"Fine, give me a 100% unlocked phone then instead of forcing me to pay an extra $45.00 to get it unlocked by a local unlocker. (Which the phone company will lie to you and say unlocking is illegal.)"
As others have said, this is not accurate. T-mobile is well known for unlocking phones on request, and AT&T did it for me after 90 days (not sure if that's the case anymore, but others seem to say that it is).
I don't know when (if) you dealt with them, but your objections are not currently valid.
"But maybe someone can help me out. I still can't find a clear answer as to can US companies offer a gambling service a non-US one is prevented from offering by law"
No one knows, and the answers you get are all suspect as the law has never been tested in this regard.
If anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying. This has been debated more times than I can count, and there is no solid answer. If you'd like to know more, you can get most of what you need here.
"It was trying to protect domestic corporations and tax revenue."
This is not accurate. The legislation that was passed does exactly the opposite.
Had this been the real reason for the legislation, then taxation and regulation would have been the outcome, but banning the industry totally just opened the market to less scrupulous offshore operations, guaranteeing that domestic corporations couldn't compete AND preventing the gathering of tax revenue.
The UIGEA had ONE and ONLY ONE reason for being passed, it was a desperate attempt by a desperate incumbent to appeal to his religious constituents, in order to pave the way for future political advancement.
"* That sea levels could rise seven metres 'in the immediate future' * That atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated * That CO2 levels and temperatures are 'an exact fit' - this, said the judge, overstated the case * That the drying of Lake Chad, the disappearance of snows on Kilimanjaro, and Hurricane Katrina can be directly attributed to global warming * That polar bears are known to be drowning as a result of melting ice * That coral bleaching is due to climate change"
So what do you think you've refuted by posting inaccuracies that the judge used to determine made the movie unreliable?
Apart from proving that the judge and OP were correct, what did you think you'd accomplished?
"Al Gore, through carbon offsets, leads a carbon-neutral life; and, thorough his work, he has inspired many, many others to reduce or eliminate their carbon footprint"
"Humans generally have a fascinating organ called the brain, that can actually be used to predict bad situations and take steps to prevent them but that actually make them worse in the long run."
My scenario is just as common as yours, and no less possible.
"Nations? You mean the arbitrarily made boundaries made with a rule by whities so that many different tribes with different languages, that had been killing each other for millenniums are now called a 'nation' are supposed to work?"
You mean like Europe, right?
Yeah that place is a shithole for sure...
And the Africans have redrawn the "arbitrary" boundaries several times in several places.
I think that predates your example by a few years.
And honestly, that two inventions share similarities does not mean that there aren't also differences. Your "safe" doesn't really resemble the pot in pot refrigerator at all.
"Actually it is the PERFECT retort, because it shows just how out-of-touch Microsoft is. Teenagers don't care about value, because they have no concept of what value is."
Well, that makes no sense then.
She purchased the OS on the suggestion of her 13 year old daughter, so apparently her opinion mattered at some point.
Either her 13 year old is worth listening to or she isn't, but using her age as an excuse or ignoring her opinion is pretty underhanded when mom didn't have a problem with that very same opinion previously.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all.
The law itself is the violation, its application and legality don't matter.
In other words, the ACT of making the law is the violation.
"Fine, give me a 100% unlocked phone then instead of forcing me to pay an extra $45.00 to get it unlocked by a local unlocker. (Which the phone company will lie to you and say unlocking is illegal.)"
As others have said, this is not accurate. T-mobile is well known for unlocking phones on request, and AT&T did it for me after 90 days (not sure if that's the case anymore, but others seem to say that it is).
I don't know when (if) you dealt with them, but your objections are not currently valid.
"I flat out asked the sales guy..."
Ah yes, I think I see your problem.
It just gets hidden in the cost of the service and spread out over the term of the contract.
Unless you think the phone companies eat the cost of subsidizing the phones...
"But maybe someone can help me out. I still can't find a clear answer as to can US companies offer a gambling service a non-US one is prevented from offering by law"
No one knows, and the answers you get are all suspect as the law has never been tested in this regard.
If anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying. This has been debated more times than I can count, and there is no solid answer. If you'd like to know more, you can get most of what you need here.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=law
"It was trying to protect domestic corporations and tax revenue."
This is not accurate. The legislation that was passed does exactly the opposite.
Had this been the real reason for the legislation, then taxation and regulation would have been the outcome, but banning the industry totally just opened the market to less scrupulous offshore operations, guaranteeing that domestic corporations couldn't compete AND preventing the gathering of tax revenue.
The UIGEA had ONE and ONLY ONE reason for being passed, it was a desperate attempt by a desperate incumbent to appeal to his religious constituents, in order to pave the way for future political advancement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UIGEA#Internet_gambling_provisions
I'm glad you agree that your point was ridiculous.
"Its this stupid "We invented it" mentality that is horribly twisted thruths, that makes US people behave like overlords all the time."
I think it's more your "I have low self esteem" mentality that makes you think Americans behave like overlords.
We really don't care about you. Not one bit.
I like how you go so far out of your way with hypotheticals (which are irrelevant) when trying to avoid admitting Gore was deliberately inaccurate.
I don't need to manufacture scenarios to prove my point, I just have to watch his movie.
"But that isn't the point they're making."
IT WAS THE POINT I WAS MAKING.
If "they" are making a different point, take it up with "them".
"So, you didn't read the article, and you didn't read the post I wrote either?"
I did and I did, but I suspect you didn't read mine.
"Note what the judge did not dispute..."
Note that your statement has NOTHING to do with my point.
"Deliberate falsehoods, or exaggerations?"
I fail to see the difference, and when discussing science, "exaggerations" are nothing to be proud of.
If you want to support Gore and is goals, that's great, but you sound very silly defending him for being inaccurate.
"* That sea levels could rise seven metres 'in the immediate future'
* That atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated
* That CO2 levels and temperatures are 'an exact fit' - this, said the judge, overstated the case
* That the drying of Lake Chad, the disappearance of snows on Kilimanjaro, and Hurricane Katrina can be directly attributed to global warming
* That polar bears are known to be drowning as a result of melting ice
* That coral bleaching is due to climate change"
So what do you think you've refuted by posting inaccuracies that the judge used to determine made the movie unreliable?
Apart from proving that the judge and OP were correct, what did you think you'd accomplished?
"and it's hypocritical for right-wingers to scold anyone for owning too much."
But it's not hypocritical for Gore to scold people for using to much energy?
Oh, of course it is.
"Al Gore, through carbon offsets, leads a carbon-neutral life; and, thorough his work, he has inspired many, many others to reduce or eliminate their carbon footprint"
In the name of the Holy Al, Amen.
I'm not joking.
"Humans generally have a fascinating organ called the brain, that can actually be used to predict bad situations and take steps to prevent them but that actually make them worse in the long run."
My scenario is just as common as yours, and no less possible.
http://www.allerca.com/
"The best results taking all factors into account were obtained using a cat"
Re-fixed your "fix".
"Nations? You mean the arbitrarily made boundaries made with a rule by whities so that many different tribes with different languages, that had been killing each other for millenniums are now called a 'nation' are supposed to work?"
You mean like Europe, right?
Yeah that place is a shithole for sure...
And the Africans have redrawn the "arbitrary" boundaries several times in several places.
Stop trying so hard to be guilty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweating
I think that predates your example by a few years.
And honestly, that two inventions share similarities does not mean that there aren't also differences. Your "safe" doesn't really resemble the pot in pot refrigerator at all.
Oh come on, that's ridiculous.
I see now that you're just anti-MS trolling.
"So you are trying to tell me that my interpretation of the subjective term "value" is not accurate?"
Of course it is, you're neither of the parties involved, so your interpretation is irrelevant.
HER interpretation of "value" is the issue, your definition doesn't matter.
"I'm not saying her opinion doesn't matter or that nobody should listen to her"
That was the implication mom made with her statement, which was my point.
"Actually it is the PERFECT retort, because it shows just how out-of-touch Microsoft is. Teenagers don't care about value, because they have no concept of what value is."
Well, that makes no sense then.
She purchased the OS on the suggestion of her 13 year old daughter, so apparently her opinion mattered at some point.
Either her 13 year old is worth listening to or she isn't, but using her age as an excuse or ignoring her opinion is pretty underhanded when mom didn't have a problem with that very same opinion previously.
"I did define what "value" means to me as a home user, you just need to read my entire post"
Look a little further down the thread, then you'll realize that you and I share the behavior of posting in a rush.
Granted, my meaning of "value" may not be..."
Accurate. The word is "accurate".
"A 13 year old (like many of us) really don't give a crap about all the "value" or whatever corporate-speak that Vista or Mac OS X or Linux provides."
Um WTF?
Why doesn't value mean "things that are valuable to her" here instead of your tortured definition that was neither implied nor stated?