gambling is a fool's bet, because it always favors the house in the long run.
There are games against the house that fit that bill (e..g slot machines.) There are games against other players (with a house percentage) where the players as a whole lose, but you can win consistently (e.g. poker). However, loot boxes cost the house nothing regardless of payout. There''s no reason they cannot be a "winning" bet.
my feelings are a bit conflicted when it comes to government intervention here, because that opens the door to more regulation
Except here the regulations already existed. This is just applying them to game companies trying to to avoid the regs. with the "but it's on a computer' excuse." But yeah, regulations sometimes go too far. That's when democracies change the laws.
You're right, that there is a line that needs to be drawn. However, I this seems like a reasonable place to draw it. I don't see why it would lead to what you stated.
Monster drops aren't purchased, and even monster encounters that are part of a paid game aren't purchased like spins on a slot machine. But loot boxes are. They're pay per spin.
How often have the RNGs been independently audited in FIFA 2018? What are the complete odds of any output? Can children buy them? Are the licensed by the state?
the patent office granted questionable patents under the assumption that "the courts will decide", and the courts presumed the validity of any patent the PTO granted.
Yes, both ducked their responsibilities. However, only one needs to step up. And I'd rather the courts step up, instead of unaccountable bureaucrats. Esp. since what will happen is like in defense contracts, where the patent examiners who happen to approve of a lot of Google/FB/MS patents and not a lot of little guys' patents will have very lucrative jobs at Google/FB/MS after they retire.
a jury is a TERRIBLE judge of patent validity - juries are filled with "everymen", individuals totally incompetent to judge the validity of a patent. The only way that could work well is if patent juries were filled with experts in the relevant domain -
Sure, and I'd be happy to have a few million set aside by the government to pay those juries (or maybe tens of millions?) But the point is, it needs to be an open process. The jury trial has a lot of problems, but there's a reason we want them involved in the process. Or do you want judges to decide guilt/innocence? Because those same arguments apply to just letting judges decide cases.
Padlock's a bad idea. They make hasps that have integrated locks. That way no one can steal your lock (which will cause the delivery to get delayed/left in an unlocked box for thieves.) Other than that, it's fine.
Funny that they're discontinuing all the fuel efficient models just as the many-years-long slump in oil prices is ending. I guess they can only think about what they should have done in the past, not plan for the future.
So it seems clear that what has changed is the nature of the requests -- or possibly the number, but it would require a massive increase in number of requests to cause this change. My money is on the nature of the requests.
The number of requests is actually down (but barely.) The rate of rejections tripled.
There's a problem with patient outcomes (and trial results.) They incentivize cherry-picking the easy cases. Meanwhile, I want the best doctors to work on the hardest cases (after they're done with me that is)
when the state-level entities show up to raid your room they could just ask the desk manager for the key.
At any given time, the state-level entities of 1 state can do that. There are like 200 other states that cannot (I doubt the Chinese police can get a key to a US hotel room just by asking.)
There's no need to penalize the particular employee. The system is designed so that sometimes questionable patents get through... because the ultimate decider in a close call should be a jury, not a patent examiner. That's how the system works.
While there's no need for everyone else to suffer, I think a good rule would be that the USPTO has to refund maintenance fees (prorated) for a patent is overturned that cover the time the patent is invalid (which may not be when the ruling is made, I don't really follow. But whenever the ability to enforce it goes into effect, retrospective or not.).
Please, since the Patriot act it was clear that mass surveillance was happening. There were public records. I'm not responsible for what people refuse to accept. (See also, FB wasn't secretly invading people's privacy, they were willing to accept it)
Stingrays are in use, but it's not clear they are used dragnet style vs. as a wiretap (without the fuss of a court order that would make it legal.)
Umm... FB/Google aren't buying access to your phone calls. That's crazy. Now, if you install their spyware^W apps, they'll be able to. But just don't do that. You are right that if we're not careful now, Google, FB, and MS might just buy Verizon, AT&T and Sprint/T-mobile and start spying. They have the cash on hand. Hell, Google already has some phone service or another. Yeah, that could be bad.
You're at least half right. I'm pretty sure it was the latest. Companies sometimes lose (see: timeshifting and VCRs). It's rarer, but it happens. And more under the DCMA than before, at least.
What good did EVER result from inventing new words?
Shakespeare was better able to write effectively, Orwell constructed a new vocabulary that's very handy for succinctly describing distopian forces, and Tolkein and Gygax described a whole suite of fantasy tropes. New technical words ("smartphone") work well, and even those that are invented to describe subsets are useful ("phablet", "netbook"). As long as the subset is referred to frequently enough, it's worthwhile.
Hacking a tractor is actually usually illegal these days because farm suppliers like to lock in their customers to support contracts
I thought Deere just lost that case, and an exception to the DCMA to fix farm equipment was law (or regulation, or whatever). Cannot find the results online (easily) though, so maybe someone will find it and link?
Huh, the US (and other) intelligence services slurping up data has been known for at least a decade. The local police mass-spying on cellphones is still a technical possibility that hasn't yet been demonstrated. And there's no technical way that Google/FB have your phone tapped unless you install their apps.
The bubbles are a real think. Shadowbans are a real thing (but mostly on twitter/reddit, I don't think FB/Google does it). But the idea that they can overhear your phone calls is not.
How would you expect to see evidence? Unfortunately, things from the 90's are primarily aged off the internet. I mean, I doubt a major paper (the only things I can think of still stretching back that far) covered it.
That's crazy paranoid. Especially them somehow overhearing your call (I guess if you send a message through FB/Google, it's possible, but still seems unlikely). I don't know why you don't just use a phone. if you're worried about FB/Google as opposed to their messengers. Many phones exist that have no connection to FB/Google.
What is true is that FB/Google put you in bubbles and try to show you what they think you want to see. But that's been happening for a while.
Another important thing to consider is PWA's (progressive web apps) which are probably the only sensible attempt at moving toward platform agnostic apps
Progressive web apps are not platform agnostic apps. They are a way of (in essence) remote controlling an app running on a server. Yes, the GUI is platform agnostic and local, but you don't have the control you would if it was really running on your computer (the ability to run it offline, keep version X without upgrading, run it if the Big Company decides to start charging you.)
Frankly, Java is a better solution on PCs, and any cross-compiler is a better solution on mobile. And I cannot imagine any "same app" not needing to be vastly rewritten between the two.
Slashdot Mirror
There are games against the house that fit that bill (e..g slot machines.) There are games against other players (with a house percentage) where the players as a whole lose, but you can win consistently (e.g. poker). However, loot boxes cost the house nothing regardless of payout. There''s no reason they cannot be a "winning" bet.
Except here the regulations already existed. This is just applying them to game companies trying to to avoid the regs. with the "but it's on a computer' excuse." But yeah, regulations sometimes go too far. That's when democracies change the laws.
You're right, that there is a line that needs to be drawn. However, I this seems like a reasonable place to draw it. I don't see why it would lead to what you stated.
Monster drops aren't purchased, and even monster encounters that are part of a paid game aren't purchased like spins on a slot machine. But loot boxes are. They're pay per spin.
How often have the RNGs been independently audited in FIFA 2018? What are the complete odds of any output? Can children buy them? Are the licensed by the state?
Yes, both ducked their responsibilities. However, only one needs to step up. And I'd rather the courts step up, instead of unaccountable bureaucrats. Esp. since what will happen is like in defense contracts, where the patent examiners who happen to approve of a lot of Google/FB/MS patents and not a lot of little guys' patents will have very lucrative jobs at Google/FB/MS after they retire.
Sure, and I'd be happy to have a few million set aside by the government to pay those juries (or maybe tens of millions?) But the point is, it needs to be an open process. The jury trial has a lot of problems, but there's a reason we want them involved in the process. Or do you want judges to decide guilt/innocence? Because those same arguments apply to just letting judges decide cases.
Padlock's a bad idea. They make hasps that have integrated locks. That way no one can steal your lock (which will cause the delivery to get delayed/left in an unlocked box for thieves.) Other than that, it's fine.
They classify all the other vehicles (pickups, SUVs) as trucks.
Several years? OPEC just decided they're going up now/2019.
Funny that they're discontinuing all the fuel efficient models just as the many-years-long slump in oil prices is ending. I guess they can only think about what they should have done in the past, not plan for the future.
Since Alexa communicates over your wifi (as do Google... whatevers), can't you check to see if it's transmitting when it's supposed to be off?
The number of requests is actually down (but barely.) The rate of rejections tripled.
There's a problem with patient outcomes (and trial results.) They incentivize cherry-picking the easy cases. Meanwhile, I want the best doctors to work on the hardest cases (after they're done with me that is)
Why not 0? As in, why not force hospitals to charge individuals the same rate as big insurers?
At any given time, the state-level entities of 1 state can do that. There are like 200 other states that cannot (I doubt the Chinese police can get a key to a US hotel room just by asking.)
There's no need to penalize the particular employee. The system is designed so that sometimes questionable patents get through... because the ultimate decider in a close call should be a jury, not a patent examiner. That's how the system works.
While there's no need for everyone else to suffer, I think a good rule would be that the USPTO has to refund maintenance fees (prorated) for a patent is overturned that cover the time the patent is invalid (which may not be when the ruling is made, I don't really follow. But whenever the ability to enforce it goes into effect, retrospective or not.).
There are maintenance fees, I believe. So you do have to pay more if you get it.
Please, since the Patriot act it was clear that mass surveillance was happening. There were public records. I'm not responsible for what people refuse to accept. (See also, FB wasn't secretly invading people's privacy, they were willing to accept it)
Stingrays are in use, but it's not clear they are used dragnet style vs. as a wiretap (without the fuss of a court order that would make it legal.)
Umm... FB/Google aren't buying access to your phone calls. That's crazy. Now, if you install their spyware^W apps, they'll be able to. But just don't do that. You are right that if we're not careful now, Google, FB, and MS might just buy Verizon, AT&T and Sprint/T-mobile and start spying. They have the cash on hand. Hell, Google already has some phone service or another. Yeah, that could be bad.
You're at least half right. I'm pretty sure it was the latest. Companies sometimes lose (see: timeshifting and VCRs). It's rarer, but it happens. And more under the DCMA than before, at least.
Shakespeare was better able to write effectively, Orwell constructed a new vocabulary that's very handy for succinctly describing distopian forces, and Tolkein and Gygax described a whole suite of fantasy tropes. New technical words ("smartphone") work well, and even those that are invented to describe subsets are useful ("phablet", "netbook"). As long as the subset is referred to frequently enough, it's worthwhile.
I thought Deere just lost that case, and an exception to the DCMA to fix farm equipment was law (or regulation, or whatever). Cannot find the results online (easily) though, so maybe someone will find it and link?
Huh, the US (and other) intelligence services slurping up data has been known for at least a decade. The local police mass-spying on cellphones is still a technical possibility that hasn't yet been demonstrated. And there's no technical way that Google/FB have your phone tapped unless you install their apps.
The bubbles are a real think. Shadowbans are a real thing (but mostly on twitter/reddit, I don't think FB/Google does it). But the idea that they can overhear your phone calls is not.
How would you expect to see evidence? Unfortunately, things from the 90's are primarily aged off the internet. I mean, I doubt a major paper (the only things I can think of still stretching back that far) covered it.
That's crazy paranoid. Especially them somehow overhearing your call (I guess if you send a message through FB/Google, it's possible, but still seems unlikely). I don't know why you don't just use a phone. if you're worried about FB/Google as opposed to their messengers. Many phones exist that have no connection to FB/Google.
What is true is that FB/Google put you in bubbles and try to show you what they think you want to see. But that's been happening for a while.
There are plenty of reasons to silence people without fearing them.
Progressive web apps are not platform agnostic apps. They are a way of (in essence) remote controlling an app running on a server. Yes, the GUI is platform agnostic and local, but you don't have the control you would if it was really running on your computer (the ability to run it offline, keep version X without upgrading, run it if the Big Company decides to start charging you.)
Frankly, Java is a better solution on PCs, and any cross-compiler is a better solution on mobile. And I cannot imagine any "same app" not needing to be vastly rewritten between the two.