Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Perfect? Really? (Score 1) 340

by Joreallean (#48771599) Attached to: Researchers "Solve" Texas Hold'Em, Create Perfect Robotic Player
Can you create another robot that would defeat the plays of this robot if your robot knew all the possible decisions of the other robot? Of course you can, but that's like looking at your opponents cards while they are playing. You still would have no idea what "hand" the other robot is playing. So IF you knew the entire decision tree AND you knew what cards the robot was playing, of course you could find a winning strategy to beat it. No one is saying that it will win every hand, it will just win more over time than you can.

Comment: Re:Perfect? Really? (Score 1) 340

by Joreallean (#48771563) Attached to: Researchers "Solve" Texas Hold'Em, Create Perfect Robotic Player
You assume that you can predict when ALL variables are identical to a previous situation. Variables that you do not have access to view. A person might consistently respond in that way in that situation, but not necessarily the robot because there it is a completely different scenario that it can pretty much instantly predict the "best" move at any time. And why do you assume that it cared if you check-raised it at all? If it were entirely pot odds, then all you did was not the change the pot and then changed it. There is no way to slow play a robot. It is no thinking at all about WHY you are doing what you are doing. You check raised because you were trying to get them to stay in the game, but if the math didn't pan out it wouldn't or after your raise it would simply recalc the pot odds and act accordingly.

Comment: Re:Perfect? Really? (Score 1) 340

by Joreallean (#48771519) Attached to: Researchers "Solve" Texas Hold'Em, Create Perfect Robotic Player
It doesn't need to look at all those things. You can't bust someone in one hand in limit poker. So the math will always beat you. The more you try to "trick" the robot the more money you will give to it. The ONLY way you could possibly beat this is to play mathematically perfect and then consistently get better hands than it does. In the end though it will likely beat you through attrition alone.

Comment: Re:Perfect? Really? (Score 1) 340

by Joreallean (#48771479) Attached to: Researchers "Solve" Texas Hold'Em, Create Perfect Robotic Player
No see you are already losing. Those are all things that people use to try and predict how others will play. If you ALWAYS play the math you cannot lose because no matter what crazy tricks your opponent tries to pull on you, the math will pan out. If the other player doesn't play the math then they just gave money to the robot. It's the same fallacy that gamblers have about Roulette. The previous hands have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of future hands as far as the cards are concerned.

Comment: Re:Perfect? Really? (Score 1) 340

by Joreallean (#48771435) Attached to: Researchers "Solve" Texas Hold'Em, Create Perfect Robotic Player
It doesn't have too. See the difference is this robot doesn't care if it has to play a million hands before it "wins". It doesn't need big pots to win the overall game because it can't be goaded into betting more than it should. Playing people is about manipulating them. It's not about just reading them. Its about establishing a personality and play style that you can use to make them think you'll play one way and take advantage of their error. It's as much about the hands that you fold as it is about the hands that you play. The thing is though a robot doesn't care about any of that. It just looks at the cards, the bets, and makes the "best" decision possible out of all possibilities. Like there would likely no absolutely no situation that the robot would ever show a folded hand, not true for humans. It never has to speak or show any emotion. You would have to put away all your normal reading of players and stuff and just play the math, or lose.

Comment: Re:Nonsense. Again. (Score 1) 432

by Joreallean (#48245143) Attached to: Black Swan Author: Genetically Modified Organisms Risk Global Ruin
That's not how genetics work. Things change because of mutations and the resulting plant is either able to reproduce or not. That mutation could be something significant like making the plant blue instead of red or it could be totally benign. How well it reproduces offsping and how well they survive determines what traits move on. In the case of Tifton-85 a hybrid bred bermudagrass it produced cyanide gas killing the cows that ate it. That could never happen in nature right?!? The thing people seem to forget is we are not inserting "artificial" or "animal genes" we are inserting gene sequences. This is not like computer programming where you have Java and C and C++ and HTML. You have DNA and you have RNA. You take a sequence from one organism that you've identified as the source of the trait and you put it into another organism and it can copy that DNA just like any other DNA. Every type of life that we know uses the same type of building blocks...there is no difference between the DNA in you and the DNA in a Redwood tree or a soybean.

Comment: I think I saw this (Score 1) 437

by Joreallean (#45202065) Attached to: TSA Airport Screenings Now Start Before You Arrive At the Airport
I actually think I saw this happen at the Pittsburgh airport this last week. A Sikh ahead of me was told he was selected for a light screening after they looked him up. A TSA agent basically walked him directly to the millimeter scanner without having him remove any of the normal articles. Bags still went through the x-ray, but he was essentially expedited through the process. I didn't pay much attention after that, but it struck me as odd at the time.

Comment: How about train him? (Score 2) 509

Since when is it not the companies responsibility to train their employees to do their job? If the job changes while you are there why should you be expected to keep current with the technologies on your own time? If you want him to do things differently then train him on it, if he's not willing to adapt to the new methods then fire him. I do resent the idea that younger, faster, more curious people automatically assume that the level of effort THEY put in is the standard. Some people jobs are simply a means to a paycheck and nothing more. Others its more important than their hobbies so they care more. Each company has a culture that exists and if a person doesn't fit that culture then its time to move on. Some people are content with Operation Enduring Paycheck. Its not hard to keep a job once you have it.

Comment: Re:Google glasses (Score 1) 473

great just proves my point that I was being recorded without my permission?

People don't need your permission to record you in public.

If they turn around and publish it publically that is a different matter, but in general recording in a public place is not against the law.

Comment: No power for the dollar? (Score 1) 595

by Joreallean (#43448717) Attached to: Is Bitcoin Mining a Real-World Environmental Problem?
It's not like the existing currencies don't take any power to produce, maintain, transaction, ect... Just saying that mining costs power is just a means of cutting down the idea of digital mining. The same could be said about SETI@Home and a hundred other distributed computing projects.

Comment: Re:So amazon is supposed to just not make money? (Score 1) 191

by Joreallean (#37784910) Attached to: Librarian Attacks Amazon's Kindle Lending Program
I'm sorry I'm tired of this money is fungible BS. I pay taxes, I do NOT directly fund the library. When I give my money to the government as taxes, I trust that they as an entity will use the money for the benefit of the COMMUNITY not me. So I don't get to say where the money is or is not spent other than to elect my officials.

This is the exact same thing as the bank not being able to tell you that you can't go out and spend all your money on drugs because you still owe them $3000 on your loan. Once the money is no longer in your hands, it is no longer your choice where it gets spent.

The library's mandate is, more than likely, to provide a free, open, public source of knowledge and reading. The source of those materials is up to the library to decide to provide. That may be buying from a local bookseller, it could be from buying from Amazon, or it could be a lending system that is partnered with Amazon and therefore is subsidized by that advertising. The Library has NO, ZERO, ZILCH requirement to answer to every tax paying citizen as to its actions. This may be a democracy or whatever you technically want to call it, but one thing it does not have is a mandate for every government entity to answer to every tax paying citizen. If you have a problem with how tax money is being spent take it up with your representation given to you by the constitution, your elected officials.

Comment: Re:Special offer (Score 1) 227

by Joreallean (#37723990) Attached to: Soon, No More Film Movie Cameras
Only to the "film-o-philes" just like the audiophiles love their analog. Does mean that it has any place in the mainstream market? No it doesn't I have never seen a resampled film that looks better than one created entirely in this generation of technology. You may be able to get more "res" from the film through additional sampling, but every nick, tick, defect, fade, and scratch is lost forever as well. So to say that digital can never get better, well it also means that you shouldn't ever have to buy a "digitally remastered" copy of your content either. When you have it you have it.

An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.