zadignose

Or, alternately, why don't they fall into the sun?

I understand the concept of an orbit... or at least I thought I did. But no matter how I approach it, it seems like a very unstable state. A planet in stable orbit, further from the sun, is moving at a slower rate than one closer to the sun. But if a planet in orbit is given extra energy, it both moves to a higher orbit, and moves at a higher rate... it seems it should go out of control and out of orbit completely.

By toying with orbit simulation software, I see that within certain limits, kicking extra energy into a planet just adds to the eccentricity of the orbit, but beyond a certain point it seems to reach an escape velocity which flings it far from the body it's orbiting, into the indefinite future.

Here's the thing. Shouldn't billions of years of uncertain, unpredictable forces such as solar wind, meteorite collisions, matter cast off from a planet throw atmosphere blow-off, volcanic activity, or whatever else interactions with other bodies occur... shouldn't this destroy the stability of orbit? If I assume that the planets which currently exist are merely the survivors, evolution leaving only those bodies which attained a kind of stability, while the vast majority of bodies have collided, fallen into the sun, or ejected into space... well, I'm still left wondering how *anything* manages to orbit for billions of years at all. Or, for that matter, how anything could arrive at a nearly circular orbit in the first place.

I understand that two objects will be accelerated at the same rate under the same gravitational influence, since both inertia and the force of gravitational attraction are directly proportional to mass. So, yeah, a one kilogram ball passing by earth will be deflected from its path and "fall" at the same rate as a two kilogram ball. I also know that light will be deflected from its path due to gravitational influence, which is why black holes are black. But what I never learned was whether the acceleration is the same in the case of a light wave or photon as it is for an object with mass.

I haven't brushed up on relativity in a couple of decades, so I'm not sure how something with no mass is influenced by gravity, a force which is proportional to mass. But maybe I'm too trapped in Newtonian thinking.

I don't generally do a lot of jigsaw puzzles. However, it recently occurred to me that, as the number of pieces in a puzzle goes up, the difficulty should increase geometrically. That is, a 500 piece puzzle should be significantly more than twice as difficult to solve than a 250 piece. It should take more than twice as long to solve.

So, has anyone done any calculations on this? Is there a puzzle size (measured in number of pieces) at which we can say a puzzle is "unsolvable?"

For some kind of yardstick, lets say that a puzzle is "solvable" if a single expert puzzle solver can complete it in 1000 hours, spread over a year's time. Or, if you want to argue that 2000 hours or 4000 hours is still "solvable," that's fine, but let me know what you think.

Will electric fans have a significant effect on the flow of ch'i, with regards to feng shui practice?

Also, can electric fans be used to blow away ghosts or evil spirits?

My house is currently haunted by the ghost of a woman who was killed by an electric fan. I was thinking it would be ironic/funny if I could destroy her soul after death with an electric fan.

I asked in the history category as well, but this is largely a language question:

I'm confused about the history of England and the English language, as well as the ethnic identity of the "English" kings. William the Conqueror won the kingdom of England through warfare. After him, many kings spoke a medieval French language. Richard I never spoke "English." Presumably the English language spoken by commoners was transformed significantly. Multi-part question:

-After William, who was the first King of England to actually be born in England, or the British Isles?

-Who was the first king who spoke "English" as a native language?

-Was there a turning point in history when French/Romance languages went out of fashion with English nobles?

Any details about these events, and the evolution of Middle English into Early Modern English would be appreciated.

I'm confused about the history of England and the English language, as well as the ethnic identity of the "English" kings. William the Conqueror won the kingdom of England through warfare. After him, many kings spoke a medieval French language. Richard I never spoke "English." Presumably the English language spoken by commoners was transformed significantly. Multi-part question:

-After William, who was the first King of England to actually be born in England, or the British Isles?

-Who was the first king who spoke "English" as a native language?

-Was there a turning point in history when French/Romance languages went out of fashion with English nobles?

Any details about these events, and the evolution of Middle English into Early Modern English would be appreciated.

I may have put this in the wrong category, so I'm reposting in theater:

What was Oberon's sexuality in Midsummer Night's Dream?

In Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream, Oberon deceives his wife out of jealousy because he wants to possess a young Indian boy that she is fostering. The play does not explicitly say anything about sexuality here, Oberon seems heterosexual in other references, and he only says he wants the boy as his "knight", or "squire." But it still begs the question. What was his real intent? Is there a scholarly inquiry into this question anywhere? Any critics who have analyzed this?

In Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream, Oberon deceives his wife out of jealousy because he wants to possess a young Indian boy that she is fostering. The play does not explicitly say anything about sexuality here, Oberon seems heterosexual in other references, and he only says he wants the boy as his "knight", or "squire." But it still begs the question. What was his real intent? Is there a scholarly inquiry into this question anywhere? Any critics who have analyzed this?

Do you know what odds are being offered? Is there a link or links to sites that list the odds? Who's the favorite (I'm guessing Japan, but who knows?)

I know that a lot of people fear, and have feared "bots" in online poker for a long time. Personally, though I'm not sure whether I've played against bots, I certainly don't find them to be a problem so far. They haven't made the games too tough to beat, and the toughest players I've run into have definitely been human (some of the professional site sponsors for example).

Now, recently I downloaded a poker computer game to try it out: Poker Superstars III. I've never played such a game against computer opponents. The biggest problem with this game is that the opponents are terrible. They're rather bad at NL tourney format with high blinds, but that is their best game (suited to playing super loose and aggressive). When it comes to the Limit cash game, they're completely hopeless, worse than novices who learned the game yesterday.

It made me wonder. Are there any computer poker simulations which are capable of even barely competent play? Limit poker should be the easiest game to teach a computer. But how good is the best?

If we can teach a computer to play Chess at a Grandmaster level, shouldn't it be possible to teach it to play poker at the level of a competent amateur of three months playing experience?

What do you know about Computer Artificial Intelligence as applied to Poker?

I recently tried setting up a private tourney for Yahoo Answers users on Poker Stars. Now I'd like to try again, and find out from you:

A) Are you interested?

B) If so, when would you like to play? Which day and time? (I'm in Korea, at GMT + 9:00, but let's stick to Eastern Standard Time, which is GMT - 5:00)

C) What game and what stakes would you like to play?

Based on replies, I'll set up a tourney and announce the password here. Even if I personally can't play because of scheduling, I'll still get it set up.

I'm imagining that people will probably be most attracted to a very low stakes no-limit hold'em event, such as $10+1. Whatever gets people interested in trying, I'll facilitate.

As for me, I do most of my playing from Saturday 3:00 PM EST through early Sunday morning. I'm willing to play from $5 to $200 stakes, in any game or any mix of games offered.

I understand the concept that, if you want to learn poker, or just want to enjoy it without the risk of losing money, play money poker is the way to go.

What I don't understand is why people often ask for chips from other players, why people would consider buying them, or why people play "all-in every hand" style poker just to accumulate a huge stack.

I can't see any reason why playing 10,000/20,000 no-limit would be any more rewarding than 1/2 no-limit, when the chips aren't redeemable for money. And, since you can always get free chips from the site, why does it hurt to lose your precious stack of 15 million chips and start again with 1,000?

The worst consequence of this strange obsession, as I can see it, is that this kills any learning value in playing poker for fake money. It seems people will do anything to get more chips... anything except play sensible poker, that is!

Can anything be learned about the game by begging chips off of strangers, or plunging your whole stack into the pot with a 48 offsuit after a flop of KKQ double suited, especially with the full knowledge that half the table intends to call you?

Can someone please enlighten me to this strange phenomenon?

I haven't played this game. But I have many questions:

-How big is the house edge?

-How strictly does the house prevent players from sharing info about their hands?

-Can sharing info between players give an edge to the player?

-What is correct strategy?

Please don't just say "don't play because the house has the advantage... it's a casino game, you can't win, blah blah..." Only say this if you can give *detailed* info on how much of an edge the house has. I'm not looking for ambiguous or general gambling advice, but rather specific information.

Obviously, the only decisions to make are whether to take back a bet or "let it ride." Also, clearly, you're always going to "let it ride" when you've made a pair of tens or better, because you're guaranteed to get paid and are freerolling for a better hand.

I can see that big cards are good, especially suited, as are pairs. What I'm not sure of is the value of a hand like 89J suited which only has one high card, flush possibility, and little chance of straight.

And principal question is, if other players have few or no high cards (either they share info, or I see them take back bets) then how much does this contribute to my decision to "let it ride?" Can this be enough to make the game worth playing?

Given: I realize that the people who designed this game must have done deep research, and probably determined that sharing info is not enough to beat the game... but I'd still like to learn some details.

I've always wanted to set up a numbers racket, but of course the illegality has deterred me. Anyway, does this seem like an attractive bet?

ALL OR NOTHIN'

You pick five numbers from 1 to 10. I then randomly draw 5 numbers, like in a typical Lotto game. If you HIT all five numbers, or if you MISS all five numbers, I pay you 100 to 1 on your bet.

Would you play this game? Why or why not?

Just to be 100% clear, let's say you bet $1 and pick these numbers:

1, 3, 6, 7, 10.

If the randomly drawn numbers are 1, 3, 6, 7, 10 I pay you $100 (and you keep your dollar bet). I would also pay you $100 if the numbers were 2, 4, 5, 8, 9 because you missed all of them. ALL or NOTHIN' wins for you!

I recently got the idea to brew up some mead. It's my first foray into home brewing. Soon I will attempt Makkoli, a Korean rice alcohol. I'm considering trying some crazy pseudo-beer concoctionn using Nuruk (amylase enzyme) and unmalted barley, but that will probably turn into a huge disaster. Then, I'm also considering a sort of pear cider (using Korean "bae," which is like a large spherical local pear variety).

Anyway, besides the biggies (Beer and Wine), and the alternatives above (Mead, Cider and Makkoli), what other alcoholic beverages do people brew? Alcohol from milk? Brewed Cacao? Anything from beans, bananas, cactus?

If you've heard of it, tell me about it. If you've made it, tell me how. If you've seen a recipe, point me in the right direction.

Thanks kindly.

P.S. Oh yeah, I also tried Sima. Not very interesting, I'm afraid.

I recently played blackjack at the Seven Luck Casino in Seoul. I always like to play in a shoe game, but to my misfortune I found that all of the tables with a minimum less than $100 were being dealt from a card reshuffler. I never like to play against these machines, but having no better option I decided to take the worst of it for an hour or two and then leave.

But then, to my surprise, I discovered that the dealer was dealing out as much as a FULL DECK OF CARDS before dumping cards back into the reshuffler. Suddenly it occured to me that, under these circumstances, counting may still be valid. Certainly, when a bunch of low cards come streaming out of the shuffler, the remaining "shoe" must be good until those cards get reshuffled in again.

In addition, I noticed that when the dealer puts the cards in to reshuffle, she's already ready to deal out the first card for the next hand. That first card is not getting shuffled, and maybe that's true of a couple behind it. Sitting just to the left of the dealer, I'm in line to get that first card, so the prior count at least affects this one hand somewhat.

So... given all this, can counting still be effective? How effective? I don't know how many decks are in the machine, but it's small, so I don't figure on more than 5 or 6 max. Also, how long does it take the reshuffler to truly randomize the cards? Do the reshuffled cards tend to clump near the back of the shoe, at least for a while? It seemed so, but that was just an untestable impression based on quick observation.

When I was in New York, Century 21 was the best place to shop for ties. They had great variety, a huge selection, many quality designers, and all at a good discount. Is there anything comparable online? So far I've seen cheap prices with limited selection and questionable quality, or else a selection of known brands that aren't very cheap, even after discount.