Running an undeclared bot that takes players' money is worse than cheating, it is criminal fraud (or possibly worse, I am not a law expert). The premise of poker is that you do not play against the house, you play against other players and pay the house for providing the venue. Given that the Libratus' play style measurably differs from a human's, it will be easily detected by analysis.
You might have as well suggested that the poker company fudge the amount of money in players' accounts and hope nobody notices.
1. Poker companies make their money from the "rake", which is a (capped) percentage of the pot. They get their money regardless of who wins.
2. Poker companies want you to keep playing, because that way you'll continue contributing to the pot (and therefore, to the rake). Players that lose too much, leave. That's why some poker companies offer tutorials and "schools" to retain players by helping them improve.
3. Poker companies that operate in highly regulated markets have their code audited, their installations inspected and each and every hand submitted in real-time to the regulatory authority for possible future scrutiny. Player trust is very important, being caught cheating will cause the players to switch to the competitors.
So, is US congress now going to change the law so a US judge can permit the US DOJ to access foreign servers?
Not really. The way I understand it, the idea is for the US congress to change the law so a US judge can permit the US DOJ to force a US company to surrender data that it stores on foreign servers.
The online poker sites have software that does its best to prevent bots from playing.
It's pretty much impossible to prevent unless you can algorithmically detect computer style play.
Which is a part of what those algorithms do, try to detect patterns that would indicate a non-human decision maker.
Obviously, as the AIs become more sophisticated, so must the detection algorithms. However, if the algorithm's play becomes so human-like that it defeats all attempts to distinguish it from that of an actual human (essentially passing the Turing test), would it still have an advantage over a human?
It is similar to the situation that we have in chess. Current algorithms running on consumer level hardware can consistently defeat even the best human players, and still online tournaments are being played. Of course, poker is played for money, so the incentive to cheat will be higher.
One of the excuses for copyright was that the author, having made a significant investment to create and distribute their work, need to be able to recoup their costs (and hopefully make a profit). Those sunk costs have plummeted.
But the main reason, which you don't seem to view as an answer, is that the current copyright terms do nothing except lock down culture and impoverish the public domain.
Now it's your turn to answer my question: how is life + 70 better for society than 15 years?
The real question is why have long copyright terms at all?
Enforcing artificial scarcity on ideas and treating them as "property", especially for long periods of time, should only be done if the end result is beneficial to society as a whole, rather than to a few powerful lobbies. And I have not seen anything that suggests that it is the case.
I am aware of one attempt to empirically establish the optimal copyright term, and the conclusion was around 15 years. You are welcome to read the papers and state any disagreement that you have with them.
Even better news!! The Obama Administration has 8 solid years of recordings already in place
True, but keep in mind that the mass surveillance was rampant was before Obama assumed office in 2009. Arguably the only thing that changed is the capability due to the technological advances.
According to the Ghacks article, for "diagnostics" the choice is between "full data" and "less data" with no explanation of what it means.
Microsoft furthermore announced that it will reduce the data collection of the basic level. Myerson did not reveal what Microsoft intents to change though in this regard.
Also, the "web-like" interface is for controlling the Microsoft account settings which are, unsurprisingly, on the web.
Routers can block addresses (either IP or DNS). Is there a list of addresses that MS uses for telemetry that could be blocked without breaking security updates?
If an enterprising person manages to find it out, we won't need any favours from MS.
The US cotton industry claims that a repeal of the abolition -- which destroys innovation and value creation -- will foster an environment that'll be more positive for their business and would be good for innovation in the industry. They went on to say that it "would provide opportunity for significant innovation and differentiation" and that it'd enable you to "do some very interesting things."
In the last election, while not the only choices, were the major choices.
And that's the problem right there.
Your problem is not Trump or Clinton. It's a system that culminated in a choice between two candidates which a large portion of your countrymen believe are both unsuitable for the job.
Yes, he is a narcissist, but I'll take Zaphod Beeblebrox over Joseph Stalin any day. Hillary is a genuine psychopath.
In a country with a population of 320 million people, do you really honestly believe that the only possible alternative to Donald Trump is Hillary Clinton?
Slashdot Mirror
Running an undeclared bot that takes players' money is worse than cheating, it is criminal fraud (or possibly worse, I am not a law expert). The premise of poker is that you do not play against the house, you play against other players and pay the house for providing the venue. Given that the Libratus' play style measurably differs from a human's, it will be easily detected by analysis.
You might have as well suggested that the poker company fudge the amount of money in players' accounts and hope nobody notices.
Luck can be a big factor in an individual hand, but in the long term, it evens out.
An interesting read:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view...
1. Poker companies make their money from the "rake", which is a (capped) percentage of the pot. They get their money regardless of who wins.
2. Poker companies want you to keep playing, because that way you'll continue contributing to the pot (and therefore, to the rake). Players that lose too much, leave. That's why some poker companies offer tutorials and "schools" to retain players by helping them improve.
3. Poker companies that operate in highly regulated markets have their code audited, their installations inspected and each and every hand submitted in real-time to the regulatory authority for possible future scrutiny. Player trust is very important, being caught cheating will cause the players to switch to the competitors.
All that group policy usually does is change registry keys.
Create and run this registry edit:
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\WindowsUpdate\AU]
"AUOptions"=dword:00000002
"ElevateNonAdmins"=dword:00000001
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\WindowsUpdate\AU]
"AUOptions"=dword:00000002
"NoAutoRebootWithLoggedOnUsers"=dword:00000001
Source:
Reddit (From Technet article cc708449)
That's what I like about /.
You make a stupid joke, and from the discussion that follows learn some obscure facts on a completely unrelated topic.
I believe that nicotine can not only reduce the symptoms schizophrenia, but completely eliminate them (in sufficiently large doses).
(including professor salaries, facilities fees, administrative costs)
Maybe it's time to take a good, hard look at those. Especially the "administrative costs".
So, is US congress now going to change the law so a US judge can permit the US DOJ to access foreign servers?
Not really. The way I understand it, the idea is for the US congress to change the law so a US judge can permit the US DOJ to force a US company to surrender data that it stores on foreign servers.
The online poker sites have software that does its best to prevent bots from playing.
It's pretty much impossible to prevent unless you can algorithmically detect computer style play.
Which is a part of what those algorithms do, try to detect patterns that would indicate a non-human decision maker.
Obviously, as the AIs become more sophisticated, so must the detection algorithms. However, if the algorithm's play becomes so human-like that it defeats all attempts to distinguish it from that of an actual human (essentially passing the Turing test), would it still have an advantage over a human?
It is similar to the situation that we have in chess. Current algorithms running on consumer level hardware can consistently defeat even the best human players, and still online tournaments are being played. Of course, poker is played for money, so the incentive to cheat will be higher.
Alright, I will spell it out for you.
One of the excuses for copyright was that the author, having made a significant investment to create and distribute their work, need to be able to recoup their costs (and hopefully make a profit). Those sunk costs have plummeted.
But the main reason, which you don't seem to view as an answer, is that the current copyright terms do nothing except lock down culture and impoverish the public domain.
Now it's your turn to answer my question: how is life + 70 better for society than 15 years?
The real question is why have long copyright terms at all?
Enforcing artificial scarcity on ideas and treating them as "property", especially for long periods of time, should only be done if the end result is beneficial to society as a whole, rather than to a few powerful lobbies. And I have not seen anything that suggests that it is the case.
I am aware of one attempt to empirically establish the optimal copyright term, and the conclusion was around 15 years. You are welcome to read the papers and state any disagreement that you have with them.
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
Online services make distribution instantaneous, advertisement cheap and printing/stocking expenses optional.
20 years is still too long. With current means of distribution, 5 should be tops.
Even better news!! The Obama Administration has 8 solid years of recordings already in place
True, but keep in mind that the mass surveillance was rampant was before Obama assumed office in 2009. Arguably the only thing that changed is the capability due to the technological advances.
for political or apolitical detentions.
Citation needed.
According to the Ghacks article, for "diagnostics" the choice is between "full data" and "less data" with no explanation of what it means.
Microsoft furthermore announced that it will reduce the data collection of the basic level. Myerson did not reveal what Microsoft intents to change though in this regard.
Also, the "web-like" interface is for controlling the Microsoft account settings which are, unsurprisingly, on the web.
All in all, a much more informative reporting.
Routers can block addresses (either IP or DNS).
Is there a list of addresses that MS uses for telemetry that could be blocked without breaking security updates?
If an enterprising person manages to find it out, we won't need any favours from MS.
I highly doubt that Volkswagen executives struggle to feed their families.
Even more evidence that the legal system is broken by design.
http://yarchive.net/comp/ibm_p...
Are there any flat large screen "dumb" TVs with good display characteristics left?
He is also a terrorist, a pedophile, a pirate, a Muslim and a Mexican.
(Did I miss anything?)
what objectionable things has Microsoft done over the last decade?
Windows 10
The US cotton industry claims that a repeal of the abolition -- which destroys innovation and value creation -- will foster an environment that'll be more positive for their business and would be good for innovation in the industry. They went on to say that it "would provide opportunity for significant innovation and differentiation" and that it'd enable you to "do some very interesting things."
In the last election, while not the only choices, were the major choices.
And that's the problem right there.
Your problem is not Trump or Clinton. It's a system that culminated in a choice between two candidates which a large portion of your countrymen believe are both unsuitable for the job.
Address the cause, not the symptoms.
Yes, he is a narcissist, but I'll take Zaphod Beeblebrox over Joseph Stalin any day. Hillary is a genuine psychopath.
In a country with a population of 320 million people, do you really honestly believe that the only possible alternative to Donald Trump is Hillary Clinton?