One crappy drug site and the whole Tor network is now infamous.

Yes, this one is limit heads up only. This group from Alberta have been working on this for a long time. I think this is the group that created Poker Academy Pro which is Windows poker software. I have played heads up limit against several of their bots. At the time Vexbot was the best one and he was really good. The best players would easily beat him over the long run but he could put even good players on tilt with some of his runs. I would love to see how they have advanced their bot technology and would happily buy the program to see.

Poker Academy Pro also let you play multi player and no limit tables with the bots and they were laughably bad. Even Vexbot was a fish.

I think a bot could get very good at 2 person no limit and beat most recreational players over the long run. But I would give the edge to the top human players. No limit is a different beast.

In limit poker there is more often a correct play. The odds would dictate, in a large pot to call that last bet because it is only a fraction of the pot. As long as your pot odds are better than your card odds it is correct to call, even if you only have one or two outs. In no limit where you can adjust the size of your bet, the correct bet is to give your opponents worse pot odds then their card odds. No bot can ever master no limit, it's not a card game at all. it's a people game played with cards.

The beauty of Holdem is how easy it looks. But don't kid yourself, it is real poker. Two minutes to learn, a lifetime to master. It draws in less skilled players because they think they can play this easy game as well as anyone else. Then they slowly get bled dry.

Ok now I see the distinction you are making and agree. But I think its reasonable in a discussion such as this to infer religion here to mean a specific religion (mine/yours/someone elses), not technically in the name of religion as a concept.

I am not going to say nobody has killed in the name of atheism because, how would we know? But..... ...no-one kills in the name of "religion" Are you sure about that? Not defending Dawkins here, but is that your reply?

He's a pretentious prick. So what? His opponents should respond to his arguments, not his personality. It boils down to hating the guy because he's rude. Is it the message or the messenger?

Who would you consider as alternate leading voices on the topic of religion in the scientific community? Or should they all just shut their cakeholes?

I don't see much difference in the two statements. I think if someone keeps a cool head they can rebutt either one if that is what one truly believes. I think it is just his style that rubs people the wrong way. The best way to answer this is to confront it directly just as you lined it out and make him answer to it. Problem is, the guy is pretty well spoken and intelligent, so your average person debating with him gets flustered because they feel they cannot defend their view intelligently. I am no huge fan of Dawkins, just my observation. He rarely, if ever that I noticed, spews the same vitriol he gets in return. He says what he believes without much emotion. Hitchens was aggressive as hell.

That's right there isn't. But they are fair game to be called out for their bias.

disagreeing with somebody does not make them a douche. Dawkins is not in the same league as Hitchens when it comes to this. I think Dawkins rubs people the wrong way because he does stay so cool under fire. He comes across as an intellectual (an eeeeleeeet). Hitchens just crucified (sorry for the pun) people of faith.

I don't get this from Krauss. Hitchens maybe, did not like his approach. Krauss and Dawkins are not as aggressive, they only say they need proof and they challenge absurd assumptions based on faith alone. They even say it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being. What we know about the universe today leads us to believe that there isn't but in the end it is impossible to know for sure.

I know many non-technical people that are bypassing the restrictions. I think you will see a clamp down on any method that has a critical mass of people using it. Safe to say using your own VPS as a socks5 proxy will never be blocked. But if you are using goober's "geobypass4netflix.com" then it may get blocked.

They didn't print an opposing and well written view by one of the leading voices in the scientific community on this issue. So the claim here is that the WSJ are biased. But you are right about the yawn. That WSJ article was preaching to the choir and there are plenty of other places to get the counter view.