Since there's no hope you finding them if you go there so they feel safe from you,
Seems to me that the most succesful of the scammers - the ones that you hear about once or twice a year fooling some sucker into sending hundreds of thousands of dollars ought to be very concerned because it should be comparatively cheap to higher a couple of soldier-of-fortune types to go hunt them down and extract some of that money or a few pounds of flesh. The trick is make sure your soldier-of-fortune types aren't just scammers of another breed themselves...
I think it is in fact you who are mistaken, this is the pertinent section of the World Of Warcraft Terms Of Use.
Sorry. You jumped into the middle of a thread about the Privacy Policy - I assumed you were talking about the Privacy Policy, not the ToS.
I suggest you go read the Privacy Policy, it has been liberally quoted and linked through out this discussion. You will find that my statement about reading that one lengthy sentence applies to the privacy policy. You will also find that the privacy policy limits the scope of the what requests Blizzard will respond to. As the privacy policy is more recent than the ToS, it should be clear that the Privacy Policy is the controlling document.
Given the dearth of incidents on planes leaving Israel in the past 30 years, they are clearly doing something right.
Doubt it. Adjust for how few flights there are and then it doesn't look any better than anyone else. Most recent publicly disclosed terrorist incident on a flight leaving Israel was 2002 when Tawfiq Fukra tried to hijack a flight from Tel Aviv to Istanbul.
Sure... the book "The 5000 Year Leap" which the other guy said you should read to see if it changes your mind, or whether you'd continue to feed him your BS line (in his words).
Ah hah! You are ignorant of exactly what the book says. The book is simply a treatise on American Exceptionalism, nothing more. Thus anyone who touts the book - as Glenn Beck does - is obviously a big believer in American Exceptionalism.
Ok, you are pathetically hopeless, brain stuck in a rut unable to see beyond your kneejerk analysis of association fallacy when that has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Here's something to get you out of that rut - if I am impugning something or someone by associating Glenn Beck with them or it, name that which I am impugning by association.
Personally, I find your response somewhat depressing. That you so grossly misinterpreted my extremely simple point suggests that despite your language you bring only a kneejerk analysis to the table.
The thing proved here is that Glenn Beck is a shining example of my original premise - that those who believe in American Exceptionalism are the very same people who promote ideologies and policies that result in tearing it down.
Ask yourself this: Is Glenn Beck a huge believer in American Exceptionalism? I think the only honest answer is "yes."
Now ask yourself this: Is Glenn Beck an Isolationist? I think the only honest answer is "yes."
Now ask yourself this: Does Glenn Beck support extreme security measures in the name of anti-terrorism? I think the only honest answer is "yes."
Have the last decade's policies of subjecting foreign nationals to extreme security requirements simply to enter the US caused a large drop in both foreign tourism and foreign science/engineering workers coming to the USA? The article under discussion here and many others that have come before it are proof of that.
So, the fact that you kneejerked to "Nothing is proven here except that I hate Glenn Beck" instead of the rather straightforward point that Glenn Beck's actions match my original premise is really quite surprising. The only rational conclusion I can come to is that you are a huge fan of Glenn Beck and see anything that even remotely criticizes him as being an unfair attack.
I'm usually 100% with privacy advocates, but I have to say that I don't think being able to fly over a foreign country without having to give them your name and birth date is an essential liberty. Or even a reasonable expectation. Did I miss something?
If you believe that, then surely you must believe that requiring full immigration processing for flyovers is just as reasonable.
True. I don't care if Blizzard gives someone's personal information to the police. Sorry it bothers you, that must be really annoying to you.
What bothers me is that your bogus rationalizations get traction. You spew stupidity you deserve to get rebutted.
In all of your posts in this topic you've only been intellectually honest just once - the time you said you want life to be easy for the cops. Everything else you've said has just been cover for that one very unamerican belief. If you had started out with that honest statement you never would have had to squirm around defending bad logic, I would have told you to move to China or North Korea where they share your beliefs and be done with it.
In the U.S., subpoenas are issued by the courts to compel witnesses to testify. Note though, that's the courts, not law enforcement. A district attorney will typically obtain a subpoena during the process of bringing a case to trial. Here, if I received a "subpoena" from a police officer with no district attorney's phone number on it, I'd suspect it was just a meaningless piece of paper.
Note that in this very case the cop did get a legitimate subpoena - he was just in the wrong country so it had no force on Blizzard (hence the cop's own description of it as a nicely worded request).
And I could call you a moronic, braindead wannabe tool, but that doesn't make it true.
I've just been putting a name to your actions. If you tried to apply the label of 'tool' to me that would be demonstrably false. There is a clearcut definition of tool - apologist for a corporation or other organization - surprising how that's kind of a synonym for bootlicker, useful idiot seems appropriate too. The only one of us that has demonstrated an affinity for that behavior here has been yourself.
Are you still convinced of your interpretation of Blizzard's privacy policy?
Are you still convinced of your interpretation? You've done nothing but preen in your ignorance of the actual wording.
If you take them to court, I guarantee that their lawyers left enough wiggle room in that thing to let them out of this.
Of course they have "wiggle room," the freaking privacy policy is non-binding and they reserved the right to change their ToS at the drop of a hat anyway. You went from claiming they were "upfront" to now believing that the legalistic phrasing somewhere in the document has given them "wiggle room." Congratulations on a perfect demonstration of what it means to be a tool.
If you really have problems with the way the police operate, you need to convince other people to agree with you, so things can change.
Broken record, record, record. How many times have I told you that your baloney about changing society is a total red herring now? But... you... keep... on... bringing... it... up. Its like you can't even connect the dots in your own posts - you go on and on about Blizzard's privacy policy giving them a free pass and then you hop right on over to defending the police against an argument no one has made.
My Premise: Those who believe in A are the strongest supporters of policies that destroy A. AC's Rebuttal: Not true, see book B praising A. My Repsone: Z is apparently a huge fan of book B and he's a huge supporter of polices that destroy A, ergo AC has just brought to light that Z fits my premise to a T.
Do you now understand why the association fallacy has nothing to do with my point?
I am working on the very periphery of the problem, designing equipment to measure the properties of hot radioactive molten fluoride... Clearly one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and neutron fluxes !
So... hows the neutron flux capacitor coming along? I think once that's taken care of buffering radioactive molten flouride should be a cinch!
I'm not sure what point you think has been "proven,"
Glenn Beck is rabidly isolationist and a major terror-monger - precisely the kind of attitudes that have produced the massive headache for foreign engineering and science students to come to the USA and foreign engineers and scientists to work in the USA. Hence the proving my assertion that the most heavily jingoist are also the biggest contributors to our country's loss of prestige.
The rest of your response is such a ridiculously knee jerk paranoiac ranting that all it does is reinforce just about every stereotype you are trying to dispute. And for the record, I have never voted for a democrat or green or any other left-leaning party in my life, so your attempt to characterize me as part of the 'Left' cracks me up.
umm, yes, please show me where i said you said it was illegal?!
When you wrote "there is no law" implying that I had claimed somebody broke the law; or are you going to be a twat now and say "but, but, but I didn't use the word 'illegal'?"
why should the police have to get a subpoena first, wasting court time and tax payers money? i'd much rather they try just writing a polite letter first which costs 45c.
Holy shit, there you got AGAIN arguing some point that nobody gives a shit about. What part of, "it's about respecting your customers," suggests that I am attacking the police?
slaves and "dhimmis" in islam, slaves and non-buddhists in buddhism, dalits in hinduism,..
AAAAH! Now I remember you! You ARE completely off your rocker. You are one of those dhimmi-wannabes - believing only the worst possible interpretation despite all evidence to the contrary so as to feel justified in your hatred. Just another freaking extremist nutjob. Impressive that you were able to get a couple of posts out before revealing your own personal insanity.
To be a good moral guardian, the law/police/... does not need to be perfect. It needs to be better than average. It needs to catch more criminals that John Q. Public does. It needs to prevent more crimes than an average very, very non-special American does.
Wow, its like you are channeling Vic Mackey. That is nearly his character's exact rationalization for all the shit he pulled - as long as things balance out better than if he was not there at all then all the shit he pulled was just fine. As the wikipedia article quotes, the actor who played the character of Mackey thought of him as a cross between Hannibal Lecter and Dirty Harry.
In case it's not clear, simply being better than average is far too low a bar.
And quite frankly, I have little illusions about the morality of the police force. But I am absolutely convinced they do better than you.
Which is an entirely bogus requirement. As the saying goes - one does not need to be a baker in order to know that the bread is stale.
UN soldiers get to rape, or kill Israelis through stupidity or outright malice, without reprecussions in New York
Where in the world did you get that from? Nobody gets to rape or kill anyone in New York without repercussions. I don't think UN soldiers have even been deployed to New York, much less gone out raping and killing. Making claims like that just signal to everybody that you are totally off your rocker.
- It is simply impossible to have a rational debate on an issue like this in the US of A. Any and all rational voices are outscreamed by an army of pundits, lobbyists and politicans screaming about death camps (srsly, wtf?)
Mostly this. But I can shed light on the "death camp" - actually "death panel" - thing.
It's an exaggeration of the realization that we don't have infinite resources. Somebody, somewhere is going to have to say "no" when some terminally ill person wants some exceptionally high-priced treatment that has some limited chance of sucess. Hence the people deciding to say "no" have been stylized as a "death panel."
What's rabidly stupid about that attitude is that under the current system of private health insurance these "death panels" rule against people all the time. We have them today, and given what little choice most people have when it comes to private health insurance (you basically take what your employer offers or you go without) it is hard to see the situation getting any worse under some nationalized system. Not that I expect it to get better either, I think that aspect will probably be a wash, but that's just my personal opinion.
To make things more confusing, the part of the legislation the death panel hypsters cite doesn't even have anything to do with refusing care. It's some language about "end of life counseling" - getting a shrink in there to help the terminally ill die with dignity and grace and maybe a cpa or somebody to help insure their affairs are in order. And, get this, the exact same language is in the legislation that defines the current medicare system, been there for years, maybe even decades. They just cut-n-pasted into the new legislation because they were basing it in large part on the medicare model. (medicare is the name of a big program in the USA that is kinda sorta like socialized healthcare for the old and kids who are poor).
And, for what little it's worth nowadays, my opinion is that socialized healthcare is the exact wrong direction to be taking. We need to get back to a situation where each patient is directly affected by/responsible for the cost of treatment. I believe that the reason costs have spiraled out of control is the fundamental disconnect between the cost of treatment and the benefit to the person receiving it. Except for emergency care we ought to be shopping on value, but we don't. Instead we try to get as much treatment as possible for the premiums and copays - like gorging on food at an all-you-can-eat buffet. The doctors don't mind over-testing, it helps prevent them from getting sued if they can show that they tested for everything under the sun (aka defensive medicine). I can see socializing catastrophic insurance and maybe even a voucher-like system for the desperately poor to cover routine medicine. But the routine and non-emergency stuff needs to come back under the direct fiscal control of the people receiving the treatments. Socializing it will just further the disconnect between the costs and the benefits resulting in the prices just going up even faster.
Now it's quite difficult for someone with a PhD to get a visa to work in the USA (unless they're just transferring within the same multinational company) and the desire to work in America is significantly lowered by the insane anti-terror legislation,
It's sad really, the most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same rabid supporters of the policies that are destroying it.
I am saying one thing - the presence of female political and business leaders doesn't mean jack squat about the amount of gender parity in the general population because for every example in a liberalized country one can find an example in a repressive country. Capiche?
Thanks. That makes sense. Sort, of. His numbers are totally off though. Anyone who has been to HK or any other big city in China knows 1 yuan is not worth even close to 1 dollar in terms of what you can buy.
Well, though people do tend to gloss over the fine details in things like EULAs and Terms of Service, it's not as if Blizzard is hiding anything from its users. From the WoW Terms of Use:
Except that Blizzard also has a published privacy policy, referenced multiple times in this topic already, that reduces the scope of the requests of when they will hand that information over to a very limited set of cases and this situation - that of a 2 year old crime of the sale of drugs like steroids - is not in that list of cases.
Slashdot Mirror
How gracious of you to make that decision on those artists behalf, as opposed to allowing them to determine how they want their music distributed.
And just who do you think determines that the system of copyright is available to those artists in the first place?
Since there's no hope you finding them if you go there so they feel safe from you,
Seems to me that the most succesful of the scammers - the ones that you hear about once or twice a year fooling some sucker into sending hundreds of thousands of dollars ought to be very concerned because it should be comparatively cheap to higher a couple of soldier-of-fortune types to go hunt them down and extract some of that money or a few pounds of flesh. The trick is make sure your soldier-of-fortune types aren't just scammers of another breed themselves...
I think it is in fact you who are mistaken, this is the pertinent section of the World Of Warcraft Terms Of Use.
Sorry. You jumped into the middle of a thread about the Privacy Policy - I assumed you were talking about the Privacy Policy, not the ToS.
I suggest you go read the Privacy Policy, it has been liberally quoted and linked through out this discussion. You will find that my statement about reading that one lengthy sentence applies to the privacy policy. You will also find that the privacy policy limits the scope of the what requests Blizzard will respond to. As the privacy policy is more recent than the ToS, it should be clear that the Privacy Policy is the controlling document.
Given the dearth of incidents on planes leaving Israel in the past 30 years, they are clearly doing something right.
Doubt it. Adjust for how few flights there are and then it doesn't look any better than anyone else. Most recent publicly disclosed terrorist incident on a flight leaving Israel was 2002 when Tawfiq Fukra tried to hijack a flight from Tel Aviv to Istanbul.
Sure... the book "The 5000 Year Leap" which the other guy said you should read to see if it changes your mind, or whether you'd continue to feed him your BS line (in his words).
Ah hah! You are ignorant of exactly what the book says. The book is simply a treatise on American Exceptionalism, nothing more. Thus anyone who touts the book - as Glenn Beck does - is obviously a big believer in American Exceptionalism.
Ok, you are pathetically hopeless, brain stuck in a rut unable to see beyond your kneejerk analysis of association fallacy when that has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Here's something to get you out of that rut - if I am impugning something or someone by associating Glenn Beck with them or it, name that which I am impugning by association.
Personally, I find your response somewhat depressing. That you so grossly misinterpreted my extremely simple point suggests that despite your language you bring only a kneejerk analysis to the table.
The thing proved here is that Glenn Beck is a shining example of my original premise - that those who believe in American Exceptionalism are the very same people who promote ideologies and policies that result in tearing it down.
Ask yourself this: Is Glenn Beck a huge believer in American Exceptionalism?
I think the only honest answer is "yes."
Now ask yourself this: Is Glenn Beck an Isolationist?
I think the only honest answer is "yes."
Now ask yourself this: Does Glenn Beck support extreme security measures in the name of anti-terrorism?
I think the only honest answer is "yes."
Have the last decade's policies of subjecting foreign nationals to extreme security requirements simply to enter the US caused a large drop in both foreign tourism and foreign science/engineering workers coming to the USA?
The article under discussion here and many others that have come before it are proof of that.
So, the fact that you kneejerked to "Nothing is proven here except that I hate Glenn Beck" instead of the rather straightforward point that Glenn Beck's actions match my original premise is really quite surprising. The only rational conclusion I can come to is that you are a huge fan of Glenn Beck and see anything that even remotely criticizes him as being an unfair attack.
I'm usually 100% with privacy advocates, but I have to say that I don't think being able to fly over a foreign country without having to give them your name and birth date is an essential liberty. Or even a reasonable expectation. Did I miss something?
If you believe that, then surely you must believe that requiring full immigration processing for flyovers is just as reasonable.
True. I don't care if Blizzard gives someone's personal information to the police. Sorry it bothers you, that must be really annoying to you.
What bothers me is that your bogus rationalizations get traction.
You spew stupidity you deserve to get rebutted.
In all of your posts in this topic you've only been intellectually honest just once - the time you said you want life to be easy for the cops. Everything else you've said has just been cover for that one very unamerican belief. If you had started out with that honest statement you never would have had to squirm around defending bad logic, I would have told you to move to China or North Korea where they share your beliefs and be done with it.
In the U.S., subpoenas are issued by the courts to compel witnesses to testify. Note though, that's the courts, not law enforcement. A district attorney will typically obtain a subpoena during the process of bringing a case to trial. Here, if I received a "subpoena" from a police officer with no district attorney's phone number on it, I'd suspect it was just a meaningless piece of paper.
Note that in this very case the cop did get a legitimate subpoena - he was just in the wrong country so it had no force on Blizzard (hence the cop's own description of it as a nicely worded request).
And I could call you a moronic, braindead wannabe tool, but that doesn't make it true.
I've just been putting a name to your actions. If you tried to apply the label of 'tool' to me that would be demonstrably false. There is a clearcut definition of tool - apologist for a corporation or other organization - surprising how that's kind of a synonym for bootlicker, useful idiot seems appropriate too. The only one of us that has demonstrated an affinity for that behavior here has been yourself.
Are you still convinced of your interpretation of Blizzard's privacy policy?
Are you still convinced of your interpretation? You've done nothing but preen in your ignorance of the actual wording.
If you take them to court, I guarantee that their lawyers left enough wiggle room in that thing to let them out of this.
Of course they have "wiggle room," the freaking privacy policy is non-binding and they reserved the right to change their ToS at the drop of a hat anyway. You went from claiming they were "upfront" to now believing that the legalistic phrasing somewhere in the document has given them "wiggle room." Congratulations on a perfect demonstration of what it means to be a tool.
If you really have problems with the way the police operate, you need to convince other people to agree with you, so things can change.
Broken record, record, record. How many times have I told you that your baloney about changing society is a total red herring now? ... you ... keep ... on ... bringing ... it ... up.
But
Its like you can't even connect the dots in your own posts - you go on and on about Blizzard's privacy policy giving them a free pass and then you hop right on over to defending the police against an argument no one has made.
You might want to read this formal fallacy.
You might want to apply basic logic:
My Premise: Those who believe in A are the strongest supporters of policies that destroy A.
AC's Rebuttal: Not true, see book B praising A.
My Repsone: Z is apparently a huge fan of book B and he's a huge supporter of polices that destroy A, ergo AC has just brought to light that Z fits my premise to a T.
Do you now understand why the association fallacy has nothing to do with my point?
I am working on the very periphery of the problem, designing equipment to measure the properties of hot radioactive molten fluoride... Clearly one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and neutron fluxes !
So... hows the neutron flux capacitor coming along? I think once that's taken care of buffering radioactive molten flouride should be a cinch!
I'm not sure what point you think has been "proven,"
Glenn Beck is rabidly isolationist and a major terror-monger - precisely the kind of attitudes that have produced the massive headache for foreign engineering and science students to come to the USA and foreign engineers and scientists to work in the USA. Hence the proving my assertion that the most heavily jingoist are also the biggest contributors to our country's loss of prestige.
The rest of your response is such a ridiculously knee jerk paranoiac ranting that all it does is reinforce just about every stereotype you are trying to dispute. And for the record, I have never voted for a democrat or green or any other left-leaning party in my life, so your attempt to characterize me as part of the 'Left' cracks me up.
umm, yes, please show me where i said you said it was illegal?!
When you wrote "there is no law" implying that I had claimed somebody broke the law; or are you going to be a twat now and say "but, but, but I didn't use the word 'illegal'?"
why should the police have to get a subpoena first, wasting court time and tax payers money? i'd much rather they try just writing a polite letter first which costs 45c.
Holy shit, there you got AGAIN arguing some point that nobody gives a shit about.
What part of, "it's about respecting your customers," suggests that I am attacking the police?
slaves and "dhimmis" in islam, slaves and non-buddhists in buddhism, dalits in hinduism, ..
AAAAH! Now I remember you! You ARE completely off your rocker. You are one of those dhimmi-wannabes - believing only the worst possible interpretation despite all evidence to the contrary so as to feel justified in your hatred. Just another freaking extremist nutjob. Impressive that you were able to get a couple of posts out before revealing your own personal insanity.
To be a good moral guardian, the law/police/... does not need to be perfect. It needs to be better than average. It needs to catch more criminals that John Q. Public does. It needs to prevent more crimes than an average very, very non-special American does.
Wow, its like you are channeling Vic Mackey. That is nearly his character's exact rationalization for all the shit he pulled - as long as things balance out better than if he was not there at all then all the shit he pulled was just fine. As the wikipedia article quotes, the actor who played the character of Mackey thought of him as a cross between Hannibal Lecter and Dirty Harry.
In case it's not clear, simply being better than average is far too low a bar.
And quite frankly, I have little illusions about the morality of the police force. But I am absolutely convinced they do better than you.
Which is an entirely bogus requirement. As the saying goes - one does not need to be a baker in order to know that the bread is stale.
UN soldiers get to rape, or kill Israelis through stupidity or outright malice, without reprecussions in New York
Where in the world did you get that from? Nobody gets to rape or kill anyone in New York without repercussions. I don't think UN soldiers have even been deployed to New York, much less gone out raping and killing. Making claims like that just signal to everybody that you are totally off your rocker.
- It is simply impossible to have a rational debate on an issue like this in the US of A. Any and all rational voices are outscreamed by an army of pundits, lobbyists and politicans screaming about death camps (srsly, wtf?)
Mostly this. But I can shed light on the "death camp" - actually "death panel" - thing.
It's an exaggeration of the realization that we don't have infinite resources. Somebody, somewhere is going to have to say "no" when some terminally ill person wants some exceptionally high-priced treatment that has some limited chance of sucess. Hence the people deciding to say "no" have been stylized as a "death panel."
What's rabidly stupid about that attitude is that under the current system of private health insurance these "death panels" rule against people all the time. We have them today, and given what little choice most people have when it comes to private health insurance (you basically take what your employer offers or you go without) it is hard to see the situation getting any worse under some nationalized system. Not that I expect it to get better either, I think that aspect will probably be a wash, but that's just my personal opinion.
To make things more confusing, the part of the legislation the death panel hypsters cite doesn't even have anything to do with refusing care. It's some language about "end of life counseling" - getting a shrink in there to help the terminally ill die with dignity and grace and maybe a cpa or somebody to help insure their affairs are in order. And, get this, the exact same language is in the legislation that defines the current medicare system, been there for years, maybe even decades. They just cut-n-pasted into the new legislation because they were basing it in large part on the medicare model. (medicare is the name of a big program in the USA that is kinda sorta like socialized healthcare for the old and kids who are poor).
And, for what little it's worth nowadays, my opinion is that socialized healthcare is the exact wrong direction to be taking. We need to get back to a situation where each patient is directly affected by/responsible for the cost of treatment. I believe that the reason costs have spiraled out of control is the fundamental disconnect between the cost of treatment and the benefit to the person receiving it. Except for emergency care we ought to be shopping on value, but we don't. Instead we try to get as much treatment as possible for the premiums and copays - like gorging on food at an all-you-can-eat buffet. The doctors don't mind over-testing, it helps prevent them from getting sued if they can show that they tested for everything under the sun (aka defensive medicine). I can see socializing catastrophic insurance and maybe even a voucher-like system for the desperately poor to cover routine medicine. But the routine and non-emergency stuff needs to come back under the direct fiscal control of the people receiving the treatments. Socializing it will just further the disconnect between the costs and the benefits resulting in the prices just going up even faster.
Really?! Read the 5000 year leap, and then feed me that BS line.
Given the fact that Glenn Beck seems to be the #1 tout for that book, I think you just proved my point.
Though, there's a reasonable chance that it will to be honest. Doesn't mean we're all American though ;-)
Actually, it kinda does. The same way using those arabic numerals means we are all a little bit arab.
Now it's quite difficult for someone with a PhD to get a visa to work in the USA (unless they're just transferring within the same multinational company) and the desire to work in America is significantly lowered by the insane anti-terror legislation,
It's sad really, the most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same rabid supporters of the policies that are destroying it.
I am saying one thing - the presence of female political and business leaders doesn't mean jack squat about the amount of gender parity in the general population because for every example in a liberalized country one can find an example in a repressive country. Capiche?
before someone else says it: yeah I know hk$ is not yuan, but its real close...
Thanks. That makes sense. Sort, of. His numbers are totally off though. Anyone who has been to HK or any other big city in China knows 1 yuan is not worth even close to 1 dollar in terms of what you can buy.
Well, though people do tend to gloss over the fine details in things like EULAs and Terms of Service, it's not as if Blizzard is hiding anything from its users. From the WoW Terms of Use:
Except that Blizzard also has a published privacy policy, referenced multiple times in this topic already, that reduces the scope of the requests of when they will hand that information over to a very limited set of cases and this situation - that of a 2 year old crime of the sale of drugs like steroids - is not in that list of cases.