Several MAJOR US banks already deny 7995 transactions... and most merchants charge insanely high merchant fees for 7995 transactions, and it's been that way for years. If you try to run an online gaming operation using just credit cards flagged as 7995, half your customers won't ever be customers, they won't be able to deposit.
Without going into detail.. does anyone really think a billion dollar industry has just been sitting idly getting milked like that? Of course not.. they have many different deposit methods.
Or you could do like you do with any other online business you are sending money to.. actually do some legwork and find out if it's some shady operation, or something big.
- How long has the site been around? - What do the review sites say about it? There are many. Bad sites get outed, quick. - Are they publicly traded? - How long have they been traded for? - How do their finances look?
It doesn't take much of a staff to run a small, break-even online casino.
It takes quite a sizeable staff and investment to run a large online gambling operation.
Rather than a shady mom & pop operation, think over a thousand employees globally, tens of millions of dollars in marketing money, publicly traded on the london stock exchange, heavily audited, fully reported, billions of dollars in turnover, and having offered to be regulated and pay taxes to the US of A.
The "protection" bit is a straw man argument.. yes, gambling can be bad, yes, it would be nice if someone protected you, but the government is after money, plain and simple.
- The largest offshore gambling operations are publicly traded. People all OVER get the money. - They bulk of the money certainly does not stay in the local economy in antigua/costa rica/belize/gibraltar/wherever these operations are run from.... aside from the payroll for the locally employed staff. - Much of the actual customer-facing banking does not even go through the country where the gaming transactions take place.. it's handled somewhere more convenient with better financial ties and systems. - The money absolutely doesn't get converted into local currency.. that would be a huge waste (except payroll for locals).
Yes, the internet is a public place... but if the patriot act (which is supposed to be anti-terrorist, remember? ) is being used to demand privately held information, without the consent of the person requesting it... what protects privacy?
You step into Wikipedia, you understand what's up. You know it's not a peer-reviewed encyclopedia. It's a WIKIpedia. You know anyone, including you, can edit it.
Whenever you read up on a controversial topic, you expect controversial results... would a traditional encyclopedia even HAVE information about some enron executive? I doubt it.
Let's not make controversy where there is none.. wikipedia is a stunning example of what the internet is good at.
Because differnet but equal is not equal. Because that one piece of legislation in some state that says "marriage" instead of "Civil Union" ends up screwing someone. And mostly.. because if the end result is the same, and the rights are identical, hten the terms ARE identical.... and hence, interchangeable.
Common-law marriage is irrelevant.. several places have now decided that common-law does not necessarily equate to being married... as there is a conscious choise NOT to get married.
- English spelling is all over the map. It's difficult to learn. Simple spelling reform makes sense.
- The fact that so many people nowadays have bad grammar and worse spelling is due to a failing education system, not the fact that English is complicated. A simplified system will not fix this.
Nope. Re-read section 3 of the GPL, specifically 3c.
If you are merely re-distributing, non-commercially, and unaltered, you do NOT have to provide source, and can simply point the user to the upstream provider whom you received the binary from. Section 3c.
If you ARE commercial in some way, then 3c is not availalb to you, and you ahve to use 3a or 3b, you have no cause to whine.. you were given something for free and are now making money off it, providing source is part of your obligation.
The 3 year commitment only applies if you (or the upstream) chose section 3b of the GPL, to accompany your binary distribution with a written offer, valid for 3 years, to provide source for no more than the reasonable cost to you of providing it, on a media commonly used for software interchange.
If you use 3a or 3c, you have no such 3 year commitment.
Most distributions and OSS projects distribute under 3a, where they merely provide equal access to the binaries and source (which is the equivalent of distributing both on the same media)
Section 3c clearly states that you can re-distribute with no personal commitment to re-distribute yourself, as long as the binary is not modified, and the distribution is non-commercial.
They don't have to keep their source for 3 years, unless they used the Section 3b "written offer" clause of the GPL to redistribute.
Every distro I know of uses 3a and the "equivalent access" principle to provide source (the source is available from the same place you get the binaries.. either on CD or donwload. IF you use this method, you dno' thave to maintain anything for 3 years.. you can stop distributing the source as soon as you stop distributing the binary.
Of course it's perfectly acceptable. Parent is only pointing out the irony of making money off someone elses work, then whining that you have to abide by the same rules regarding source that allowed you to have your distribution in the first place.
If you are re-distributiong non-commercially, without modification, upstream source is fine (which makes sense)
If you are modifying anything, including doing your own custom kernel, then you must provide source. Providing the source alongside the downloads, granting equivalent access to it, satisifes your obligation under the GPL to provide source. The day you stop offering downloads, you can stop offering the source as well.
Absolutely. But VoIP, as generally used by the public involves links to the legacy phone system. I use Vonage to call my parents and extended family, and friends... on their regular phones. This is where they think they need to regulate.
if it was purely over the phone, all SIP calls, no links to the regular phone system, the FCC would have no ground to stand on.. but it's not the case.
Why should the credit card company pay? They make it clear to the merchant: Prove it wasn't fraudulent, or we won't pay you if it's distputed.
Check the signature, ensure it matches. Simple. Anything else, the merchant KNOWS they are taking a risk, and account for it.
As a cardholder, I am not responsible for fraudulent transactions.. if you can't show me my signature, or otherwise prove it was me, i don't pay a dime.
1) If you don't communicate well, and don't write good proposals, reports, don't communicate well what you are doing and why, then people who write well written corporate speak can stomp all over you.
however...
2) If you communicate clearly, especially communicate your results to people, corporate speak won't hurt you.
In a conventional explosion, everything is moving away from a central point in space. You can back-project and find the spatial origin of the explosion.
With spacetime expanding, everything is moving away from a central point in spacetime, which to us looks like everything moving away from everything else, there is no central point in space.
Slashdot Mirror
Watch your terminology... I think you mean you'll BET that it will be even larger than it is now.
An offer would be the other way around.
Several MAJOR US banks already deny 7995 transactions... and most merchants charge insanely high merchant fees for 7995 transactions, and it's been that way for years. If you try to run an online gaming operation using just credit cards flagged as 7995, half your customers won't ever be customers, they won't be able to deposit.
Without going into detail.. does anyone really think a billion dollar industry has just been sitting idly getting milked like that? Of course not.. they have many different deposit methods.
Or you could do like you do with any other online business you are sending money to.. actually do some legwork and find out if it's some shady operation, or something big.
- How long has the site been around?
- What do the review sites say about it? There are many. Bad sites get outed, quick.
- Are they publicly traded?
- How long have they been traded for?
- How do their finances look?
It doesn't take much of a staff to run a small, break-even online casino.
It takes quite a sizeable staff and investment to run a large online gambling operation.
Rather than a shady mom & pop operation, think over a thousand employees globally, tens of millions of dollars in marketing money, publicly traded on the london stock exchange, heavily audited, fully reported, billions of dollars in turnover, and having offered to be regulated and pay taxes to the US of A.
The "protection" bit is a straw man argument.. yes, gambling can be bad, yes, it would be nice if someone protected you, but the government is after money, plain and simple.
- The largest offshore gambling operations are publicly traded. People all OVER get the money.
- They bulk of the money certainly does not stay in the local economy in antigua/costa rica/belize/gibraltar/wherever these operations are run from.... aside from the payroll for the locally employed staff.
- Much of the actual customer-facing banking does not even go through the country where the gaming transactions take place.. it's handled somewhere more convenient with better financial ties and systems.
- The money absolutely doesn't get converted into local currency.. that would be a huge waste (except payroll for locals).
Yes, the internet is a public place... but if the patriot act (which is supposed to be anti-terrorist, remember? ) is being used to demand privately held information, without the consent of the person requesting it... what protects privacy?
You step into Wikipedia, you understand what's up.
You know it's not a peer-reviewed encyclopedia. It's a WIKIpedia.
You know anyone, including you, can edit it.
Whenever you read up on a controversial topic, you expect controversial results... would a traditional encyclopedia even HAVE information about some enron executive? I doubt it.
Let's not make controversy where there is none.. wikipedia is a stunning example of what the internet is good at.
Because differnet but equal is not equal. Because that one piece of legislation in some state that says "marriage" instead of "Civil Union" ends up screwing someone.
And mostly.. because if the end result is the same, and the rights are identical, hten the terms ARE identical.... and hence, interchangeable.
Common-law marriage is irrelevant.. several places have now decided that common-law does not necessarily equate to being married... as there is a conscious choise NOT to get married.
Differnet but equal is not equal, according to several provincial supreme courts. That seems logical.
Alternatively, your argument could be turned on it's head... if it's JUST about terminology, why oppose it at all?
If you start discriminating against one minority, what protects the next one?
middle english.. 600 years old.. is there any surprise it's hardly recognizable?
- English spelling is all over the map. It's difficult to learn. Simple spelling reform makes sense.
- The fact that so many people nowadays have bad grammar and worse spelling is due to a failing education system, not the fact that English is complicated. A simplified system will not fix this.
They don't have to; they are re-distributing under section 3c of the GPL.
You are free to burn Debian CDs and hand them out, without any further obligation on your part to provide source.
The original source, cited on the CDs, is available from the Debian group online.
Nope. Re-read section 3 of the GPL, specifically 3c.
If you are merely re-distributing, non-commercially, and unaltered, you do NOT have to provide source, and can simply point the user to the upstream provider whom you received the binary from. Section 3c.
If you ARE commercial in some way, then 3c is not availalb to you, and you ahve to use 3a or 3b, you have no cause to whine.. you were given something for free and are now making money off it, providing source is part of your obligation.
Re-read section 3.
The 3 year commitment only applies if you (or the upstream) chose section 3b of the GPL, to accompany your binary distribution with a written offer, valid for 3 years, to provide source for no more than the reasonable cost to you of providing it, on a media commonly used for software interchange.
If you use 3a or 3c, you have no such 3 year commitment.
Most distributions and OSS projects distribute under 3a, where they merely provide equal access to the binaries and source (which is the equivalent of distributing both on the same media)
Section 3c clearly states that you can re-distribute with no personal commitment to re-distribute yourself, as long as the binary is not modified, and the distribution is non-commercial.
They don't have to keep their source for 3 years, unless they used the Section 3b "written offer" clause of the GPL to redistribute.
Every distro I know of uses 3a and the "equivalent access" principle to provide source (the source is available from the same place you get the binaries.. either on CD or donwload. IF you use this method, you dno' thave to maintain anything for 3 years.. you can stop distributing the source as soon as you stop distributing the binary.
No, Debian uses section 3a.
Having the source downloadable from the same page/location as the binaries, or other "equivalent access" satisifes this obligation.
Of course it's perfectly acceptable. Parent is only pointing out the irony of making money off someone elses work, then whining that you have to abide by the same rules regarding source that allowed you to have your distribution in the first place.
There is no safe harbour....
If you are re-distributiong non-commercially, without modification, upstream source is fine (which makes sense)
If you are modifying anything, including doing your own custom kernel, then you must provide source. Providing the source alongside the downloads, granting equivalent access to it, satisifes your obligation under the GPL to provide source. The day you stop offering downloads, you can stop offering the source as well.
Absolutely.
But VoIP, as generally used by the public involves links to the legacy phone system. I use Vonage to call my parents and extended family, and friends... on their regular phones. This is where they think they need to regulate.
if it was purely over the phone, all SIP calls, no links to the regular phone system, the FCC would have no ground to stand on.. but it's not the case.
Why should the credit card company pay? They make it clear to the merchant: Prove it wasn't fraudulent, or we won't pay you if it's distputed.
Check the signature, ensure it matches. Simple. Anything else, the merchant KNOWS they are taking a risk, and account for it.
As a cardholder, I am not responsible for fraudulent transactions.. if you can't show me my signature, or otherwise prove it was me, i don't pay a dime.
Can you elaborate on money balls and camping chairs? Just curious.
a violation of NVIDIA's license, rather than the GPL?
1) If you don't communicate well, and don't write good proposals, reports, don't communicate well what you are doing and why, then people who write well written corporate speak can stomp all over you.
however...
2) If you communicate clearly, especially communicate your results to people, corporate speak won't hurt you.
Don't we go through this every year or so?
- There is no such thing as a universal compression algorithm.
- Compression algorithms are specific to the data they are compressing.
Anyone claming to be able to compress everything by a uniform amount is lying, period.
In a conventional explosion, everything is moving away from a central point in space. You can back-project and find the spatial origin of the explosion.
With spacetime expanding, everything is moving away from a central point in spacetime, which to us looks like everything moving away from everything else, there is no central point in space.