jeeze i know this is repetative (im in my infant stage of blackjack) and if i you want me to look harder i will but i was wondering about spreading your bets and how you should as the count varies. Atm i am just using basic High-low and am playing a game where dealer hits soft 17's and you can double after splits. umm porbably about 75% deck penetration should the unit bet correspond to the TC like tc of 2 means i bet 2 units?
betting spreads
- Thread starter Alythezon
- Start date
I promised somebody I would be nice about this sort of thing, so just let me say this...
Near the bottom of the main index page you can click on a link called Currently Active Users. This shows not only what the people signed on are doing, but also the lurkers. It is very common to see lurkers reading threads dating back to 2005 & 2006. They must be getting a very comprehensive blackjack education!
Near the bottom of the main index page you can click on a link called Currently Active Users. This shows not only what the people signed on are doing, but also the lurkers. It is very common to see lurkers reading threads dating back to 2005 & 2006. They must be getting a very comprehensive blackjack education!
That's a very poor game.
TC 0: 1 unit
TC 1: 2 units
TC 2: 8 units
TC 3:14 units
TC 4:16 units
But the SCORE is only 15 which is very poor. You could play only positive counts with the following ramp:
TC 1: 1 unit
TC 2: 1 unit
TC 3: 2 units
TC 4: 3 units
TC 5: 4 units
And units 7 times the size as in the first ramp. This would double the SCORE.
TC 0: 1 unit
TC 1: 2 units
TC 2: 8 units
TC 3:14 units
TC 4:16 units
But the SCORE is only 15 which is very poor. You could play only positive counts with the following ramp:
TC 1: 1 unit
TC 2: 1 unit
TC 3: 2 units
TC 4: 3 units
TC 5: 4 units
And units 7 times the size as in the first ramp. This would double the SCORE.
Standardized Comparison of Risk and Expectation. This is a methodology used to rate Blackjack strategies and games that includes risk. Essentially it is your win rate in dollars per hour assuming 100 hands per hour and a $10,000 bankroll using optimal betting and a risk of ruin of 13.5%. http://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer.htm will calculate SCOREs. It's in the column c-SCORE.
Well, there are tens of thousands of companies that develop Windows applications and one company that develops OS X. Which makes more sense, 10,000 companies adding OS X support or one company adding support for Windows apps to OS X?
IMO Mac users should be complaining to Apple.
Well, there are tens of thousands of companies that develop Windows applications and one company that develops OS X. Which makes more sense, 10,000 companies adding OS X support or one company adding support for Windows apps to OS X?
IMO Mac users should be complaining to Apple.
Last edited:
The more I learn about counting and my super meager bankroll ($2,000, est.), the more I think counting in a real casino is a recipe for disaster. =)
But why are you comparing developers of Windows applications vs developers of Apple's OS?
There's only one company making Windows and there's only one company making OS X.
There's thousands of people/companies making Windows applications and thousands of people/companies making OS X applications.
Granted, OS X has an estimated 7% market share so I can't reasonably expect someone to port their stuff (unless the $$ or <3 is there) but that's a completely different issue...
vQ
QFIT said:
Well, there are tens of thousands of companies that develop Windows applications and one company that develops OS X. Which makes more sense, 10,000 companies adding OS X support or one company adding support for Windows apps to OS X? IMO Mac users should be complaining to Apple.
IMO Mac users should be complaining to Apple.
There's only one company making Windows and there's only one company making OS X.
There's thousands of people/companies making Windows applications and thousands of people/companies making OS X applications.
Granted, OS X has an estimated 7% market share so I can't reasonably expect someone to port their stuff (unless the $$ or <3 is there) but that's a completely different issue...
vQ
Because there are actually comparatively very few companies developing OS X software. The vast majority of applications are developed for Windows. 99% of games are Windows apps. How many companies build Windows machines and how many companies build machines that run OS X? Windows is probably the worst operating system ever written. But that's what runs on most PCs and that's what developers develop for.
Comes to the same thing. Tens of thousands of companies are not going to alter their programs. It would take a year for me to convert one app. If one company wants to claim that it can do everything, that one company should add support for Windows apps. It's one company or tens of thousands. Just seems to me that it would be more logical for Mac users to complain to the one non-standard company and not the tens of thousands.
Maybe I'm missing something here.
Originally you wrote:
...which is true but meaningless since, again, you're juxtapoxing makers of applications vs. makers of an operating system. It would be every bit as meaningless if I compared the one maker of Windows (Microsoft) vs. the thousands of Mac application developers.
It's apples and oranges.
It is 100% as easy to make an application for OS X as it is to make an application for Windows. I concede completely that since Windows has a 91% market share vs. OS X's 7%, if your motive is financial, coding for Windows is the far better choice.
Then you wrote:
Agreed.
I can't quite understand what you're saying here. What do you mean by "it's?"
Are you saying that Mac ought to include a native Windows environment in their OS X distribution??
What is the name of this non-standard company Mac users should be complaining to?
vQ
Originally you wrote:
...which is true but meaningless since, again, you're juxtapoxing makers of applications vs. makers of an operating system. It would be every bit as meaningless if I compared the one maker of Windows (Microsoft) vs. the thousands of Mac application developers.
It's apples and oranges.
It is 100% as easy to make an application for OS X as it is to make an application for Windows. I concede completely that since Windows has a 91% market share vs. OS X's 7%, if your motive is financial, coding for Windows is the far better choice.
Then you wrote:
Agreed.
I can't quite understand what you're saying here. What do you mean by "it's?"
Are you saying that Mac ought to include a native Windows environment in their OS X distribution??
What is the name of this non-standard company Mac users should be complaining to?
vQ
Exactly. Apple runs ads claiming that PCs don't do anything (and are nerdy and chubby with glasses and out of style clothing) and Macs do everything out of the box (and are cool guys.) So people run out and buy Macs only to discover most software won't run. Since those ads have started, I have received scores of questions from people asking why my software won't load. This one company could solve the problem. Add Windows support. It's either that or force millions of purchasers to set up Windows support themselves or tens of thousands of companies to redevelop their applications.
It's one company or tens of thousands.
This one company could solve the problem. Add Windows support. It's either that or force millions of purchasers to set up Windows support themselves or tens of thousands of companies to redevelop their applications.It's one company or tens of thousands.
...successful branding and marketing, ok...
...most??
Yours is literally the first app I've ever been willing to shell out $$ for but been unable to get due to lack of a port.
I have 155 apps on this machine. Photoshop. Lightroom. Audacity. DivX Player. Firefox. Flickr Uploader. Flightgear. Google Earth. Modo. OpenOffice. Opera. OSX Skyfighters. PersonalBrain. Photomatix. Quicken 2007. Raven Shield. Rollercoaster Tycoon. Reason. Recycle. Skitch. Skype. Sound Studio 3. Rosetta Stone. Toast. Vendetta. VLC.
...just to name a few you'd probably recognize. Each of these companies have looked at the cost to code for OS X, looked at the revenue potential and decided it was worth it. Whether income outweighs expenditures is what drives innovation, not who's the fattest kid on the see-saw.
Not to mention that if you really want Windows support on a Mac there's always Boot Camp or Parallels...
For a person who admits that Windows is an inferior platform, this is a bizarre statement.
You're suggesting that once anything gains enough market share -- regardless of its technical merits -- everyone else should follow suit. Not exactly good from a consumer perspective.
You're also suggesting that it would be in a company's best interest to put itself out of business. After all, if OS X included native Windows support, there would be absolutely zero reason for anyone to code an app for OS X.
If I could go back to the point of purchase and decide whether to buy a machine running Vista, an OS reviled to the point Microsoft recently slashed prices, or purchase this MacBook, a machine so stable that it hasn't crashed in six months and requires neither anti-spyware nor anti-virus software ...well, there would be no hesitation whatsoever.
And this is coming from a guy that has built and used nothing but PCs since my first IBM PS2 around 1987 until late last year. I also serve as a kind of local GeekSquad to this coastal resort town. I have lots of clients (I also offer on-site tutoring classes) who have Macs but ...they never call me. In fact I think I've gotten precisely one Mac call and the problem was her ethernet cable was unplugged.
So with all due respect to your obvious mathematical skills, from a business and consumer perspective, suggesting Mac included native Windows support is perhaps one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard.
vQ
...most??
Yours is literally the first app I've ever been willing to shell out $$ for but been unable to get due to lack of a port.
I have 155 apps on this machine. Photoshop. Lightroom. Audacity. DivX Player. Firefox. Flickr Uploader. Flightgear. Google Earth. Modo. OpenOffice. Opera. OSX Skyfighters. PersonalBrain. Photomatix. Quicken 2007. Raven Shield. Rollercoaster Tycoon. Reason. Recycle. Skitch. Skype. Sound Studio 3. Rosetta Stone. Toast. Vendetta. VLC.
...just to name a few you'd probably recognize. Each of these companies have looked at the cost to code for OS X, looked at the revenue potential and decided it was worth it. Whether income outweighs expenditures is what drives innovation, not who's the fattest kid on the see-saw.
Not to mention that if you really want Windows support on a Mac there's always Boot Camp or Parallels...
QFIT said:
Since those ads have started, I have received scores of questions from people asking why my software won't load. This one company could solve the problem. Add Windows support. It's either that or force millions of purchasers to set up Windows support themselves or tens of thousands of companies to redevelop their applications. It's one company or tens of thousands.
This one company could solve the problem. Add Windows support. It's either that or force millions of purchasers to set up Windows support themselves or tens of thousands of companies to redevelop their applications. It's one company or tens of thousands.
You're suggesting that once anything gains enough market share -- regardless of its technical merits -- everyone else should follow suit. Not exactly good from a consumer perspective.
You're also suggesting that it would be in a company's best interest to put itself out of business. After all, if OS X included native Windows support, there would be absolutely zero reason for anyone to code an app for OS X.
If I could go back to the point of purchase and decide whether to buy a machine running Vista, an OS reviled to the point Microsoft recently slashed prices, or purchase this MacBook, a machine so stable that it hasn't crashed in six months and requires neither anti-spyware nor anti-virus software ...well, there would be no hesitation whatsoever.
And this is coming from a guy that has built and used nothing but PCs since my first IBM PS2 around 1987 until late last year. I also serve as a kind of local GeekSquad to this coastal resort town. I have lots of clients (I also offer on-site tutoring classes) who have Macs but ...they never call me. In fact I think I've gotten precisely one Mac call and the problem was her ethernet cable was unplugged.
So with all due respect to your obvious mathematical skills, from a business and consumer perspective, suggesting Mac included native Windows support is perhaps one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard.
vQ
What you call "successful branding and marketing" I call false advertising. Apple has many good attributes. It's a shame that they stoop to fraud and harm their customers.
Look at Best Buy. They have 444 software products on their site. Nearly every product runs on Windows. A small minority run on both Windows and Macs. A handful are Mac only. Shareware sites are nearly pure Windows.
Clearly Apple marketing folk think it is important to do everything since this is what their advertisements falsely claim. You believe it would be "perhaps one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard" for Apple to allow the operation of all these products. I'm not convinced
BTW, if you are not using anti-spyware nor anti-virus software, this is a mistake. Macs are actually less secure than Windows. In the most recent hacker contest, the winner chose to hack a Mac rather than a PC saying it was much easier. ComputerWorld's last study also indicated that Windows has fewer security holes. The reason you don't hear about this so much is that most hackers go after Windows since there are so many more users. But, with rising market share - don't expect this to continue. (Of course this is another part of Apple's false advertising.)
Look at Best Buy. They have 444 software products on their site. Nearly every product runs on Windows. A small minority run on both Windows and Macs. A handful are Mac only. Shareware sites are nearly pure Windows.
Clearly Apple marketing folk think it is important to do everything since this is what their advertisements falsely claim. You believe it would be "perhaps one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard" for Apple to allow the operation of all these products. I'm not convinced
BTW, if you are not using anti-spyware nor anti-virus software, this is a mistake. Macs are actually less secure than Windows. In the most recent hacker contest, the winner chose to hack a Mac rather than a PC saying it was much easier. ComputerWorld's last study also indicated that Windows has fewer security holes. The reason you don't hear about this so much is that most hackers go after Windows since there are so many more users. But, with rising market share - don't expect this to continue. (Of course this is another part of Apple's false advertising.)
If you mean by portraying mac people as "hip" and windows people as otherwise, I guess we'll have to disagree on what distinguishes branding from claims.
If you mean something more specific ...you'll have to be more specific.
On the other hand, Apple isn't facing a class-action lawsuit for slapping "Vista capable" stickers on machines that couldn't actually run the full version of Vista...
Again, be specific.
Fair enough but let me point out that you've done nothing to refute any of my specific points except to claim they're unconvincing. Shrugging isn't an argument.
You're relying on my ignorance of the test to make your claim. Specifically:
* The same exploit (Dead link: http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0day-exploit-in-2-hours) _works on Windows_. It's a flaw in the browser, not the OS.
* The exploit works on Safari. I don't use Safari.
* The exploit gave the hacker a user account, not root. In other words, while the machine was technically compromised, the access gained was functionally meaningless.
* On the same day a completely different exploit was demonstrated against Windows Vista which, unlike the OS X exploit, actually allowed administrator (root) access to the machine.
* The exploit required physical access to the machine. The rules of that contest initially required that the attack required no action on the part of the user. This rule was changed last-minute.
* This single exploit is not publically known. No exploits are known to exist in the wild. Zero.
* The Mac exploit can be stopped in its tracks by turning on the native firewall and making sure your WiFi doesn't connect automatically to open networks. These are steps that (a) should be taken anyway and, unlike anti-virus software, (b) costs nothing.
* Despite having no anti-virus or anti-spyware software, my machine has never been compromised. On the other hand, I've had machines on a network taken down during a Windows install.
* And last but certainly not least, I performed internet support training for RCN for three years (teaching and writing technical documentation), I worked in a CDN NOC for two years and for the last three years I've been doing on-site computer repair and tutoring and yet not one single time have I ever seen a Mac running OS 9 or X with a virus or spyware.
Not. Once.
On the other hand, if it weren't for Windows spyware and viruses, I wouldn't get any calls at all.
So please, please, please don't try to slip this sort of stuff under the radar. It's extremely insulting and undercuts your credibility.
I have a simple question for you; how much money have you lost by not having an OS X port? I'm guessing your answer is "I don't know." I'm guessing this because I can't imagine how you could know.
And if you don't know the values to accurately contrast reward vs. cost, then like a novice gambler who comes to these forums wanting to know their chances of success at the tables but doesn't know all the variables that are required to formulate an intelligent answer, you have no way of knowing whether or not your decision to not invest in a port is correct.
We both know that if two players sit at a game -- one playing BS and one playing hunches -- the poor player might very well leave the table with more money. So you might very well be right about a port not being worthwhile but that doesn't say anything about your logic. And like a novice gambler, you seem to be allowing biases and unfounded misconceptions color your judgment.
After all, I was just lamenting a lack of a port of your excellent software. You responded with a very selective and flawed anti-mac polemic.
vQ
If you mean something more specific ...you'll have to be more specific.
On the other hand, Apple isn't facing a class-action lawsuit for slapping "Vista capable" stickers on machines that couldn't actually run the full version of Vista...
Again, be specific.
QFIT said:
You believe it would be "perhaps one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard" for Apple to allow the operation of all these products. I'm not convinced
You're relying on my ignorance of the test to make your claim. Specifically:
* The same exploit (Dead link: http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0day-exploit-in-2-hours) _works on Windows_. It's a flaw in the browser, not the OS.
* The exploit works on Safari. I don't use Safari.
* The exploit gave the hacker a user account, not root. In other words, while the machine was technically compromised, the access gained was functionally meaningless.
* On the same day a completely different exploit was demonstrated against Windows Vista which, unlike the OS X exploit, actually allowed administrator (root) access to the machine.
* The exploit required physical access to the machine. The rules of that contest initially required that the attack required no action on the part of the user. This rule was changed last-minute.
* This single exploit is not publically known. No exploits are known to exist in the wild. Zero.
* The Mac exploit can be stopped in its tracks by turning on the native firewall and making sure your WiFi doesn't connect automatically to open networks. These are steps that (a) should be taken anyway and, unlike anti-virus software, (b) costs nothing.
* Despite having no anti-virus or anti-spyware software, my machine has never been compromised. On the other hand, I've had machines on a network taken down during a Windows install.
* And last but certainly not least, I performed internet support training for RCN for three years (teaching and writing technical documentation), I worked in a CDN NOC for two years and for the last three years I've been doing on-site computer repair and tutoring and yet not one single time have I ever seen a Mac running OS 9 or X with a virus or spyware.
Not. Once.
On the other hand, if it weren't for Windows spyware and viruses, I wouldn't get any calls at all.
So please, please, please don't try to slip this sort of stuff under the radar. It's extremely insulting and undercuts your credibility.
I have a simple question for you; how much money have you lost by not having an OS X port? I'm guessing your answer is "I don't know." I'm guessing this because I can't imagine how you could know.
And if you don't know the values to accurately contrast reward vs. cost, then like a novice gambler who comes to these forums wanting to know their chances of success at the tables but doesn't know all the variables that are required to formulate an intelligent answer, you have no way of knowing whether or not your decision to not invest in a port is correct.
We both know that if two players sit at a game -- one playing BS and one playing hunches -- the poor player might very well leave the table with more money. So you might very well be right about a port not being worthwhile but that doesn't say anything about your logic. And like a novice gambler, you seem to be allowing biases and unfounded misconceptions color your judgment.
After all, I was just lamenting a lack of a port of your excellent software. You responded with a very selective and flawed anti-mac polemic.
vQ
Wow, I don't know where to begin. You seem to have taken offense at my suggestion that people ask Apple to support Windows apps. Let me make a few comments:
I see you have some experience in technology. I have some too. 40 years. My experiences are different. That doesn't make my experiences or yours any better. They're just different. I used to run my site on WindowsNT. It ran for two years without a crash. That's just one bit of experience and is useless info. You say "So please, please, please don't try to slip this sort of stuff under the radar. It's extremely insulting and undercuts your credibility." I'm afraid I don't know what you mean and I certainly don't mean to be "extremely insulting." I believe you should use anti-virus software. If you don't want to, don't.
You state "After all, I was just lamenting a lack of a port of your excellent software. You responded with a very selective and flawed anti-mac polemic." It was neither selective nor anti-Mac, nor flawed, nor polemic. Macs are beautiful machines. I do believe there is room for improvement - but I said nothing negative about Macs. OTOH, I have never liked Apple's marketing practices going back decades. I think they have hurt Apple. Had Apple had good marketing practices going back to its genesis -- I don't think there would be any Windows machines.
As for my decision not to port -- that's easy. It would take a year out of my life. There is no way it would be worthwhile. I once calculated that it would be cheaper for me to buy every interested Apple user a PC than to convert. (No joke.) In any case, I don't have a year to devote to such a project. There are far more interesting and useful projects.
I really don't see why you are comparing me to "a novice gambler." (And you accuse me of being insulting. ) I simply cannot afford to convert CV to run natively on a MAC. Considering the vast number of Windows apps that will never be converted, I really do not understand why Apple doesn't make it easier to run them. I repeat, one company could put a little effort into putting together existing tools and solving a problem that a huge number of its users experience. I believe that is very poor customer service.
But that's just my opinion.
I see you have some experience in technology. I have some too. 40 years. My experiences are different. That doesn't make my experiences or yours any better. They're just different. I used to run my site on WindowsNT. It ran for two years without a crash. That's just one bit of experience and is useless info. You say "So please, please, please don't try to slip this sort of stuff under the radar. It's extremely insulting and undercuts your credibility." I'm afraid I don't know what you mean and I certainly don't mean to be "extremely insulting." I believe you should use anti-virus software. If you don't want to, don't.
You state "After all, I was just lamenting a lack of a port of your excellent software. You responded with a very selective and flawed anti-mac polemic." It was neither selective nor anti-Mac, nor flawed, nor polemic. Macs are beautiful machines. I do believe there is room for improvement - but I said nothing negative about Macs. OTOH, I have never liked Apple's marketing practices going back decades. I think they have hurt Apple. Had Apple had good marketing practices going back to its genesis -- I don't think there would be any Windows machines.
As for my decision not to port -- that's easy. It would take a year out of my life. There is no way it would be worthwhile. I once calculated that it would be cheaper for me to buy every interested Apple user a PC than to convert. (No joke.) In any case, I don't have a year to devote to such a project. There are far more interesting and useful projects.
I really don't see why you are comparing me to "a novice gambler." (And you accuse me of being insulting.
) I simply cannot afford to convert CV to run natively on a MAC. Considering the vast number of Windows apps that will never be converted, I really do not understand why Apple doesn't make it easier to run them. I repeat, one company could put a little effort into putting together existing tools and solving a problem that a huge number of its users experience. I believe that is very poor customer service.But that's just my opinion.
Incidentally, my history with Apple goes back to its earliest days. Shortly after Apple was formed, in the late 70s, I purchased for a university the largest bulk purchase of Apple’s in their history – at that time. $300,000 worth of Apple computers (a bit over a million in 2008 dollars.) The next year I made another purchase of a different computer that was neither an Apple nor Intel-based. Apple threatened to sue me. First I’ve thought about that in ages. I laughed it off since I knew it was the correct decision and I was immune from vendor suits under state law anyhow.
I'm getting old.
First I’ve thought about that in ages. I laughed it off since I knew it was the correct decision and I was immune from vendor suits under state law anyhow.I'm getting old.
I don't understand where the "seem" kicks in since I took great care to explain precisely where I took offense.
That doesn't seem fair since my experience has spanned Windows 3.1 through Vista, Mac 7.6.8 through OS X 10.4.10 and various flavors and kernels of Linux (mostly Debian and RH) since around 1998. I've worked in dialup end-user environments, TCP/IP stack networking troubleshooting, NOC->engineering liaison work, training and even some mom + pop hand-holding in the burbs.
Since I've seen all major operating systems at every possible range of use spanning personal, home office, commercial, colo boxen, international networking, in-house lans, development and web hosting, I think I'm in a particularly good position to comment on intrusion issues.
It is insulting to support your assertion that OS X is a more hack-able OS than Windows by citing an example which, by any rational standard, demonstrates no such thing. It means you either did not know the ramifications this test or you did, but assumed I would not.
It cannot be understood to mean what you proposed it did mean:
Again, the contest you cite is -- in every meaninful way -- misrepresentative for the purposes of determining the OS' hardness vs. attack. It was prima facie anti-mac, it was selective in that it left out an embarrassing amount of detail about what, exactly, the breach revealed about the OS X's security, it was selective in that it failed to point out that Windows suffers from the exact same vulnerability and doesn't even demonstrate a security hole in the OS itself.
And inherently flawed for precisely all of these reasons.
I might be willing to concede "polemic."
...and I'm still waiting for you to cite a specific example of what you have called "false advertising" and "fraud."
I'll let the thread die with this reply. I have to assume that if you're feigning confusion after I wrote such a verbose post, if you're neglecting to explain how the hack contest actually does demonstrate inferior OS X security and still not answering the fundamental question of what it is about Apple advertising that constitutes fraud, writing more won't help.
Clearly you're highly regarded in these forums. Perhaps my posts have come off as a bit angry but they should be understood as closer to disappointment.
...but I'll still read your posts about math. =)
vQ
That doesn't seem fair since my experience has spanned Windows 3.1 through Vista, Mac 7.6.8 through OS X 10.4.10 and various flavors and kernels of Linux (mostly Debian and RH) since around 1998. I've worked in dialup end-user environments, TCP/IP stack networking troubleshooting, NOC->engineering liaison work, training and even some mom + pop hand-holding in the burbs.
Since I've seen all major operating systems at every possible range of use spanning personal, home office, commercial, colo boxen, international networking, in-house lans, development and web hosting, I think I'm in a particularly good position to comment on intrusion issues.
It is insulting to support your assertion that OS X is a more hack-able OS than Windows by citing an example which, by any rational standard, demonstrates no such thing. It means you either did not know the ramifications this test or you did, but assumed I would not.
It cannot be understood to mean what you proposed it did mean:
Again, the contest you cite is -- in every meaninful way -- misrepresentative for the purposes of determining the OS' hardness vs. attack. It was prima facie anti-mac, it was selective in that it left out an embarrassing amount of detail about what, exactly, the breach revealed about the OS X's security, it was selective in that it failed to point out that Windows suffers from the exact same vulnerability and doesn't even demonstrate a security hole in the OS itself.
And inherently flawed for precisely all of these reasons.
I might be willing to concede "polemic."
...and I'm still waiting for you to cite a specific example of what you have called "false advertising" and "fraud."
I'll let the thread die with this reply. I have to assume that if you're feigning confusion after I wrote such a verbose post, if you're neglecting to explain how the hack contest actually does demonstrate inferior OS X security and still not answering the fundamental question of what it is about Apple advertising that constitutes fraud, writing more won't help.
Clearly you're highly regarded in these forums. Perhaps my posts have come off as a bit angry but they should be understood as closer to disappointment.
...but I'll still read your posts about math. =)
vQ