I'd be curious to see how exactly they propose to spider a gambling site. Unless you've won so much money that your name is posted on the webpage (like the winner of the Sunday Million on PokerStars), I can't really see how this is going to work. And yes, I've RTFA.
In the abstract, I'm not against it. Tax cheats are tax cheats. Now, I don't claim my online poker winnings, but that's because they amount to such a piddlingly small sum each year that it really isn't worth my time. If I were to get audited, I'm sure I'd get busted, as the winnings deposit into my bank account, and should count as income. How they go about doing it is the key. If they just use publicly available information such as the aforementioned posting on the webpage, then fine. If you're dumb enough to win that kind of money and think you're getting away with not paying taxes, then you deserve what you get.
This is often what ticket scalpers to sporting events do. They will have some cheap piece of crap for sale (say, a $1 pennant for [Local Sports Team]) at an exorbitant price, and oh by the way, they'll throw in a ticket to today's game, for a true fan.
Well, it is a living language, but I do agree with you in general.
However, the OED would tell you that embolden has a very long and rich history as a word, dating back to Milton and before. Incentivize only dates back to 1968, so it's somewhat close. Impactful comes nowhere near the OED.
I own every Concretes album ever released, and I've never had the remotest issue ripping them. I'm curious as to what the DRM on those CDs was to begin with.
My "Magic and Witchcraft in Ancient Greece and Rome" class (yeah, I was one of _those_ majors) claimed non-collusium ritual human sacrifice was quite common into the Roman Empire along the frontiers.
Interestingly, *my* Ancient Greece class (this particular session being a guest speaker) spent 1.25 hours claiming that virtually no human sacrifice was done even in Ancient Greece, much less extending to Rome. IIRC, the only physical evidence that has been found to remotely support any claims of human sacrifice were found on Crete, and dated to well before what you could really call "Ancient Greece".
Of all the things I could pretend to have done (gone to the moon, won a Super Bowl, poured hot grits on Natalie Portman), you want me to pretend that I've read an RFC? No dice!
bars and restaurants are erecting bogus "toilets are for customers' use only" signs [they're bogus because entering the premises for the purpose of using the toilet makes you automatically a customer]
Not really commenting on the rest of your post, but this seems to me to be a pretty silly statement. A customer is someone who, at least potentially, is going to buy something. Entering a place of business with the sole intention of using their facilities does not a customer make, nor is this supported by any of the 5 definitions provided by the Oxford English Dictionary:
customer, n.
1. One who acquires ownership by long use or possession; a customary holder. Obs.
2. An official who collects customs or dues; a custom-house officer. Obs.
3. a. 'One who frequents any place of sale for the sake of purchasing' (J.); one who customarily purchases from a particular tradesman; a buyer, purchaser. (The chief current sense.) Also attrib.
b. In extended use: an applicant or client.
4. a. A person with whom one has dealings; a familiar associate or companion (of some one). Obs. (passing into sense 5).
b. A common woman, prostitute. Obs.
5. colloq. A person to have to do with; usually with some qualifying adjective, as ugly, awkward, queer, rum, etc.: 'chap', 'fellow'. Also used of animals.
At best, you could claim 4a, but it's obsolete, and it doesn't really match with what you're saying. 5 looks mildly promising, except it's a colloquialism, and an obvious one at that. "That guy's a rough customer" doesn't come close to meeting the obvious standard being applied by the sign: have an intention of buying something before you use facilities that we pay for, otherwise please find other facilities.
While that may be (and I believe is) kind of rude, I'm curious where the argument that it's "bogus" comes from.
And completely so: before I refreshed the/. front page, this was the first story I've seen that had more tags than comments at +3 or more (5 to 4.) While the tags make me giggle often (especially the 'yes, no, maybe' tags, when all of them are used in response to a question in the submission), that's just out of hand.
On the other hand, the "worst-run fast food restaurant in the universe" is also near here. It's a Taco Bell that tends to close anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes before closing time. Once, a friend and I stopped there, and were waved off by an employee standing outside the door who told us that they were "out of product".
Just a note: I had to deal with a Jack in the Box like this near my house a few years ago (it was the only place open after 11, and they would randomly shut down the supposed 24-hour window, close the inside 3 hours early to force you to go through the drive-through that took forever, etc.) It cleaned up very quickly once I started calling the 1-800 number posted on the door. Drive-through taking 35 minutes (with your car trapped in the lane, and yes, this happened more than once, with less than 4 cars ahead of me)? Call the number. Closed when they're supposed to be open? Call the number. Within a month or two, things sped up, and they were open during all posted hours.
Um, what? Variety is the one of the (I'll hold of on saying "the", even though I believe it to be so) bibles of the movie industry. You know, those people who were the primary drivers of the VHS market. So I think they'd have a little bit to say about the matter.
Most legitimate mailservers are running on static ip addresses.
With admittedly outdated experience (the last time I touched an MX record was 2000), I'm still willing to say this: If you're running a mailserver on a dynamic IP, you should *expect* to have your mail bounced. I didn't do it then, for a small (in size, medium in revenues) business, why would you do it now, given the hyper-explosion of spam within the last six years?
Except that it's likely that the only reason they don't try to get other sites to allow them as payment options is because they have absolutely no reason to. If this kind of enforcement started happening, the least they would have to do is start up a few online stores and accept their own payment processing. If they could a few reasonably decent merchants to fall in line as well, all the better.
It's a wonderful thing for Wal-Mart and I don't really fault them for doing it, but this is basically extortion on a grand scale. A new delivery model threatens the very thing that gives Wal-Mart its advantage (their distribution system), and instead of competing straight-up, they threaten their suppliers to the point that the new distribution model has to throw them some money to STFU. So the new distribution model has a chance to compete on a level playing field (being able to offer the same products.) Again, well-played by Wally World, but just sickening.
Currently, due to prior efforts by Congress and corporations to enforce some sort of "ban" online gambling, all I have to do is go to Central Coin (which purports to be facilitator for online privacy in purchases, or some such whatnot; I've never seen a merchant other than gaming sites that uses their services), deposit some money into the account (and pay some fairly small fee, roughly double ATM transaction fees) and then go to Poker Stars to withdraw that money from CC and deposit to Poker Stars. Whole thing takes roughly 45 seconds.
With my online sportsbook/casino at SportsInteraction, it's even easier. I fire up the client interface (casino) or browser (sportsbook), and I can deposit money into my Firepay account and transfer it into my SI account all on one screen. So, short of getting IPs from the gaming merchants themselves (not likely), blocking traffic to specific IPs at the ISP level (more likely, still isn't going to happen), banning the use of online third party money handlers (least likely), or taking my computer, I really fail to see how they propose to stop me.
That's true. But that's only true because there is a contract that says so, and I enter into that contract before employment. No such contract was proffered before enrolling in classes.
I recently returned to school to finish my degree, and the University of Texas (at least the business school) is seriously pimping this idea of "self-plagiarizing". I call absolute, 100% bullshit, and I told the professors that harped on it so. It's antithetical to common sense (Why on earth would I want to duplicate my work? I've never done it in a corporate environment, I wouldn't think of doing it in a corporate environment, and after graduating, I would never do it.), it's impossible for either them or me to police (What constitutes plagiarizing myself? Can I use a paragraph? A central idea? An outline?), and it's fucking stupid.
I'll be damned if, upon being assigned a paper for a class that is similar to an assignment from another class, I'm not going to modify the original paper and turn that sucker in.
That there is such a level of vitriol against people who still run Win98. I run it on my home PC. When I'm at home, this is the one I use (my notebook runs XP.) From a crowd that continually decries the need to upgrade to the newest version of Office, I simply don't see why so many find it worthy of mockery that someone would still be running 98. I don't play games, except Age of Empires II, on occasion. Office 2000 has every feature I need. I run the latest versions of Firefox and OO.
Explain to me why I should have felt the remotest need to upgrade to 2k, ME, or XP? This machine does exactly what I need it to do: surf the web, run Dreamweaver 4 for some light HTML editing, run Photoshop 6 for some light image editing, and play on Poker Stars. I'm not a clueless idiot, nor are many of the people who are still running 98. Many of you cry out "Why upgrade?" and then do it, anyway. We put our money where our mouth is.
I'm not really a nerd or geek (I'm not technical enough), but blue LEDs are awesome to me for some reason. And I've shown the story of their discovery/creation/invention/whatever to many people, some of whom are absolutely not nerds or geeks, and nearly all of them have enjoyed it.
I have a friend named Toke. No, no shortening, and yes, that is his real name. He has fooled a bunch of people (okay, even me the first time) in my earshot by claiming that his brother is named Roach.
I recently flew back to Dallas/Ft. Worth from Austin (to visit my mom) for the third time in the last year (yes, it's easy to drive, but tickets are so cheap that it's a wash, and there's a free vehicle for me to use there.) On every one of the 6 legs of those trips, one of my suitcases has been searched. It's the same one every time, a gray hardshell American Tourister. On the trip back to Austin this last time, I thought (and commented) that for once, it hadn't been searched, because the TSA notice wasn't on top. However, once I started pulling out clothes, I noticed it in the middle of them.
I never get personally searched. Hell, on the way back, I forgot I had a lighter in my pocket, and I tossed it in the little tray with my keys, wallet, and cell phone. The guy doing the x-rays pulled it out, looked at me (a white guy in my mid-twenties wearing a 'Texas Business' tshirt) and said "You know you can't have this, right?", whereupon I responded "Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking." So it's not like they're profiling me as a passenger. But they've searched that bag (and only that bag; when I've flown with two checked bags, the other one never gets looked at) 6 times in a row. If they were searching 50% of bags on every flight (which they're obviously not), there would only be a 1.5% chance of that happening. It's not 'random'. It's something, but it ain't that.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be curious to see how exactly they propose to spider a gambling site. Unless you've won so much money that your name is posted on the webpage (like the winner of the Sunday Million on PokerStars), I can't really see how this is going to work. And yes, I've RTFA.
In the abstract, I'm not against it. Tax cheats are tax cheats. Now, I don't claim my online poker winnings, but that's because they amount to such a piddlingly small sum each year that it really isn't worth my time. If I were to get audited, I'm sure I'd get busted, as the winnings deposit into my bank account, and should count as income. How they go about doing it is the key. If they just use publicly available information such as the aforementioned posting on the webpage, then fine. If you're dumb enough to win that kind of money and think you're getting away with not paying taxes, then you deserve what you get.
This is often what ticket scalpers to sporting events do. They will have some cheap piece of crap for sale (say, a $1 pennant for [Local Sports Team]) at an exorbitant price, and oh by the way, they'll throw in a ticket to today's game, for a true fan.
Well, it is a living language, but I do agree with you in general.
However, the OED would tell you that embolden has a very long and rich history as a word, dating back to Milton and before. Incentivize only dates back to 1968, so it's somewhat close. Impactful comes nowhere near the OED.
I own every Concretes album ever released, and I've never had the remotest issue ripping them. I'm curious as to what the DRM on those CDs was to begin with.
My "Magic and Witchcraft in Ancient Greece and Rome" class (yeah, I was one of _those_ majors) claimed non-collusium ritual human sacrifice was quite common into the Roman Empire along the frontiers.
Interestingly, *my* Ancient Greece class (this particular session being a guest speaker) spent 1.25 hours claiming that virtually no human sacrifice was done even in Ancient Greece, much less extending to Rome. IIRC, the only physical evidence that has been found to remotely support any claims of human sacrifice were found on Crete, and dated to well before what you could really call "Ancient Greece".
Of all the things I could pretend to have done (gone to the moon, won a Super Bowl, poured hot grits on Natalie Portman), you want me to pretend that I've read an RFC? No dice!
bars and restaurants are erecting bogus "toilets are for customers' use only" signs [they're bogus because entering the premises for the purpose of using the toilet makes you automatically a customer]
Not really commenting on the rest of your post, but this seems to me to be a pretty silly statement. A customer is someone who, at least potentially, is going to buy something. Entering a place of business with the sole intention of using their facilities does not a customer make, nor is this supported by any of the 5 definitions provided by the Oxford English Dictionary:
customer, n.
1. One who acquires ownership by long use or possession; a customary holder. Obs.
2. An official who collects customs or dues; a custom-house officer. Obs.
3. a. 'One who frequents any place of sale for the sake of purchasing' (J.); one who customarily purchases from a particular tradesman; a buyer, purchaser. (The chief current sense.) Also attrib.
b. In extended use: an applicant or client.
4. a. A person with whom one has dealings; a familiar associate or companion (of some one). Obs. (passing into sense 5). b. A common woman, prostitute. Obs.
5. colloq. A person to have to do with; usually with some qualifying adjective, as ugly, awkward, queer, rum, etc.: 'chap', 'fellow'. Also used of animals.
At best, you could claim 4a, but it's obsolete, and it doesn't really match with what you're saying. 5 looks mildly promising, except it's a colloquialism, and an obvious one at that. "That guy's a rough customer" doesn't come close to meeting the obvious standard being applied by the sign: have an intention of buying something before you use facilities that we pay for, otherwise please find other facilities.
While that may be (and I believe is) kind of rude, I'm curious where the argument that it's "bogus" comes from.
And completely so: before I refreshed the /. front page, this was the first story I've seen that had more tags than comments at +3 or more (5 to 4.) While the tags make me giggle often (especially the 'yes, no, maybe' tags, when all of them are used in response to a question in the submission), that's just out of hand.
On the other hand, the "worst-run fast food restaurant in the universe" is also near here. It's a Taco Bell that tends to close anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes before closing time. Once, a friend and I stopped there, and were waved off by an employee standing outside the door who told us that they were "out of product".
Just a note: I had to deal with a Jack in the Box like this near my house a few years ago (it was the only place open after 11, and they would randomly shut down the supposed 24-hour window, close the inside 3 hours early to force you to go through the drive-through that took forever, etc.) It cleaned up very quickly once I started calling the 1-800 number posted on the door. Drive-through taking 35 minutes (with your car trapped in the lane, and yes, this happened more than once, with less than 4 cars ahead of me)? Call the number. Closed when they're supposed to be open? Call the number. Within a month or two, things sped up, and they were open during all posted hours.
Um, what? Variety is the one of the (I'll hold of on saying "the", even though I believe it to be so) bibles of the movie industry. You know, those people who were the primary drivers of the VHS market. So I think they'd have a little bit to say about the matter.
My email address is xyz.zxy@gmail.com, you insensitive clod!
Most legitimate mailservers are running on static ip addresses.
With admittedly outdated experience (the last time I touched an MX record was 2000), I'm still willing to say this: If you're running a mailserver on a dynamic IP, you should *expect* to have your mail bounced. I didn't do it then, for a small (in size, medium in revenues) business, why would you do it now, given the hyper-explosion of spam within the last six years?
Well, technically, it's on what came out of the combination of The Comedy Channel and Ha!
Except that it's likely that the only reason they don't try to get other sites to allow them as payment options is because they have absolutely no reason to. If this kind of enforcement started happening, the least they would have to do is start up a few online stores and accept their own payment processing. If they could a few reasonably decent merchants to fall in line as well, all the better.
It's a wonderful thing for Wal-Mart and I don't really fault them for doing it, but this is basically extortion on a grand scale. A new delivery model threatens the very thing that gives Wal-Mart its advantage (their distribution system), and instead of competing straight-up, they threaten their suppliers to the point that the new distribution model has to throw them some money to STFU. So the new distribution model has a chance to compete on a level playing field (being able to offer the same products.) Again, well-played by Wally World, but just sickening.
Currently, due to prior efforts by Congress and corporations to enforce some sort of "ban" online gambling, all I have to do is go to Central Coin (which purports to be facilitator for online privacy in purchases, or some such whatnot; I've never seen a merchant other than gaming sites that uses their services), deposit some money into the account (and pay some fairly small fee, roughly double ATM transaction fees) and then go to Poker Stars to withdraw that money from CC and deposit to Poker Stars. Whole thing takes roughly 45 seconds.
With my online sportsbook/casino at SportsInteraction, it's even easier. I fire up the client interface (casino) or browser (sportsbook), and I can deposit money into my Firepay account and transfer it into my SI account all on one screen. So, short of getting IPs from the gaming merchants themselves (not likely), blocking traffic to specific IPs at the ISP level (more likely, still isn't going to happen), banning the use of online third party money handlers (least likely), or taking my computer, I really fail to see how they propose to stop me.
That's true. But that's only true because there is a contract that says so, and I enter into that contract before employment. No such contract was proffered before enrolling in classes.
I recently returned to school to finish my degree, and the University of Texas (at least the business school) is seriously pimping this idea of "self-plagiarizing". I call absolute, 100% bullshit, and I told the professors that harped on it so. It's antithetical to common sense (Why on earth would I want to duplicate my work? I've never done it in a corporate environment, I wouldn't think of doing it in a corporate environment, and after graduating, I would never do it.), it's impossible for either them or me to police (What constitutes plagiarizing myself? Can I use a paragraph? A central idea? An outline?), and it's fucking stupid.
I'll be damned if, upon being assigned a paper for a class that is similar to an assignment from another class, I'm not going to modify the original paper and turn that sucker in.
Jesus! I recently returned to finish my degree, and 18 hours plus 20 hours of working is kicking my ass a little bit.
That there is such a level of vitriol against people who still run Win98. I run it on my home PC. When I'm at home, this is the one I use (my notebook runs XP.) From a crowd that continually decries the need to upgrade to the newest version of Office, I simply don't see why so many find it worthy of mockery that someone would still be running 98. I don't play games, except Age of Empires II, on occasion. Office 2000 has every feature I need. I run the latest versions of Firefox and OO.
Explain to me why I should have felt the remotest need to upgrade to 2k, ME, or XP? This machine does exactly what I need it to do: surf the web, run Dreamweaver 4 for some light HTML editing, run Photoshop 6 for some light image editing, and play on Poker Stars. I'm not a clueless idiot, nor are many of the people who are still running 98. Many of you cry out "Why upgrade?" and then do it, anyway. We put our money where our mouth is.
So they're hacking the servers and stealing passwords? Then that's not phishing.
I'm not really a nerd or geek (I'm not technical enough), but blue LEDs are awesome to me for some reason. And I've shown the story of their discovery/creation/invention/whatever to many people, some of whom are absolutely not nerds or geeks, and nearly all of them have enjoyed it.
Good show.
I have a friend named Toke. No, no shortening, and yes, that is his real name. He has fooled a bunch of people (okay, even me the first time) in my earshot by claiming that his brother is named Roach.
I recently flew back to Dallas/Ft. Worth from Austin (to visit my mom) for the third time in the last year (yes, it's easy to drive, but tickets are so cheap that it's a wash, and there's a free vehicle for me to use there.) On every one of the 6 legs of those trips, one of my suitcases has been searched. It's the same one every time, a gray hardshell American Tourister. On the trip back to Austin this last time, I thought (and commented) that for once, it hadn't been searched, because the TSA notice wasn't on top. However, once I started pulling out clothes, I noticed it in the middle of them.
I never get personally searched. Hell, on the way back, I forgot I had a lighter in my pocket, and I tossed it in the little tray with my keys, wallet, and cell phone. The guy doing the x-rays pulled it out, looked at me (a white guy in my mid-twenties wearing a 'Texas Business' tshirt) and said "You know you can't have this, right?", whereupon I responded "Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking." So it's not like they're profiling me as a passenger. But they've searched that bag (and only that bag; when I've flown with two checked bags, the other one never gets looked at) 6 times in a row. If they were searching 50% of bags on every flight (which they're obviously not), there would only be a 1.5% chance of that happening. It's not 'random'. It's something, but it ain't that.
But is it like raaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiinnnnnnnn?