game where you compete against other people and get bloody good at it
Exactly. And that's the similarity between poker on the one hand and horse racing, sports betting type of gambling on the other. The house takes a cut, but you're really playing against the other players, and this makes it possible to win consistently if you know the game and play it well.
Slots is particularly bad.
On the other hand, I've had remarkably good luck with horse racing. Learn to read the sheets, find anomolies and make conservative bets on them (rather than trying to hit trifectas and the like for big winnings,) and you can almost always win enough to pay for dinner and a couple of beers while you play. In my admittedly limited experience at least, of course your mileage may vary.
Opera was being sent a different style sheet, as well as a different html file, than IE or Netscape. This style sheet was not a generic one for non-IE browsers, as was verified to by using wget with a faked user-agent field. There were three style sheets, one for Netscape only, one for Opera only, and one for all other browsers. So Opera was definately specifically targetted with this. And the files sent to Opera contained commands to force them to layout improperly, whereas the generic files sent to IE and unknown browsers displayed just fine in Opera.
You can see screenshots and a detailed explanation of what was happening here.
The other poster already pointed out mac-on-linux, but I'm trying to figure out what the heck you meant by 'less flexible than running on 80x86[sic]?' Huh? Less flexible how?
Those are the main reasons. I think we'd all KILL for OS X on PCs, but I think we all know that realistically it's never going to happen.
Well first off Macs are P(ersonal)C(omputer)s too. Obviously you meant on x86 CPUs.
And frankly, I disagree. I'd much rather see the x86 just die. It's a horribly outdated design, covered in layer after layer of cruft and super-powered by massive silicon and monetary investment.
One of the main advantages of Free Software is that you don't have to get tied down to architectures that have outlived their usefulness. You can put GNU/Linux on PPC today, and when a better architecture comes up in the future, you can jump right on to it, while both Windows and OSX (probably to a lesser, but still substantial, degree) will be hampered in adopting it by the prevalence of binary-only programs.
OSX is great on PPC. So's Linux. The only edge the x86 architecture has is that so many people are tied to binary-only "software" that they're forced to buy it, propping the margins up and making sure it gets the economy of scale to be cheap, and manufactured with the best processes. A G5 manufactured with the same technology and at the same volume would blow everything x86 out of the water at half the price. Porting OSX to x86 would just boost x86 volume to the detriment of PPC, and I can't see how that would be anything other than a net loss to computing as a whole.
Expect massive speed increases in the near future.
I'm not holding my breath. I'm sure it will improve, but not enough that this will be useful outside of special cases. The overhead involved in emulating something like a PPC chip within the limits of the x86 architecture is absolutely incredible, and clever programming can do a lot but it does have limits.
There were certainly a lot of inappropriate flames, but that doesn't mean his article was 'solid.' In fact it was fatally flawed, and I'm amazed really that there has been so much criticism of it but so little mention of the real critical flaw here.
He couldn't get his sound card to work with linux. Worked fine with Windows. Forget about the whys, don't question his account or his motives, for the moment just take it all at face value. He then claims that this shows that Linux isn't ready.
One single piece of anecdotal evidence, and Linux is not ready. By that standard Windows isn't ready either. That's the key here. There are plenty of cases where Windows screws up similarly, and often much more frustratingly, yet he focuses entirely on his one single anecdote and tries to force a general conclusion out of it. That's just bad logic.
To support the claims he's made, he'd have to demonstrate that this sort of thing happens significantly more often with Linux than with Windows, and he doesn't even attempt that. If he did, he very well might find out that the opposite is true.
To a degree they can inhibit the power of the reply, sure. But only to a degree. If they go too low, the things will get a reputation for being flakey because people will have trouble getting them to read properly.
So while I don't doubt it's something close to what they say, I'd guess 2-3-4 inches should work just fine with the proper equipement.
And even if it really won't work past 1 inch, so what? Pickpockets that are used to having to remove the entire wallet from the pocket are still going to find it much easier just to maneuver to within an inch to get a read.
Then you, or someone else, did something exceedingly silly in setting it up, or there's something important you're not telling us (10mbps ethernet through 4 dozen slow routers to an exceptionally slow and ancient server, running your entire session and 50 others, using Enlightenment perhaps?)
The X Window System predates 10base5 by several years. It goes back to a time when 1 or 2 mbps was common, and that generally in a ring environment which meant that collisions were frequent and usable bandwidth was a fraction of that theoretical max.
Light can travel all the way around the world before you or I could blink an eye.
However, certainly poor network design can cause latency problems. That's going to hit any such protocol, however, not just X. And the complainer above was specifically talking about bandwidth... which makes sense in context, while latency doesn't. Latency affects X and RPC equally, while RPC can do certain things with much less bandwidth than X. However, they're things that you don't actually need to do, if you understand how to use network transparency.
Problem is - logically - once you buy something from a company, you have a relationship with that company.
I'm sorry, but that's just not true.
A purchase is not a relationship. I buy things from many people I have no relationship with. If you offer something for sale, and I buy it, that's a transaction, not a relationship. If you want to email me about something that has to do with the transaction, that's fine, but if you try to say that the transaction gives you a license to spam me, you're just a spammer.
Microsoft (unless you are using a paid-for-through-ads-service-like-hotmail), HP, 3Com, IBM are all really good about allowing me to set what announcements and types of Emails that I want or don't want.
If you agree for them to send you those emails, then they aren't spam, but don't pretend they get to magnaminously allow you to choose them. It's your right. Your email box is private property.
If I get an Email from MoreSexForYou.com there are only two possible explanations. One of my co-workers is signing me up without my knowledge, or they culled my Email address from one of several news-group archives that contain my Email address.
And either of those routes would mean the same thing - spam.
But my point was simply that just because it's a sex site doesn't make it spam. If they sent it to you because you requested it, that would be responsible email marketing. And if HP, 3Com, MS, IBM, or whoever sends you bulk mail that you did not request, then they are spammers. As to Ironport...
If X is unresponsive for you over a DSL line you're seriously doing something very wrong. X was designed to work on old networks with far less bandwidth than is typically available today. Plus we have protocol compression now.
Now granted, if you're running an overly heavy GUI and running everything on the remote system you're going to need some bandwidth for it, but unless you're on a minimal diskless workstation you'd be an idiot to do that, and those stations will be setup with the needed bandwidth to their server to begin with.
My roommate used to run several dozen remote X sessions through his 1mbit DSL line all day, and the rest of the house was running through the same connection, multiple web browsers or a couple of EverQuest clients, and a p2p program, all simultaneously, without ever having a problem.
For short-term financial gain (taking the bonds) they could certainly adjucate in their own favor (levy fines) - however, if the bond is saturated, then the sender no longer qualifies either.
The sanest option would be not to adjudicate them at all, but simply to count them, I'm just confused from their website which route they are taking.
The point of this is so that companies like 3Com, HP, Microsoft and similar have a better chance of reaching their customers. (Yes, if you bought ANYTHING from ANY company, they legitimately have reason to E-mail you).
To mail me about a problem with the product I bought? Sure. But nothing else. If they want to send me ads they'll get LARTed the same as anyone else.
It is in IronPort's best interest to keep up the white-list for legitimate senders only. MoreSexForYou.com need not apply.
So far as I'm concerned, if moresexforyou.com keeps a real opt-in list and doesn't spam, they are a legitimate sender - and if 3Com, HP, or MicroSoft spam, they aren't.
They still cannot send spam, however, they may only send mail to registered users. If users complain, the company has to either prove they joined or pay up.
This doesn't jive with the terms on their website. Particularly read the section titled "consent." This section defines 'consent' so broadly as to include many cases where proof is not available, i.e. they do not require opt-ins be verified, they allow buying or renting lists from third parties, etc. They're explicitly allowing all the lame excuses spammers traditionally use when accused of spamming. So which is it - do they have to prove consent as you say, or do they not, as the official website says? This is very confusing.
Actually they offer a pricing scale where nonprofits pay only an application fee and a bond, and for profits have three schedules depending on how much they send.
This still leaves a bit of unclear to me though. Do they pull it if your complaint rate is too high, period, or do they attempt to adjudicate the complaints? This is a major issue, since if they adjudicate they're going to have not only higher costs as a result, but they're also going to be explicitly allowing spam. But if they go by complaint rate alone, then it's up to the receivers and those standards could be rules that must be adhered to in addition to avoiding a high complaint rate.
I must say I'm really disappointed in this. Ironport have generally been good guys, but their trust level just plumetted. If you read the sender standards page you'll notice that, while they are at least trying to rule out some of the worst spam, their standards explicitly do allow spam (by diluting the concept of 'consent' to the point it's unverifiable and thus meaningless.) On the other hand, it doesn't sound like they're going to try to adjudicate complaints, just charge a small fee for each one and make judgements based on the sheer number of complaints, so it will be interesting to see how that works out. If enough end-users refuse to tolerate spam, that could effectively keep it out of the whitelist, even though the 'standards' are written to allow it.
For reference, on my system (900MHz Athlon, 256MB RAM, Linux) mozilla takes seven seconds to start up. I would be rather surprised if it wasn't slower to start on your laptop.
You've got some serious tuning to do then. It only takes 2-3 seconds to start on my old powerbook.
If they did this, figuring it at 64kbs, next week the competition would be advertising playing time with 64kbs mp3 to match them. Then the next week someone would go to 48kbs, and a week later everyone would follow them...
It wouldn't help anyone, and it will probably happen, without Ogg being involved even. That's what marketing droids do.:(
Slashdot Mirror
It's more complicated in the case of Tibet too.
Tibet was first unified politically with China in the 13th century, under the Yuan dynasty, by Khublai Khan. Up through the Qing dynasty, it was much more of an semi-autonomous territory than an independent state. The 1911 Constitution which succeeded the Qing claims it as an integral part of China, and thus the Republic of China (aka 'Taiwan') claims it just as the PRC does.
Exactly. And that's the similarity between poker on the one hand and horse racing, sports betting type of gambling on the other. The house takes a cut, but you're really playing against the other players, and this makes it possible to win consistently if you know the game and play it well.
Slots is particularly bad. On the other hand, I've had remarkably good luck with horse racing. Learn to read the sheets, find anomolies and make conservative bets on them (rather than trying to hit trifectas and the like for big winnings,) and you can almost always win enough to pay for dinner and a couple of beers while you play. In my admittedly limited experience at least, of course your mileage may vary.
Umm no. Your facts are simply incorrect.
Opera was being sent a different style sheet, as well as a different html file, than IE or Netscape. This style sheet was not a generic one for non-IE browsers, as was verified to by using wget with a faked user-agent field. There were three style sheets, one for Netscape only, one for Opera only, and one for all other browsers. So Opera was definately specifically targetted with this. And the files sent to Opera contained commands to force them to layout improperly, whereas the generic files sent to IE and unknown browsers displayed just fine in Opera.
You can see screenshots and a detailed explanation of what was happening here.
The other poster already pointed out mac-on-linux, but I'm trying to figure out what the heck you meant by 'less flexible than running on 80x86[sic]?' Huh? Less flexible how?
Well first off Macs are P(ersonal)C(omputer)s too. Obviously you meant on x86 CPUs.
And frankly, I disagree. I'd much rather see the x86 just die. It's a horribly outdated design, covered in layer after layer of cruft and super-powered by massive silicon and monetary investment.
One of the main advantages of Free Software is that you don't have to get tied down to architectures that have outlived their usefulness. You can put GNU/Linux on PPC today, and when a better architecture comes up in the future, you can jump right on to it, while both Windows and OSX (probably to a lesser, but still substantial, degree) will be hampered in adopting it by the prevalence of binary-only programs.
OSX is great on PPC. So's Linux. The only edge the x86 architecture has is that so many people are tied to binary-only "software" that they're forced to buy it, propping the margins up and making sure it gets the economy of scale to be cheap, and manufactured with the best processes. A G5 manufactured with the same technology and at the same volume would blow everything x86 out of the water at half the price. Porting OSX to x86 would just boost x86 volume to the detriment of PPC, and I can't see how that would be anything other than a net loss to computing as a whole.
I'm not holding my breath. I'm sure it will improve, but not enough that this will be useful outside of special cases. The overhead involved in emulating something like a PPC chip within the limits of the x86 architecture is absolutely incredible, and clever programming can do a lot but it does have limits.
There were certainly a lot of inappropriate flames, but that doesn't mean his article was 'solid.' In fact it was fatally flawed, and I'm amazed really that there has been so much criticism of it but so little mention of the real critical flaw here.
He couldn't get his sound card to work with linux. Worked fine with Windows. Forget about the whys, don't question his account or his motives, for the moment just take it all at face value. He then claims that this shows that Linux isn't ready.
One single piece of anecdotal evidence, and Linux is not ready. By that standard Windows isn't ready either. That's the key here. There are plenty of cases where Windows screws up similarly, and often much more frustratingly, yet he focuses entirely on his one single anecdote and tries to force a general conclusion out of it. That's just bad logic.
To support the claims he's made, he'd have to demonstrate that this sort of thing happens significantly more often with Linux than with Windows, and he doesn't even attempt that. If he did, he very well might find out that the opposite is true.
Under title 17 it can be a criminal offense if it's done for commercial gain, sure, but that doesn't sound like the case here.
Apparently copyright infringement is a criminal charge in Japan.
Apparently the RIAA and MPAA bought out that government even faster than the US? Amazing.
That might be funny, if P2P were criminal.
To a degree they can inhibit the power of the reply, sure. But only to a degree. If they go too low, the things will get a reputation for being flakey because people will have trouble getting them to read properly.
So while I don't doubt it's something close to what they say, I'd guess 2-3-4 inches should work just fine with the proper equipement.
And even if it really won't work past 1 inch, so what? Pickpockets that are used to having to remove the entire wallet from the pocket are still going to find it much easier just to maneuver to within an inch to get a read.
Grr bus. Teach me to post when I should be sleeping.
Then you, or someone else, did something exceedingly silly in setting it up, or there's something important you're not telling us (10mbps ethernet through 4 dozen slow routers to an exceptionally slow and ancient server, running your entire session and 50 others, using Enlightenment perhaps?)
The X Window System predates 10base5 by several years. It goes back to a time when 1 or 2 mbps was common, and that generally in a ring environment which meant that collisions were frequent and usable bandwidth was a fraction of that theoretical max.
Light can travel all the way around the world before you or I could blink an eye.
However, certainly poor network design can cause latency problems. That's going to hit any such protocol, however, not just X. And the complainer above was specifically talking about bandwidth... which makes sense in context, while latency doesn't. Latency affects X and RPC equally, while RPC can do certain things with much less bandwidth than X. However, they're things that you don't actually need to do, if you understand how to use network transparency.
I'm sorry, but that's just not true.
A purchase is not a relationship. I buy things from many people I have no relationship with. If you offer something for sale, and I buy it, that's a transaction, not a relationship. If you want to email me about something that has to do with the transaction, that's fine, but if you try to say that the transaction gives you a license to spam me, you're just a spammer.
If you agree for them to send you those emails, then they aren't spam, but don't pretend they get to magnaminously allow you to choose them. It's your right. Your email box is private property.
And either of those routes would mean the same thing - spam.
But my point was simply that just because it's a sex site doesn't make it spam. If they sent it to you because you requested it, that would be responsible email marketing. And if HP, 3Com, MS, IBM, or whoever sends you bulk mail that you did not request, then they are spammers. As to Ironport...
Agreed.
If X is unresponsive for you over a DSL line you're seriously doing something very wrong. X was designed to work on old networks with far less bandwidth than is typically available today. Plus we have protocol compression now.
Now granted, if you're running an overly heavy GUI and running everything on the remote system you're going to need some bandwidth for it, but unless you're on a minimal diskless workstation you'd be an idiot to do that, and those stations will be setup with the needed bandwidth to their server to begin with.
My roommate used to run several dozen remote X sessions through his 1mbit DSL line all day, and the rest of the house was running through the same connection, multiple web browsers or a couple of EverQuest clients, and a p2p program, all simultaneously, without ever having a problem.
The sanest option would be not to adjudicate them at all, but simply to count them, I'm just confused from their website which route they are taking.
To mail me about a problem with the product I bought? Sure. But nothing else. If they want to send me ads they'll get LARTed the same as anyone else.
So far as I'm concerned, if moresexforyou.com keeps a real opt-in list and doesn't spam, they are a legitimate sender - and if 3Com, HP, or MicroSoft spam, they aren't.
This doesn't jive with the terms on their website. Particularly read the section titled "consent." This section defines 'consent' so broadly as to include many cases where proof is not available, i.e. they do not require opt-ins be verified, they allow buying or renting lists from third parties, etc. They're explicitly allowing all the lame excuses spammers traditionally use when accused of spamming. So which is it - do they have to prove consent as you say, or do they not, as the official website says? This is very confusing.
Actually they offer a pricing scale where nonprofits pay only an application fee and a bond, and for profits have three schedules depending on how much they send.
This still leaves a bit of unclear to me though. Do they pull it if your complaint rate is too high, period, or do they attempt to adjudicate the complaints? This is a major issue, since if they adjudicate they're going to have not only higher costs as a result, but they're also going to be explicitly allowing spam. But if they go by complaint rate alone, then it's up to the receivers and those standards could be rules that must be adhered to in addition to avoiding a high complaint rate.
I must say I'm really disappointed in this. Ironport have generally been good guys, but their trust level just plumetted. If you read the sender standards page you'll notice that, while they are at least trying to rule out some of the worst spam, their standards explicitly do allow spam (by diluting the concept of 'consent' to the point it's unverifiable and thus meaningless.) On the other hand, it doesn't sound like they're going to try to adjudicate complaints, just charge a small fee for each one and make judgements based on the sheer number of complaints, so it will be interesting to see how that works out. If enough end-users refuse to tolerate spam, that could effectively keep it out of the whitelist, even though the 'standards' are written to allow it.
You've got some serious tuning to do then. It only takes 2-3 seconds to start on my old powerbook.
If they did this, figuring it at 64kbs, next week the competition would be advertising playing time with 64kbs mp3 to match them. Then the next week someone would go to 48kbs, and a week later everyone would follow them...
It wouldn't help anyone, and it will probably happen, without Ogg being involved even. That's what marketing droids do. :(