A bit difficult to decipher. But it appears that it is the patchwork set of laws that is causing problems. State laws are not uniform and laws applying to types of gambling (horse vs casino) are different. Banking laws were a creative enforcement method.
But maybe someone can help me out. I still can't find a clear answer as to can US companies offer a gambling service a non-US one is prevented from offering by law. And I mean exactly the same. Same location, same game, same payment methods, etc? Not "you can bet on horses here, but you can't bet on poker there" situations.
Which may be why they are reluctant to go to court. Whoever they sue will likely file counter claims. One of those is likely to be for copyright infringement. The last thing MS wants is to have to turn over their source code in discovery. Clean or not, they won't want to do it.
Side note: a buddy of mine owns the second Oldsmobile ever made. It actually has the first Oldsmobile engine (the guys used engine #1 when they built car #2). Anyway, this car is almost identical looking to a horse buggy, with just a few modifications. The wheels are driven by a belt from the engine hidden in the back. So in effect you had a hybrid horse-buggy/automobile (ok, with no horse)
You'll be happy to know that human experiments back up your discovery. Ice water has been poured on exposed human brains to stop seizures with excellent results. Seizures were stopped, and in some cases eliminated permanently. Sounds like a joke, doesn't it? But the results were good enough that the only reason it probably isn't don't today is the craniotomy. However, similar experiments (like what the Japanese are doing) are pushing towards eliminating having a gaping hole in your head.
To get the best results, the literature shows that the brain needs to be chilled below normal temperatures. In some old experiments, they would pour ice water directly on an exposed portion of the brain. Two bits of interesting information from that were there were no long term negative effects of reducing portions of the brain to 5C, and in some cases epilepsy was cured.
So why did they dump ice water directly? Unfortunately, the brain has more blood flow than most any other tissue. So you are fighting the warming effect of the blood. Unlike your fingers, the body does not shut down blood flow to the brain as it gets cool.
If by estimate you'll allow testing, a wind tunnel works quite nicely. You can even do it yourself quite cheaply.
Put your model (or full scale X-wing) on top of a truck or van. Secure it with force gages (spring scales if you have a way of seeing them). Drive on down the road. You can now measure forces and drag. Even measure at various speeds if you don't think it's going to be linear. Yes, you are limited in speed and you have effects from the vehicle, but results can still be surprisingly good for such a silly test method.
Alternately, you can mount your model with force gages and wait for a really strong wind.
Yeah, but that's just applied chemistry. No new science going on there unless they are working on improving the brissance through new compound synthesis.
You have the password to unencrypt your offshore keys. This password cannot be demanded of you (jurisdiction). But when you want to use your encryption keys, your application asks for the password, retrieves the key, and performs your data decryption (locally or remote?).
Decidedly more trouble than it's worth, but an interesting thought exercise.
I find myself doing exotic stuff in Excel so I can send it to others. It works, people can look at the guts, and people are comfortable with excel spitting out answers.
For example, one time I had a PC, a unix workstation, 2 CAD systems, 2 FEA systems, matlab, and so on sitting on my desk. I needed to simulate a dynamic device made from nitinol, allowing for a wide range of dimensions, outputting forces, sizes, and a 3-D rotatable view. The easiest way was to use an analytical model. So Matlab and Excel were top contenders.
But I'm the only one with Matlab and I need to share this with non-technical people (ends the "have you tried?" questions pretty effectively). Sure, it could be compiled, but that opened up new problems (people told under penalty of death never to run an executable). Short while later, it's done and mailed out.
So sure, Excel worked just fine. All the managers played with the model until they decided they didn't like the results. They went and hired consultants to simulate one variant using FEA (mine simulated the entire design space). Only $100k. 2 months later these guys came back and said "Our results agree with the Excel simulation. The difference? Well, we couldn't include as many variables as the Excel, so yeah, FEA is less accurate."
As an independent consultant now, I still alternate between FEA, Matlab, and Excel as needed. Maybe if I wasn't so efficient I could $100k contracts out of companies too.
Since when is there scientific math vs all other math? I must have been out when they explained math segregation while studying for my mathematics degree. I do recall something about economics and buying the cheapest product that meets a need. Don't recall scientific being an independent variable there either.
Good thing I didn't respond to him immediately. I wanted to say the same thing, and it wouldn't have sounded half as good. His clients are probably losing money twice. Once for overpaying him, second for lost business when people decide "Screw this, what else did Google pop up?"
Some guy in our neighborhood had one of these. I never saw it. But every time it snowed, tracks made by the 3 legged robot would begin showing up. What was really clever was how he molded animal paws on the feet to improve traction.
You could realize that I was using hyperbole (i.e. a joke) to point out AI may not be all about binary power. Heck, I've got fish that can handle reality better and faster than a computer. Thank you for violently agreeing with me.
Also, animal behavior is not based on deterministic logic trees. When presented with stimuli, multiple responses are triggered. These actually compete with each other. The probability of a behavior winning out is dependent on the strength of that learned response. But it's still a probability. Coincidentally, the studies showing that were based in part on cats.
Trust me, my cat doesn't use learning decision trees, mobile navigation or finite-state machine models when trying to evade me or get into various trouble. And her processing power is pretty dim compared to a computer. Maybe it's time to start looking simpler solutions. Like rules based behavior.
Everyone is now familiar with flocking algorithms. That's one behavior. Model several behaviors, superimpose them where possible (i.e. walk and chew gum), slap a probability algorithm, and that's how a lot of researchers are getting lifelike behavior from robotics. Best of all, you get goofy, unexpected results. Just the type of stuff to make a game interesting.
I wanted to refresh my understanding of "prisoner of war" vs "enemy combatants" I did a bit of quick research. My understanding is that "enemy combatants" don't have many rights, which appears to be true. But get this: none of the guys in custody are anything but POWs... yet.
It seems that the tribunals people frown upon are a critical, and legal, step. Until then, a detainee is to be considered a POW. Once you have the tribunal, those not qualifying for POW status, well, they don't get much protection. So maybe we're all focused on the wrong thing. Sort of like a magic show where the real action is elsewhere.
I wish I could find the article again, but there was a beautiful description of the two types of societies/governments. My apologies in advance for mangling it.
The first is that people are the source of power (and have inalienable rights). The government's power is granted by the people. Therefor the people are the ultimate authority and guaranteer of rights. This is the governing principle you noted is in effect in the US.
The second is that the government is the source of power. The rights of people are granted to them by the government. Therefor the government is the ultimate authority and guaranteer of rights. This is the principle in effect in France. (not trying to bash France. It was just the example given).
Makes me wonder if that also sheds a bit of light on the typical American attitude of "I've got my rights and I'll do what I damn well please." Hard to shake the habit no matter where in the world we are which means we come off as jerks. Especially to those who grow up learning to defer to the greater good. But that's problem for another day.
But back to the source of rights, it's not up the the American government to grant Habeas Corpus or not. Or decide privacy. Or anything else. We have those rights unless we are stupid enough to give them up.
The carbon fiber failing doesn't scare me as much as the fact some people are using it to make planes so light you don't need a license to fly. It won't happen often, but from time to time someone incompetent is going to manage to get aloft and kill themselves in a perfectly safe plane. Rare as it may happen, it will probably happen more often than the composite failing.
Not to mention the trainer is being abused with bad takeoffs, tows, landings, and moving around the field. Ours have been rebuilt from the occasional crash (like our 2-33 hitting a fence on landing).
Slashdot Mirror
Strange. That would seem central to the WTO decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling#United_States
A bit difficult to decipher. But it appears that it is the patchwork set of laws that is causing problems. State laws are not uniform and laws applying to types of gambling (horse vs casino) are different. Banking laws were a creative enforcement method.
But maybe someone can help me out. I still can't find a clear answer as to can US companies offer a gambling service a non-US one is prevented from offering by law. And I mean exactly the same. Same location, same game, same payment methods, etc? Not "you can bet on horses here, but you can't bet on poker there" situations.
You risk extreme ridicule for:
a) having read the article
b) having read the patents
c) having a rational post concerning patents
This is Slashdot, where Chicken Little is an optimist.
You might be onto something with CAD. I remember using AutoCAD in 1986 with it using two monitors. The patent was filed in 1987.
Which may be why they are reluctant to go to court. Whoever they sue will likely file counter claims. One of those is likely to be for copyright infringement. The last thing MS wants is to have to turn over their source code in discovery. Clean or not, they won't want to do it.
You mean the horse buggy?
Side note: a buddy of mine owns the second Oldsmobile ever made. It actually has the first Oldsmobile engine (the guys used engine #1 when they built car #2). Anyway, this car is almost identical looking to a horse buggy, with just a few modifications. The wheels are driven by a belt from the engine hidden in the back. So in effect you had a hybrid horse-buggy/automobile (ok, with no horse)
You'll be happy to know that human experiments back up your discovery. Ice water has been poured on exposed human brains to stop seizures with excellent results. Seizures were stopped, and in some cases eliminated permanently. Sounds like a joke, doesn't it? But the results were good enough that the only reason it probably isn't don't today is the craniotomy. However, similar experiments (like what the Japanese are doing) are pushing towards eliminating having a gaping hole in your head.
To get the best results, the literature shows that the brain needs to be chilled below normal temperatures. In some old experiments, they would pour ice water directly on an exposed portion of the brain. Two bits of interesting information from that were there were no long term negative effects of reducing portions of the brain to 5C, and in some cases epilepsy was cured. So why did they dump ice water directly? Unfortunately, the brain has more blood flow than most any other tissue. So you are fighting the warming effect of the blood. Unlike your fingers, the body does not shut down blood flow to the brain as it gets cool.
If by estimate you'll allow testing, a wind tunnel works quite nicely. You can even do it yourself quite cheaply.
Put your model (or full scale X-wing) on top of a truck or van. Secure it with force gages (spring scales if you have a way of seeing them). Drive on down the road. You can now measure forces and drag. Even measure at various speeds if you don't think it's going to be linear. Yes, you are limited in speed and you have effects from the vehicle, but results can still be surprisingly good for such a silly test method.
Alternately, you can mount your model with force gages and wait for a really strong wind.
Most absurd of all are movies showing giant dinosaurs roaming cities resembling Tokyo.
yeah, but someone would always show up claiming that they'd read about it before on the internet and you're just copying.
Yeah, but that's just applied chemistry. No new science going on there unless they are working on improving the brissance through new compound synthesis.
Keep your encryption keys offshore.
You have the password to unencrypt your offshore keys. This password cannot be demanded of you (jurisdiction). But when you want to use your encryption keys, your application asks for the password, retrieves the key, and performs your data decryption (locally or remote?).
Decidedly more trouble than it's worth, but an interesting thought exercise.
PrivatePress
I find myself doing exotic stuff in Excel so I can send it to others. It works, people can look at the guts, and people are comfortable with excel spitting out answers.
For example, one time I had a PC, a unix workstation, 2 CAD systems, 2 FEA systems, matlab, and so on sitting on my desk. I needed to simulate a dynamic device made from nitinol, allowing for a wide range of dimensions, outputting forces, sizes, and a 3-D rotatable view. The easiest way was to use an analytical model. So Matlab and Excel were top contenders.
But I'm the only one with Matlab and I need to share this with non-technical people (ends the "have you tried?" questions pretty effectively). Sure, it could be compiled, but that opened up new problems (people told under penalty of death never to run an executable). Short while later, it's done and mailed out.
So sure, Excel worked just fine. All the managers played with the model until they decided they didn't like the results. They went and hired consultants to simulate one variant using FEA (mine simulated the entire design space). Only $100k. 2 months later these guys came back and said "Our results agree with the Excel simulation. The difference? Well, we couldn't include as many variables as the Excel, so yeah, FEA is less accurate."
As an independent consultant now, I still alternate between FEA, Matlab, and Excel as needed. Maybe if I wasn't so efficient I could $100k contracts out of companies too.
Since when is there scientific math vs all other math? I must have been out when they explained math segregation while studying for my mathematics degree. I do recall something about economics and buying the cheapest product that meets a need. Don't recall scientific being an independent variable there either.
Good thing I didn't respond to him immediately. I wanted to say the same thing, and it wouldn't have sounded half as good. His clients are probably losing money twice. Once for overpaying him, second for lost business when people decide "Screw this, what else did Google pop up?"
Some guy in our neighborhood had one of these. I never saw it. But every time it snowed, tracks made by the 3 legged robot would begin showing up. What was really clever was how he molded animal paws on the feet to improve traction.
I kind of miss telemarketer calls.
Would you like to subscribe to our newspaper? No, I'm illiterate!
Would you like new windows? No, this house is so run down I'm abandoning it.
Would you like to donate to the children? No, I don't like children.
Would you like to donate to the police fund? Will you let my brother out of jail?
and so on. Come up with a response that is not on their list and it's comedy gold.
You could realize that I was using hyperbole (i.e. a joke) to point out AI may not be all about binary power. Heck, I've got fish that can handle reality better and faster than a computer. Thank you for violently agreeing with me.
Also, animal behavior is not based on deterministic logic trees. When presented with stimuli, multiple responses are triggered. These actually compete with each other. The probability of a behavior winning out is dependent on the strength of that learned response. But it's still a probability. Coincidentally, the studies showing that were based in part on cats.
Trust me, my cat doesn't use learning decision trees, mobile navigation or finite-state machine models when trying to evade me or get into various trouble. And her processing power is pretty dim compared to a computer. Maybe it's time to start looking simpler solutions. Like rules based behavior.
Everyone is now familiar with flocking algorithms. That's one behavior. Model several behaviors, superimpose them where possible (i.e. walk and chew gum), slap a probability algorithm, and that's how a lot of researchers are getting lifelike behavior from robotics. Best of all, you get goofy, unexpected results. Just the type of stuff to make a game interesting.
I wanted to refresh my understanding of "prisoner of war" vs "enemy combatants" I did a bit of quick research. My understanding is that "enemy combatants" don't have many rights, which appears to be true. But get this: none of the guys in custody are anything but POWs ... yet.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E4D71E30F933A25750C0A9649C8B63&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FOrganizations%2FA%2FAl%20Qaeda%20
It seems that the tribunals people frown upon are a critical, and legal, step. Until then, a detainee is to be considered a POW. Once you have the tribunal, those not qualifying for POW status, well, they don't get much protection. So maybe we're all focused on the wrong thing. Sort of like a magic show where the real action is elsewhere.
In an amusing twist, they may be owed back wages.
I wish I could find the article again, but there was a beautiful description of the two types of societies/governments. My apologies in advance for mangling it.
The first is that people are the source of power (and have inalienable rights). The government's power is granted by the people. Therefor the people are the ultimate authority and guaranteer of rights. This is the governing principle you noted is in effect in the US.
The second is that the government is the source of power. The rights of people are granted to them by the government. Therefor the government is the ultimate authority and guaranteer of rights. This is the principle in effect in France. (not trying to bash France. It was just the example given).
Makes me wonder if that also sheds a bit of light on the typical American attitude of "I've got my rights and I'll do what I damn well please." Hard to shake the habit no matter where in the world we are which means we come off as jerks. Especially to those who grow up learning to defer to the greater good. But that's problem for another day.
But back to the source of rights, it's not up the the American government to grant Habeas Corpus or not. Or decide privacy. Or anything else. We have those rights unless we are stupid enough to give them up.
The carbon fiber failing doesn't scare me as much as the fact some people are using it to make planes so light you don't need a license to fly. It won't happen often, but from time to time someone incompetent is going to manage to get aloft and kill themselves in a perfectly safe plane. Rare as it may happen, it will probably happen more often than the composite failing.
Not to mention the trainer is being abused with bad takeoffs, tows, landings, and moving around the field. Ours have been rebuilt from the occasional crash (like our 2-33 hitting a fence on landing).