Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re: Demographics (Score 1) 256 256

You keep saying these things, but remain unable to explain, why these very same racist police do not treat Asians just as badly as they (supposedly) do Blacks

Because they are racist specifically against black people, you thick moron. They are not Racist Robots out to treat anyone with non-white skin equally poorly.

Comment: Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." (Score 1) 1032 1032

Interesting. I wonder how easy it would be to prove intent to defraud, short of someone who is financially fucked just buying a bunch of stuff right before bankruptcy.

It seems like if you strung along nominal payments for a while, and really truly were financially fucked, you could show intent to make repayment and that it just overwhelmed you.

Comment: Re:You cannot know *WHO* is voting (Score 1) 258 258

It sucks but morons, on all sides, are entitled to their vote too. Wishing otherwise strikes is kind of unrealistic like magicking away religion in order to make the world more peaceful tomorrow. Sure, it would work, and maybe it will happen in the Star Trek future if we ever get there, but it's really neither here nor there for the real, actual world that we are all going to live and die in.

I think the best solution to it is compulsory voting (with a 'no preference' option, of course) so at least all of the poor morons with no GED will hopefully balance out the rich morons who have a high school level education but are exactly as susceptible to convincing liars nonetheless...

Comment: Re:You cannot know *WHO* is voting (Score 1) 258 258

I only mean non-mandatory in the 'government can't penalize you for choosing not to participate' sense. I'm perfectly fine with making them mandatory for voting itself, that would be the point.

I do think it is a bit of a solution looking for a problem (there is very little actual voter fraud going on from people without indentification, especially when compared to bigger voting issues like gerrymandering) but really I have no issue with mandatory voter ID -- you just need to severely over-engineer the solution to ensure it's not a burden on those in society with the least time/money/options/eduction.

Comment: Re:You cannot know *WHO* is voting (Score 3, Insightful) 258 258

Not racist so much as classist. It just so happens that we have a very but not exclusive racial disparity when it comes to social class in this country.

As long as the government fully subsidizes identification cards for the entire populace, makes them non mandatory, and gives a legally-protected full day's floating vacation to be used to procure and update said cards, then i really have no problem with voter ID.

Comment: Re:Professional chess: hard to make a living (Score 1) 237 237

You should come to some tournaments! We're a small community but always in need of new blood.

You won't make a living off of it, but it's a satisfying hobby with good people, and you don't have to put in world champion hours to win money and have fun.

Comment: Re:Professional chess: hard to make a living (Score 1) 237 237

Not really. Scrabble Players buy in to tournaments like poker players. There is no 'house' rake, but oftentimes money is taken out for things like renting a hotel ballroom to or catering the event.

Add on top of that the amount of variance in Scrabble, and you're really not likely to make a consistent living unless you are *very* frugal.

I mean there is Nigel Richards, who undoubtedly the best player the game has ever seen, and he's 'only' won $200,000 since 1997:

If we got some sponsorship money in the game, then sure, but not until then -- we're just trading money around in the community.

Comment: Re:Honestly ... (Score 1) 342 342

My understanding is that this is not correct (your comments on the difficulty of programming an RNG notwithstanding.)

If you can assume a magical perfectly random algorithm for a moment, you simply have to design a slot machine as follows (simple example):

Machine takes $1 bets only. Machine "rolls" a virtual ten sided die. On the number 10, a jackpot of $9 is paid. On any other number, the bet is lost.

This machine would make $1 profit for every $10 wagered, over time, "guaranteed" (by mathematics, not rigged programming) and would never need to be 'overdue' to hit or any other such nonsense. A customer could get lucky and hit 10 jackpots in a row, but the odds would be fairly astronomical.

Incidentally, such a machine would be a pretty bad bet compared to most Vegas slot machines, but I think still a high enough payout to be legal in Nevada. I think it would be roughly comparable to the odds on the bad machines in the McCarran airport...

Comment: Re:Honestly ... (Score 1) 342 342

If you start winning sufficiently large amounts, this doesn't work. The casino might not know where all of its $500 dollar chips are, but it damn well will have a record of all of the $5,000 chips and there is scrutiny when cashing them in.

If you're deliberately cashing in stacks of 1000 at a time in order to avoid scrutiny over $10,000 in chips, that is called 'structuring' and the Federal government doesn't look on it too kindly. But they would have to notice, and I'm sure they miss plenty. I guess it's a risk/reward calculation we all have to make (should we be lucky enough to find ourselves in possession of many thousands of dollars in casino chips...)

We want to create puppets that pull their own strings. - Ann Marion