Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:This is to be a perfect story for Slashdot. (Score 1) 69

Well to be honest this story is kind of a snoozer for me. Like, it's already known for this sort of thing to be possible. The fact that it was actually observed hardly seems that interesting to me personally. But for those of you for whom this sort of thing is exciting, please do post, maybe your posts will be interesting to read.

Comment Re:high tech mind tricks (Score 1) 115

Bullshit. I don't believe it. I just simply cannot believe that another person can TALK to you in a certain way and completely change your state of consciousness. I refuse, absolutely refuse, to believe that it's any more than quackery that people will believe because they really, really want to believe it.

Close minded I may be, but I'm not easily fooled either.

Comment Re:Luck not a factor? (Score 1) 191

I would imagine that with enough data you could calculate how long to wait before actually looking at your real cards to decide what to do next. At that point you could probably calculate your odds of winning if you keep playing your "fake hand" versus the odds of winning if you play your "actual hand" and then choose the best option.

What if you could somehow invert the problem of poker, and have, through enough mined data, a table of, given the current game situation, i.e. the best of prior players, etc, what hands you *could* have and what hands they *could* have, and then you could just choose the hand that you want to be playing as if you have at any moment.

Like, if, given the current game state, it's equally likely that you have hand A, B, or C, and if having A is most likely to win you the most money, then play like you have A, until that option is either not possible anymore, or is worse than having B or C (assuming they're still possible). Then switch to B or C when it's the best strategy.

I can't be the first person to have thought of this. Is there software out there that will do this for you?

Comment Re:Luck not a factor? (Score 1) 191

Further to this, I've never played online poker but I've often wondered what it would be like to join up, and then play games pretending like I have completely different hands than I do have. Like what if I could actually hide the cards I actually have on the screen and just choose what cards I want to pretend actually appeared. Then I could play from my pretend hand without any uncertainty due to knowing what I actually have.

There's the problem that I haven't played enough poker to actually make smart bets and plays based on even made-up cards ... but if you are an online poker expert, would it help you in any way to have a system like I describe, where you don't even see your actual cards, but only see the cards of the hand that you want to "pretend" to have?

Comment Re:Luck not a factor? (Score 1) 191

I don't play poker but I've often thought that the ability to play with perfect conviction like you have a hand that you do not have must be a tremendous asset. I think your point that the actual cards don't matter until they are revealed at the end is a great point. If you can play such that except in rare circumstances you always convince your opponents that your hand is better than theirs, then you'll win more often, or at least, you'll be able to use those skills to eke out incremental advantage over time.

Of course, having the luck where you actually *have* the better hand more often must be an important component too ... but over the long run, since everyone will on average have the best cards roughly an equal number of times, it's gotta come down to the skill of manhandling other players into doing what you want through perfectly executed charades.

I don't really have any interest in poker at all, it bores me to tears, but it must be very satisfying to have that skill and to exercise it in games.

Comment Could this fix the accomodation problem in VR? (Score 1) 120

I find that VR headsets don't quite have a feeling of "reality" to them, and I'm not sure exactly how much low FOV, low resolution, screen door, and accomodation/vergence issues contribute to this. After all, you're always focusing at a fixed distance no matter how distant the object you're looking at is "supposed" to appear, and maybe this difference is perceptible as "not real".

But would instantly refocusable lenses help here? A sensor could detect how the user's eyes were focused and then use the refocusable lens to implement a corresponding change to the focal plane of the LCD panel. If that makes any sense. Like, if a sensor could tell that my eyes are focused at an object X meters away (by examining where both my eyes are pointing), then the headset lenses could change shape so that they make the screens appear to be projected at that same distance.

Comment Re:Weighing Options (Score 1) 313

I have had three notebook computers in the past 20 years:

- A Kapok brand cheap-o generic PC thing that I bought in 1998, and which lasted 7 years with no problems
- A Panasonic toughbook Y2 that I bought in 2005 which lasted 7 years with no problems
- A Retina Macbook Pro 15 inch that I bought in 2012 and which I am using to this day, four and a half years later

I now expect all of my laptops to last 7 years with no problems. Lasting 4 years isn't really anything to write home about in my book. We'll see if this mac makes it all the way to 7, it's starting to show some troubling signs of premature aging at the moment ...

Comment Re:Do not need to use human cells (Score 1) 158

Additionally, given that there is no such thing as a "gene that makes kidneys" or a "gene that makes neurons", only "genes that make proteins", I expect you'd have to very subtly change a whole lot of genes in order to actually selectively stop just one kind of organ generation, and even then you'd probably get an imperfect version of that organ.

I thought they were just trying to make the pig "human enough" that its kidneys would work, as piggy as they still might be, in a human.

But you know, I really ought to actually do some research because clearly you know more about this than I do ...

Comment Re:Do not need to use human cells (Score 2) 158

But it sounds like they're not doing the experiments in the right order. They're starting with human cells which end up leaving more questions unanswered because they can't carry the experiments out the way they would be able to with pure animal cells. If they started with pure animal cells they could answer the more fundamental questions quickly and this could lead them to more quickly answering the remaining questions using human cells.

I guess they could do all this in parallel though, which I hope they are doing.

Slashdot Top Deals

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos