You appear to have a poor understanding of gambling laws, at least as they stand in the United States. Please provide citations backing your hilarious claim.

Completely offtopic, but I thought I'd mention that I take issue with your sig (Ignorance is a choice). Ignorance is a not choice, but I do define stupidity as willful ignorance. There is a distinct difference.

Lots of providers block ICMP these days. I think it's a dumb practice, because nobody even tries to use ICMP for DDoS attacks anymore, and there are much more effective ways of taking out a host. Some hosts block ICMP because they actually believe doing so is equivalent to some kind of "cloaking" practice, which is worse from the perspective of trusting the host to know the first thing about security.

All this said, trusting ICMP for server monitoring over anything more than a LAN is a questionable practice at best, especially given the lower priority such traffic may be assigned on networks that do permit it. Monitor the services you're hosting instead.

It seems those getting the crap beaten out of them could benefit from ready access to firearms. Having known a few people with ties to Papua New Guinea, I can affirm the merit of your statement and add weight to the veracity of my own. Even given the potential for intrusions by similarly armed aggressors, people tend to think twice about such acts when the potential to be shot dead is significant.

Non technical users don't typically have the knowledge to even find the sort of forums you're referring to. Those that do are the ones referred to as "knowing just enough to be dangerous," but they're in the minority.

Please apply s/Sincere/Since/ to my last response, although I do mean it sincerely.

No reasonable person would consider your last response substantive. Sincere we appear to be at an impasse, I'll go ahead and write the letter to a handful of credit unions on our behalf. Do you have a preference for recipients?

For now, you're apparently unable to admit you're simply wrong on this, and have declined to provide a substantive response to my last post. I assume you're writing that letter to the board; please let me know when you receive their reply.

You're missing the point. For purposes of the scenario being described here, by proximity of appointments and reporting, federal credit unions are under closer executive branch control than banks are. I assure you, bank-related problems experienced by folks engaging in business pursuits deemed unlawful by the federal government are mirrored or possibly lessened in comparison to those experienced by credit union customers engaging in similar behavior. Don't believe me? Send a letter to the board of your credit union discussing intent to set up a marijuana dispensary and see what their response looks like.

Contrary to what you might like to believe, Chinese influence in Taiwanese companies is rampant and incredibly deep.

If the rest of the company's business decisions were that sound, somehow I'm not surprised they had trouble keeping things going.

Stockton is the record holder for the biggest city to go bankrupt, and with USD $900 million in pension obligations alone, it's a pretty nasty deal.

Trying to lean on emphasis that the city isn't that large is disingenuous; it is in fact the thirteenth largest city in California by population (out of 100), and California is a big state.

Credit unions in the United States, at least those which back deposits with a federal faith and credit guarantee, fall under the purview of the NCUA. Management of the board is a matter of federal appointment, and be assured that federal law can and will be applied at the whim of the Senate and executive administration. All this said, I "bank" with NFCU, and generally find my history with them to be much more pleasant than prior experience with banks.

The statements are not equivalent. Per my original post, the first statement is an affirmation of the Tooth Fairy's absence. The second statement is one of mere absence of belief, which is a separate logical construct with a different target. If I say "I believe 1 BTC will never be valued at USD $1000," the message conveyed carries different referential weight than the statement "I do not believe 1 BTC will be valued at USD $1000." The latter statement isn't affirming anything, instead conveying a message of mere present lack of belief; no valuation judgement is made. As for any feelings or lack thereof on the part of any supposed deity, I really couldn't offer an opinion either way.

It's really not the topic of discussion here, but perhaps it will help to understand that I am not a religious man.

Especially in terms of common literary devices and societal norms, that is absolutely what it means. There is a reason the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" are separate words, and they are not to be taken as synonyms in all but the most inexact of contexts. Therefore, to attempt to subvert this reality for the sake of imposition of your particular personal interpretation of these words in general conversation is to hazard being misunderstood.

Replying to my own post for purposes of clarification; please substitute "agnostic" for "atheist" in the first sentence. The balance of the post stands.