Comment Vindicated (Score 1) 34
Scanners do not live in vain!
Scanners do not live in vain!
It is never gambling when the odds are biased in one sides favour, then it is fraud and losing.
Not when the odds are known in advance. If you don't like them, don't play.
Now if the odds are misrepresented, it is a whole different issue.
If the Oldford Group is not permitted to operate the sites in the US market, what makes Amaya so confident that it could operate the same sites in the same US market that has barred both of the gaming websites ?
B. If Uncle Sam can sue Oldford Group and order that privately held company to fork over $700 million, what makes Amaya so sure that Uncle Sam won't do the same to it ?
Amaya is already licensed to operate in NJ and Nevada (and possibly other states).
that is true in person - online you have no idea what you are really playing against. there are many documented cases of online sites allowing players to see all the cards on the table. the documentary I saw showed a 100% proper call on bluff rate over a period of many months.
think about it. you are at a 8 person table. 7 of the players are computers and know your cards. think that make the odds of you winning 'exactly the same'?
Firstly, there's licensing and regulations. Some of the regulators (ARJEL for instance) demand that every action go through their servers and is retained for possible fraud investigation. Incidents of bots on your site, can cause you to lose your license.
Secondly, the large operators do not want to kill the goose that lays golden eggs and are aggressively fighting bots, colluders and other fraudsters. And yes, they can be detected by multiple methods that I am not at liberty to discuss.
The fact is that you are safer playing online than against strangers in meatspace.
It's a tricky issue. Unregulated gambling leads to a lot of (desperate) people getting ripped off by corrupt institutions. Especially online, how hard would it be to know the dealer/house was honest? I'm not for censorship but these kinds of things aren't so clean cut.
You still need people willing to shoot. Can you rely on the US military to shoot US people? The US government is not a military junta where military would be used to something like that, the military still thinks they're protecting these people.
On the other hand, you need people willing to die. The US is pretty short on those as well.
It's Canada, not the US.
Yet...
And why all computer users need free software in all of their computers. I don't want someone I don't trust vetting the software that has the ability to ruin my project or kill me. Those who get to audit code may be expert in someone else's opinion, but I would rather have software freedom.
Free software is not a panacea (*cough*)heartbleed(*cough*).
I am not a lawyer but I believe that the legal standard in such cases is "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt".
My opinion is that Intel (and AMD) achieved those things not because of the x86 architecture but in spite of it.
Expert witnesses who get to audit the code can speculate.
Fixed that for you.
I've participated in more code reviews than I care to count and finding bugs in the code is not a matter of speculation.
Stack overflows can cause all kinds of interesting issues.
Court systems cannot establish causes of engineering problems.
Expert witnesses who get to audit the code can.
Educate the women. Their role in [...] educing the birthrate [...] is enormous.
How about for corruption, embezzlement and all the other ways criminals and terrorists outright destroy the lives of citizens daily?
Won't work, because the criminals and terrorists will never agree to it.
powershell is dumbed down?
The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood
