I'm pretty sure that first paragraph is false. Until I explicitly agree to a contract, or "terms and conditions", I am not bound by anything. If a site I navigate to embeds content from another website I am not immediately bound by the terms and conditions of that neclsred site, to think otherwise would invite madness.
Not to mention the fact that terms and conditions are not contracts. I don't think they carry the same weight, although someone please correct me on this if I am incorrect.
Plaintiff: “Judge, when the defendant used my public website, a contract with me was implicitly made”
Judge: “what defendant? There is no one here.”
Plaintiff: “Oh he was anonymous, so I am not sure who it was…”
Judge: “Hmm interesting, so you seem to think an implicit contract exists that you want to enforce with no documentation at all with a party you can’t name, because you are not sure who it is?”
Plaintiff: “Exactly.”
Judge: “Feel free to come back when you aren’t going to waste the court’s time”
This clear instance of reductio ad absurdum is wholly non-analogous. Factually inaccurate court proceeding depictions and legal misunderstandings aside, for one thing, the non-hypothetical defendant’s identity is well-known in this specific instance.
Interesting. I would have thought that someone with the ability to craft such a sesquipedalian response would also have been capable of understanding irony.
While I appreciate your nod to my writing (I have a mutual appreciation, I might add, for your Soliloquising), again, none of the data obtained was public.
A high school friend (2 decades ago) told a teacher that the system keeping track of student grades was vulnerable to attack. The teacher asked the student to demonstrate by attacking the system and adjusting one of his test scores down by 1 point. My friend obliged, and the teacher reported the vulnerability to the administration. An administrator threatened my friend with expulsion, but when he proposed to go public with his story in response, they decided they wouldn't expel him. The resolution was "please don't tell anyone", and the vulnerability was never fixed.
It’s common, a friend almost got expelled for reporting a flaw in the universities ID card system. That friend did not brake anything, they did not sneak into any protected spaces. Just discovered and validated a flaw and then reported it.
I think this is a good idea, but in no way should it be the only restrained game. Others could be time restraints (total time per game and/or total time per move), depth restraints (if they both work off of BFS/similar), and probably many other restraints that those more familiar with the engines can come up with.
Most chess games are already time constrained (though a ref can call it if someone in a non-winning position is trying to run out the opponents clock)
[edit]
I was imperfectly remembering the rules. If it is theoretically impossible (even with blunders on the player who is out of time's part) for the player with time left to win, then it is a draw.
In addition, a player with less than 2 minutes on the clock may request a draw; see Article 10.2 which includes this subsection:
> a. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
I'm not super into chess, but I was under the impression that running out the clock was a totally legitimate tactic. I'm surprised to hear that a referee has discretion to end the game based on it.
The issue is when positions are completely equal and there is no reasonable way to progress. It might still be technically possible to win in such positions, but it would require someone to make extremely bad moves and almost certainly lose. If there is no rule that forces draws in such positions, then players will just keep moving pieces without purpose until either someone's time runs out or 50 moves without capture / threefold repetition happens.
An arbiter 100% cannot stop a game because of that. Time management is part of the game in speed chess anyway, and for longer time controls there is usually a delay/increment so running out the clock in a clearly lost position isn't viable.
I slightly misremembered; the player stops the clock and calls the arbiter; if the arbiter agrees that their opponent is not attempting to win by normal means, the arbiter may award a draw. There is a 2 minute bonus to the opponent if the arbiter disagrees with the player making this claim.
I am not a chess player but I have never heard of referees stopping the game if you don't "give up" in a losing position and have extra time. That sounds ridiculous but I would love to know if it applies in certain tournaments and the reasoning behind it.
You are allowed to keep thinking as long as you have time on your clock. Isn't really considered good sportsmanship but is legal.
Recent instances I saw was an adult was in an almost-lost position with over an hour on the clock while his opponent had 10 minutes. He let his clock run down to nothing and then played quickly before finally let the clock run to zero in a lost (mate in 2) position. He got mocked for this in the local forums.
Also common for a kid to do a blunder and then sit there sad/crying for an hour. You try to encourage them to resign though.
All fun ideas, but power draw and/or hardware cost limits seem essential for a fair game whereas depth limits and no castling are rather just interesting experiments.
Also, time limit doesn't seem that different from a power draw limit if you're a computer.
I can answer some of these... keep in mind this perspective is from the Android ecosystem, where I was able to get a similar system working.
1. Apps can be running in the background. I'd say its more common than you think
2. You need to provide location permissions (either the ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION or ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION). It seems like every app requests these permissions anyway, so not a red flag just on its own.
3. Something scanning for a WIFI devices has no way (easily) to coorelate those addresses back to a user. With this bluetooth low energy method, the users own phone is the one who reports the detection back to {company}'s servers, so it can pass along any/all other information it has about you. Their location accuracy is also pretty crazy (radius is within centimeters if they've done it well).
4. Bluetooth low energy is actually crazy easy to set up, see here for more...
https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/connectivity/blue...
To me there is a difference between what you describe, where hardware deployed in stores collect detected bluetooth signatures, and what this article describes, which is YOUR OWN DEVICE reporting on your movements.
I actually implemented a nearly identical system for my senior design project, except we targeted the smart home ecosystem. Basic use cases would be automatically turning on/off lights or having a music stream/temperature preference/... follow you as you move throughout your house and enter/leave rooms. All implemented by an app on your phone detecting strategically placed beacons.
Haha I did a very similar thing for mine - it was using these to replace clock in systems for hourly workers, no more need to clock in or out, the app would auto detect when you entered/left the building
Not to mention the fact that terms and conditions are not contracts. I don't think they carry the same weight, although someone please correct me on this if I am incorrect.