Slashdot Mirror
The Looming Battle Over Online Gambling
Kadin2048 writes "According to an recent Ars Technica article, the US is headed on a 'collision course' with the WTO over off-shore Internet gambling, if a bill currently in the House of Representatives passes. The 'Internet Gambling Prohibition Act,' (PDF) which updates the 'Wire Act' to prohibit Internet gambling regardless of whether the servers are located in the US or outside of it, is in direct contravention of a WTO ruling. Proponents of the bill claim that it was narrowly defeated in previous incarnations due to the influence of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. However it seems as though some of Abramoff's biggest clients -- brick and mortar casinos -- are really the big winners from passage of this bill, since it does not prohibit gambling in person, only online."
Yeah, that too. In fact, if you look at it a certain way it is one of those "laws that protect people against themselves" because it removes responsibility for their actions. In other words, people can knowingly be stupid and/or self-destructive and rely on the "safety net" of Welfare to save them. If we removed the safety net, people would have to learn to take care of themselves.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
What you mean to say is, "if you remove the safety net, people would have to learn to take care of themselves, otherwise they will live in horrible squalor and hunger."
And the response is, "And so will their children."
And the result is, "You will pay for their children, in many more ways than just food and clothing. They (the gamblers children) will also be far more likely to violently rob you."
The real solution is to sterilize drug addicts and alchoholics and severe gambling adicts before they get an opportunity to destroy other peoples lives (their children).
It isn't an attractive solution, but it doesn't really harm anyone. There are ways to sterilize which are reversible, in the very unlikely case that the person in question manages to stay clean for a few years. Having children should be a priviledge left to those people who can get through a day without smoking crystal meth. If you disagree, do you support letting people who are hooked on narcotics be responsible for the care and feeding and nurturing of children?
You may be impaired and not even know it. Judging the use of your language I'd say that your reasoning skills have been adversely affected as well.
This study proves an IQ drop of 5 or more points per week.
Another study "found that marijuana users have lower levels of carotenoids in the
serum. The authors concluded this was associated with different
dietary habits: "We found higher cigarette-smoking rates and higher
consumption of sodas and alcohol, specifically beer, among marijuana
users than among non-current marijuana users."
Another study concluded that "Regular
marijuana use can lead to extensive airway injury and alterations in
the structure and function of alveolar macrophages, potentially
predisposing to pulmonary infection and respiratory cancer."
I'm sorry you and your buddies have exposed yourself to something so dangerous for so long. I hope one day you will be able to function normal lives.
"well, as a tech employee who was out of work for 9 months, I thank god we had welfare, otherwise we would have lost everything."
So you are...
1. Greedy
2. Incompetent
There's no other excuse for being out of work in this economy for that long. Good companies are begging for qualified people.
Sounds like another example of someone wanting the government to make up for their own failures.