Making a payment with the result of a basic award plus a bonus is still a game of chance.
Right. For the past three years (not this year), Buffalo Wild Wings offered a mystery bonus gift card when you spend $25 on gift cards. That mystery bonus was guaranteed to be worth $5, but could be worth $10, $20, $50, or $100.
And since it qualified legally as a sweepstakes, they were forced to offer a no purchase necessary method of entry. And I took advantage of that each year, mailing in four self-addressed stamped envelopes and getting four $5 gift cards in return.
Data is innocent until proven guilty - how can you possibly determine beforehand with encrypted communications? BitTorrent is only a protocol - and not a bad one for sharing any large file. Even beats http from one single user to another for reliability.
You should be able to go to your doctor and get an official certificate of impending death to give yourself a free pass to violate whatever FDA regulations you want.
the only type that doesn't kill a person is "ethanol"
I get your point about methanol but there are all sorts of sugar alcohols that are safe to consume. I don't know whether you'd class propylene glycol as an alcohol, but it's certainly edible.
when your homepage is Google, and you don't need to click in the address bar to move the cursor because the cursor's already in the Google search textbox.
CTRL+T, then CTRL+L. I don't know what this homepage thing is you speak of. But I think I saw one when I first installed my browser. Now it's just my current tabs.
And I already have my address bar set up to query Google, so I usually don't have to type the whole thing or worry about spelling.
And if Facebook is offended by those statements, then they can sue. They would be the only valid claimant, since that is who they are making the statement to.
The law only covers the contents of advertising that "indicates preference." If a customer can readily determine that there was a preference, that's the same as it being in the contents of the ad.
making a statement to your advertiser is clearly covered
I guess you ran out of actual arguments, then. They don't see the advertisement and they don't see it being advertised publicly to other groups of people (targeted advertising is relatively private). And you can only guess if race was the demographic that made the ad show or not show.
Sure, maybe a TV ad might not be compliant. But a Facebook ad where the targeting is completely opaque does not give anyone a way to determine an indication of preference.
It very clearly covers the contents of that advertising. The contents should not indicate the preference - but if the targeting is information that is not available to the consumer it is not a violation.
I suspect the financial sense thing is the reason for this policy at Facebook. They can force people to spend more advertising dollars that will be less effective all in the name of equality.
I'm on a Hackintosh and I'll never upgrade to Sierra, because I'll lose Final Cut Pro permanently and probably Adobe Creative Suite too. They ave done far too many backward-compatibility breaking changes over the years.
Slashdot Mirror
We're talking about exceptions granted by the government. Corporate policies still can't legally violate the law.
Making a payment with the result of a basic award plus a bonus is still a game of chance.
Right. For the past three years (not this year), Buffalo Wild Wings offered a mystery bonus gift card when you spend $25 on gift cards. That mystery bonus was guaranteed to be worth $5, but could be worth $10, $20, $50, or $100.
And since it qualified legally as a sweepstakes, they were forced to offer a no purchase necessary method of entry. And I took advantage of that each year, mailing in four self-addressed stamped envelopes and getting four $5 gift cards in return.
Data is innocent until proven guilty - how can you possibly determine beforehand with encrypted communications? BitTorrent is only a protocol - and not a bad one for sharing any large file. Even beats http from one single user to another for reliability.
You should be able to go to your doctor and get an official certificate of impending death to give yourself a free pass to violate whatever FDA regulations you want.
the only type that doesn't kill a person is "ethanol"
I get your point about methanol but there are all sorts of sugar alcohols that are safe to consume. I don't know whether you'd class propylene glycol as an alcohol, but it's certainly edible.
Actually, CTRL+T already puts the cursor in the right place. CTRL+L is only when you're wanting to use an existing tab.
when your homepage is Google, and you don't need to click in the address bar to move the cursor because the cursor's already in the Google search textbox.
CTRL+T, then CTRL+L. I don't know what this homepage thing is you speak of. But I think I saw one when I first installed my browser. Now it's just my current tabs.
And I already have my address bar set up to query Google, so I usually don't have to type the whole thing or worry about spelling.
Maybe there's even a difference between civil and criminal law.
You're right. And this one is civil law.
And if Facebook is offended by those statements, then they can sue. They would be the only valid claimant, since that is who they are making the statement to.
The law only covers the contents of advertising that "indicates preference." If a customer can readily determine that there was a preference, that's the same as it being in the contents of the ad.
making a statement to your advertiser is clearly covered
Nothing about the words in the law says this.
Disparate interconnectable tools are the way it should be. This is the reason to have standards - even horrible undocumented standards like CSV.
Why should every single data system reinvent the wheel on manipulating that data?
mporting and exporting and manipulating data
i.e. making the data talk.
This is exactly how you find out what a large amount of data is telling you.
I guess you ran out of actual arguments, then. They don't see the advertisement and they don't see it being advertised publicly to other groups of people (targeted advertising is relatively private). And you can only guess if race was the demographic that made the ad show or not show.
But not between you and the end consumer. Way to pedantically nitpick the leaves and miss the trees and forest entirely.
And if those certain groups can't see the indication of preference when they see the placement of the ad, the letter of the law still holds.
Reading comprehension:
that indicates any preference
Sure, maybe a TV ad might not be compliant. But a Facebook ad where the targeting is completely opaque does not give anyone a way to determine an indication of preference.
It very clearly covers the contents of that advertising. The contents should not indicate the preference - but if the targeting is information that is not available to the consumer it is not a violation.
When and how has anyone tagged someone as a certain race on FB?
I suspect the financial sense thing is the reason for this policy at Facebook. They can force people to spend more advertising dollars that will be less effective all in the name of equality.
On Facebook profiles, I'm pretty sure it's optional and self-reported. Nobody's forcing them to fill it in.
Because it's advertising, not commerce. You can advertise your commercials only during the whitest TV show, why would the Internet be different?
Or better yet, get a ticket from LA to Russia and see himself going around the top of the flat earth.
JavaScript without the ability to respond to user input events? Yeah, just disable JavaScript then. What would be left?
"Cloud" is just the picture you use in network diagram to represent Internet/Server. It doesn't exactly have a formal definition that's set in stone.
I'm on a Hackintosh and I'll never upgrade to Sierra, because I'll lose Final Cut Pro permanently and probably Adobe Creative Suite too. They ave done far too many backward-compatibility breaking changes over the years.