I think it's arguable, because that act is not a skill, and there's not a whole lot of variation in how well people do it. I think winning involves the purely mental act of being first to notice that the just-drawn ball completes your bingo, and that the placement of the marker comes after, just to keep track before the next round starts.

Yes, it's a sport. A stupid, boring, incredibly lame sport, but...

Well, let's see... There has to be some kind of physical skills involved. Check. There has to be some kind of scoring system in place by which one can observe the participants and objectively declare a winner. Check.

Or, in other words: Bowling is a sport. Figure skating is not. Video games are.

??? Apparently you do not realize that CA has some of the strongest laws in the nation restricting non-compete agreements. CA is actually the least likely state in the country for Amazon to win this.

Where I live the county government describes it to new residents this way: "The two weeks of summer are bracketed by one week each of spring and fall. The rest is winter."

shitpisscuntcocksuckermotherfuckertits

(Did I get that right???)

I had one that when I informed how that I knew how the scam worked, assured me that it was not a scam. When I continued to refuse, but did not hang up just because I was curious, he got really authoritative with me and ORDERED me to do what he was telling me to. Lord, did I curse then.

Well, I'll give you an example--which does not apply in this case, but it is an example. Suppose that a company owes you money, suppose they got into that situation by deception (lying about their ability to pay). Suppose further that you discover that they intend to thwart any collection activity by moving their assets out of the country as soon as you go to court to get a judgment, because, say, they tell you exactly that: "if you try to sue us, we'll just move our assets out of the country!"

In that case, you can file for an ex-parte hearing to get a writ of attachment and have the sheriff show up at their offices with a moving van, completely unannounced. Now, the thing is, if you present false information to the court to obtain that order, you have put yourself on the hook for any and all damages you cause to the business by showing up and taking their stuff, so it's really not a wise idea to do this unless they actually owe the money, and you actually have the evidence that they intend to engage in hiding assets from the court.

Generally, ex-parte hearings are exceptional, and to prevail in one you first have to convince the judge that it would proper. Only after doing that, does it proceed as if the other side hasn't shown up. I suspect that either the judge made a serious mistake here, or Microsoft seriously mis-represented the situation. If Microsoft filed an affidavit with knowingly false information, then owners of NO-IP should be hearing cash registers in their dreams...

I will gouge my eyes out with a rusty fork!

Something I only learned yesterday, Heymann (Ortiz's boss) had done it before a couple of years prior to Swartz--hounded a 16 year-old with heavy-handed charges until the kid put a bullet through his brain.

OK, how about blaming them for such overzealous prosecution of such minor crimes, that it had cost him over $1,000,000 before the trial began. Can we blame them for that? (And fuck only knows how much of the taxpayers' money those clowns spent on their side...)

Did you think about that before you wrote it? If not, take a second and think about it.

There are many, many, many things they cannot do with their site.

This study appears to have taken federal funds...

There are laws governing obtaining informed consent from humans before performing psychological experiments on them. I doubt that a EULA can override them. This should be interesting...