Slashdot Mirror
Online Gambling Not Banned Yet
For the moment, the rush to legislate the ban on online gambling has been slowed. Senator John Warner, (R) from Virginia, has refused to allow a ban on online gambling to be tacked onto an upcoming defense bill. Opponents of online gambling were hoping to tack their measure on to a "must pass" bill but will apparently be forced to delay. Congress recesses in one week, giving only a few days left if this measure is to be passed before the November 7th elections.
Surely that's a big bloody hole in the legislative system.. why don't they patch it?
It's just crazy.
How we know is more important than what we know.
For the moment, the rush to legislate the ban on online gambling has been slowed. Senator John Warner, (R) from Virginia, has refused to allow the banning of online gambling to be tacked on to an upcoming defense bill.
What I don't "get" is that if they do eventually ban online gambling, what is the legal status of games like Second Life, which allow gambling in-world (in Linden Dollars, which you can then convert to US Dollars)? How will it even be possible to police that sort of thing given the open-ended nature of the game?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
The players are adequately warned. They know the risks and they still want to play. It's not for the government to make their decision for them.
How we know is more important than what we know.
And when thats discovered, accounts get banned. In real casinos, people play as teams and communicate with each other through codes or just by avoiding each other and splitting profits later. Its no more risky online.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
But won't you think of the children?!??!!?
MY GOD, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!??!?!?!
Please, nanny government, please make my decisions for me because I'm a complete and utter retard and can't make them on my own.
There are more important issues out there, but few frost my behind as much as this one: I mean the opponents of online gambling are almost invariably the same blowhards who wrap themselves around the flag and lecture the rest of the world about what it means to be free. If we cannot decide for ourselves how to dispose of our disposable income, then in no way, shape or form can we be described as free. All forms of gambling should be legal, regulated and taxed. Use a slice of the tax revenue to help problem gamblers. Leave the rest of us alone.
He refused to cave to the Bush administration on torture.
Now, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he refuses to let a trivial non-issue be tacked on along with a government spending bill. Bravo, if only more people like him could be elected to the Senate.
I doubt the proposed ban of online gambling has anything to do with bots. I'm sure it has more to do with collecting money. It's very hard (or impossible) to tax.
Developers: We can use your help.
/. needs a (+1, Sarcasm) mod. It looks foolish to call the parent "insightful".
FC Closer
They are NOT called "criminal combatants", they are called "enemy combatants". They get that title because they blatantly violate the Geneva Convention. In order to get Geneva Convention protection, you basically need to be either wearing a uniform and clearly marked as a combatant or you need to be a civilian. The Geneva Convention was created to give rules to warfare between two states with conventional armies. The idea behind the Geneva Convention was to try and minimize the loss of civilian life and to set up rules that allow for a smooth transition back to civilian government after the war is over. You can basically boil the rules down the rules of the Geneva Convention to the following:
1) No intentionally killing civilians.
2) Always mark yourself as a combatant (wear a uniform) so that civilians are not confused as combatants.
3) You must accept the surrender of uniformed combatants and you can't just execute them.
4) When the war is over you need to free the uniformed combatants.
The implication of these rules is that enemy spies do NOT receive Geneva Convention protection. During the Cold War when either side caught an enemy spy, they did NOT receive Geneva Convention protections. If an American spy was caught in Soviet Russia, we didn't make a stink about it if the Soviets tortured the spy, held the spy forever, or simply killed the spy. All sides agreed that spies do not get Geneva Convention status and so were not privy to receiving its benefits.
Now, we are in a new type of war. The US doesn't fight uniformed combatants. The US fights people that fight among civilians wearing civilian clothing. Clearly, these people, like spies, are blatantly violating the Geneva Convention. They can't be identified as combatants and intentionally try and pass themselves off as civilians. Hence, they get a new title called an "enemy combatant", which means that they roughly get treated like spies.
They don't get bill of rights protection because it is absolutely insane to even imply that in a war zone you need to read people their Miranda rights or get search warrants. Soldiers are not crime scene investigators, and crime scene investigators who can take proper evidence for a fair trial are not going to be doing their work in a war zone.
Enemy combatants (i.e. people fighting out of uniform) occupy a gray area that there are no rules for. There is no Geneva Convention rules that describe how to treat these people. There are no rules in general with how to deal with people who fight wearing civilian clothing in general. If the UN wanted to do something useful (god forbid), they would write up a code to deal with people who fight among civilians disguised as civilians.
Not to mention, WTF does it have to do with a defense bill?
Nothing related to Congress and our current govn't offends me more than the unchallenged ability to "tack on" legislation for topic X that has piss-all to do with the main topic of the bill at hand.
Congressman A: Here's a bill allocating $50m for breast cancer research!
Congressman B: Great! I'd like to add a rider that allocates $10m in federal funding for building a bridge somewhere in my state - oh, and my brother-in-law like totally has a construction company!
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project