AOL is still a hassle to drop. I canceled my account with them over six years ago, and I was on the phone with the rep for over 30 minutes before they would accept the fact that I wanted to cancel service entirely.
Hey, I don't know about you, but when I first got XP, practically the first thing I did was change the GUI back to Windows Classic because I didn't want something that looked like it was designed by the Teletubbies.
Vista can have all the oooh and aaaaah it wants in it's GUI, but guess what? When I eventually "upgrade" to it, I'm turning all that crap off.
There's one helluva lot of difference between daily injections and one every four months. But, hey, why let facts and numbers get in the way of a humorous comment?
I don't believe they should be shut up. I do believe, however, that 25 million dollars would be much better spent on feeding, clothing and housing needy people, rather then for animatronic dinosaurs.
But hey, I'm only a Christian who doesn't care if everyone around me succumbs to my beliefs.
Yeah, that article is great... "We finally caught the Japanese taking more fish then they're supposed to have been, and it's only been going on for at least two decades. And despite the fact that they've ignored every previous request to not overfish their quota, and that we've cut their bluefish tuna quota in half, we trust them not to cheat again."
Card counting is keeping track of what cards have already been played and what cards haven't in terms of high cards to low cards. You want a lot of high cards, and the dealer doesn't, so if you're keeping track (card counting), you have a better chance to know when the deck favors you and doesn't favor the dealer, and vice versa.
A good card counter can have things set up so he wins several hands in a row. Okay, 20 hands in a row was probably facetious on my part, but it's possible to win several hands in a row, and know when to not raise your bet on other hands, so you lose less. Thereby, you give yourself an advantage instead of it being the other way. Blackjack normally only slightly favors the house (but hey, it's a casino... if it didn't favor the house, at least slightly, it wouldn't be there), but a good card counter can reverse the advantage so it's slightly in his favor. Mind you, if you're playing at a table with a small minimum bet, and you're keeping your bets low, the advantage to you (the card counter) is so small that it's not enough where the casinos care, because the advantage is only about 1%. So, if you're playing at a $20 minimum table, you're probably talking about a profit of $10-$15 an hour.
The casinos are more then happy to lose that much to a card counter who could, in theory, be taking them for hundreds or thousands an hour. Of course, if you're blatant and obvious about it, yeah, they'll kick you out.
I mean, if you win 20 hands of blackjack in a row, but don't make more then a couple grand, the casinos aren't likely to care even if you are card counting, because you're winning so little in comparison to what you could be raking in. The mistake a lot of card counters make is going for too much, too quickly.
Also, you can win a shitload of money if you're famous. No casino wants the rep of "We banned Ben Affleck because he won 500,000 at roulette." Of course, if you're no one special, they, like any other business, can always ask you to leave and not return, and have you arrested for trespassing if you come back.
Basically, it boils down to whether or not it would be a bigger hit on the casino's image or the casino's bank. If you're cheating big-time and cleaning up big-time at it, the casino will take you down (no, not take you out) the first chance they get.
Yes, they do. And it's not sometimes. It's pretty much all the time, these days. They might be competing with each other for tourist bucks, but they all have a mutual vested interest in not being fleeced themselves. If someone is caught cheating, they are usually arrested for it, not taken out back so a couple of goons named Guido and Nunzio can kneecap them. And if you're arrested for cheating in a casino, your name and picture goes in a wonderful database that is made available to all the major casinos (you know, in addition to, say, a prison sentence), so if they catch you again, they can check and find out that, yes, you've done this before or no, you haven't.
I believe that if you're convicted of cheating in a Las Vegas casino, and thereby banned, you can be hit with another felony charge for gambling in that, or any other casino in Las Vegas (or possibly across the whole of Nevada), regardless of whether or not you were cheating the second time.
Ehhh... not quite. See, e360insight is claiming that they're not a spammer, and thus their inclusion on the Spamhaus list is hurting their business, their image, is defamatory, and/or whatever else they think that they can get away with. And, because of this decision the (obviously clue-impaired) judge agreed with e360insight.
The analogy (with regards to your reference to Consumer Reports) would be if Consumer Reports published an opinion that a car company strongly disagreed with and believed was incorrect. You know, like saying "The new Ford SUV gets excellent mileage, considering it runs on the souls of orphaned children."
I have to wonder though... could the decision (the one they're ignoring) be used as "evidence of their wrongdoing" if they were sued by the same spammer, but in the UK this time? I mean, okay, sure, the UK judge should look at the case and throw it out regardless, but does the decision here in the states carry any weight over there in the UK?
I disagree. It's still Barnes and Nobles fault. It is not my responsibility to know when it is the "official start time" to buy a book. If they sell it to me, it is the fault of the person who rung up the sale. If I go in the store, and the book is on the shelf, then it's available for sale. Now, if I wait until there's a commotion at the front of the store, duck behind the counter, slice open the box of books, take one out, throw the money on the counter and leave, then obviously, I know what I'm doing is wrong.
The whole injunction thing (which happened in Canada, as I recall) was a farce. "Oh no, an injunction against reading the book which I have purchased, and have here at home." Unless they were planning on placing an armed guard in the houses of all the people who bought the book early with orders to arrest at the first sign of literacy, it meant nothing.
Yeah, but that all falls under certain common sense assumptions. If I go into a Barnes and Nobles and buy a book there, the assumption is that the book is a legal copy of the book. If it isn't, it's Barnes and Nobles' fault, not mine. If I go into a software store and buy a copy of Photoshop, the assumption is that it's a legal copy. If it isn't, it's the software stores' fault, not mine.
Now, if I buy Photoshop off of a guy on a street corner, the manual was printed at Kinko's and the CD is obviously a burned version... well, that's where the copyright holder can be upset at me.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't you get the memo? The internet is for porn. (Okay, doesn't explain the girlfriend part, but eh......)
AOL is still a hassle to drop. I canceled my account with them over six years ago, and I was on the phone with the rep for over 30 minutes before they would accept the fact that I wanted to cancel service entirely.
Gumbercules? I love that guy.
So, what you're saying is you know you're infected?
Right, because the conservatives haven't been fear-mongering at all since 9/11. Noooooooo.....
Your statement assumes that there is civilization in California to begin with.
Damn, you beat me to it.
Hey, I don't know about you, but when I first got XP, practically the first thing I did was change the GUI back to Windows Classic because I didn't want something that looked like it was designed by the Teletubbies.
Vista can have all the oooh and aaaaah it wants in it's GUI, but guess what? When I eventually "upgrade" to it, I'm turning all that crap off.
So, then, there's two ancillary theories on the "universe as video game" theory:
1) Jack Thompson, upon learning this, would become rational.
or
2) His head would explode.
There's one helluva lot of difference between daily injections and one every four months. But, hey, why let facts and numbers get in the way of a humorous comment?
Hell, I was thinking pretty much the same thing, only I was going to suggest punk rock and/or death metal.
OTOH, I could see this leading to an increase in the kind of polite, calm, refined criminals that we all look forward to being mugged by.
I don't believe they should be shut up. I do believe, however, that 25 million dollars would be much better spent on feeding, clothing and housing needy people, rather then for animatronic dinosaurs.
But hey, I'm only a Christian who doesn't care if everyone around me succumbs to my beliefs.
Losing would set a precedent, which could be cited in future cases.
Yeah, that article is great... "We finally caught the Japanese taking more fish then they're supposed to have been, and it's only been going on for at least two decades. And despite the fact that they've ignored every previous request to not overfish their quota, and that we've cut their bluefish tuna quota in half, we trust them not to cheat again."
Bollocks.
Yeah, because everyone I know is looking forward to getting a copy of Vista under the Christmas tree.
Come on... as Christmas gifts go, Vista would score less popular then getting underwear or socks.
Hey, all parties involved may be chock full of hyperbole, but at least this judge made the correct call.
Yeah, it should be a contempt of court charge, at the very least.
Card counting is keeping track of what cards have already been played and what cards haven't in terms of high cards to low cards. You want a lot of high cards, and the dealer doesn't, so if you're keeping track (card counting), you have a better chance to know when the deck favors you and doesn't favor the dealer, and vice versa.
A good card counter can have things set up so he wins several hands in a row. Okay, 20 hands in a row was probably facetious on my part, but it's possible to win several hands in a row, and know when to not raise your bet on other hands, so you lose less. Thereby, you give yourself an advantage instead of it being the other way. Blackjack normally only slightly favors the house (but hey, it's a casino... if it didn't favor the house, at least slightly, it wouldn't be there), but a good card counter can reverse the advantage so it's slightly in his favor. Mind you, if you're playing at a table with a small minimum bet, and you're keeping your bets low, the advantage to you (the card counter) is so small that it's not enough where the casinos care, because the advantage is only about 1%. So, if you're playing at a $20 minimum table, you're probably talking about a profit of $10-$15 an hour.
The casinos are more then happy to lose that much to a card counter who could, in theory, be taking them for hundreds or thousands an hour. Of course, if you're blatant and obvious about it, yeah, they'll kick you out.
Depends on how much you win and who you are.
I mean, if you win 20 hands of blackjack in a row, but don't make more then a couple grand, the casinos aren't likely to care even if you are card counting, because you're winning so little in comparison to what you could be raking in. The mistake a lot of card counters make is going for too much, too quickly.
Also, you can win a shitload of money if you're famous. No casino wants the rep of "We banned Ben Affleck because he won 500,000 at roulette." Of course, if you're no one special, they, like any other business, can always ask you to leave and not return, and have you arrested for trespassing if you come back.
Basically, it boils down to whether or not it would be a bigger hit on the casino's image or the casino's bank. If you're cheating big-time and cleaning up big-time at it, the casino will take you down (no, not take you out) the first chance they get.
Yes, they do. And it's not sometimes. It's pretty much all the time, these days. They might be competing with each other for tourist bucks, but they all have a mutual vested interest in not being fleeced themselves. If someone is caught cheating, they are usually arrested for it, not taken out back so a couple of goons named Guido and Nunzio can kneecap them. And if you're arrested for cheating in a casino, your name and picture goes in a wonderful database that is made available to all the major casinos (you know, in addition to, say, a prison sentence), so if they catch you again, they can check and find out that, yes, you've done this before or no, you haven't.
I believe that if you're convicted of cheating in a Las Vegas casino, and thereby banned, you can be hit with another felony charge for gambling in that, or any other casino in Las Vegas (or possibly across the whole of Nevada), regardless of whether or not you were cheating the second time.
Ehhh... not quite. See, e360insight is claiming that they're not a spammer, and thus their inclusion on the Spamhaus list is hurting their business, their image, is defamatory, and/or whatever else they think that they can get away with. And, because of this decision the (obviously clue-impaired) judge agreed with e360insight.
The analogy (with regards to your reference to Consumer Reports) would be if Consumer Reports published an opinion that a car company strongly disagreed with and believed was incorrect. You know, like saying "The new Ford SUV gets excellent mileage, considering it runs on the souls of orphaned children."
Hey, attitude if everything.
I have to wonder though... could the decision (the one they're ignoring) be used as "evidence of their wrongdoing" if they were sued by the same spammer, but in the UK this time? I mean, okay, sure, the UK judge should look at the case and throw it out regardless, but does the decision here in the states carry any weight over there in the UK?
Oh my.... Wrong!
All hail Eris!
I disagree. It's still Barnes and Nobles fault. It is not my responsibility to know when it is the "official start time" to buy a book. If they sell it to me, it is the fault of the person who rung up the sale. If I go in the store, and the book is on the shelf, then it's available for sale. Now, if I wait until there's a commotion at the front of the store, duck behind the counter, slice open the box of books, take one out, throw the money on the counter and leave, then obviously, I know what I'm doing is wrong.
The whole injunction thing (which happened in Canada, as I recall) was a farce. "Oh no, an injunction against reading the book which I have purchased, and have here at home." Unless they were planning on placing an armed guard in the houses of all the people who bought the book early with orders to arrest at the first sign of literacy, it meant nothing.
Yeah, but that all falls under certain common sense assumptions. If I go into a Barnes and Nobles and buy a book there, the assumption is that the book is a legal copy of the book. If it isn't, it's Barnes and Nobles' fault, not mine. If I go into a software store and buy a copy of Photoshop, the assumption is that it's a legal copy. If it isn't, it's the software stores' fault, not mine.
Now, if I buy Photoshop off of a guy on a street corner, the manual was printed at Kinko's and the CD is obviously a burned version... well, that's where the copyright holder can be upset at me.