Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

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

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

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

by FunkSoulBrother (#49475881) Attached to: Chess Grandmaster Used iPhone To Cheat During Tournament

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

by FunkSoulBrother (#49475855) Attached to: Chess Grandmaster Used iPhone To Cheat During Tournament

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

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

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...)

Comment: Re:Global Cops (Score 1) 312

by FunkSoulBrother (#48707009) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Should We Do About the DDoS Problem?

It seems like a bad idea because it would result in a tyranny of the majority.

Just trying to pick some things that aren't super controversial as an example here, (since bringing up religion or Israel/Palestine is going to derail this thought experiment): properly elected representative world government would probably vote to ban pornography, or marijuana, and I don't want this.
Both of these things are very much legal where I live.

You could address it by writing a well thought out and intellectual world constitution and system of checks and balances though of course. I'd probably be down for one-world government if this could happen, if for no other reason than to finally escape dysfunctional (by western representative elected government standards) United States political system.

How you pick out and establish this constitution? Tell me how you would address *that* specific problem.

The other line moves faster.