I wonder if what he is doing is illegal. He isn't modifying the card. He is simply reading information observable to anyone. Heck he doesn't even need to touch the card to pick a winner.
Yeah, I think this falls into "counting cards in a casino" territory. He's not cheating or using anything other than his brainpower to determine the odds, so it's not illegal.
You're correct, in a sense. The president does not have full control of the government (and, might I add, thank God), so it would be unfair to blame him for all the troubles we have today, especially when he wasn't even the one who started them.
All of the things I mentioned, however, he does control, completely. He is the commander-in-chief of the military; what he says, goes. He controls the government attorneys that fight in court to keep the extent of the government's warrant-less wiretapping secret. He controls the rules under which the departments under him handle FOIA requests.
He has the ability to stop any of these things right this very minute, if he wanted to. But he doesn't, and the media (apart from Jon Stewart, who appears to be rapidly becoming the only principled media figure out there) doesn't seem to care, because the previous guy who they disliked is now gone.
How dare you point out my stupidity! Being a part of the teeming masses of the ignorant, anonymous internet horde, I am justifiably outraged at your characterization of my useless posting habits. You have left me no option but to attempt a lame insult, thereby also announcing my intention to fail to learn from my mistakes, and to take absolutely no action to correct my glaring intellectual shortcomings.
If you were an unscrupulous person, you could buy them in bulk and resell the duds, which would be especially viable for an organization with resources, like the mob.
I have not read the article I am about to discuss. That will not, however, stop me from firing up the comment sheet and tossing out some unfounded assertions that have nothing to do with the story in question. As a member of the general internet populace, I see no problem with this.
Well, the left certainly has "fascist", but I think the buzzword on the right is now "socialist". It's all academic, of course, because both sides are both of those.
Regardless, I was really talking about the media. The awful violations under the Bush regime were vigorously discussed all over the airwaves (even if just provided Fox with an opportunity to extol the virtues of them), but with Obama . . . silence.
Still sending people off to torture them in a foreign country? Still protecting the people who signed off on warrant-less wiretapping? Still denying FOIA requests at an astounding rate? Check. Check. Check. Not a peep from MSNBC.
Guess doing terrible things is okay as long as it's your personal favorite running the show.
In fact, you may not have even heard about it, because the press just didn't think that breaking the law to spy on Americans is really that big of a deal if Obama is the one doing it.
Fixed that for you. When a Republican screws you, it's because he's a fascist. When a Democrat screws you, it's because he has your best interests at heart.
Oh, the partisan blinders of the general public. How I love thee . . .
If you choose to embed it in your site, you have certainly crossed a line.
Perhaps, but that line would be contributory infringement (since you are facilitating the acquisition of illicit materials), not direct infringement (since you aren't distributing them nor storing them).
The problem for the government here is that there is no such thing as criminal contributory infringement, only civil, so they had a choice to make:
(1) Ignore the law and call it criminal direct infringement so they can seize the domain immediately.
(2) Follow the law and call it contributory infringement, which would require the original rights holder of the content in question to submit a lawsuit (and injunction, most likely) to a court.
Lawsuits of this sort are expensive, annoying, and drawn out, so our corporate overlords pressed their government employees to go for option 1 instead. Simple!
You realize that when you type a search into Google, it actually gets sent to Google, right? Is that key-logging?
The answer is obviously no, since by using Google, you agreed to send your searches out to Google, just as these users agreed to send that very same search data to Microsoft when they installed the Bing toolbar.
The problem is when a company has a business model that doesn't involve giving their product away, so they enlist the help of government force to make sure that their business model remains profitable.
I think there will be a spike in iPhone sales as people who wanted an iPhone but really like Verizon will snap them up, but overall, I'd expect most sales to take the form of a steady leeching of customers to Verizon from AT&T as peoples' current contracts expire (while this represents a temporary increase in phone sales, it isn't an increase of the customer base, just a shift).
Meanwhile, Android will keep selling huge numbers of devices from multiple manufacturers on every network out there. They aren't going to slow down at all.
Re: Palmer is an irresponsible trainwreck and treats paying fans like shit
I'm glad Mike added those little fractal patterns next to peoples' names. Makes it easy to track the assholes as they hop from name to name spouting the same garbage over and over.
Not really. If they had passed a user query through to Google, then displayed Google's results on their page, that would have been copying. Instead, their toolbar sends a message to MS that says "A user searched for "aksjdhaksj" and eventually clicked a link headed to "www.kasjfhkj.com".
Then MS uses this data to make sure that any future user who searches for "aksjdhaksj" gets sent to the most relevant link for their search. This is really no different from what Google does themselves; they see what people search for vs. what they click on and they use that to rank page relevancy.
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Damn
Somewhat makes me wish I still lived in Oregon . . .
On the post: Ryanair Shrugs Off Discovery That Others Can Edit Your Flight Booking; Says It's Your Problem
Re:
On the post: Reverse Engineering Lottery Scratch Tickets For Profit (But Not Fame)
Re:
Yeah, I think this falls into "counting cards in a casino" territory. He's not cheating or using anything other than his brainpower to determine the odds, so it's not illegal.
On the post: EFF Finds Evidence Of Over 40,000 Intelligence Violations By The FBI Since 9/11
Re: Re: Re: Re: Correction
All of the things I mentioned, however, he does control, completely. He is the commander-in-chief of the military; what he says, goes. He controls the government attorneys that fight in court to keep the extent of the government's warrant-less wiretapping secret. He controls the rules under which the departments under him handle FOIA requests.
He has the ability to stop any of these things right this very minute, if he wanted to. But he doesn't, and the media (apart from Jon Stewart, who appears to be rapidly becoming the only principled media figure out there) doesn't seem to care, because the previous guy who they disliked is now gone.
On the post: Reverse Engineering Lottery Scratch Tickets For Profit (But Not Fame)
Re: Re: Re:
Keep 'em coming.
On the post: Reverse Engineering Lottery Scratch Tickets For Profit (But Not Fame)
Re:
On the post: Reverse Engineering Lottery Scratch Tickets For Profit (But Not Fame)
Re:
Fixed that for you.
On the post: Film Shot With Canon 7D Bought For $4 Million At Sundance
Re: Re:
Yeah, we're lucky we have the professionals in Hollywood around to show us what non-junk movies look like . . .
On the post: EFF Finds Evidence Of Over 40,000 Intelligence Violations By The FBI Since 9/11
Re: Re: Correction
Regardless, I was really talking about the media. The awful violations under the Bush regime were vigorously discussed all over the airwaves (even if just provided Fox with an opportunity to extol the virtues of them), but with Obama . . . silence.
Still sending people off to torture them in a foreign country? Still protecting the people who signed off on warrant-less wiretapping? Still denying FOIA requests at an astounding rate? Check. Check. Check. Not a peep from MSNBC.
Guess doing terrible things is okay as long as it's your personal favorite running the show.
On the post: EFF Finds Evidence Of Over 40,000 Intelligence Violations By The FBI Since 9/11
Correction
Fixed that for you. When a Republican screws you, it's because he's a fascist. When a Democrat screws you, it's because he has your best interests at heart.
Oh, the partisan blinders of the general public. How I love thee . . .
On the post: Homeland Security Domain Seizures Raise More Questions: Is Embedding A Video Criminal Infringement?
Re:
Perhaps, but that line would be contributory infringement (since you are facilitating the acquisition of illicit materials), not direct infringement (since you aren't distributing them nor storing them).
The problem for the government here is that there is no such thing as criminal contributory infringement, only civil, so they had a choice to make:
(1) Ignore the law and call it criminal direct infringement so they can seize the domain immediately.
(2) Follow the law and call it contributory infringement, which would require the original rights holder of the content in question to submit a lawsuit (and injunction, most likely) to a court.
Lawsuits of this sort are expensive, annoying, and drawn out, so our corporate overlords pressed their government employees to go for option 1 instead. Simple!
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re:
Surely, if Spain were to seize www.google.se, no one in the US would complain, right?
On the post: UK Music Lobbyist Says Rethinking Fair Use Is 'Intellectual Masturbation'
Re:
On the post: Google's Childish Response To Microsoft Using Google To Increase Bing Relevance
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh Come on..
The answer is obviously no, since by using Google, you agreed to send your searches out to Google, just as these users agreed to send that very same search data to Microsoft when they installed the Bing toolbar.
On the post: But I Thought Newspapers Couldn't Be 'Free'?
Re: Re: Re: Free Papers
Fixed that for you.
On the post: Apple Trying To Run All Content Sales Through Its Own Sales System
Re: Re:
Meanwhile, Android will keep selling huge numbers of devices from multiple manufacturers on every network out there. They aren't going to slow down at all.
On the post: The Awkwardness Of Cutting Out The Middleman
Re: Palmer is an irresponsible trainwreck and treats paying fans like shit
On the post: Google's Childish Response To Microsoft Using Google To Increase Bing Relevance
Re: Re: Re: Oh Come on..
Not really. If they had passed a user query through to Google, then displayed Google's results on their page, that would have been copying. Instead, their toolbar sends a message to MS that says "A user searched for "aksjdhaksj" and eventually clicked a link headed to "www.kasjfhkj.com".
Then MS uses this data to make sure that any future user who searches for "aksjdhaksj" gets sent to the most relevant link for their search. This is really no different from what Google does themselves; they see what people search for vs. what they click on and they use that to rank page relevancy.
On the post: Google's Childish Response To Microsoft Using Google To Increase Bing Relevance
Re: Childish? Not according to you awhile back
Next >>