Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Oh the irony. (Score 1) 359

Also may I point out that the word "eliminate" was just the wrong term to use full-stop because of the ambiguity that it introduces. No need for that ambiguity, but clearly the author was going more for "impact" than for clarity. Something like:

"How UPS Trucks Saved Millions of Dollars By Preferring Right Hand Turns"

would have been clearer and then we wouldn't even be having this pointless discussion.

Comment Re:Oh the irony. (Score 1) 359

Yeah, this is why in English we use disambiguating terms like "some" and "all". No soldier speaking english would ever say "I've eliminated enemy combatants", they'd say, "I've eliminated SOME enemy combatants". And I agree with your assertion that the "the" in my example was disambiguating.

However, we all know that article titles generally do not use articles in the same way, for brevity's sake, which is why choosing an ambiguous wording as the article did, is a bad idea, and why it leads to confusion where some people interpret it one way and some the other way.

My main beef was with you calling people 'idiot' because they were misled by an ambiguous title and then pointed out what was ambiguous about it, as if your personal interpretation of ambiguity was somehow the "correct" interpretation and anyone who reads it a different way is an "idiot".

Really alot of it comes down to hating to read people immediately start out with name-calling, and it seemed ironic since the person you are responding to had a valid point, which I have just elucidated.

But whatever, have a good day.

Comment Re:Oh the irony. (Score 1) 359

Hilarious that you are calling ME pedantic when you're the one who initiated this nonsense by berating someone else in a pedantic manner!

I think I'm going to start using your logic at work though. Should be fun.

Me: "Hey boss, I eliminated the bugs that were preventing our product from shipping!"

Boss: "Awesome! Finally we can ship because there are no bugs! I just uploaded the new build to the server and users are downloading it as we speak!"

Me: "What?!? But the bug that wipes users' hard drives is still in the product! We're ruined!"

Boss: "But you said you eliminated all of the bugs ..."

Me: "No, I said I eliminated the bugs. But clearly that only means some of them! In fact, I only fixed one bug, but ... since 'eliminate the bugs' really means 'eliminate some of the bugs', and 'some' in this context really meant 'one' ... I was just being accurate! Ask fisted, he knows."

Comment Re:Oh the irony. (Score 2, Insightful) 359

Are you serious?

"eliminate: completely remove or get rid of (something)"

Saying 'partially eliminate' is an oxymoron although it's commonly used enough to mean "eliminating part of" that its meaning is well understood.

A sentence that is otherwise unqualified that says:

"How UPS Trucks Saved Millions of Dollars By Eliminating Left Turns"

VERY clearly means that "all left turns were eliminated".

But I think you understood all of this already and were just looking for a way to be salty. Mission accomplished!

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Marvelous! The super-user's going to boot me! What a finely tuned response to the situation!