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.
I play poker, but I'm not using my own money. I bankrolled money from a freeroll. Now I am freerolling my way up the stakes ladder. If they ban online gambling, I'll have to get a Swiss Bank account or something.
God spoke to me.
My understanding is that online gambling can never be fair, since multiple PC's can be used to play networked games at the same table (in poker, for example) sharing their cards with each other and improving their odds over the "honest" players.
So yes I think that is a problem.
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.
...I'll lay you 2-to-1 odds it doesn't pass.
Footix - President, Society For Putting Things On Top Of Other Things
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.
How do we stop this insane practise of piling one bill on top of another as it passes through the gauntlet?
This practise has probably more to do with the sad state we are in than any other- this even bypasses/surpasses pork barrel crap shuffled through.
Let the original bill stand (or fall) on it's own- quit this backscratchin',feel good,get re-elected bullshit end. If not, we fial and stay where we are.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
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.
Part of the problem some of us have with the idea of 'A Democracy' is that government should not be far reaching. Basically, government should be limited in scope, and a lot of society and social constructs should be untouched by government. Making a country a 'Democracy' implies that people vote on all sorts of issues about everything. In particular, they vote on issues that some of us feel goverment should not intrude.
There are a class of people who are really into government. Let's call them politicians. Some are 'left' and some are 'right.' They want government meddling in all kinds of areas where it's unnecessary for goverment to be. The notion of 'Democracy' as decried by some of these people implies that we should all do a lot more voting on a lot more topics. Which is the opposite of a 'mind your own business' philosophy.
Did you know that one of the first coins minted by the new US Goverment in the late eighteenth century has the legend 'Mind Your Business' printed right on it?
I agree with you; I think our political system is in desperate need of reform, and not just a few simple Band-Aids.
However, with the current two-party structure, riders do serve a semi-legitimate, or at least useful, purpose: they provide a way for a minority to torpedo a bill that really shouldn't get passed, preventing a "tyranny of the majority." It doesn't prevent a 'tyranny of the super-majority,' because riders can be defeated through parliamentary procedure, but that's democracy for you.
It's important when we look at legal procedure, that we don't "streamline" the system too much: sometimes, things that look like terribly stupid ideas (and probably are), are the only things holding back a torrent of terrible legislation. Riders are a double-edged sword in this way; they allow a minority to get things passed that otherwise wouldn't have enough votes -- an obviously undemocratic outcome, and prone to abuse -- but it also works as a blocking maneuver. Sometimes, it can be possible to stop a legislative juggernaut by attaching an impossible-to-pass rider.
Removing something like this, particularly in the current atmosphere, where other safeguards like filibusters are also on the block, could potentially be disastrous. It could lead to seesaw legislation, with each successive Congress undoing the one before it and then going further in the opposite direction, without any way to stop it. In physics terms, filibusters and poison-pill riders act as drag or friction on a pendulum, which is constantly having energy put into it. Were it not for these outlets, the whole thing could easily oscillate out of control.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
To answer some of your questions... (I work somewhere on the Hill).
Senators or at least the few that I know or have come in contact with, usually have some sort of philosophy that they follow. This philosophy or set of beliefs serves as a guide on how they will vote. Occasionally you will get someone that is easily influenced by newspapers or political lobbies, but that is in all actuallity, not as common as most people think (which is why when it happens it's big news). There are very strict rules about what kind of gifts politicians and their staff (Senate Staff is limited to 50$ for gifts at receptions) can accept and what they can't.
For the most part, legislation is not written by Senators (Rep's may write their own). Usually there is a Legislative Assistant(s) or Legislative Director in the office that will write the actual bill or ammendment. The Senator will then review it, and if he / she approves it - it will be submitted to where ever it needs to go (usually a committee of sorts). Often they are attached to other bills, since the legislative process is very slow (and attaching it to something may speed it up).
Now, as it is election time, many people that are up for re-election are submitting all sorts of things. However, they aren't trying that hard to have them get passed (thankfully - or I'd have no free time), just submitting them so they can claim to have done some work on a certain issue that they may feel their constituents care about (or more likely matches their ideas). Lame Duck session in December, is when the outgoing folks actually sit down and try to get this crap passed.
So you can assume, that this bill was introduced by someone that believes gambling is wrong. It has nothing to do with the mail that they get, the phone calls people make or the faxes that come in. They don't even see most of those - interns and other staff handle them (although a few Senators actually read a sampling of handwritten mail each week). The politician usually gets a report each week of what mail came in, what issues were popular and what was the stance of the mail (for or against). Usually batch letters (meaning large bunches of faxes / letters / postcards that are all the same ) are not included in that count (cause people often send them in without actually reading them or knowing much about the issue, and mail from someone other then a constituent (meaning outside the politicians district - exceptions being the VA and Natural Resources Committees) or someone that did not put a real mailing address (like the people that always sign with their email address) is ignored. In the event that the politican does not have an opinion on something yet, this mail report will serve to influence their opinion in addition to the research and hearings that they or their staff will conduct. However, their opinion is usually in line with their established philosophy. Long story short, this ammendment was simply so someone could satisfy a mark on their philosophy checklist (most likely), and that is why it was rejected by the Senator (who dislikes this sort of stuff) and not because of some lobbying group.
The best way to stop these things, is to either write large amounts of handwritten mail to your senator / rep (not other peoples), or simply vote them out during elections time. Problem is -- most people aren't informed enough to actually know what's going on (or at least that is what I see from DC). It's easiest to contact your Senator / Rep at a state office also (if they have some), since most of them spend weekends and when session is out at home.
There is always a frontier where there is an open and willing mind
/. needs a (+1, Sarcasm) mod. It looks foolish to call the parent "insightful".
FC Closer
I don't get it. I've worked on the board of a non-profit organization before. If somebody tried to avoid review by attaching junk to an otherwise good motion, we'd always either make a motion to split the bill into the separate issues, or just outright vote the thing down. Why do parliamentarians tolerate random crap being added to bills?
http://outcampaign.org/
More pointedly, and something largely forgotten today, the United States is a federation of SOVEREIGN states -- the federal government is a creation of the people acting through their states. Americans vote for federal representatives as citizens of states first and foremost: Congress by districts that are contained within states, the shape of which decided by state legislatures (though sometimes vetted by federal courts), and the President via electors that represent a state's voters. The elections, while authorized by the federal constitution, are governed by state legislatures. (Note: that is an important legal distinction given Bush v. Gore. The Supremes ruled, correctly IMO, that as federal elections are authorized by the federal constitution, conferring power directly to state legislatures, original review must be via federal courts, not state.)
These states agreed to vest particular portions of sovereignty in the federal government through a written agreement: the United States Constitution. One interesting facet of the federal constitution that many don't reflect upon is the amendment process: STATES have the final word on the shape of the federal constitution. Not Congress.
While the people at large have basically forgotten these facts, and the Congress and President run rampant over them, the courts do from time to time surprise people and enforce the consequences of our nature of government, much to the dismay of those who would have us forget that the federal government is not THE Government.
Larry
To any sensible observer these would appear to be two completely separate questions, thus it'd make sense to vote on them separately, I *completely* fail to see the supposed benefits of this "rider"-system.
You even frequently see semi-controversial stuff "attached" to the most obscure nobody-cares piece of legislation in existence, hoping that it'll get passed before somebody notices or something. Hello ? The entire *point* of a democracy is that people *should* notice the controversial issues, debate them, and then vote on them.
Can somebody with an insigth please explain what the benefits are ? To outsiders, frankly, it just seems completely ridicolous.
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.
Why does the American government insist on being different from the rest of the world? Why do they try to be so self-righteous?
In Europe, online gambling is very much accepted, and doesn't interfere with all the land-based casinos that spread all across Europe. They make enough money as it is.
888.com is very popular in Britain, for example. And people there don't see it as an addictive thing that should be banned, but rather as a way to get some entertainment. Instead of going out to a movie and dinner, you can enjoy a quick game of blackjack or roulette, and make sure to limit yourself to $50 or whatever your budget is. If you lose it - you lose it, and that's it. It's just like spending the same money on some other form of entertainment.
-- You must be yay-high to rule the world.
Been a while since you spent time in Vegas?
Las Vegas is constantly adjusting their pitches and hooks. It's how they stay profitable. They love to call new angles in their agressive marketing techniques, "Reinventing Las Vegas". What a load of hype, nothing has been truly reinvented, it's sill all about you, Loser.
The early nineties overt push for families has been on the whole discredited, and the official Vegas spin is no long, "Please bring the kids", it instead has morphed to, "Uh, ok, If you bring the kids".
After several years overtly seeking families as a primary source of visitors, the mid-nineties saw most major properties (Mandalay Bay Properties [formerly Circus Circus] execpted) backing away from it. After several years of market studies and analysis, Gaming Corporations realised that if you bring you kids to Vegas, both your maximum allowable gambling time, and your maximum acceptable losses in the casino are significantly reduced. I guess one needs a 4 year University degree in marketing to be able to drag out the self-evident for so long.
Major Gaming Corporations which operate in Nevada are not opposed to internet gambling, as long as it is a free market, and they are allowed to enter into it. If lawfully enabled to do so, the corporations could scale up their net resources instantly, and almost overnight have top class enterprise gaming web site which could easily compete with pre-existing sites.
The Vegas gaming corporations have discovered that California tribal gambling didn't turn out to be the goose neck-breaker many were predicting. It has affected Reno negatively. In Las Vegas, the tribal casinos have served to greatly broaden the base of potential visitors to the city, and at the same time operate as a trap for low-end players Vegas would be just as happy without. It seems that P.T. Barnum vastly underestimated the statical frequency, and it's more like, 'one born every second'.
Vegas does agressiveley market conventions still, and even though the atendees, as a broad group gamble less than the average visitor, their consumption of other high profit-margin hotel offerings can sometimes exceed cash flow projections had the rooms been filled with non-business visitors.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
Pick any major spending bill and see what gets added on, normally just before a vote and with limited debate. Any amendment that doesn't pertain to that specific bill is probably waste. It has been estimated that 3/4 of government waste occurs here. This is used as a form of blackmail of the President (party doesn't matter) If he wants his Defence, Human Services, Foriegn Aid, Farm, or whatever bill he has to sign the whole thing with tens to hundreds of waste amendments tacked on or get nothing.
This is the reason people have tried to get the line item veto approved for the President. All Presidents want it regardless of party. There was an attempt to use one by Clinton and the Supreme court shot it down. There have been several attempt since then but it never passes Congress.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Disallowing an unrelated rider to be tacked on to a bill? Is this a sudden attack of conscious, or a sudden attack of campaign contributions?
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
There is never any real reason to abandon the law, except the old one, some asshat wants to do things for personal motivation and finds that the law inconveniences them.
Basically they fucked up all over the place. No effort at all was made to maintain even a semblance of justice. Some good intentions were there to start with, but it soon collapsed into mismangement from the top down. As far as the administration was concerned, the focus shifted to how to extract the most corporate profit and away from how to establish law and order. LAW and ORDER was the purpose of the whole excersize, you do not abandon LAW and ORDER and expect by some miracle that it will be achieved.
The government does not say who people are or who they are not, they prove it in a court of law, and if the representatives of the government fuck up the legal process, than that it is the government's fault. So now a bunch of suspected terrorists will go free because the US administration placed no focus on ensuring that proper legal practices were established.
The sheer nonsence of the idea, that because no effort was made to establish due legal process, the defence forces can do or say what ever they feel like is just grossly offensive. So the real reason for the secret military tribunals, is not for future investigative purposes, it is to hide the gross legal blundering of the military, there is no evidence because they made absolutely no effort to gather any.
You should try to screw your head on straight, the geneva convention is there to protect people who are trying to murder other people from the laws that would normally apply. Soldiers are not considered murderers even if they technically are. Civilians who are fighting are not considered soldiers hence they can be treated by the law as murders and tried in court as such, it does not mean you abandon the law at all, it means you apply normal civilian law. Spys were subject to the law, spy were proven as spys in court and then they were punished as the court decided i.e. they were outside the protection of the Geneva convention and subject to the full weight of the law (if there was sufficient evidence to prove that they were in fact spies).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
It is a problem, but it is not an inherent flaw in the online poker concept. I work for a major online poker company and we employ a variety of methods to prevent such behaviour, the most important of which is manual review and retrospective analysis.
While on the one hand it is easier to pass information between colluding players in online poker than it is in brick & mortar rooms, it is much more difficult to avoid eventual detection online.
If you suspect you are being cheated in a cardroom or casino you have no recourse. Whereas on our site we will investigate using a fully peer-reviewed system, and then penalise the guilty and compensate the victims.