Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment meh (Score 3, Informative) 218 218

jquery makes an absolute mess out of javascript. Much of it involves DOM manipulation, which is something you generally want to avoid doing as much as possible. It's a pain in the ass to read, has a nasty learning curve, and it's slow as fk. Don't bother, unless you need to operate on existing jquery code, or have some other very specific reason to use it or interact with code that uses it.

Comment Re:Online poker .com would pay BIG (Score 1) 89 89

... this shows how little you understand of poker. Primarily, that poker is a game played between people, and it does not involve the house. The house makes some money for providing the service of dealing the cards, but it is not involved in the game of poker.

Just playing the odds is an extremely exploitable strategy.

Comment Re: World's best? (Score 1) 89 89

I paid attention pretty thoroughly to offline poker, from '02 to about '10... and I've only ever heard of him as a guy that writes articles for Bluff. He's certainly not a name anyone I know would say is #1, when there's players out there who churn through (lose-win) more than this guy has made in his entire life, on a weekly basis.

Comment Re: Mind games (Score 1) 89 89

No -- There is an absolute best way to win in chess, from every possible position, and it can be calculated. The human opponent can only screw it up for themselves. (yes, I am aware that the 100% absolutely perfect chess program has not yet been written, that will win when given a time limit, but given unlimited time, a computer will always win at chess. The only reason computers have not already done this is because of time limits. It's the same reason all casinos have betting limits -- in a game with near 50-50 odds such as perfectly played Blackjack, you can do Martingale betting, and never lose .. if you have unlimited funds. The moment you hit the betting limit and lose a hand, you are now losing, and not recovering)

In poker, particularly in No Limit Hold'em, you are typically up against up to 9 other opponents. The only way TO win is to figure out how to play each player individually, and adjust strategy based on that. (or figure out one really bad player and capitalize :-) ) If you play entirely on the odds, a good player will capitalize on that, and make it only possible for the computer to win if given a literally unlimited amount of time and money.

Comment Re:I would think (Score 1) 379 379

The point should be, that open source CAN be superior in these respects. It's probably pretty likely that no one but the original code author of this bug actually considered what the code was doing, and just said "Hey, looks good, accept pull request." and then no one else looked at it.

Comment Re:I would think (Score 1) 379 379

... and in a system with a good code review system, this probably would have never happened to begin with, because once you require more than a couple of people look at it, weird mistakes like that usually get caught. at least, if they are thinking about it. Pretty much all the major code errors i've seen in peer review systems get through when people just start blindly accepting code, or only comb it for style related issues. Serious flaws like what caused Heartbleed are pretty difficult to get through multiple people that are thinking.

The more data I punch in this card, the lighter it becomes, and the lower the mailing cost. -- S. Kelly-Bootle, "The Devil's DP Dictionary"

Working...