Today's Numbers: 17 42 69 ^H ^H ^H 256
Gannoc writes "An
article at MSNBC tells of the internet gambling ban heading to the house floor. The interesting part of this article explains that American ISPs will be required to block access to all Internet gambling sites, from lists provided to them by American law enforcement agencies. Does this set a dangerous precident for free speech on the internet?" Well, as I read it the bill, only the ISP hosting the site would be required to take it down, no ISP would have a general duty to block access. It's still very similar to Australian censorship laws passed last year, especially in its DMCA-like requirement that the censorship must occur immediately when the notice is received, before any court hearing, which is unconstitutional prior restraint of speech. My question is simple: what's the difference between illegal gambling and state-sanctioned lotteries?
Re:Stop imposing your morals on me. (Score:2)
That's cultural. Orientals believe in predestination; so if they believe that they will win, nothing will stop them from gambling.
* * *
Reminds me of the last time the jehovah witness came to my place. I knew they were coming, 'cause I saw them bang on my neighbour's doors, then heard the same doors slam soon enough afterwards. Turns out that I was just about to take my shower, so when they rang the door, I answered them naked, and when they turned around, I just followed them on the street, until the corner, still naked.
They never came back.
I whish we had baptists here, so I could do the trick again on them...
--
Here's my mirror [respublica.fr]
Re:OT, but who wants Karma anyways? (Score:2)
just handing her the cash up front and jumping directly into bed?"
The difference is that the date, dinner, movie, etc. ususally ends with a "Let's Just Be Friends" instead of "going to bed."
Nice guys sleep alone...
What if... (Score:2)
As to the main question, government likes to play vice lord so they can tightly control business prone to corruption. Gambling, liquor and drugs. Unfortunately government is just a succeptable to corruption. See the FLA lotto where the government lied and told their constituents that money derived through the lotto would be used to bolster public education, not as a tool to cut school budgets. A year later they cut the education budget claiming the lottery revenue more than made up the difference. ex:
Taxes->Education
Taxes+Lotto->Better education
and what really happened
Newtaxes=(Oldtaxes-Lotto)+Lotto->Same old education
Legislators count on the public being stupid and gullible. Same thing has happened in many states. Can't wait till they go after lotto like they did tobacco. Talk about addiction. Stop by 7-11 sometime and wait in line behind the 20 people lined up to buy lotto tickets with the money they got by cashing
Re:Let's ban everything and get it over with (Score:2)
They're not making blanket statements like that. They're saying "online gambling's illegal, so let's ban online casino's". It's a direct cause and effect sort of thing, like saying that "automatic weapons are illegal, so let's ban automatic weapons"... Restating the obvious.
American laws are null and void outside of your borders. It pisses me off when people forget that. This isn't about domistic online casinos, because those are subject to the laws of your country. This is about international sites. To carry your analogy forward, it's like congress banning AK-47's in South Africa. Do you think that will do anything?
There is no free speech issue associated with the barring of gambling sites and fining the operators of those sites if they accept wagers from Americans. If you don't like the laws here, just leave....
THIS ISN'T ABOUT AMERICAN SITES. You cannot legislate for other countries - your laws are null and void. Did you read the article? You, as an american, can do jack squat to stop me (in a country where my online site is legal) from taking money from you. If the legal age of consent and majority in a country is 14, there's nothing stopping me from selling you haRdc0r3 of a 14 year-old. Possessing that material in the US a completely different matter.
The difference is just that: you have to leave the country, or at least go to specific areas of the country where gambling is allowed in order to gamble. They're not going after Vegas, Atlantic City, or any of the Indian reservations. They're going after companies that operate outside of thsoe strict confines.
It would be an interesting legal precentent to see if surfing a web site of a foreign country allows you to be governed by their content laws. I don't think one exists currently. IANAL, either.
Re:Let's ban everything and get it over with (Score:4)
Re:Hardly. (Score:2)
Besides, if enough other countries hear us bitch and moan about how we should be able to trample their laws, they'll give us the well-deserved smack in the skull we have needed since the sixties.
Re:Slashdot is SICK AND TIRED of it! (Score:2)
Well, my friend, clearly you and I disagree on something.
That's not to say that I agree with even half the responses to this article. I don't. But, on the other hand, with the other responses, I have a clear idea of the reasons for the viewpoints that my peers have. I respect, read, contemplate, and maybe even change my own viewpoints based on their thoughts.
Or, I hit the reply key, and use my Vulcan logic, good keyboarding skills and brilliant intellect to attempt to make them see things from another perspective.
I'm still not sure what your perspective actually is, or how you feel that Darwinism doesn't work in a Slashdot context; therein lies my frustration.
Re:(Lotteries + the Poor) != Darwin && != Good (Score:2)
Nope. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying "No more free lunches". Why should I sweat and toil in the fields, grind the wheat, and bake the bread to feed those who are too busy gambling or shooting up heroin? (Of course that previous sentence was metaphorical, but it underscores the toil to make a living in a more direct fashion.)
If someone wants to help him/herself, I'll happily help that person. But those who don't make an effort, nah, screw 'em.
If that reduces the population of lazy people, derelicts, and those who aren't smart enough not to gamble away their grocery money, I see it as a positive thing for the future of humanity.
My point was NOT to say that increased population growth is good for the species (did you even READ my post?)Maybe you attempted to imply it in some socialist shorthand that is apparently too sophisticated for my feeble capitalist mind.
3) From where do people get this idea that electric cars are plugged in? My cousin actually wrote the book on Electric Cars. I know more about Electric Cars than I want to share. But the plug in thing is a total myth, perpetuated by ignorance... [OFF-TOPIC]Sure, this is off-topic, but I'm going to use it as a reference point to demonstrate how whacked-out you are.
An electric car will be powered by what? Batteries, right? Now, these can be either primary cells (disposeable) or secondary cells (rechargeable). Simple economics, let alone environmental consequences, dictate that these will be secondary cells.
Now, when you recharge your notebook computer or your cellphone (socialists *do* have those, right?), what do you have to do? You have to plug them in. Right? Right. This is because when the rechargeable battery has been exhausted, the only way to replenish its charge is to reverse the chemical reaction that took place while it was discharging. And, oddly enough, most secondary cells are replenished only through applying power.
So, it's *not* a fallacy to say that electric cars will be plugged in. Not while they're driving, of course, just when they're parked. The energy that you use when you're driving the car isn't free, you know. At that, it's a hell of a lot of energy. (746 watts = 1 horsepower.) And secondary cells are less than 50% efficient. The hydro distribution system is probably no more than about 40% efficient. This compares to the efficiency that has been achieved through the constant refinement of the internal combustion engine over the past 100 years: about 70%.
Your ignorance of basic physics and electrical engineering principles astounds me. One would think that you would have taken time to inform yourself.
Where do I speak from? What are my credentials? I work for a *big* defense contractor (the name rhymes with "kitten", and it used to have a division that sold microwave ovens and washing machines). Every last US Navy ship, every American and Canadian Coast Guard ship, and hundreds of civilian vessels have critical radar safety systems that I designed.
So, until you know something about electricity and can actually make intelligent statements about the relative merits of electric cars, I suggest you leave the discussion to those of us who understand electricity and electronics.
enough to feed and re-educate a few homeless folks. If you have enough money you can move away from the pollution, otherwise you can sleep on the street.Well, I work for a Canadian division of my company. Ya know what? Even though I've got lots of highly useful, highly valuable skills, I could probably make more money squeegeeing windshields at the corner of Yonge and Bloor Streets. The problem is not that I'm not paid enough. The problem is that as more people give to the derelicts, more people become opportunistic, and more of us who actually make a contribution to society end up getting harassed - either through taxation or a surly 19-year-old homeless kid banging his squeegee on the hood of my truck because I told him not to wash the windshield. If that's the kind of society you want to live in, great. Go colonize some little island somewhere. I'd rather these derelicts stopped getting handouts, and basic need for food drove them to get off their asses and get jobs.
I don't believe "working hard" is a fundamental human behavior.No. In the characteristic behavior of the cyclical arguer, you have absolutely blinded yourself to the reasonably clear point that I was making. It's exactly the opposite: laziness is fundamental to human behavior. Most people are lazy. If they don't need to work for something, they won't. Wasn't the Industrial Revolution entirely about building machines to give us more time to sit back and be lazy? (It's completely backfired, but that's another point entirely.)
Britain's finest minds, nobody offers *me* a permit to work in the EU...I'm a Canadian citizen who happens to have been born in Wales, part of the United Kingdom (it's where Tom Jones and Anthony Hopkins are from). Born to Canadian parents, I'm a full Canadian citizen, but what is known as a "Canadian Citizen born abroad".
By my dual (Canada/UK) citizenship, I'm therefore entitled to a full EU passport (though I have no interest in getting one, and so therefore haven't), as well as my Canadian passport.
American citizen? Approximately the same age as me with about the same physical dimensions? (6'3, 175 lbs, caucasian with brown hair and eyes) I have something you want, you have something I want, and I'm sure we can at least agree on that. We could do an identity swap quite easily! [jovial grin]
Quick, protect me from myself! (Score:5)
Re:Depends on scenario. (Score:2)
But if the signature is forged, how bad does the forgery have to be before they card merchant says, You got to be joking.
Why IS gambeling illegal? (Score:3)
I know two of the biggest reasons people demonize gambeling are because of
1) Mafia involvment
2) so called gambeling "addicts"
As far as #1 goes, would the mafia be involved if it was legal, NO. Now that booze is legal again is the mafia seriously involved, NO. They only provide services alot of people want that are for some bizzare reason illegal (hmm will the mob soon be distributing MP3's - mp3.mafia.com
And for the second, does anyone actually believe that gambeling is addictive in the clinical sense of the word? I thought to be truely addicted to something you had to have a chemical dependency of some kind. Wouldn't it be more accurate to call them gambeling obsessive? Anyway people that have these kinds of personalities will always find something to latch on to that will take over their lives. Hell I have one friend who has basically ruined his life because of Evercrack, he's broke, dropped (will been kicked out of) college and was fired from his tech job because of Evercrack. Does this mean we should outlaw massivley multiplayer games? No, just because a few people take an entertaining thing way too far (ever been to a bingo hall and seen the regulars, scary) doesn't mean we have to take it away from everyone else. People who have no self control or sense of proportion deserve what they get, if they ruin their lives in the process it's their own damn fault.
I must admit that my experiance with gambeling of any kind has been limited to one trip to a bingo hall (there's two hours of my life i'll never get back) and a trip to a casino in the bahama's a couple months ago. I lost $100 playing blackjack inside of an hour. That was my gaming budget for the trip and I never went back. Quite frankly I don't see what the big deal is.
Anyway, the whole concept of a few self rightous hypocrits resticting the freedom of the rest of the country just pisses me off. I esp love that comment by Gore "...allows gambeling to invade the home" that statement makes it sound that if the US Government doesn't step in to protect us the online casino's are going to brainwash us with AOL spam and force our childern into a life of sin and indentured servitude, just like the pornographers. Why the hell does congress care how I spend my money, be it on computer parts, drugs, sex, 20 minutes of saying "hit me" "hold", or pulling the lever of a slot machine, or placing an internet bet that "lucky lady susie the swift" will place third in the first race tommorow ect... Hell it's not like they havn't already stolen their cut out of my pay before I even see it, shit they are more of a danger to my hard earned dollars than any casino, at least there I can choose what useless services to spend my money on, the Fed doesn't even give me that right.
Ok I'm done ranting now, must remember to breath.
Lowest Common Denominator (RANT) (Score:2)
I suspect that the reason this continues is that it is actually how laywers and politicians reproduce. If the dumbasses started getting killed off by their actions, we'd start seeing fewer politicians and lawyers. On our current course, we'll eventually all be politicians or lawyers, and then the species will die out, unable to even reproduce because of the entanglement in legality that would involve.
If you don't believe that such devolution can occur, keep in mind that poodles came from wolves.
State Sanctioned Lottery (Score:5)
ie...its "State Sanctioned".
The government just hates it when private citizens try to "muscle in" on their "turf" you know.
Re:Let's ban everything and get it over with (Score:2)
Similarly, it should be illegal to transfer network data which carries out illegal activity into the US. There is no difference between bringing drugs into the US and replying to network traffic which is requesting to place illegal bets into to the US
So, then, speedy, how do you want to handle MP3s, VCDs, warez, etc ad nauseam? Set up government FBI monitoring stations with absolute authority, and ban encryption? If transferring illegal content is the responsibilty of the ISP as you state, then there is going to be no more internet. Do you know what "common carrier" means? This isn't just about illegal gaming, which was my point! What's next, the list of mp3 servers and warez sites? How do you propose law enforcement determine what is illegal? Or who is accessing it?
I am under no obligation to check to see if when you order something it is legal in YOUR country. That is YOUR responsibility. I'll take your money and ship it. If it's legal in my country, it's not my problem. Since YOU are the person in the US, this is YOUR problem. American law stops at the border. If drugs are legal in amsterdam, I could ship you pot - it wouldn't be illegal for me to mail it (subject to the local laws). It is illegal for you to pick it up. Because you're in the US. Likewise, it would be legal for you to buy and fly back - the ILLEGAL part happens when you enter american territory.
I most certainly "get it". That's why I didn't move to the US like all of my friends after they graduated.
Re:Let's ban everything and get it over with (Score:2)
I can answer that one: (1) to be seen as doing something, or (2) to satisfy some group of campaign donors. A politician can stand before the voters and say, "I sponsored a bill to end the scourge of [Online Gambling | Child Porn | Cotton in Aspirin Bottles | The Concern Of The Moment]. He can also tell some pressure group that he's done something about whatever the hell it is that puches their buttons. It's done all the time, and for just these cynical reasons. Of course, there are some zealots who actually believe in what they're pushing, but I think most of the politicos who vote for measures like these are just using it as window-dressing for election time, or so they can tell their campaign donors that they've done something for them.
Re:This ban should be upheld. (Score:3)
> this bill is ill-conceived and impractical. I
> think that it's far more important that
> something be done about the sin and
> family-destroying habit of gambling.
Even if "something" is at best an empty and ineffective gesture?
If history has shown one thing, it is this...if a large group of people want something, then it is impossible to stop them from getting it.
Look at alcohol prohibition of the 1920s. Some people felt it important to "Do something about the sin and fammily-destroying habit of..." drinking alcohol.
The problem: The masses want to drink alcohol.
The result: Criminal elements provide alcohol. Unregulated black markets spring up, bringing violent turf wars and all the associated ills of the black market with them.
Access to alcohol becomes easier for children, who previously couldn't get it...so much so that entire schools had to be closed down due to mass student drunkeness!
Is this an isolated subject? The SAME scenario is happening this very day under the name "The War on Drugs". Should we expect gambling to be any different?
Face it...the unwashed masses (or at least a large enough percentage of them) WANT to gamble. ALL you can do is try to reduce the harm associated with gambling by letting them do it legally, and try to educate them about gambling and its dangers. Anything else simply makes the situation worst.
Of course...this is a lesson that our society has yet to actually learn. Maybe someday it will sink in that you can't just hand down rules from on high and have society suddenly change fundamentally to respect these new rules.
Politicians just don't get it (Score:2)
Re:Why IS gambeling (sp) illegal? (Score:2)
Actually they are, notice that since we repealed the Volstead act the Mob has almost no hand in the production or distribution of alchohol, they simply can't compete with legitiment businesses (at least not at the level of profit they are used to) The Mafia's business model has always been to use violence (or the threat of) to become the monopoly supplier of some illegal good that people still demmand.
Re:illegal gambling versus state sanctioned lotter (Score:2)
It would be nice if this were true, but the sad fact is that its not. Even though money from the lottery is earmarked for certain items like education the money that education was originally getting is not dedicated in the same way. This means that when the budget is made, lottery money is used for education, and their normal budget is reduced by a corresponding amount.
My only beef with it is that they promote the lottery as a way of getting rich. They should have to do some public service messages saying how much more likely it is to make you poor.
Maybe that is where they could spend the money that they make from the lottery.
Estimates (Score:2)
sulli
Illegal??? (Score:3)
Why not ban all advertising on cruise ships that have gabling?
There is a simpler solution that is already being implemented. Don't require payment of gambling debts on credit cards. There has been a couple of court cases where the charges for these on-line gambling sites been reversed. If they can't get paid for people who lose money on their sites, they will have an incentive to control themselfs.
Re:(Lotteries + the Poor) != Darwin && != Good (Score:2)
Dangerously different viewpoints, but you've proven yourself to be a worthy adversary (even if you are just wrong).
:)
Yeah, we might be able to switch ID's (I'm a 6'7 brown haired, brown eyed dude...) but I'll spare the other details since I don't want to turn slashdot into an online dating service...Oh my god, you *did* sound like a sister!
As in, "Go West"; as in, Dupont Circle; as in too many Madonna CDs... While I'm highly atypical, I too am a sister. Drop me an e-mail!
NEVER LOSE AGAIN! My lucky numbers: 4 15 79 (Score:2)
The difference is simple: "illegal" gambling allows an individual to become wealthy through the stupidity of others, whereas state-sanctioned lotteries ensure that money lost by idiots goes to the state.
--
Special Interests and Puritanism stop innovation (Score:2)
-B
A view from the other side (Score:2)
Note: I speak only for myself, not Totalbet, The Tote, SportingLife or anyone else.
Re:illegal gambling versus state sanctioned lotter (Score:2)
I think that people buy lottery tickets in pretty good conscience because it's going for a good cause, it's legal, and there's a tiny little itty-bitty chance that they may get rich. Considering all that, it's not all that bad after all. If they promote it as a way to get rich, it's because they are catering to a very basic human nature: greed. You could always count on people to be greedy. This is one thing that I think may never change. After all, isn't that the foundation of Capitalism?
Re:illegal gambling versus state sanctioned lotter (Score:2)
As far as religion, I would say I don't think religion has anything to do with gambling. If your religion prohibits you from gambling, that's great for you, but that doesn't affect me. The government will never pass laws against gambling because of religion, because that's unconstitutional. The only way your religion can get laws passed to outlaw religion is through the machinery of democracy and the persistence of your religion - meaning, if your religion became the dominant religion in the country, and everyone in your religion votes to outlaw gambling. I'd be willing to accept that, but to directly say that because gambling is against your religion and therefore it offends you, I say, so what? What I do is my business. If I offend you, tough. As long as I don't break any laws, I don't see it as a problem.
Re:Not really ISP's + Airlines & gambling (Score:2)
OBTW: Last time I checked though, it was a favorite dodge of cruise lines to start a cruise, sail into international waters, and then fire up the blackjack tables.
Re:illegal gambling versus state sanctioned lotter (Score:2)
Re:Let's ban everything and get it over with (Score:2)
You know the idea, you don't appreciate something until it's gone. You don't know sweetness until you've tasted the bitter. American enjoy gambling that much more because throughout most of the country, it is illegal. Isn't it great?
Please Post the bill data! (Score:2)
If I did my research correctly, this is bill number H. R. 3125. Go to the Thomas site [loc.gov] at the Library of Congress and enter that in as a search parameter.
Re:Stop imposing your morals on me. (Score:2)
Yeah, and people who don't like smoking should just stop.
And people who are just desparate for their next fix, spending their welfare dollars on crack should just stop.
It's an addiction for people. Even if they know it's stupid, they can't stop.
While I agree with your sentiment on some things, sometimes people do need to be protected from themselves.
Unless you like a relentlessly darwinistic sort of society. In that case, maybe you think we should get rid of welfare, medicare, and the rest.
The weak, and the dumb, and the addicted, and the suicidally hopeless can just suffer or die. After all, we wouldn't want to interfere with anyone's freedom, would we?
Personally, I don't like the idea. Sometimes, imposing morals on people is good for them. What do you think laws are, anyway?
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Stop imposing your morals on me. (Score:2)
Okay. Then, by your numbers, 30% of all men in Hong Kong are stupid. You said it, not me.
Listen, I think gambling is about the best way of wasting your money that exists on the face of this earth. (Short of buying Metallica CDs.)
Now, whether or not gambling is addictive isn't my concern. I just really don't like the idea of setting the precedent that government knows more than individuals. Somewhere, shortly after crossing that line, you also cross the line dividing a government that serves the people from a people that serve the government.
As for your moral objections to gambling, while you feel that gambling is repugnant, I feel that imposing your morals on others is at least equally repugnant. Not everybody feels that gambling is evil and nasty. If people are stupid enough to want to gamble, and can't control their impulses to wager money, too bad. That's their problem.
Simply, if you don't like gambling, don't do it.
A good parallel would be the Howard Stern Radio Show. Many people would love to see Howard Stern legislated from the airwaves. That's incredibly dangerous, because that legislation actually erodes freedom of speech. A better solution, if you don't like Stern, is just not to tune the radio to any station that airs the Howard Stern show. If enough people do it, the capitalist system will serve as a great controlling body: the ratings will drop and the show will be cancelled. All without writing your Congressman with dangerous ideas that would restrict one of the most important rights in free countries.
I did notice your "family-destroying" description of gambling. I'd suggest that any family "destroyed" by gambling was broken anyway. Further, the use of "family-destroying" as an adjective conjures up images of various representatives of the Christian Right banging on my door and attempting to impose their morals on me or to entice me to go to church.
Ever have a bus full of Baptists stop in your driveway to try to pick up one more before going to the church? The line that was supposed to sell me on going to church was "We need good folk to help stop abortions".
Now, I think abortions are pretty nasty, and that there are usually valid alternatives (like adoption, or simply planning ahead), but I also don't want the government's fingers in any more pies (Bad enough they got a low-flush toilet into my house). Nor do I want to restrict the freedom of others. My response was simply, "Don't like abortions? Then don't have one!" Then I told them if their bus wasn't removed from my driveway in under 30 seconds, I'd have them cited for trespassing, and slammed the door.
Come on, man, it was a Sunday morning. I was sleeping off a long night of playing with my new DSL connection! Isn't the prime concept of Christianity to "do unto others", essentially to live and let live?
Don't like internet gambling? Then don't do it. Don't like pornography? Then don't buy it. Don't like homosexuality? Then don't go to gay bars. Don't like being unceremoniously told were you can shove your morals? Then don't attempt to impose them on others.
Love thy neighbor. Don't always agree with him/her, but don't always harass him/her. And give him/her the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making decisions.
Re:Yep (Score:2)
Re:illegal gambling versus state sanctioned lotter (Score:2)
The value of unity and efficiency is merely in making the society more efficient and stronger. From a nationalistic point of view (just beginning to be eroded toward obsoletion in today's Internet globalization), unity and efficiency is very important. More so in the U.S., because it is composed of people from such disparate backgrounds and nationalities. Other than that, I guess you're right.
I think you assume that if something is called education, then it is good, and more is better. But there are many ways to educate. Using behaviour modification is a bad way to educate.
I guess this depends on our definitions of education. By education, I mean anything that would enable learning - be it skills, knowledge, or anything else. Behavior modification? yeah, more or less, our behaviors DO get modified in education. But our behaviors are modified by everything around us. Our environment, our friends and family, TV, school, they are all powerful influences. The only way to make sure that education's behavior modification doesn't dominate is to dominate with something else - family. If you don't want any behavioral modification from a government backed system, you can. You'd just have to more or less isolate your children from other children and educate them yourself at home.
I think children naturally integrate into society. I don't think they need to be isolated, segregated, organized, and punished/rewarded into it.
This one, I have to disagree with. Children don't naturally integrate into society unless they learn the common basis of knowledge that systematic education provides. If they don't, then they will definitely be isolated, segregated, etc., because they will be "different". Not that it's ok anyway. But on this one, maybe it's again more of our lack of agreement on terminology.
By the way, I personally think that the "real" education starts at college. That is, I still hold firm to the belief that the twelve years of pre-college education is intended to homogenize, to teach us some skills, but mostly, how to communicate effectively and become a useful part of society. The government, acting as an extension of the people's will (albeit bias towards people with money) wants the people it governs to be cohesive. After all, the government depends on the people, and if the people are not united and cohesive, the society falls apart and the government topples, good or bad. I believe that it is in college that "differentiation" occurs. It is in college that we are truly taught to think critically. Do I agree with it? Not necessarily, I just think that it happens that way. Although I think very often, some children are treated to this at an earlier stage. The high school I went to was certainly like this (though I'm not saying it was successful in my case). A lot of the kids were very, very mature and independent, very purposeful, very bright. They made up their minds and are not at all afraid of being different or outspoken.
We must also realize that whether we like it or not, our society, through its educational system acting as a sieve, segregates children based on their abilities and achievements. We (the society) unconsciously (or consciously) believe that this is necessary so that we can fill the roles in our society with "suitable" candidates. That's why in education and academia, we govern by meritocracy. When this shows great disparities and people screams about lack of fairness, we perform educational welfare and promote mediocrity.
So the question is this: what's more important? The individual or the society? Both are important, but when thinking about ourselves, the individuals are more important. When thinking of others, society is more important. Behavioral modification is great when it keeps the society running smoothly but not when it comes to ourselves. Then it becomes dangerous and unreasonable.
Gee, I wish I made more sense above, but I hope you get what I'm trying to get at. Basically, the education system is the way it is because we (as a group, not as individuals) want it and need it that way. Like it or not, educational system aims at homogenization. Like it or not, the results (high school graduation) of the educational system is purposefully used to segregate the children as they are inducted into society. Like it or not, college is where we truly begin to learn how to "think", as I believe.
Re:Hardly. (Score:2)
What you have done is legal in the Netherlands, and what the americans did at the time was legal, lighting up in your coffee shop. What the americans did later was stupid and illegal.
Next time you set foot in the US, you are facing 10 years or more in a US prison.
I type this because I know one person this has happened, he gets released next year after the Dutch government brought pressure on the US. He'll have served 9 years in prison, even though he never sold drugs in the US. The idiots he sold to each got 25 years, and just got paroled after 10.
the AC
Re:Umm.. no (Score:2)
As a non-american who has to work regularly in the US, I can tell you that if havenco starts breaking american laws, their american employees have two choices:
- get a good lawyer before setting foot in the US again
- never leave havenco until they die
The US also regularly prosecutes non-americans for crimes committed outside of the US. Mostly its drugs and tax dodging. Gambling will be a large enough issue to get included on the hot list.
Once they get their hands on you, expect a long stay at their expense.
the AC
Lottery Defined (Score:2)
--
Biggest difference between gambling and lottery... (Score:2)
Illegal gambling provides MUCH better odds of winning.
-LjM
Re:What's the difference (Score:2)
Exactly, state regulation prevents that gambling gets too popular.In addition, the profits are a welcome addition to the state's income.
Gambling works really simple, as people are generally to stupid to realize that they are more likely to lose money than to win money when gambling running a gambling operation is really profitable. It gets more profitable when more people start to gamble. How do you get more people to gamble: you raise the possibility that they might win or you increase the amount of money that they get in the unlikely case that they win.
State regulation makes it possible to prevent that to many idiots lose their wages.
So that's the difference, or at least the underlying theory because in practice governments are to greedy to regulate in a proper way.
In either case, since I don't gamble, I prefer state regulation because that ultimately lowers the amount of tax I need to pay and maybe helps address some social problems as well. It's a win win situation either way.
Re:State Sanctioned Lottery (Score:2)
You know who is now trying to defend their 'turf' where gambling is concerned? American Indians (ok, Native Americans if you will, but I was born here too, so I qualify under that designation). California recently passed a ballot initiative to grant Indians the right to establish Vegas-style gambling casino in the state. And just today, I heard a radio commercial asking people to contact their congressbeing to combat the insidious eeeevil of internet gambling. A friend of mine in the advertising biz tells me the sponsoring group, with a nice name like "Concerned Citizens for Truth, Beauty, and the American Way" (sorry, I've now forgotten the real name, but it's equally saccarine) is backed by Indian casino interests. Guess they don't want the competition.
Re:State Sanctioned Lottery (Score:2)
The lottery does not help anyone. (except 1 in 20 billion.) Arrests help plenty.
--
Re:(Lotteries + the Poor) != Darwin && != Good (Score:2)
No, actually, you can't even remotely compare letting Darwinian Theory (nature) take its course to the actions of Hitler.
While it is true that smarter people tend to have smarter kids, there's no real proof that this is necessarily good for evolution under Darwin. For one thing, choosing population as a criteria for evolutionary success, it is not clear that intelligence is a good thing.Absolutely not. There are probably 100 billion cockroaches in this world. I'm sure few people (except the most incorrigible PETA-members) would suggest that they're a more advanced species than we are, simply based on sheer numbers. That's lunacy.
Increasing the intelligence of the overall population may result in less population growth (or even a population reduction), but is principally going to be advantageous in terms of quality of life for all of us.
Higher IQ people breed fewer children.Okay. And that's a bad thing how?
If anybody should be applauding this "sustainable" growth model, it should be a self-proclaimed socialist such as yourself. (After all, socialists are also the people pushing such follies as the "electric car" in the interests of sustainability. As an aside, how many nuclear power plants do you intend to build to power Los Angeles when all the commuters plug in their cars at night? How many Haz-Mat crews do you wish to train to deal with the toxic chemicals that will be spilled when potent batteries crammed into every square inch of an electric car rupture in a minor fender-bender? Socialists/environmentalists/vegetarians = idiots.)
(And our geniuses are bringing us much closer to armageddon than Forrest Gump ever would've.)Yup. And a lot closer to polio vaccinations, an end to diabetes, artificial ocular implants for the blind, lights at night, computers and other electronic means to communicate, and to fulfill the civilization-old yearning for the stars and distant planets...
With power comes responsibility. You're suggesting that power (intelligence) is always used irresponsibly.
Maybe it's because your good socialist conscience has been hanging around in union halls too long, working hard to make sure that the lowliest of janitor is unionized to the point where he costs his employer $21/hr for his oh-so-useful skills.
By this criteria, intelligence is bad for the species.Speaking as one who (unfortunately) lives in a socialist country (Canada), to a self-proclaimed socialist whose understanding of socialism is clearly based on hanging around silly little college focus groups rather than having actually been forced to live in a socialist land, I've gotta tell you, the biggest liability to the betterment of humanity is bleeding heart unrealistic people who espouse moral and political systems that can never actually work. They can stunt the economic growth of a country for decades. (Where would Russia be today if they'd never experimented with communism? Don't you think the average Russian would be better off? Isn't that what it's all about? What was Canada's last great accomplishment? In my books, it was the Avro Arrow, a supersonic fighter aircraft cancelled by Prime Minister Diefenbaker in the 1950s. That was the start of the Canadian downfall that today sees Canada's most skilled leaving the country, only to be replaced by third-world refugees who yearn for an easier passage into the United States.)
Socialism, like communism, is a great idea, but neither can ever work. Neither one rewards working hard, and neither one punishes laziness. And therefore neither one takes into account the most basic factors of human behavior.
Re:Stop imposing your morals on me. (Score:2)
Well, the Japanese also live in an earthquake zone, and yet they continue, after centuries of not getting the lesson, to build paper houses with stone roofs.
They're clearly not stupid, but their construction techniques make me avoid trusting my life to Japanese cars as much as possible.
Re:Quick, protect me from myself! (Score:2)
Right.
Why are drugs illegal - people should have the freedom to destroy their health, right?
Right, it's worth pointing out that people do destroy their health every time they walk outside without wearing sunblock (not to mention dozens of other daily activities).
Gambling and going to the movies are not the same thing.
No, but they are both activities which can take someone's money and leave them no tangible result.
Gambling is addictive
Unlike some things which are addictive (alcohol, cigarettes), gambling does not have any chemical which causes you to become addicted. It is addictive in that it is an activity which people enjoy. Skydiving is addictive to some people, and I'm sure there has been at least one person who has died as a result of their addiction to skydiving, not to mention the countless others who have spent money on skydiving which they could have used to buy toys for their children.
it has destroyed families, lives, and fortunes.
My father gambled away my college fund at the horse races, but I support his right to do so. If he wasn't addicted to gambling, he could have been addicted to and thrown his money away on: alcohol, pornography, the stock market, baseball cards, or any number of things.
The government also has the responsibility to protect its citizens
Yes, the government has a responsibility to protect me, but not from myself. Children need protection from themself because they are often unaware of the consequences of their activities. Adults, on the other hand, are fully capable of comprehending the consequences of gambling -- they can win money or they can lose money, people who do not understand the consequences of their actions are in insane asylums. There may be people who tell themselves that they're going to win, those that have grandiose dreams about what they're going to do with all their money when they clean out the casino, and many of these people will lose money when they gamble, but they enjoyed thinking that they might win. Even though they lost money, they enjoyed the experience. This is true of any service, you lose money but (hopefully) whatever service you paid for was enjoyable.
Ideally, everyone would have a good education and would know when to gamble and when to stop
Yes, education is great. I support government programs which explain to people why (tobacco, gambling, running with scissors, alcohol) is bad for them, but all those activities have advantages as well and it is up to the individual to weigh the pros and cons and make a decision for themself whether it's good for them.
Just because they are allowed to operate in some places doesn't mean we should make it even easier for people to gamble
We aren't making it easier for people to gamble, the online casinos are. I'm sure there are some places which don't have 24 hour photo processing places, and I don't think we should make it possible for people in these places to process their photos in 24 hours, but if a photo processing company wants to open up a store there, that's fine with me.
Re:Slashdot is SICK AND TIRED of it! (Score:2)
First off, you mis-spelled "tragedies". Since the "g" and the "j" key are separated by the "h" (unless you're one of the 0.001% of the population using a Dvorak keyboard), I can't help but assume it to be a spelling error, as opposed to a mistyped word. Nor is "trajedy" a common British, Aussie or Canadian spelling; and the rest of your composition skills suggest that your first language is probably English. I realize the reply before mine addressed this issue, but I felt it to be a worthwhile issue for you to consider.
More pressingly, however, I am concerned about the content of your posting. No definate point was actually made, it was simply an expression of vaguely-directed displeasure.
Perhaps you're missing the concept upon which Slashdot seems to operate: a source of intelligent discourse among those of us who are either professionals in the IT field or are highly advanced computer users.
We agree, we disagree, we bicker, we moan.
Far be it for me to say I've never called someone on Slashdot an idiot: my personality is far more aggressive and volatile than to be able to contain that. I tell people what I think of them. But, on the other hand, I don't think I've ever called someone an idiot simply because I disagreed with them. I've called them idiots either because their arguments for/against a specific position were weak or ill-informed, not because they disagreed with me.
And I fear that this is specifically the reason why you feel uncomfortable with your fellow Slashdot fans. I'm sorry if that's the case. I like to consider myself to be reasonably intelligent; even so, a few of the individuals you call "idiots" have helped me to see things from a different viewpoint, and have even, on occasion, managed to change my opinions.
The suggestion of genocide against the idiots of the world is significantly more ominous, since innocent people will always be swept up in any attempt. A better solution is a hands-off approach in policy and legislation. Let Darwin's theory do its job. There's no need to lift a finger to kill off the idiots: they'll be gone, soon enough, with no intervention. In fact, intervention tends to backfire and propagate the species.
Finally, shared knowledge is what it's all about. Open-source, if you will. There will always be idiots. But Slashdot's signal-to-noise ratio is just about the best on the 'Net.
Re:Stop imposing your morals on me. (Score:2)
--
Here's my mirror [respublica.fr]
Re:This bill backed by major Las Vegas casinos (Score:3)
I wish they'd bothered to realize that online gambling will never pose any real threat to their existance.
Online gambling *is* a threat to their existence. Bear in mind Nevada has very little natural resources. It is freaking dessert! To spur the economy Nevada, the goverment made gambling legal. At that time, gambling is illegal in almost everywhere in America. By having an exclusive rights to gambling (relative to other American states), Nevada makes huge profits. If other states are allowed to gamble as much as Nevada, I am willing to bet (pun intended) that Las Vegas will not be as popular as it is today.
Another example, a few years back, Windsor's casinos are causing Detroit residents to step into Canada to gamble away their money. The Detroit mayor at that time wanted to allow detroit-based casino so Detroit residents can gamble it away in their own city.
Hasdi
This guy's name is "Goodlatte"? (Score:2)
Re:Yep (Score:3)
If only the money went to that...
Re:Yep (Score:2)
Yup. I never had a problem with Lotteries until I started visiting Quick-e marts in the city late at night. You quickly discover that the lottery is not people with disposable income coming out their ears laughing at the joy and suspense of playing the numbers. It's mostly the poor and the homeless, realizing that a dollar doesn't but much else than a tenth of a shot at getting out of poverty. Wacthing old homeless men throw away their last few dollars on lottery tickets that never come in is not my idea of entertainment. The lottery isn't just a tax on bad math; it's an effort to redistribute income from the poorest to the rest of society. Not exactly a progressive tax system.
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Hardly. (Score:2)
All law enforcement can do is bitch and moan.
"Poor us! We can't go pushing around foreign citizens anymore.. Guess it's time to invade some backward Central American nation like we did back in the good old days"
Re:State Lotteries (Score:2)
If you DO believe in "free will", then the people who CHOOSE freely to waste their hard-earned dough on lottery tickets, every week, instead of putting it into a mutual fund, or at least buying some good heroin, are doing so, not because they are exploited. There is a strong case to be made that a fool and his money are soon parted. I don't see that there's anything wrong with that.
Personally, I don't believe a word of it that lotteries shift any tax burden off of anyone. Buy any bridges lately?
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Re:Yep (Score:2)
Re:This ban should be upheld. (Score:2)
Should an ISP be required to 'block' access to foreign sites? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Just because some guy put a gambling site on the internet somewhere should not put *any* obligation on an unrelated ISP.
Should an ISP be allowed to host gambling sites within the US? OF course not! not if it's illegal!
Re:Let's ban everything and get it over with (Score:2)
Look at the USCongress: the various parties differ primarily in what they want to make illegal.
--
Re:Stop imposing your morals on me. (Score:2)
Yeah, and people who don't like smoking should just stop.
And people who are just desparate for their next fix, spending their welfare dollars on crack should just stop.
I'm an idiot. And with good reason. I therefore feel that I have perspective on this issue.
Even though I knew better, I started smoking. Now, admittedly, that was when I was 14, and I was hanging around in a garage with a bunch of car-buddies, and everyone else was smoking.
But I knew better. And I did it anyway.
Smoking is a chemical addiction, like heroin or crack; it changes the chemistry of the brain, and therefore makes it very difficult to quit. In fact, nicotine is considered by many medical researchers to be more addictive than heroin. I'd wager it's substantially more addictive than the behavior-only drug that gambling constitutes. (Yes, play on words intended.)
I'm an addict. I know it. And, while it pains me to say so, I'm dying for a cigarette even now.
While quitting smoking is a priority, it's always been a back-burner issue compared to the greater trials and tribulations in life. But I assure you, when it comes down to being a choice between paying the rent or buying groceries versus smoking, I pay the rent and get the food. I've had lean times in the past, times where the pain of a few months of poverty was aggravated by my brain incessantly fixating on slender white objects with little orangy-gold tips. But I was able to maintain my priorities, fending off my impulses against this most tenacious of addictions.
Perhaps this is the difference between the stupid addict (like myself) and the truly stupid addict (like those who gamble away the rent money). While I'm not perfect, I have self control.
Re:Um, odds are 50/50. You win or you lose, right? (Score:2)
"I'll take one!"
"here"
"Hey, wait, these are from yesteday's drawing!"
(apologies to Scott Adams as I no doubtedly mangles a very funny comic)
Re:Hardly. (Score:2)
Re:Hardly. (Score:2)
However, if Havenco is operated by US citizens operating on US soil, those people are subject to US law, even if they're working for a foreign company.
--
Re:Cancellation of CC debt did NOT affect Net Casi (Score:2)
I suspect that they did. When my credit card number was stolen, the credit card company didn't care. They charged it back to the merchant. The merchant didn't press charges because it was not worth it to them.
Re:Several differences (Score:2)
So the reason we gamble is poor math skills, and the reason we have poor math skill is we haven't gambled enough to improve the schools :)
It's not just state interest. (Score:3)
What about blocking commercials on cruise ships? How about outlawing any movie with gambling?
There is a simpler solution that is already being implemented. Don't require payment of gambling debts on credit cards. There has been a couple of court cases where the credit card charges for these on-line gambling sites been reversed. If they can't get paid for people who lose money on their sites, they will have an incentive to ontrol themselves.
I have a real problem when the government or corporation dictates what I can or cannot read.
This bill backed by major Las Vegas casinos (Score:4)
I wish they'd bothered to realize that online gambling will never pose any real threat to their existance.
Re:Stop imposing your morals on me. (Score:2)
Nah, read my message again. They're paper houses with stone roofs. I just don't get it.
BTW. In central US people still refuse to build brick houses despite the fact that they are safer against tornados and suchI don't get that, either, but I have noticed it. Nor do I get trailerhomes, especially in Kansas....
Re:(Lotteries + the Poor) != Darwin && != Good (Score:2)
Again, not to use Slashdot as my own personal dice.com, but if you're hiring, lemme know!
Further, I'm not the sort of person who is looking for a work visa and will leave at the end of x years. I'm looking to move permanently to the US, to work for the responsibility and honor of being an American citizen, and of flying the American flag proudly on my home.
Sound good?
GetMeAGreenCard@yahoo.com [mailto]
Internet Gambling (Score:2)
There is no substantial difference. The difference is that the states are making a huge bundle from lotteries (once known as "the numbers racket"), which they are not from E-gambling sites.
The Nevada/New Jersey "gaming" interests are pushing this in a big way, as it also cuts into their exorbitant profits.
Same-o, same-o - read ecclesiastes:
"There is no new thing under the sun..."
Re:But someone always does (Score:2)
> dollars. If I don't win, it is one pop I don't
> drink, and I got a little excitement out of it
> as entertainment.
Ahhh but you see I have you better there too.
You can get infinite amounts of entertainment for FREE. All from the Lotto. Here is how I do it.
I don't play. Then I adopt an arrogent attitude towards the entire subject. All you need to do is bring on an air of superiority and feel good about yourself knowing "I am better than them, because I don't waste my money". Then I go around saying things like:
"I win the lotto every week. All I have to do is not play. I net $52/year doing it...every year. Which is much more than the average joe who plays it and maybe wins $5 once every other year".
The nice thing is...its free. Its also a bit og a gamble...afterall if one of the people who plays DOES win...then they get to brag about it and bother you. Of course, given the odds...I figure im doing pretty good.
Afterall I win every week...there is 1 chance in a few billion that I will lose. Not bad odds huh?
I get to do it with sports too. Although there its more like "Whats this we stuff? Are you on the team now?" or "Yes big deal, watch a bunch of men get paid alot of money to get sweaty and move a ball around. Fun fun fun."
Best part - there is no end to the entertainment that you can get from it...and its FREE.
-Steve
Re:illegal gambling versus state sanctioned lotter (Score:2)
I don't think the government pretends that education is anything more than what it is: teaching the children a common basis of knowledge so that they can communicate effectively and become intergral parts of society. Education imparts information and knowledge, but at the same time implicitly enforces conformity. Is conformity good? To a large extent, yes. It means that the society is more efficient, is more united and less likely to segregate into subgroups, and therefore less likely to have social problems. Is conformity dangerous? Absolutely. Too much conformity leads to a general apathetic social attitude.
In the U.S. the issue of conformity and "fitting" in has always been a problem. Race issues are the most prominent manisfestation of this.
It is important to realize that public/government sponsored education is neither good nor evil (though to the society, it is good because it trains future conformants). Its chief goal is about integration. Whether it's good or bad is your own interpretation. For the most part I think people will agree more education is better than less education in our society, because it means a more skilled population that is able to communicate more effectively. It means greater efficiency because there is less energy wasted trying to translate and interpret people's communications.
We are subject to a few very large influences in our lives, aside from our friends and families. We are subject to education, religion, and corporate marketing. I think of those three, education is the most innocuous, and marketing the most dangerous. Imagine that marketing is telling us how to spend our money and how to live our lifestyles according to what these corporate interests want us to believe is the right way to lead our lives. If there's anything you should focus your tirade on, it's corporatism, not education. Corporations are becoming increasingly large in scale and powerful. Many corporations have more power (read: money) than many countries.
You think the government "socially engineering" kids is bad? How about the likes of Disney and other companies "market engineer" (I can't think of a better word for the moment) your kids into believing the they want to watch this movie and buy that toy and dress like so and so and drink and eat this and that? It happens all the time through TV. Which is the larger problem?
Civics 101 (Score:2)
It's very simple, and any moron could readily figure it out:
Any other questions?
--
Here's my mirror [respublica.fr]
Re:illegal gambling versus state sanctioned lotter (Score:2)
Umm.. no (Score:2)
Re:Lotteries + the Poor = Darwinian Theory = Good! (Score:2)
So?
If they're stupid enough to spend their money that way, is it my fault?
If they were spending their disposeable inccome, I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with them losing it. But why should those people who want to gamble recreationally have to go without because these idiots don't know when to draw the line and burn up their grocery money?
Ban roads, because a few pedestrians forget to stay on the sidewalk and get killed.
Ban knives, because a few people cut themselves while they're trying to slice apples.
Ban gasoline, because a few hundred idiots cut into a pipeline in Nigeria and start collecting it from the puddles with buckets?
If a hick can't figure out when he's burned up his (meager?) disposeable income and burns through his grocery/rent money, where's the problem?
Theoretically, that person will starve to death, hence removing himself from the human genepool, and thus increase the quality of the breeding population.
Don't protect the stupid through laws that inconvenience the intelligent. Not only does it make life less enjoyable for the bulk of the population, but it also helps to ensure that the human genome will continue to carry the stench of failure for eons to come.
Re:Yep (Score:2)
--
Here's my mirror [respublica.fr]
Re:Let's ban everything and get it over with (Score:2)
I actually think that my analogy would be that people with AK-47's couldn't ship them to Americans who tried to buy them. The guns would be stopped and seized at customs. End of story.
*ding ding* You can't stop ANYONE from doing ANYTHING in ANY other country than the USA. You can't stop me from sending you kiddie porn, guns, whatever - period. It will, as you mentioned, be stopped by customs. Customs is not the ISP. So, why not set up internet customs and be done with it? Filter all traffic into and out of the US, just like mail? That's the precdent this bill is setting up, and that should scare you shitless. Hence, why not just do that, and get the debate out of the way once and for all?
They're not trying to outlaw international gambling. They're just making US residents (consumers and business owners alike) abide by US laws. End of story.
Oh, no, they're not. They're trying to make ISP's spend lots of money to do their job, under threat of heavy fines and/or imprisonment.
Re:illegal gambling versus state sanctioned lotter (Score:2)
If the government can figure out a way to easily account for and tax gambling nicome and losses, then the government will legalize it all,
Err, strike out the word losses there. Nobody in gambling wants to account for losses. Gains yes, but they don't want you to see losses.
A friend of mine discovered this reciently. When he goes fishing his wife goes to the casino. He got audited last year (for 97 taxes), and has to pay back taxes on $10,000 of unreported gambling earnings. Of course legally if he can account for all the money he spent on gambling he can offset those winning with the losses. Nobody is keeping those records (If he wants them, then his wife needs to go to the back office of the casino every time and get a recipt for every penny spent. They will do it, but not in public)
Your argument also overlooked religion. I for one do not belive in gambling for religious reasons, and I would consider restricting your freedom to gambol because it offends my religion. I do not know how I would accually vote on this issue if it came up, but don't ignore it.
OT, but who wants Karma anyways? (Score:2)
What's the difference between asking a woman out, buying her dinner, paying for a movie, and then going to bed, vs. just handing her the cash up front and jumping directly into bed?
Oh, yeah, that silly taxation thing again. The state gets taxes on the dinner and movie, but the prostitute probably doesn't report her income.
Re:Let's ban everything and get it over with (Score:2)
I don't think the desire to codify every aspect of human behavior and have it controlled by the state is a particularly American inclination. In fact, I'd say we tend less toward this sort of thing than most other countries. And when some idiot manages to get a really horrendous piece of crap put into law, there's a reasonable chance that the Supreme Court will overturn it. Luckily, in this particular case, even if this bill were to become law and be upheld, technology makes it a futile effort. The government can no more keep a gambler away from an online casino than it can keep drugs out of the country.
Re:Vote giovanni for mafia boss (Score:2)
Re:Let's ban everything and get it over with (Score:2)
The government can no more keep a gambler away from an online casino than it can keep drugs out of the country.
This is the part that worries me. Why pass laws that aren't going to have an effect, or have little/no hope of serving there intended purpose? Laws for the sake of laws are BAD BAD BAD. More laws == less freedom. You don't need lots of laws. You need common sense and a willingness to apply existing law (I like the common law system better, but, we only really got a "constitution" here (Charter of Rights and Freedoms)- different systems.
The current attitude towards drugs, guns, "obscene" material, anything related to explosives and the internet, etc etc is to protect the people from themselves, which is not the concept upon which the american state was formed. (Individual freedom over the power of the state, or so I understand). It sounds like those congressmen need more history lessons! (In the case of "obscene" material, people forget that you can get most everything in the library of congress, but somehow that's different.)
The american people are extremely lucky they have a system of checks and balances in place given the effective choices you have in elections (2) and general political apathy. Otherwise, you'd all be going to church every night and smiling for the TV camera in your bedroom in the morning. That seems to be where current legislation is going, so why not propose and debate that?
Re:State Sanctioned Lottery (Score:2)
"A tax on people who are really bad at math."
or something to the effect that the state is taking advantage of prople who don't grasp the concept of a 1 in 10,000,000,000 chance at $40 million. (you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than hitting the Lotto)
What's the difference (Score:4)
Not much, occasionally there is a winner, but you have a much greater chance of losing.
Re:But someone always does (Score:2)
Actually, whenever a convenience store proposes me a lottery ticket, when the store is crowded, I say very loudly " I win $1 at every drawing, I don't buy a ticket ". I'm sure plenty of people lining up behind me to buy one didn't buy...
--
Here's my mirror [respublica.fr]
Re:State Sanctioned Lottery (Score:2)
Don't steal. The government hates competition.
If the casino can't collect... (Score:2)
Re:illegal gambling versus state sanctioned lotter (Score:2)
How about me considering restricting your "freedom" to religion because shoving your religion down my throat restricts my freedom to, say, gamble or simply enjoy anal or oral sex with anybody I want?
Don't shove your fucking religion down my throat, and I won'd shove anything down your throat, nor anything up your ass, for that matter.
--
Here's my mirror [respublica.fr]
Leave it to MSNBC.... (Score:2)
Internet gambling already is estimated to be a billion-a-year industry and is growing rapidly.
Followed by this one: Internet gambling is estimated to be a $600 million-a-year industry skyrocketing to as much as $3 billion by the year 2002, according to industry analysts.
Who's the twit who threw in the first figure for that extra 'bite' that the article needed?
illegal gambling versus state sanctioned lottery (Score:5)
speaking of tax, lottery is more like a voluntary tax for specific purposes like education for those who are more inclined to ignore mathematical probability in pursue of a dream (I don't like to think lottery as a tax for the mathematically disinclined, as one joke goes, because my own grandparents enjoyed purchasing lottery tickets and they kind of do it just for fun)
I guess more than anything, gambling is usually illegal because of two things: Cheating and scams that swindles people out of a lot of money, and taxable gambling income. How many people actually honestly report gambling income? The government would want a piece of that action, I'm sure. With Internet-based gambling, the cheating and swindling would be on a larger scale, more easily perpetrated, and harder to trace (in some cases). Where would the taxes be collected?
If the government can figure out a way to easily account for and tax gambling nicome and losses, then the government will legalize it all, IMHO.
2 differences (Score:5)
2) the mob would be embarassed to only return 50%
We're already paying to make them illegal.. (Score:2)
If you want to make these activities illegal, _fine_, just don't expect the government to spend MY MONEY developing more prisons.
Re:stuck by lightning vs. winning the lottery? (Score:2)
Q: Is it true that the odds of winning the lottery are worse than being struck by lightning?
A: No, even if we just consider the awarding of large jackpots. In 1996 1,136 people won $1,000,000 or more playing North American lotteries. An additional 4,520 won $100,000 or more. By contrast, 91 people were killed by lightning. In addition, there's no second prize in a lightning strike. In a lottery, you win lesser amounts of money by coming close to the winning numbers. On many games odds of 1 in 5 or 1 in 4 are not uncommon. Lotteries award over $50 million in prizes in North America every day. Lightning isn't nearly that productive.
There are several problems with this defense of the odds of winning the big lottery jackpot vs being struck by lightning.
91 people being killed is not the same as the number of people being struck.
4,250 winning at least $100k isn't the same as winning the big Lotto jackpot of $10 million or more.
Bottom line, playing $10 or more a week on lottery in lieu of saving for retirement demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of statistics.
People who buy a ticket every once in a while when the jackpot is $32 million because it gives them a thrill... I don't see a problem.
People who line up every week and play their numbers and are pissed when they don't win...
Re:This bill backed by major Las Vegas casinos (Score:2)
Vegas has three things these other places don't have.
Atmosphere: It almost feels like Disney in most casinos and Vegas has some of the best entertainment in the world!
Reputation: You see the dealers and machines in front of you. You don't have to worry much about being cheated because they are making too much money being honest. Can you say the same about on-line? You have no way to get the warm-fuzzies it is not rigged.
Sports-betting: Vegas is the only place to legally place a bet on sports. Until that changes, there will always be people flocking to vegas.
Quack
Re:Hey, for a Canadian, you're pretty bright... (Score:2)
The government goes after the ISP because that's the easiest. It's the same principal as the RIAA going after Napster - the users are the ones breaking the law, but prosecuting hundreds of thousands of them is impossible. The ISP has a physical reality and financial assets, and most won't even put up a fight - it's much easier for them to capitulate to pressure and do whatever government wants than to engage in a costly fight, even if they're in the right. The tobacco and gun industries are good examples of what can happen to you if you get the wrong folks mad.
Not really ISP's + Airlines & gambling (Score:2)
There have always been interesting laws on the books about gambling. For instance the US requires that no gambling occurs on flights that terminate or originate on US soil. Even if the gambling itself happens in international airspace.
Re:But someone always does (Score:2)
Yeah, but it's not you I'm talking about. It's the morons who line up in the local convenience store each week to by 20 or 50 tickets. Those people are the ones who are apparently unable to comprehend the odds. Buying a ticket when the pot is $100 million, I've done that. What does it hurt - I've gotten a bit more than $1 worth of entertainment just from the idle daydreaming about how I'd spend the money and flip off my boss.
Buying 20 tickets, you are giving $20 a week to the government because you are stupid.
Let's ban everything and get it over with (Score:5)
FWIW, I'm not an American, I reside north of the border. But, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. What is it with the american psyche that demands everything be banned? Why go after the ISP? They didn't do anything. It's the guy that's actually doing the gaming that's breaking the laws, so go after him! It's laws like this that are dangerous because they don't go after the criminal, they attempt to change everyone's behaviour to _prevent_ something that you shouldn't be doing. "Speeding is illegal, so let's ban freeways!" "Armed robbery is illegal, so let's take everyone's guns!" (Big fight here in Canada about this now.. under new policy, the government will be allowed into any residence to check that a registered weapon is safely stored, by law, ack!)
It seems the answer to everything these days is to ban/censor/deem unfit whatever is unpaletable to a select minority in the congress. So, let's ban everything, give the police absolute arbitrary power (well, they almost have it now) and everything will be A-Ok!
In the day of state-sancioned casino gaming and lotteries, this seems ridiculous! What's next? Banning vacations to countries who make lots of money on gaming? Let's revoke those passports now! What's the difference between going to the carribean and blowing your dollars there, and blowing them via an online route? (Obviously, you're under the laws of the US in the latter case, but from a moral standpoint, is it any different?)
Yeeeesh
Several differences (Score:3)
-less fun (no flashing lights, ringing bells or buxom babes)
-more trouble (often you can't find out if you've won until later that day or WEEK)
-more fraudulent (casino's advertise the fun of playing, lotteries advertise the winning--which happens more often)
-more hypocritical (using taxes on people with poor math skills to pay for education?)
I could go on...
--
Re:State Lotteries (Score:3)
(1) Your assertion is essentially correct.
(2) I don't know whether you think this is a good thing (state lotteries as a means of "voluntary" taxation) or not. I personally think the concept is hideous. Why? Because study after study has shown that the concept of gambling revenues as a replacement for direct taxation does little more than shift the tax burden off onto people who can't afford it (i.e. the poor and lower middle classes), and away from the people who *can* afford it. There's a good reason you don't see a lot of millionaires buying lottery tickets, using VLTs, or hanging out in bingo parlours -- it's a waste of their hard earned money, and they know it.
Anyway -- off my soapbox now. The difference between state sanctioned (and that's not necessarily the same as state *sponsered* but you didn't touch that issue) and illegal gambling is that one's against the law.
Havenco soon to be illegal (Score:4)
Goodlatte's bill would make it a federal crime -- punishable by up to four years in prison and fines of $20,000 or more -- to operate a Web site that accepts wagers from Americans.
So Havenco's american backers could all find themselves outlaws if they start to host online gambling that doesn't discriminate against sucker^H^H^H^H^Hpatrons in the US.
The article makes it clear, the bill has been written in a determinedly confusing way to allow for selective enforcement, and selective non-enforcement in the case of large campaign contributors. Politics as usual.
the AC
Gambling (Score:3)
My question is, does the law say "Internet" or just "computer network"? A lot of casinos have computer networks that they use to hook up the slot machines... maybe those are illegal? Either that, or can we just change the name of the Internet and avoid all this $#@$ restriction?