Let's put the apostrophe in its rightful place first though, eh?

You have no choice over the OS you use on your work laptop, but have free reign over which free not-for-commercial-use AV you use? How odd...

Oh dear oh dear... (Woooooosh, and all that)

With Indian programmer's what?

No my point was simply that unless you *know* that the results shown in the instant search are only a subset of the ones you'd get if hitting enter, it's (perhaps semi-unintentional) censoring the results. When you simply get no results and have to hit enter to see anything at all, fair enough - but in the example I quote, it's unreasonable to assume that everyone would realise that the results for "murder" are any different to "murder + CRLF"

Yes, in some cases - FTFA:

Yes that does make sense, but whilst the lottery result you quote is a one-off event with unlikely results, the (G?)GP's post indicated that people cheating an imperfect Kino machine were caught early doors because the ratio didn't match. If the aim of the machine is simply to have hard-coded probabilities that by their nature will cause the payout level over infinite time to be, say, 97% then a payout level of 105% over a week, or even two weeks just isn't necessarily cause for concern - ditto the period where the payout level is 90% What I'm meaning is that in a constantly repeated series of non-rigged probability-based games being played, on what grounds could you say 'this is being cheated' given that the payout ratio must by definition vary all over the place?

Well then that's directly at odds with the GP's post - that 'rogue' wins can be detected because they fall outside the target payout ratio limits

Batteries are...

Oh I hardly think that likely...

No, they deal with lawsuits>

Mr Ballmer wakes in a sweat in the middle of everynight...

As is the case in the UK. I don't know about any other places, naturally, but certainly here one could trace any vote back to the person who cast it

But that's it, they don't have you by the balls. If it was your oxygen supply, they'd have you by the balls. As it is, it's a (highly priced) luxury consumer item you don't need.

There's a difference between wanting something and the supplier having you by the balls - the latter requires that it's essential you have it, which isn't the case for this or any other game.

Perhaps the issue is with them flying at 2,000ft to get a signal...