Yes, there's an element of chance. There's an element of chance in any game; that's why it's called a game. Even something as "innocent" as Parcheesi or Clue has elements of chance, and yet I see no one suing companies that make those. To set that up as a criterion for gambling is just plain stupid. So Pokemon would pass the second test if that test were even valid. But since it isn't, the point is moot.
One problem: when you play Clue, you don't have to pay every time, and you don't get money (or something of value) for winning. Your logic is flawed.
Beyond that, this lawsuit is stupid, and old ground. IANAL, but it seems to me that since no particular card has more intrinsic value than any other, the claim is invalid. Case in point: do you remember when Pepsi had the special cans that when you popped the top on them, instead of soda a $20 bill sometimes came out? Soda (purchased at $2.50 for 12 cans) was intrinsically worth a set amount of money to Pepsi, and the $20 was worth $20 (duh!) For this reason, you could get a free game piece (this is true of most contests -- "No purchase neccessary") by mail. That way it isn't gambling. Since the cards only have a value determined by what a collector is willing to pay, they aren't intrinsically more valuable than any other piece of cardboard.
Also, with the Pepsi, and with the Pokemon cards, if you do lay out your money, you will at least get what you were promised. i.e. 72 oz of soda or a bunch of trading cards. Contrast this with the lottery, where the only value in the ticket is the possibility of hitting a jackpot. By itself, a lottery ticket is a worthless piece of paper. It represents the chance of winning money.
Finally, to quote Meatloaf, "There ain't no Coupe DeVille hiding at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box."
I work for a reseller of educational software, and just last week my boss gave me some press releases for CyberPatrol and asked me to "dumb them down" for our average customer. According to the material I was given, it can filter to the precision of a page. Therefore, they should be able to block www.generic.org/lookingupanoldfriend.html while allowing www.generic.org/churchpicnic.html Also, the individual adminstrator (parent, sysadmin, etc) should be able to go and change even the default CyberNOT list. Still, I would have to worry about an employer that's using censorware. I expect a certain amount of trust from an employer. How much are you going to enjoy the job if you feel like you're being watched all the time. And, if the job involves using the net, being unable to access the clean sites that get blocked by censorware is counterproductive.
Okay, the site was sort of funny, especially all the work he did on the odds of surviving a speederbike ride. But I was so disappointed on the morality bit. All he did was rehash the (much funnier) rant from Clerks.
This sort of thing will probably go over reallllly well around September or so when everyone and their mom has seen PM six times.
Then again, my friends and I never got tired of Jurassic Park the summer it came out. "Dude, I'm bored." "JP starts at the buck theatre in 20 minutes." "That's what we did last night...OK, let's go."
with "dot" or "slash" in their names did this thread crash, do you think? I mean, I just checked out www.dot.com and www.dotslash.org (a mirror!) etc., just to see if they were there. And a lot of them existed but wouldn't load.
The/. effect rides again!?!?!?
Read this quote... from a programmers perspective
on
Windows ID
·
· Score: 1
"How the hell do you inadvertently collect data. Is their Microsoft VC++ compile so crappy that printf("Hello World\n"); accidently generated a MS SQL database application that accepted registration requests and logged globally unique ids to their database?"
Yes, it is that crappy. It wouldn't suprise me if I compiled "hello world" on VC++ and 20 minutes later a pizza was delivered to my house.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there's an element of chance. There's an element of chance in any game; that's why it's called a game. Even something as "innocent" as Parcheesi or Clue has elements of chance, and yet I see no one suing companies that make those. To set that up as a criterion for gambling is just plain stupid. So Pokemon would pass the second test if that test were even valid. But since it isn't, the point is moot.
- --
-----------------------------------------------
One problem: when you play Clue, you don't have to pay every time, and you don't get money (or something of value) for winning. Your logic is flawed.
Beyond that, this lawsuit is stupid, and old ground. IANAL, but it seems to me that since no particular card has more intrinsic value than any other, the claim is invalid. Case in point: do you remember when Pepsi had the special cans that when you popped the top on them, instead of soda a $20 bill sometimes came out? Soda (purchased at $2.50 for 12 cans) was intrinsically worth a set amount of money to Pepsi, and the $20 was worth $20 (duh!) For this reason, you could get a free game piece (this is true of most contests -- "No purchase neccessary") by mail. That way it isn't gambling. Since the cards only have a value determined by what a collector is willing to pay, they aren't intrinsically more valuable than any other piece of cardboard.
Also, with the Pepsi, and with the Pokemon cards, if you do lay out your money, you will at least get what you were promised. i.e. 72 oz of soda or a bunch of trading cards. Contrast this with the lottery, where the only value in the ticket is the possibility of hitting a jackpot. By itself, a lottery ticket is a worthless piece of paper. It represents the chance of winning money.
Finally, to quote Meatloaf, "There ain't no Coupe DeVille hiding at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box."
Chill, Bender.
I work for a reseller of educational software, and just last week my boss gave me some press releases for CyberPatrol and asked me to "dumb them down" for our average customer. According to the material I was given, it can filter to the precision of a page. Therefore, they should be able to block www.generic.org/lookingupanoldfriend.html while allowing www.generic.org/churchpicnic.html Also, the individual adminstrator (parent, sysadmin, etc) should be able to go and change even the default CyberNOT list. Still, I would have to worry about an employer that's using censorware. I expect a certain amount of trust from an employer. How much are you going to enjoy the job if you feel like you're being watched all the time. And, if the job involves using the net, being unable to access the clean sites that get blocked by censorware is counterproductive.
Okay, the site was sort of funny, especially all the work he did on the odds of surviving a speederbike ride. But I was so disappointed on the morality bit. All he did was rehash the (much funnier) rant from Clerks.
This sort of thing will probably go over reallllly well around September or so when everyone and their mom has seen PM six times.
Then again, my friends and I never got tired of Jurassic Park the summer it came out.
"Dude, I'm bored."
"JP starts at the buck theatre in 20 minutes."
"That's what we did last night...OK, let's go."
with "dot" or "slash" in their names did this thread crash, do you think? I mean, I just checked out www.dot.com and www.dotslash.org (a mirror!) etc., just to see if they were there. And a lot of them existed but wouldn't load.
/. effect rides again!?!?!?
The
"How the hell do you inadvertently collect data. Is their Microsoft VC++ compile so crappy that printf("Hello World\n"); accidently generated a MS SQL database application that accepted registration requests and logged globally unique ids to their database?"
Yes, it is that crappy. It wouldn't suprise me if I compiled "hello world" on VC++ and 20 minutes later a pizza was delivered to my house.