Slashdot Mirror
US Outlaws Online Gambling
imaginaryelf writes, "As reported earlier on Slashdot, in the closing hours of the US Congressional session on Friday, September 29, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (H.R.4411.RH) was attached to the Safe Port Act of 2006 H.R.4954.EAS.
To the surprise of many, the bill passed both the House and the Senate, and Bush is expected to sign it into law this week. This effectively outlaws online gambling in the US, by way of making it illegal for credit-card companies to collect payments for bets. The financial markets punished the stock of online gambling companies as some prepared to pull out of the US entirely."
Thank God the congress knows how to protect me from the evil casinos! Four more years!
It seems (and I've never used a gambling site before and I don't advocate breaking the law) that to get around this, all you have to do is deposit the money to a "legit" offshore intermediary who then places your bets in your stead. Unless the government wants to audit all offshore businesses for gambling, everything looks kosher and compliant with the law. What am I missing?
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
5 will get you 10 they won't enforce it.
YRO aside, it is currently illegal is gamble in most of the United States anyway, except certain states and indian reservations. So, in this case, I don't really feel that anyone's "rights" are being trampled. All that's happening is that a loophole by which US citizens could gamble in foreign countries without leaving their houses has been closed.
Whoop-dee-doo.
"The financial markets punished the stock of online gambling companies as some prepared to pull out of the US entirely."
I bet they did. Shit, someone's knocking at my door.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Congress is just upset that they can't effectively tax online gambling because most of the companies are offshore. It's a case of sour grapes - if we can't tax it, you can't do it!
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
According to the bill's title, the act was already illegal and all it is doing is enforcing it. If that's the case, why was a bill needed? Shouldn't it have been law enforcement's problem?
If only there was some way for companies to draft money directly out of a checking account!
Possible circumvention?:
The companies sell you a t-shirt. The cc companies can process that payment. It just so happens that a promo is going on that gives the user 100 free 'tokens' when they purchase a shirt.
Mike Coles
'bluelip'
Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he
The Way I understand it is, you put in some money and play with that. Will they now block being able to get your money back out. And with online casinos looking to close their US operations will they just take the money in these accounts with them?
"Congress is just upset that they can't effectively tax online gambling because most of the companies are offshore. It's a case of sour grapes - if we can't tax it, you can't do it!"
There have been movements, pretty much shot down, for Congress to tax the hell out of the Internet. (Some state governments have actually managed to add news sales taxes on out-of-state Internet sales: interstate commerce protections be damned!). Should we let Congress tax it soon so they don't end up destroying it?
Where were you when the voynix came?
The greatest loss would, IMHO, be the end of the emergence of Predictive Markets, which are uniquely suited to online application.
Has anyone seen an analysis of the impact of this legislation on Predictive Markets?
Why couldn't our nation have been started by someone cool instead of a bunch of lame Protestants.
A brick and mortar casino gaming license wouldn't be quite as lucrative a give away to the wealthy and well connected if they had to compete with online casinos that anyone can set up overseas. Lets face it, a legal casino in an area where gambling of most forms is illegal is basically an ATM machine with flashing lights.
In my state the hypocrisy is reaching new heights as the GOP governor continues to try to allow slot machines at horse tracks while it is still technically illegal to play poker among friends.
Does this mean they're going to take down eBay and PayPal?
I certainly feel like I'm gambling whenever I do business there?
How about Ameritrade? Stocks are certainly gambling
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
the the legislature of my country is so incompetant, to get something they want passed, they have to tack it on to something completely irrelevant.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
If we're lucky, this will decrease the profitability of online gambling spam- if there isn't a convenient way for them to get your cash fast, their ability to pick up impulse bussiness should decrease.
Then again, since it's only the US, and spammers seem to prefer a shotgun approach, it might not make any difference. Since there are still plenty of people who could easily waste their money elsewhere, the spam will continue.
How on earth is it legit to tack a completely unrelated bill to another and pass them both under the same vote? Am I the only one who sees how unbelievably insane that is?
Surely anyone voting against the bill will be blasted for not securing US ports, even when it was a vote in protest to the anti-gambling legislation.
The way the US government goes around telling the world how to run their 'democracy' is so incredibly laughable at this point.
Another free shirt?
Pass.
More than anything, this is a prime example of how members of Congress manipulate the legislation system to get a bill they want pass to ride on the coattails of a 'sure-win' bill. Then after that they basically pass the buck off to the courts (if it ever makes it that far) to overturn the law or declare it unconstitutional or whatever.
I think its about time that Congress get off their lazy asses and start drafting their own bills for the particular agenda items they have. This sort of manipulative behavior itself should be outlawed, but find me a single member of Congress that would vote to outlaw it. In a system where checks and balances are supposed to exist, they certaintly don't here.
And they said zombies weren't real!
"We permitted the evangelical right to seize power in the United States in a coup d'etat the likes of which Machiavelli would have been impressed with!"
If it helps you sleep to believe it was a coup, so be it. I find it far more frightening to consider that the current establishment may in fact be an expression of the general will of the American People.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
we need to figure out way to combine gambling and porn.(well, more than the cliche strip poker, which I don't want to play online...ewww..)
Might I suggest games like "How many grams of heroin has this woman done in the last half hour" or "How many men has this 'virgin' slept with?"
Monstar L
The hypocracy! Aren't these the same people yelling 'Global Economy' at the top of there lungs, and signing free trade agreements with every country that has cheap labor. I guess the world economy only counts if it give the U.S. and advantage.
They're going after the credit card companies.
I'll bet you 5 bucks it sticks.
The bill doesn't state the companies can't mail you a check.
Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he
How are they going to stop all that online stock market speculation?
Don't try to tell me that the return on investment is guaranteed, or that business ventures aren't a gamble, because they are. 90% of businesses fail in their first year.
Anyone want to bet that online casinos will be targeted by this law, but Wall Street will remain strangely exempt?
Do you REALLY trust online gambling sites to draft out of your bank account? You do realize drafts like that are pretty much non-reversable right? You signed to allow them to draft from the account - the bank can't do anything regarding a draft in a sum over the amount you agreed to. You have to take it up with the company.
I don't see a legitimate reason for gambling to be illegal. If someone wants to gamble, smoke, shoot themselves in the foot, or whatever, let them. And no, you don't have to force everyone else to support a safety net for them in the form of (publicly funded) rehab or health care. As for the "think of the children" bunch: if they have kids whom it's negatively impacting, take them and give them to someone who can take care of them.
1. Make it illegal to gamble online, since you can't figure out how to tax it.
2. Force the credit card companies to enforce the law you made.
3. Profit!
The profit being that law enforcement doesn't have to figure out how to trace it, they just have the credit card companies monitor for the activity, and make the arrest.
I thought that everyone was prepared for this - is it not still legal, or at least impossible to prosecute, using your credit card to fund a third-party online payment site like Neteller, and then pointing "gaming" site to your Neteller account? The credit card company then has deniable plausability by never knowing where your Neteller money goes/comes from.
fund online gambling sites: neteller, firepay, etc. i'm sure these companies are happy that US customers can no longer use credit cards because customers are now forced to pay their large transaction fees.
Why should the U.S. allow foreign companies to suck money out of the U.S. economy
Because that's what The People want? Does there need to be any other reason?
Remember, government derives its power from the just consent of the governed.
I'm frankly surprised that the credit card lobby didn't kick up a bigger fuss on this. They stand to lose millions in user fees and interest. While I think anyone that gambles on credit is a fool, the credit companies were happy to enable such behaviour.
Let me just remind you something: internet is worldwide. Internet is not *american*. So, if online casinos would need US government license to operate (and pay taxes), so, should I presume that online casinos also need brazilian license and, of course, pay brazilian taxes?
ilex paraguariensis for all
So, if I pay $15 a month to subscribe to a massively multiplayher game where I get some amount of starter virtual currency, and the game has as a subset of functionality a mechanism through with I can gamble my virtual currency, and a mechanism exists to transfer that virtual currency into real currency through eBay sales or some process officially allowed or even serviced by the massively multiplayer game maker, is my subscription illegal?
5 will get you 10 they won't enforce it.
They'll have the legit online gaming community look after it for them -- the big casino companies, who have the most to gain from this. I bet you don't have to look very far to see who really was behind this. It's not about money laundering, it's about a big business keeping it's slice of the pie.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
But I bet the US Postal Inspectors would be more than happy to intercept any check any offshore Internet casino might send you.
"credit-card companies to collect payments for bets"
Now you just have to pay in advance, ohh wait we do that already.
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
anyways, I hope all you Americans remember this as well as all the other BS that the Republicans have pulled over the last 6 years and get out and vote next month.
Land of the free.... only if you're the ones in power.
Since the bill will make it illegal for credit card companies and other financial institutions to be involved in such transactions, it seems to be a refinement of target. Formerly the individual could be targeted, but that would be expensive and ineffective. Ten thousand charges could be brought forth without impacting the number of violations significantly.
If you shut down the payment options, you will greatly reduce the number of violators. It's an effective way of achieving their goal.
I will soon be selling Cassino Gift Cards that can be used to buy stuff in their 'gift shops'.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Why did we need a bill for something that was already "illegal"? What a waste of time, energy and talent. Could credit card companies not address this themselves? Just not allow the transaction? My guess is they weren't the ones complaining. It was probably some bleeding heart who couldn't control their own addiction that said, "I lost money, there should be a law." and unfortunately in our society someone always listens. That's just sad IMHO.
I suppose that I will have to satiate my gambling habits with options, futures and currencies.
Would someone please code a flash game that looks like roulette, blackjack, slots etc that was actually an interface to some brokerage for short term investments?
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
No, I REALLY don't. I don't think any Slashdotter would. What I do think is that people that have a gambling addition may not think things all the way through. They just know they have to put $200 on the Colts right now, becuase it's just before kick-off. And the Colts are a sure winner, so there is no chance of loosing money out of the checking account.
Or if the Colts don't cover the spread, they will be sure to make it up next weekend.
They just need to win enough to pay the rent...
This doesn't really matter all that much. It means that US banks and credit card companies can't process the transactions. Companies like Firepay are off shore banks that can accept lawful deposits from US banks and then in turn handle gambling related transactions.
The law doesn't impose any penalties to gamblers so there's nothing illegal about taking any winnings by using the offshore banks to funnel those winnings back to a US account.
The problem is it's just harder now for the average player to make a deposit. I think in the long run this will be better for the above average players by keeping the degenerate gamblers out.
Hello Sir, My name is Jacob, and I am a wealthy businessman from the United States. New laws by my government have removed my freedom to gamble my money online. I have $40 millions that I would like to use for to gamble, but unfortunately may not use a United States banking account. If you would send me your bank account information I will deposit this funds. I need you to transfer this funds to an online gambling site. In return, you may keep $2 million. I selected you especially for this task. Please reply quickly, my gambling habit is giving me fits!!! Sincerely, Jacob Rich U.S. Businessman Moneys! Come rollin' in!!!
You're looking at the problem in reverse. The reason these companies are off-shore is because of the laws in place by the US. Its like me trying to open up a winery during the prohabition. It'd be plain stupid. Why would these people host gambling sites in America if its been illegal from the get go? If they're pissed off that the economy is loosing money, then they could change the laws which would encourage local gambling. They won't so this is the only viable solution to plug the hole.
Bye!
I've been disapointed to see that the UK government hasn't been leaning on Bush more over this issue, a lot of UK based compainies lost a lot of money today (although I think that the sensible ones have been spreading the risk). The US quite rightly leant on the EU over the MS issues because MS is worth a lot to them... I would have liked to see Blair at least being active on this issue.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Well, you know, if you're that deperate, use an extra-territorial card backed by an extra-territorial bank. Sure, it's now illegal for US credit card companies, but try as they might, Congress can't pass a law (yet) that affects how banks and creditors in other countries do business.
I toggled a toggle and buttoned a button, but when I got done, I was done doin' nothin'.
So now a company outside US cannot use credit-card companies to collect gambling money... so what?
Really, move out of US and sell "happiness cards". The business works like this:
1) User searches a gambling site;
2) On a gambling site, the user has the option to buy "happiness cards", for 1 dollar + postage each;
3) For each "happiness card" bought, the user earns 1 playing bonus;
4) To legitimate the business, the "happiness cards" are really delivered to the user's given address.
Suggestions for "happiness cards":
- Porn;
- Landscapes;
- Puppies;
- Funny babies.
Hey, House and Senate, stop trying to regulate dumb things, and try to get a grip on Net Neutrality!
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
...meanwhile, hand me the dice Baby - Daddy needs a new pair of shoes!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I wish some of you effers out there would start voting libertarian. I'm so sick of legislated morality.
cash gambling is illegal in japan, but guess what pachinko does?
you purchase and play with small b.b. sized metal balls, and the payout is in balls.
you can exchange these for a number of prizes, including small tokens.
within a block of the pachinko parlor, there is a shop that buys said tokens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachinko
it's already been done.
personally, though, I'm glad online gambling is illegal. i live in Vegas. the local casinos pay most of the taxes.
Its not as much gambling as it is a game. Now slots and stuff are made to take your money, but a good poker player can make a living.
God spoke to me.
There's already something like this in place for at least one poker site. You buy a phone card from them (it's a valid phone card) and then you transfer the minutes into your account for money.
If you win and want to cash out, they mail you a check.
It is a pointless law really as it can be easily circumvented if someone really wishes to gamble, just insert a non US based 3rd party in the middle of any transaction (off shore bank or paypal like service)
What should be of great concern to everyone though, those for and against gambling is the way this law was passed, attaching two totally unrelated bills like this should be so illegal it should be part of the constitution because no matter how you look at it is a bad situation
Gov either get a law passed that would not on it's own make it past the finishing line by attaching it to a critical bit of legislation or possibly even worse, a piece of critical legislation does not make it into law because of the unrelated riders attached to it
Lotteries, casinos, poker and slots in bars, horse and dog betting, general sports betting via your wookplace bookie, and playing poker with your buddies at home is still legal.
This is just going to push the online gambling towards clearing houses for accounts overseas. If I can register to put money in offshore account, then build a paypal-like link to a site, then register for gambling using this as credential and escrow, nothing stops folks from playing (perhaps via proxy). Overall, this is just silly.
Anti-vice laws such as this aren't for the average person. They're to protect Society from the evils of the people on the edge of the bell curve who can't limit their own impulses. There are all kinds of walks of life and if the easily addicted we're left unsheparded the inherent evilness of their potential actions would eventually spill over into other peoples lives (embezzlement to pay for the gambling for example). Some paths through life are more rewarding than others and the people who make laws tend to think their paths are better so they create blanket laws because it's very difficult to tell which people need to be protected from themselves.
blah blah blah. Off to work.
Shh.
According to http://www.polocenter.com/travel/lotteriesus.htm there are currently 37 states that allow gambling. They call it a 'lottery' but it's really just a glorified numbers racket. That doesn't stop the states from operating them, now does it?
If the federal government is in the business of outlawing gambling, they should do it across the board. Otherwise, they should stick to matters within their charter - national defense, negotiating international treaties, and protecting interstate commerce.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Sounds like an ideal opportunity for organised crime.
Fine with me. The mob knows how to run things when it comes to gambling. Vegas was great under them. Just don't over extend your credit. ;-)
Mr. Joe Average could show up and get treated like royalty. My dad used to get comps walking into a casino just to use the rest room. The cocktail waitresses were TOTAL whores. It was great. :)
Then the soulless hotel corps took over, and I would not be suprised if they start charging you for the air you breathe in the hotel rooms. 6-5 payoff on a blackjack? Christ, just tie me down and rape me. It's more direct.
MBAs and politicians! Exterminate! Exterminate!
Why not just do what they do with Pachinko in Japan?
You buy some tokens, you play with the tokens to win more tokens, you spend those tokens to buy a thing - a special, completely worthless thing, that can only be bought at the game parlor. You go outside, turn the corner, and sell the thing to a shop which is bizarrely interested in the thing, and is more than happy to buy it from you. At the end of the day, this shop then sells these special things back to the Pachinko parlor, who restocks them.
[Z?]
Also, it wasn't a surprise that the legislation PASSED - the Port Security bill was getting passed, period. What IS surprising is that Frist managed to attach this to it. Democrats were trying hard to attach relevant amendments, like a measure to increase security of the rail transit system. These amendments were all rejected, yet Frist manages to get his "pander to the religious right" amendment attached? The mind boggles.
Anyhow, there's a good analysis of the bill reposted here, which includes:
The Japanese use a similar loophole for winning money from pachinko. It's illegal to gamble for money there, so you can win prizes (in the form of tokens) that you then take to a nearby "unrelated" business and trade them for money.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
or something...
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
What winnings?
Question everything
Excuse the (slightly) off-topic question, but could someone explain to me exactly how riders are attached to bills like this? I've googled around but can't come up with any solid information on it. Can any congressman or senator just add a rider to a bill? Is it really that simple? I believe there must be much more to it than that, or else every single bill would have tons of insane riders attached (more so than we have now!). I mean, if someone adds a rider to outlaw online gambling, then whats to stop another person from adding a rider that would nullify that rider?
You want to run for office? I hear there are some tentative availabilities coming up shortly in Congress.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Fortunately for all of us, it's not wrong to play lotto or the horse races. Those types of gambling are just fine.
Gadget News at Gizmo.com
Peter Gibbons: I can't believe what a bunch of nerds we are. We're looking up "money laundering" in the dictionary.
Yeop.
Actually, you remind me of this business idea I've had for a while. Basically, sell investments *as* lottery tickets.
For example, options can give very high returns, but this only happens rarely. So what you would do is:
a) Buy a high-risk option (e.g., the right to buy oil in a month at $110/barrel) which is unlikely to be worth anything but will be valuable if it is
b) Sell $1 shares in this option like lottery tickets.
c) If the option turns out to be worth anything, sell it, and distribute proportional to buyers.
You could even liven it up - buy many different kinds of options, and buyers "scratch off" to find what option they're now holding a share of.
They can't say it's illegal gambling, because that would amount to saying that "real investing" is gambling.
What could go wrong?
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
but the general unwillingness of people in the US to report winnings on their taxes through means that they shouldn't be using. How do you report gambling income if it's not legal to gamble online?
Now that you've posted instructions on how to do this, you're probably guilty of some crime or other too.
America, land of the free!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
This political system is fucked.
No, really. The way things operate today is so far gone from what the founders of this country intended. Everytime a controversial bill is passed by attaching it to a piece of "must-pass" legisilation, I die a little bit on the inside. Why can't politicians see that they're selling out their country by trying to protect it with more non-sense laws that are only in big corporations interests and NOT the peoples? When will it end?
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
I know it's unlikely, but perhaps we should discontinue gambling activities and send a clear message that we won't stand for lobbyists controlling our state and federal leaders. Then again, maybe we should just surrender to our lobbyist overlords now and hope that they don't take away our freedom to stay home on the weekend instead of going out and giving them our money.
...providing "material support" to organizations that have terrorist ties is -- if I understand our new insect overlords correctly -- now sufficient to classify anyone as an "enemy combatant" and basically strip himher of all habeas-type rights. Putting money in offshore accounts helps those banks to launder the money of terrorists and many other unsavory types, which I believe could qualify as material support (the law was intentionally left vague on what constitutes material support).
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I'm giving 5-to-1 on repeal by 2010. Any takers?
If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
Whatever. You can thank the boundaries of the Interstate Commerce Clause for defanging this beast. Expect gambling sites to set up bank accounts in each of the states where online gambling is legal under state law, and direct all traffic from gamblers in a state to servers in that state. This accounts for most if not all states.
All this law does is make internet gambling sites shell out a few (hundred) thousand dollars for server upgrades and a minor software patch. Yippee.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
You're both kind of funny in the head. Here's the way I see it. You buy the T-shirts and collect lots of them. Then you become a regional rep for the T-shirt sales and tell others how they can buy the T-shirts from you and you add a few cents for handling. You also tell them that if they buy 1000 t-shirts from you, that they can then become a regional rep too. Have this happen about five or six time and you're a T-shirt mogul! Meanwhile you have tons of tokens to gamble away and you have your winnings converted to items of huge value. Ferraris, one million cans of chicken soup, a sky scraper... then you have those shipped here. Customs would have no idea what hit them and you'd be wealthy beyond your wildest dreams over and over again! (Not sure what to put here) PROFIT!!!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Anyone want to lay down bets on how long this will last?? I'm giving 3 to 1 odds here.... If you do, please visit my online gaming site located at http://secretuspolicelist.gov/
"But this one goes to 11!"
What's interesting is that the states apparantly still believe they are allowed to allow/prohibit/regulate brick'n'mortar gambling, which is why you can do it in Las Vegas or Atlantic City, and I guess the Indian Casinos somehow fit into all that. But remember that it is "interstate commerce" that makes it illegal -- by federal law -- for you to grow marijuana and sell it to your next-door neighbor who lives in the same state. In order for Congress to prohibit the interstate drug trade, they say it's "necessary and proper" for them to prohibit intrastate trade.
Use the same logic, and the regulation of "online" gambling is a step in that direction, and all gambling in any form, even brick'n'mortar Casinos, is now subject to federal control.
The "interstate commerce" combined with "necessary and proper" clauses are the most powerful things in the constitution, as long as you vaguely and abusively interpret them "correctly." Nobody can name a single thing that is beyond the constitutional powers of Congress. Go ahead, try. Name anything that, from the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8 and the 10th Amendment, that you think might be a "states rights" issue, and I bet someone can come up with a perverted way to make it a federal issue.
"The United States" do not exist -- it is just The State. What's the capital of Texas? Washington DC. What's the capital of California? Washington DC. What's the capital of New York? Washington DC. Memorizing the 50 capitals is easy! :-)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
One easy way to get around this law is to open up a swiss bank account. Get a debit card through such bank, and then use it at gambling sites, all while in the USA.
There. :-P Happy?
Goddamn libertarian pussies. ;)
Actually, cats are a great symbol for libertarian thought. :) Independent. Living by the beat of their own drum. Fuzzy. Coughing up furballs. Um. OK, so I overextended the analogy.
They're just trying to keep the tubes clear. As we all know. poker chips clog up tubes, and there are only so many state approved lottery balls we can keep pumping through to clean out the mess.
Again, this is basically an unenforcable law from the perspective of stopping on line gambling as people will work around it with non US banks, the same way the gambling corporations get around gambling laws with non US servers.
As for coding ETF transactions, there are too many times that money is moved without a given purpose at the time other than changing where you are keeping it. Is "Moving money to a better storage facility" going to be a valid transfer code? If so, your premise is shot right there. As at that point you have to legislate thoughts of "Did you decide you were going to gamble with this money before or after transferring it to off-shore-bank.com?"
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Here are some possibilities:
1. The number of underground casinos/cardrooms/sportsbooks will grow.
2. Independent bookies will see increased business.
3. Organized crime will get in on the action.
4. Overseas banks will get more money at the expense of US banks.
5. People will be swindled by overseas business offering to hold money for internet gaming.
You can still use your credit card to fund an account to wager on horse racing online.
>>> "You buy some tokens, you play with the tokens to win more tokens, you spend those tokens to buy a thing - a special, completely worthless thing, that can only be bought at the game parlor
So these tokens are like gambling chips.... (think about that for a second)
By them giving you something in return for your 'win' you have still 'won a prize'... no matter how invaluable you think it might be. Heck, a piece of paper has little actual value, but your ability to swap it for valuable goods gives it value. - its still a prize, and you still gambled.
Oh please post a link to who this is!! A friend and I use poker sites all the time and this would be the way to equalize this BS law.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
In spite of America's failings (the most obvious one about letting citizens own guns for the purpose of schoolyard shootings) I have to admire the balls Congress has in this situation. They just decimated the share value of a number of online gambling companies!
Too often governments fear bringing corporations down to size. There are a number of unethical industries that need to be nipped on the reproductive organs and it WILL mean a loss to the economy in terms of corporate valuations. Lately banking, telecommunications, and oil firms are just taking individuals and countries for a ride. The only ones who can stop it (the Governments) are the very same ones that profit in the back pocket from the illicit activity.
It takes a real man to lead a religion and not abuse his power. It takes a real government to lead a country and not abuse its power.
hey all you American online gamblers!! Up here in Canada, we don't tax winnings. You can come up here and gamble away and keep all your winnings. I'll bet some enterprising bank will let you put your money here so you don't have to bring it into the US, but here's a bank card so it's all good.
Mean what you say...say what you mean.
democracy simply does not work.
- Kent Brokman
Seriously I sounded this out in my head as 4954.HARASS on the first read.
Seems it would be a more apt name.
Letter To Iran
Your logic is exactly what drove this thing, I'm certain. It's also a foolish notion, on the face of it.
If U.S. credit card companies can't collect U.S. payments for U.S.-based online gambling, then I guess we're about to see some explosive growth in their overseas divisions.
How is my Visa card, acquired in Britain from their European division, and not subject to this law, going to prevent me from gambling myself into bankruptcy in a (now) European-based online casino? Is the Justice Department going to put Visa out of business in the U.S. over this?
This law drains whatever tax benefit Internet gambling provides to the U.S., and guarantees growth for European and Asian business.
Shaw's Principle: Build a system even a fool could use, and only a fool would want to use it.
If I'm reading this right, it was passed almost unanimously in both the house and the senate (these things aren't terribly clear). It appears to have been sponsored by Dan Lungren (R-CA). Does anyone know how to stop this kind of crap? I don't know of a single person who would endorse this crap, but it appears that pretty much everybody voted for it (no doubt due to it's name).
If this is new information to you my friend, I must ask you for which rock you're sleeping under. It seems like a very silent and lonely place. I have been searching for such a spot.
Dear highly honered sire,
My name is John Gumble and I am a American cittisen that just won $2m in offshore online casino. Since my bank won't proces it I would like to ask to give me your bank acount, pincode and sacrifice a goat so I can transfer the money. I will help you to get 15% out of the transaction.
God bless you, I have 2 wife and 3 kids who are hungry and this will really help me,
Sincerely,
John Gimble
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
It would probably be easier and cheaper just to bribe the police.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
As for the "think of the children" bunch: if they have kids whom it's negatively impacting, take them and give them to someone who can take care of them
When President Clinton was in office, he signed legislation that makes it far easier for highly irresponsible people to permanent lose custody of their children. I wish more people who voted republican were aware of this fact.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Instead, this law is Congress exercising its police powers enforce it's percieved notions of morality in the U.S. It's more like a country banning U.S. movies because they did not like the sex or violence present in them.
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
I'm voting in the November elections. How about you?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It's not gambling, it's investing. You're actually selling something: the right to buy oil. The value of the thing you're selling is determined by an actual, real-world object: once it all settles out a real barrel of oil actually goes somewhere.
You'd get into all kinds of trouble, not because it's gambling but because it's investing. The SEC would want to have a word with you. You'd have to explain how you're planning on tracking all those lottery tickets, when they can just bypass you as the middle man and invest directly. And you'd better be prepared to fill out a lot of forms to make sure you're not skimming more than you say you will.
You're right that options are closer to gambling than regular stocks are, because what you're selling there is "risk". The real purpose of options is to manage risk. Some farmer has a bunch of oranges coming in, and he'd like to sell the juice today for a set price rather than risk the weather ruining his crop. You buy the option; you're assuming the risk and possibly getting the reward. You're helping some farmer out.
Unlike gambling risk, though, the risk isn't artificial, and the margin isn't going to the house. This is weather risk, or risk that they won't find oil, or other kinds of real-world risk on real-world objects. It's not for fun, the way gambling is. It's serious business, and farmers would be a lot worse off if it weren't for agricultural commodities hedging. (It applies just as well to spreading the risk of other investments, but it's clearest with agricultural ones.)
Offshore internet gambling isn't taxed. There's the reason they want to block it.
"I don't see a legitimate reason for gambling to be illegal. If someone wants to gamble, smoke, shoot themselves in the foot, or whatever, let them. "
The problem is that people who gamble online are usually doing so with somebody elses money - i.e. their credit card providers.
One of the problems targeted by this bill is the rising volume of uncollectable debts related to gambling. I agree with you - gambling should not be illegal. But I also think gambling with borrowed, unsecured funds should not be allowed without the expressed consent of the lender.
The last few episodes were really smart and really funny. "whats the point, we're all slowly dying.." -homer on his lack of motivation.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
What's really ironic about this is that this dingleberry attached to an unrelated bill was supposedly to appease the religious right. But nowhere in the bible... NOWHERE is gambling indicated as being against god's will or law. In fact the bible makes repeated references to gambling and "drawing of lots" throughout.
This is another classic example of religious nutjobs exploiting the stupidity of the public, hiding behind dogma to impose their own selfish agenda. They feel that internet gambling is cutting into their gambling activities like bingo... what a bunch of hypocrites. It's a shame god doesn't exist because if he did, all these asses would be burning in hell for eternity as a result of their unbridaled hubris and hypocrisy.
Actually, cats are a great symbol for libertarian thought. :)
'Cause they're dependant on their owners for food and medical care? Unless you meant the feral variety, and I wouldn't exactly call them fuzzy...
I'm teasing anyhow. Burn karma burn.
militant gun owning 'liberal'
That used to be the case, until the B&M casinos saw how many people were going to Vegas for the World Series of Poker after winning online satellites. The whole poker boom, which B&M casinos are making a lot of money off of, would never have happened without online poker.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
Do they have these exchange stores at a 7-11 or something? This is fine for the big cities, but how would someone in the sticks get paid?
Can I bum a sig?
. . . its still a prize, and you still gambled.
The issue is not gambling. The issue is compliance with law.
KFG
This is very simple.
Off-shore betting company, routes CC through off-shore CC processing center.
There's NO way the US can pass a law that would disallow an American from using online gambling, if they were in another country.
ie - offshore company routes traffic through an off-shore proxy, which then makes it appear that the users are in Thailand or Jamaica, or wherever.
Then they place the bets, take the money, or give it back.
No US laws to worry about.
Not that I care about online gambling, as I don't gamble, period. It's enough of a gamble just to wake up every day. I just don't like seeing tax payer money wasted on stupid legislature which restricts what we as citizens can and cannot do.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Whether it could still be possible to operate casinos legally in the US is not the most important thing here, whether casinos and online gaming companies will continue to put up with the hassle involved is. Right now it's not looking like they will.
Between this bill and the arrest of betonsports CEO, the feds are sending a strong message to online gaming compamies that they are cracking down hard on this sector. PartyGaming (owner of no.1 gambling site partypoker) already announced they are pulling out of the US market. Rumors are that Pokerstars.com (no.2 site) will follow suit tomorrow or very soon.
888.com (another major online casino) and a host of smaller sites already said they are no longer going to allow US players. Now of course other sites make start up to fill the void, but make no mistake, this bill will hit the gaming sector extremely hard.
wow! companies like neteller et. al. must be very happy with the passing of this new law. no more competition from credit card companies - now we (we being american online gamblers) are forced to put our money into a third party middle-man, pay them a percentage based fee, and then gamble with whats left..
thanks congress, way to accomplish absolutely nothing other than giving us a hard time.
"i stand on the edge of destruction" -shai hulud
Why would anyone pay one or two orders of magnitude more money to get into an office, than they are legally paid back in salary for the job--unless they were getting some kickback out of it?
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Lets see, the US tries to outlaw gambling, porn, booze sales on the InterNet. Doesn't sond like a very liberal country to me. Please protect me from my evil desires Uncle Sam!
...paypal?
exactly how is this the land of the free?
we cant do shit
this whole country has lost its way
now the government tells me im not allow to gamble online, in my own home?
fuck that
alot of peoples income comes from online gambling
Except for the government taking away my rights, the entire concept of tacking unrelated items on a bill to get it passed under the wire pisses me the hell off.
Bills should be about ONE subject. Period. And anyone that even tries to tack on crap should be shot on site.
We have lost control of our government, its long past time for a 2nd revolution.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Anyone want to bet that online casinos will be targeted by this law, but Wall Street will remain strangely exempt?
When you buy share of stock, you own a percentage of the company that issued it. Your reasons for buying it (profit, loss, wipe your ass w/ certificate) are incidental.
When you game, you're wagering you'll get something for nothing. Your reasons for doing it are also incidental. Nothing is produced but extremely costly entertainment.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Actually, the issues are:
That the government is not my mommy; ethically the government has no right to say what I can do with my own money until I directly use that money to hurt another citizen or it is extremely clear that I intend to do so; legally the government has no right to say anything at all with regard to gambling, because I never gave it any such right, nor have I authorized anyone to do so for me. The government is out of control, operating illegitimately, unconstitutionally, unethically, and "compliance enforcement" is in fact coercion backed by enormous, life-ruining power.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
If what's correct, then then why did FireOne (which is FirePay's owner) says in this press release today.
FireOne's a publicly traded company on the London Stock Exchange and it dropped 66% on this news. So I'm thinking that the US laws do have a significant impact them getting US customers. If you think otherwise, take a gamble and buy their shares cheap. At least its not a negative sum game like online gambling.
take them and give them to someone who can take care of them.
The foster child care system is already overloaded, and no one seems willing to pay higher taxes to support such a position. It's net cheaper to society to ban illegal gambling than to do what you're suggesting. If you can change that equation, I think you'd find your position getting more traction.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Moderation -1
100% Troll
TrollMods can't face the truth: Republican pedophiles are raping us all, on both sides of the bars.
--
make install -not war
People need to be allowed to fall before they can learn to remain standing on their own. If we never allow them to fall we will forever be propping them up with (what should be unnecessary) crutches.
As a Canadian, we've learned the hard way that free trade = americans trade for free. Numerous appeals panels over the past decade have consecutively proven that Canada does not unfairly subsidize our softwood lumber, yet there's a huge tariff imposed at the border. We won all the appeals, and guess what? US policy is basically 'you can't make us stop'. WTO takes years (decades?) to allow for counter-duties and tariffs, which essentially peanlises your own citizens for unfair trade practices.
So while American lumber continues to destroy spotted owl habitat, all the cheap + BETTER QUALITY lumber (words of the US housing industry, not mine) remains unharvested. Congrats american consumer - you lose too!
The US always has, and always will, be a big bully on the global economic scene. The question now is whether that advantage trickles down to the american consumer, or if the new robber barons can re-establish their hoovervilles.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
it's all about who wins and who loses. all of these gambling companies that lose because of this are offshore, a lot in the UK i believe. the winners are inbred social conservatives who will celebrate this with a game of bingo at the local church (laff!)
american congresscritters are not elected by british businessmen, so the heck with them. if it were american businessmen that stood to lose because of this, it would have never passed. but as it is, american businessmen can't start these sort of businesses because of laws pushed by said inbred social conservatives to begin with... inbred social conservatives usually from areas of the country with riverboat casinos. the hypocrisy of it all. it's potectionism of outdated gambling modes: las vegas, atlantic city: they serve to lose from online gambling
so this isn't about morality after all in the end folks, it's about business, and this whole bill is a giant stinking turd of protectionism. protecting us all right into luddite obsolescence, where british companies will profit from what american compnies should be profitting from in the first place!
why don't we just shorcircuit this entire retarded effort by the congresscritters and just become amish. then we will be protected from the evils of electricity too. let the british profit from evil electricity insted. pffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Neither the credit card companies, nor the electronic money transfer agents (e.g. Neteller, Firepay), nor the online poker companies (e.g. PartyGaming, Poker Stars, Paradise), nor the sportbetting companies (e.g. Sportingbet, etc.) thought the bill would pass.
They mostly predicted it would pass the House, but stall at the Senate owing to various objections from well-lobbied Senators.
But what they didn't expect was the underhand way in which Frist would wait until the very last minute before recess (when everyone was tired and just wanted to break up to start campaigning) and attach it to a piece of legislation that no-one was going to object to (i.e. an anti-terrorist act).
Many of the Senators had not even had a chance to read the bill that they ended up voting through by a majority of 470 to 2.
You're missing the important factor - the place you get the money from is not the same as the place you do the "gambling" at. The place that pays the money for the prizes could just as easily be online as well as long as it is not the place where you do the gaming.
pay your money to play the games.
get token prizes for winning the games.
get a money transfer from third party business for the prizes.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Perhaps the US should worry somewhat about this. As I recall, most of the internet gaming sites are based in the UK. When China decided to banned opium, the Brits came in and forced them to accept it...
On a more serious note, I think the US probably owes the UK for the iraq war (at least Blair) and reversing this could be a small favor. On the other hand, since Blair is a short-timer, perhaps there isn't anything to lose to pass this ban now...
Why is it ok to bombard the public with scratch tickets, numbers games, and casinos yet for some reason doing it on the web is bad? Either they are all bad or none of them are.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
"I constantly see the people with tattered clothes sitting at the machines, the mother with her 6 year old sleeping on the carpet next to her at 2 AM."
I live near Tunica MS and have been to Las Vegas and do not believe you have constantly seen "the mother with her 6 year old sleeping on the carpet next to her at 2 AM."
I have taken MY 6 year old to several casinos in order to enjoy the restaurants and other offerings and just the act of walking through a casino with such an obvious minor usually either requires an escort or us being watched very closely. There are laws against gambling with your children present to prevent this kind of thing. I suspect the various state gambling comissions don't take kindly to violators since the casinos enforce it VERY strictly.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
The bill is deliberately vague in its language, and states that a "financial transaction provider" must block payments to online gambling companies. Both Firepay and Neteller would be considered to be "financial transaction providers". This langauge will be deliberate, as many, if not most, credit companies stopped allowing transfers to online gambling operations a while ago, and so Firepay and Neteller have been very heavily used in recent years. This bill aims to stop that.
Of course, the question is whether Firepay and Neteller would comply. Given they have no physical presence in the US, they are beyond US regulatory control. Neteller, for example, is based in the Isle of Man. Would the Isle of Man judiciary enforce an order on one of its own companies that is served up by the US? Will be interesting to see what happens.
if they have kids whom it's negatively impacting, take them and give them to someone who can take care of them.
What a fabulous idea. Hey, everybody is decrying childhood obesity now too, so let's take kids away from fat people. The majority of Americans think that same sex couples are unfit parents, so we'll have to take their kids.
Yes, this is a ridiculous extension of what you suggested, but I think it illustrates the problem with the idea of taking children from bad parents and giving them to good parents: for the most part, nobody can really say which parents are good and which are bad until the kids are grown up.
The issue is not gambling. The issue is compliance with law.
Right, and the best way to deal with a bad law (defined as any law that inhibits your personal freedom to do anything you want other than
harming someone else or infringing on someone else's rights) is to ignore it.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately for you:
A) The government doesn't have to accept your money as legal tender. Expecially if they don't recognize you as a viable foreign government.
B) The money you are currently using daily is the property of the government.
C) The government can regulate its own property.
Okay, that makes more sense. From the way you were describing it I was thinking brick store to cash in the prizes and thought that would cause problems. The online store makes more sense and would work.
Can I bum a sig?
That the government is not my mommy. . .
There was a guy on Book TV a couple of weeks ago who modeled the difference between political Conservatives and Liberals as being people who believed in a strict parental role and those who believed in a nurturing parental role.
Sitting there listening to the guy all I could think was, "Doesn't leave a lot of room for grownups, does it?"
I think it says a whole lot about our culture when even a harsh government critic can only think of the populace as children who have to be babied.
KFG
So we need to federally fund research into a TIME MACHINE!!!
Then we can retroactively take screwed up adults from thier parents!
0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
This is incorrect. You can only be classified as an "enemy combatant" or "illegal enemy combatant" if you are NOT a US citizen. This new law does NOT apply to US citizens.
Does this mean that people with lesser browsers will no longer be subjected to epilepsy-inducing banner ads inviting them to give all their money away?
Wait, this move could really hurt firefox adoption.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Well said. Further, if you look at the various founding documents, you can see that they were written with the idea in mind that citizens were indeed to be treated as grownups. The abandonment of the charter and the mental gymnastics performed by the government in order to achieve a position of "we're your mommy" are despicable acts that are, I think, intimately related. Next time, we need to put some teeth in the founding documents, I guess.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So true, I recently read a piece by Engel's from 1891 where he took a pot shot at the US for having a corrupt government with two parties that are really two sides of the same coin. It's nothing new. (It goes without saying that anything written by Engels should be taken with at least a few grains of salt.)
Ah, I found an online copy of Engel's 1891 postscript to Marx's The Civil War in France :
Centralization breaks the internet.
. . .we need to put some teeth in the founding documents, I guess.
That was supposed to be the Second Amendment, but mommy doesn't like us playing with toys that might put somebody's eye out.
Especially if that somebody might be mommy.
KFG
Thank God the Congress had the balls to stand up to this un-American betting on the Intenet pipes thing. The idea of people sitting around in their underwear gambling in the privacy of their houses is disgusting. Youse bums should get out more and support your local businesses, like for example, Earl the Bookie down at Ichabod's Billiards. Earl has a daughter he's trying to put through college and needs the local trade to get by. Money spent locally gets recirculated locally, like for example Big Mike's 10% skim of the action, which has been down lately. If you like poker or craps, youse should knock on the door to the back room and tell Large Arnold that Ralphie sent you.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
You've hit the core of what classical liberalism really is; I refuse to define it as Libertarian because the current party is nothing but a group of crazies in their own right. Modern liberals are actually classical socialists more or less. Its a pity Thomas Jefferson was the founder of the Democratic Party.... his values held NOTHING in common with the modern party.
This is honestly how most of the country feels... moderate libertarian or centrist to the left or right with libertarian influence.
I believe a country should be founded upon one central natural truth. Its liberal in its content and even possibly delusional;but I still stand by it:
People should be free to live their life how they choose; as long as that same right is not taken from someone else, including their descendants.
but, it's also gambling
you put money down on a game of chance in the hope of winning back more money
ie, gambling
according to you, if i show you a picture of naked chick, it's not pornography if she's naked in the basement of a church
pffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
and as a bonus, they appeal to some in the conservative religious crowd.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
I know because I gamble online. I tried to buy-in using my credit card -- doesn't work because the credit card companies *already* block charges to online gambling companies. Instead I funnel my money through PayPal or something similar, and everything works fine. I don't see how this law will change anything.
"human rights experts expressed concern yesterday that the language in the new provision would be a precedent-setting congressional endorsement for the indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its military allies.
c le/2006/09/25/AR2006092501514.html
l leged_terrorist)
The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
"José Padilla (also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir) (born October 18, 1970) is an American citizen of Puerto Rican descent "
"On June 9, 2002, two days before District Court Judge Michael Mukasey was to issue a ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, President Bush issued an order to Secretary Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(a
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Many states have outlawed using credit cards for lottery tickets, which could be construed as gambling, I suppose. Colorado is among those states.
Thus, the rule itself may not have been for the express purpose of eliminating gambling, but to keep people from putting themselves even further in debt to pay for their gambling habit.
It doesn't even need to be passed as a law. All you need is one of the parties to stand up and say "we will ALWAYS vote against any legislation with unrelated riders on it, and we won't write any of our own". And then stick to it. Other countries don't have to outlaw this nonsense, because if anyone tried to pull it they would be laughed out of town. All you need to do is announce it for the foolishness that it is, so it will no longer be tolerated.
Okay, call me naive.. but then, I'm Canadian.
I adblock all animated gifs.
Blessed be the prime numbered slashdotters
I play a little poker online. I generally win, and am up 3K so far this year.
Mainly I play for entertainment.
Bread and Circuses. That's what the politicians are taking away from me.
That's not very smart, historically speaking.
That is it. No interpretation needed. US citizens are simply not subject to these commissions. Period.
The rest of the information you provide is about Jose Padilla. This legislation does not and will not apply to Padilla. In fact the Padilla case was transferred to a court with full civilian control and oversight. He now has full rights to challenge his detention. Additionally it was the seemingly unfair treatment of Padilla and others that prompted this bill.
Note that I'm not attempting to support the aims of this bill, just pointing out the facts. The fact is that it does NOT apply to US citizens.
You might want to look into alternative means of exchange as well.
. htm
Ithaca Hours:
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/7813/ccs-ithi
KFG
If this had ANYTHING to do with concern for the weakest and poorest members of society, then we should start by banning the lottery, and for that matter, predatory tactics used by banks and credit card companies.
After the dot com crash, my business failed and I went largely unemployed for almost two years. I went from having stellar credit and over $50,000 in cash in my bank account to ruined credit and about $40,000 in debt, with interest continuing to accrue. Not a week goes by that I don't receive several offers in the mail for "pre-approved" credit cards, offering minimal $300 credit limits in exchange for annual fees of as much as $80, interest rates of 21%, increasing to 30% if I so much as make a single late payment or go a penny over my limit, and acknowledging that they can increase my interest rates at any time if they see fit, even if I am making timely payments to their account.
All this, while Congress voted to restrict my ability to declare bankruptcy and make a new start. Notice how crooked companies got no new restrictions on their ability to go bankrupt and swindle millions from their customers, investors, and customers.
I have no interest in gambling, but it is insulting to suggest that this anti-gambling law has ANYTHING to do with concern for the little guy. This is all about protecting THEIR TURF..
Er, like Haliburton, Tyco, et al? It's WHOS foreign companies that make the difference.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Right, and the best way to deal with a bad law . . . is to ignore it.
Capital One is not going to bite the hand that feeds it.
KFG
I would be interested to hear your theories on where rights come from. For instance how is property a right and killing people not a right? How does one know what is a right and what is a privledge? Is there an exhaustive list of rights? How would one go about adding or subtracting (if possible) rights from that list?
I'm not trolling or trying to bait you. I just am interested in your ideas.
I didn't make the rules.
The biggest gamble might be remaining in this country.
We are.
- Highly irresponsible Republicans
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
They'll go out of business if they do. They just need to make sure that their directors don't ever visit the US.
However, if the penalty for disobeying the bill rests with the US banks then they'll probably feel compelled to block transactions to Neteller and Firepay.
Either way, there's really nothing stopping you from setting up an offshore account with a bona-fide bank and using that to fund your accounts. I'm sure some enterprising bank in the caymens will start accomodating this $12bn niche.
You might want to check your legal jurisdiction, before shooting your mouth off.
If the money can be traced back to someone residing in the US, they can be prosecuted.
Besides, when has the US government EVER worried about jurisdiction?
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Apparently those nanites from Doctor Who in WWII are still about and they still haven't quite given up on that "Mummy" theme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doctor_Dances
But if you purchase a lovely T-shirt from the caymen islands for $1000 on your credit card, you get online gambling credits free with your purchase!
Seriously, the law won't actually do anything to stop gambling, but it will acomplish two very important things:
1. You can know that your elected representatives are "doing something" about gambling! It is very, very, very important that your elected officials are seen as "doing something" about a "problem".
2. The laws are probably written loosly and vaugly enough to allow the government to arbitrarily punish any credit card company they want. This is good for politicians, as credit card companies have a lot of money to give to political campaigns in exchange for protection.
I asked that same question a week ago and someone marked it as redundant but didn't provide any insight on why or the question in general. I think Linden Labs is seriously going to have a to take a look at the issue because they or the people providing the gambling establishments in there might find themselves in trouble under the new law.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
Have not waded through all the verbiage of H.R.4954.EAS (and really, no, really, what does securing our ports have to do with web-based poker players, anyway?), but one must wonder why our beloved Legislators continue to prove their shortsightedness.
Surely, if the bill merely states that credit card companies are no longer allowed to act as the middleman for any wager, this will only create opportunities for non-U.S. companies to act as the moneychangers.
As it is estimated that 70% of online gambling comes from American shores, the problem is not how will it be stopped, but how will it be spent.
... I lived in the United States... Then I wouldn't have to develop all this self-control and responsibility crap... The government would do it for me by making illegal anything I could possible enjoy, and therefore become addicted to!
Perhaps some congressmen have racked up a super dept by gambling online and are now making it illegal for it to be collected.
Why should the U.S. allow foreign companies to suck money out of the U.S. economy, and then not even pay taxes back to the U.S.?
I agree, in principle. There is currently 200 billion AUD leaving Australia tax free each year. Almost half of that is to the US. So if you can push this proposal forward I will support you as we would most dearly like out 100 billion back you blood sucking leeches.
- Nothing to see hear.
The US always has, and always will, be a big bully on the global economic scene.
I doubt anyone will dispute that it is right now, but who's to say they're not cutting themselves short in the long run? For all you know 10 years from now Mexico decides they really want that Canadian lumber and big boats, just outside US territorial waters to avoid random searches, will sail north and south all the time while waving to the people peering through the tiny holes in the big concrete wall on the shore. The world economy is constantly shifting and at some point the US will have to make some changes.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Now no one can say you're do-nothing, just do-nothing-smart. Thanks for wasting the money we all pay you for making these idiotic decisions.
Perhaps if Canada would let us dump our wheat and other produce on Canada, we would let them dump their lumber on us. I wonder why Barnes and Noble and Borders don't open stores in Canada.
If not for Canadian protectionism, you Canadians wouldn't be paying so much for tomotoes. It's really the consumer that loses out. I would love to build a house for less by using cheap Canadian lumber too. What happens is both governments put into place laws that protect certain industries at the expense of their own consumers.
Now if we could only get Canada to pay their fair share for medical drug research, instead of pleasing poverty and having a government monopoly negotiate third-world pity-pricing for drugs.
How is this possibly enforceable?
Wait! I know! It's not!
It's only another chapter of the book they can throw at you when you're indicted for tax evasion, being a deadbeat parent or some other Federal-level financial crime.
Also, when will someone get the power of line-item veto so that our ratfucking legislators will stop tacking 'It's ok to remove civil liberties' measures onto bills 'opposed to the wholesale murder of schoolchildren and cute little puppies'?
WTF does port protection have to do with online gambling? No, really, I'd love to hear about it.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
So it's not so much
"If you are not wish us you are against us"
as it is
"If you are not one of us you are against us"
Charming.
Actually, the government derives its power from its monpoly on violence. The people may have put it in place, but it's the fear of the police officer's gun that keeps the government in power.
Not a sentence!
Good question. One could also wonder why the rest of the world should allow US companies to suck money out of the local economies and evade local taxes in the process. A certain company that is frequently mentioned on Slashdot comes to mind, namely Microsoft. I heard they had some 40 billion dollars in revenue last year, and most of those money has to come from outside the US. I'd gladly shut that stream off.
As I understand, the US has a trade imbalance in that it is receiving more foreign money than it is spending abroad, so asking to further escalate this imbalance by disallowing foreign companies to "suck money out of the US economy" seems more than a little bit hypocritical, in that US companies already "suck out" more money from foreign economies than foreign companies "suck out" of the US.
The Big Corporate Casinos would jump at the chance to open their own internet sites, even under heavy government regulation, and fair taxation.
They have the trademark names that people associate with gambling, and they could reap their profits without the heavy outlay in employee costs that are associated with physical Hotel/Casinos.
If you are looking for opposition to online gambling, maybe the tribal casinos would be a better start. They have much more to lose.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
International net gambling companies will either go broke or will become rather small, US government "rethinks" it's decision and allows internet gambling again. In the mean time the US gambling corps will have had enough time to create competing products or prepare hostile takeovers which will go live when the law is cancelled. Well done US!
NetNewsWire into Yojimbo!
As a non-US citizen that really makes me feel happier.
Shit, it's enough to make me _want_ to destroy the US. It presents a far greater threat to my life and liberty than anything else on the planet.
I deposit money in an offshore bank every month. I have gambled online in the past. I fully expect to again in the future. No wonder I'm refusing to go to the US..
Mabye not... but 1.) Law prohibits minors from gambling and most states regulate gaming heavily. 2.) Internet gambling pokes a huge hole in this since there is no way to identify if, in a household of three, it is the husband, wife, or 10 year old son gambling... possibly in a state that does not allow it. 3.) The only way to enforce the law is to simply close the hole. Same reason you can't buy liquor and guns online. And before you point out one of the many online gun retailers, you have to realize that they are not shipped to your house. When you buy a gun online it is shipped to the local gun shop of your choice which is authorized by the government to accept such a transfer. The gun is then processed as if you had bought it at that shop. So effectively, it is impossible to buy one online even if you can find and pay for it there.
Hmmm, let me guess: the Libertarian project to 'take over' a state by getting masses of Libertarians to move there and vote as a bloc, has failed. Your new secret plan is to take over the prison system by convincing all of the Libertarians to break laws willy-nilly and get incarcerated. I doubt that you will be able to actually 'take over' the prisons (they won't let you take your guns to prison with you), but the LP could become the largest prison gang.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
What's your home address? I bet that I am a better shot than you are, especially at 3am when I am prepared to rob you, and you are asleep. Seeing as how you post on /., you probably have some cool toys that I would be interested in.
The police benefit you just by being there; you don't have to see them beating-down a perp on your property for you to be deriving benefit. Same goes true for the military. The soldiers who aren't being bled in stupid foreign entanglements, really are protecting our country from foreign invaders (who oddly enough have less respect for our Constitution than your current government).
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
Hell, never give me my money. Just let me spend my winnings at Amazon.com, ThinkGeek.com, BestBuy.com, etc.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
No, the world economy only counts if it gives the extremely wealthy more wealth. Who is this 'U.S.' of which you speak? Do you mean the millions of workers who lost their jobs (some of whom got back 'a job', lower hourly wage, part-time, no healthcare)? Hey, I'm 'U.S', where's my benefit? Or maybe you mean U.S. companies like Stanley Tools; no, wait, they're not a U.S. company (they re-incorporated on a Caribbean island to get massive tax benefits). Maybe you mean the U.S. government that now gets less money from Stanley Tools than they used to, gets less income tax from unemployed and underemployed workers than they used to, and has to pay unemployment benefits, welfare benefits, and pick up the tab for a lot of uncollectable medical bills.
The 'U.S.' does not benefit from globalization. The extremely wealthy benefit from globalization.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
How many mentally impaired, crack-addicted six year-olds can I sign you up for (not even touching the issue of interracial adoption). We already have a severe shortage of foster parents in the US. Taking away every child who is 'negatively impacted' by their parents' stupidity would be disasterous.
OTOH, Congressman Foley has generously volunteered to open his home to nine troubled teenage boys.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
As a foster parent, I happen to be part of the "'think of the children' bunch". As a quasi-libertarian, I also strongly disagree with government interference with on-line gambling and many other government interferences. The irony is that taking a child from his/her biological parent is a much greater government interference than restricting potentially self-destructive behavior. For the whole personal responsibility and less government mantra to work, we must either accept the fact that many children will live a childhood of abuse and neglect because it's not the government's problem, or we must have effective non-governmental measures for dealing with the fallout of free will.
The real problem today is that there aren't enough foster parents to provide meaningful and effective transitory care and there certainly aren't enough people willing to adopt 6 year old children of parents with gambling problems. In my state, Florida, there are literally thousands of children and teens stuck permanently in overcrowded foster care or group homes with no chance of being adopted. Anyone who casually suggests that the answer is to simply take children from bad parents and give them to good parents needs to put up or shut up.
Vagas is pissed they weren't getting the money and lobbied congress, telling them all the tax dollars they were missing out on. There's no need for this bill other than to try and capture tax dollars here in the US.
If closed the mind be, so then the mouth should follow.
Perhaps if Canada would let us dump our wheat and other produce on Canada, we would let them dump their lumber on us. I wonder why Barnes and Noble and Borders don't open stores in Canada. Both are legitimate gripes and I agree with you -- Chapters/Indigo is a virtual monopoly, and both our countries heavily subsidize agriculture for political gain. Its a major gripe that 3rd world nations can't develop their economies, since most basic economies start agrarian based. In both of these cases, however, I'd argue Canada and the US are both guilty of protecting domestic agriculture and manufacutring/retail industries. Both are exempt from NAFTA for the most part too. If not for Canadian protectionism, you Canadians wouldn't be paying so much for tomotoes. It's really the consumer that loses out. I would love to build a house for less by using cheap Canadian lumber too. What happens is both governments put into place laws that protect certain industries at the expense of their own consumers. Agree completely. Now if we could only get Canada to pay their fair share for medical drug research, instead of pleasing poverty and having a government monopoly negotiate third-world pity-pricing for drugs. Sorry, I disagree here. Canada pays fair share for medical research. Its just we didn't extend patent protection to the drug companies in a progressive fashion since the 1950s. Its still only around 10-20 years before we allow the manufacture of generic alternatives. It should be noted that the drug companies do not HAVE to import their patents/brands/drugs to Canada, but they choose to do so knowing that they'll be subject to much more lenient patent protection. The market is still good enough. Our healthcare industries vary greatly, we're public and the US is private. But our drug laws are the same, barring the lengths acceptable for patents.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Nice protection racket suggestion there.
First, I am biased. I've been a poker player for 40 years now. I don't play any other casino games, bet on sports, horse racing, etc. There are 3 casinos with 10 miles of my home. In the last year, I've played poker tournaments and cash games in casinos all over the U.S.
While I'm not ready to quit the day job, I have submitted 1099G forms and paid taxes on my winnings for the last 3 years. Before that, I didn't win enough money to need to file a 1099G. This was a function of not having casino poker in my state until last year and the fact that I was playing in private games. Now technically, those "home games" were and are illegal. My win rate is about 85% in the private games and I do very well at the casinos...about $150 an hour playing $1-2 and $2-5 no limit hold 'em.
I have no issue paying taxes on poker winnings.
I've also been playing on-line poker on Ultimate Bet, PokerStars, and Full Tilt on a daily basis. The advantages are many. I can play 3-5 tables at the same time, listen to music or T.V., get a snack, etc. I also GREATLY improved my game by virtue of being able to play thousands of hands much more quickly and cheaply than driving to a smokey, crowded, loud casino.
Poker is unquestionably a game of skill. Yes, there is an element of luck, but it's very, very small. Playing poker at a high level requires concentration, memory, and very good math skills. There's also the psychological component of reading your opponents and making plays designed to make them make mistakes. At some level, poker is simply making fewer mistakes than your opponent. Even the supposedly random element of shuffling and dealing the cards can be adjusted for. There is something known as "shuffle tracking" which involves recognizing repeatable patterns of card distribution by a human dealer or an automatic shuffler. That's one of the reasons there's a dealer change every 30 minutes...to defeat shuffle tracking.
There are two primary problems with the government prohibiting on-line poker.
First, they're pissing away several billion dollars in tax revenue that will only increase. Real money that could help offset deficits, the cost of the stinkin' war in Iraq, fund social programs, go to education (like lottery dollars in my state) and so on.
Secondly, this legislation puts private industry...banks and credit card companies...in the position of enforcing the law. That's just plain wrong. Their business is money, not enforcing gambling laws.
Now, is gambling bad? I don't know personally...I don't gamble. My standard response when someone says "oh, you're a gambler" is "no, I'm a poker player...and since you don't understand the difference, how about a game?"
Personally, I've never met anyone with a gambling problem, but then I don't know any meth heads or heroin addicts either. I've known a fair number of alcoholics...and there are more of them than any other addiction out there. And yet, liquor stores are still open. You can buy beer and wine at the grocery store. Most restaurants have a bar area. Hmmmm....what exactly is the new online gambling law really supposed to achieve? Prohibition in the last century actually created many more problems than it supposedly solved. I'm betting (pun intended) this new law has a similar effect. When some grandma in Des Moines gets busted for playing nickel poker on PartyPoker, can anyone say, with a straight face, that she's a criminal?
Well, my thoughts on it. If you do play poker on the Internet, you might check out the Poker Player's Alliance. They are actively seeking an exemption for poker in the new law. I've given them money, sent letters to my congressmen, and called their offices. So far, they're climbing a steep hill in Crisco boots, but I support their efforts just the same.
I am my own gestalt.
Even if it's a US resident, if they are overseas, there's NOTHING to prevent them from gambling.
Are they now going to track down travel itineraries before allowing a bet to be placed?
May want to see about getting your hands broken before you type shit about something you obviously are clueless about.
If a US citizen does something overseas, that is legal overseas, then the US can't do a damned thing about it once the citizen is back in the states.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Just as the US cannot regulate gambling outside its borders, it cannot regulate financial services outside its borders (or can it???)
So now there are new opportunities to get American money: American gamblers would need a non-US credit card number so they can use it on gambling sites. There's a whole world outside the US and there will be those that are willing to adopt US gamblers that need a midleman that their US financial institution is allowed to transfer funds to...
See, now here's a complete and utter moron who makes my point for me.
First of all, the cops do not prevent you from creeping up on my home; they come afterwards (assuming I survive to call them or an alarm system notifies them), and they may, or may not, be able to chase you down. Secondly, presuming they do catch you, you've already invaded my privacy, posed whatever threat you can. Which I doubt is significant — I'm a fifth degree black belt (what idiot threatens a guy with a URL like "blackbeltsystems, anyway? Are you 12 years old?) I'm also an expert marksman, I am always armed (concealed carry and accessible arms at home), and should I not be able to get to my weapons, I am a weapon, and I have a custom alarm system, which makes my house darned near impregnable, and most likely, I've already killed you anyway (in my state, cross my door without my permission, and your ass is mine.)
You see, unlike you, I've already thought this through and taken care of it as far as it is practical to do so. Attack me, and you'll find yourself with a serious problem. Invade my home, and you'd better be damned good at it and prepared to do me before I do you.
And where are the police you revere and think I ought to be paying for in all of this? Writing traffic tickets, that's where. Sitting at the town limits trying to catch some hapless out-of-towner speeding. Once an hour, they cruise by the banks, so as to make sure that the instruments of government debt (you know, "dollars"... they represent negative money, because the government is an inept bunch of thieves) have remained undisturbed. The cops don't patrol the neighborhoods. They are so rarely on scene when a crime is ongoing as to make it practical to rule the possibility right out, and should they even manage that awesome feat, there is absolutely no assurance that despite having been caught in the act, you'd see a jail sentence because those idiots (the government in general, cops as accomplices) have filled the jails with totally harmless people who smoke weed, of all things. Furthermore, should I report the crime, I'll spend more time filling out forms and screwing with insurance than I care to — frankly, it seems considerably more practical to bury you in a ditch and forget you ever showed up. Plus, I enjoy digging; I'm a rockhound. These skills could dovetail nicely.
That's drivel. The police benefit me in preventing crime not at all, and rarely anyone else. They might do some good if they were on foot and in the neighborhoods, but they're not, and every criminal in the country knows it. Including you, a moron who was dimwitted enough to threaten my household; if the cops were actually effective, I wouldn't need to be so able with regard to defending my family. The police, as presently constituted, are a waste of my funds. I'm not in the least interested in punishment by judge and jury; I'm interested in prevention, and cops are worthless for that.
I agree the government should have a military arm, certainly one able enough to deliver nukes on top of any invading force. A standing army, as in always-on-line in-a-camp foot-soldiers, is a waste of
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The government can ethically regulate commerce (i.e. what you can do with your money) because the founding fathers explicitly gave up that particular right to the government in Article I, section 8 of the constitution. Of course, you made the excellent point that neither you nor anyone else alive ratified the constitution, thereby rendering the constitution democratically invalid and the government illegitimate. What right does someone's great^8 grandfather have to speak for me? To be fair though, I think if there were enough votes to defeat a ratification today, we would probably know about it.
Why would the founding fathers do something "stupid" like giving the government authority to regulate commerce shortly after overthrowing a government that abused that authority? On reason is that a neutral third party is needed to make sure both parties are getting a fair deal.
Another reason is when money changes hands, the effects of that transaction are not limited to the two parties involved. There is an aggregate effect on the entire economy. Your $100 gambling loss may not be significant by itself, but many millions of dollars leaving a state or country is.
As to gambling in particular, it is addictive, meaning there is a high probability that people will continue to engage in it despite their own financial detriment. While many people are able to control their gambling, difficulty in debt collection is disproportionately high among gamblers.
Requiring others to absorb the cost of uncollected debts due to gambling addiction can definitely be described as "hurting another citizen." And the gambling industry does not exactly have a history of being scrupulous and putting the needs of the customer first. Not being physically present only increases the odds of being cheated by either side.
As to this particular restriction on gambling, it pretty much retains the pre-internet status quo of giving the states full control over the issue. You'll still be able to gamble online if the website complies with all state laws, and no financial transactions or site traffic crosses state lines.
This space intentionally left blank.
While I fully agree with your earlier assessment that the government is "out of control" (this online gambling law is a perfect example), and I'd like to add that it's a bloated, overpowered juggernaut that is about 100x the size it should be, it does provide basic services which all of us make use of daily. Regardless of one's opinion of the current administration, to claim that state and local governments are "not actually doing anything on [your] behalf" is utterly absurd.
Most importantly, this absolutely must be strictly voluntary. There should be no compulsory reception of the firearm, nor should anyone be punishied in any way for choosing not to receive one.
Of course there are more possibilities here, like voluntary tactical training and contingencies for optionally reporting to military command in the event of an invasion (as opposed to defending the area around your residence), but you get the idea. On a broader level, what it really boils down to is permitting properly trained citizens to become properly armed soldiers in times of domestic conflict (ie. invasion). This is only one possible means of achieving that; I'm sure there are countless others.
Yes, of course. Now, if only the government was neutral, we'd be OK. But instead, it uses these powers to stop commerce in the name of an ethically bankrupt, not to mention false, morality.
This reasoning is insidious, even poisonous. My personal behavior is not anyone's to modify so that it bulks up an average, society-wide behavior. If people are depending on controlling my personal tastes and interests in order to have the society they want, then what they want is immoral, not to mention impractical, and I will not comply with such coercion. If things are only "OK" if they serve the broad interest, then we'll be killing off low IQ citizens, ripping up handicapped ramps, and exiling the blind, deaf, dumb, and religious. That idea just won't float. If my actions do not directly assault you, your property, or your family, you have nothing left to say at all. Anything beyond that is "mommy", and mommy needs to be committed to the deepest, darkest dungeons -- she's not taken a correct step in decades. Because she's insane.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So, what are you saying? Are you saying that because you have identified this behavior as a money grab, it's ok? If that's the case, why is it that you feel that the government has some inherent right to skim the gambling industry, I mean, aside from the fact that they claim they do?
Next, if a parent feels it is appropriate that they teach their minor child how to gamble -- with real money, if that's their decision -- exactly why is it somehow legitimate that the state steps in and interferes? I mean, again, aside from the fact that the state says they can?
You're simply describing the mechanics of an out of control government. I don't see any justification for either the intrusion into the family, or into the finances or pleasures of an adult. You know the only reason why so many people think they need a mommy? I maintain it is because they've never been able to make a move without thinking that the state is right there to hold their little, teeny-weeny hand. If you never treat a child like an adult, they're going to have a hell of a time getting there. For the more aggressive ones, eventually, they'll reject you and go out on their own anyway. That's the danger of a mommy government. It retards one segment of the population while pissing off the other.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'll take the government's Abrams and Apaches over your squirt gun.
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
Wait, so I should treat my child like an adult? He's not an adult, he's a child and therefore should be treated like one until he proves he is responsible enough to be an adult. According to your thinking I should sit my 3 year old down and have a man to man talk with him about why he can't run out in traffic? I watched my siblings do this to their children and they still rejected them. Being a parent is not about being accepted by your children. One thing I've learned, and perhaps you're too young to know this yet, is that when I look back on my childhood I am happy that I had strict parents. It pissed me off at the time, but looking back I understand. What you are describing in those who are infurated by the "mommy government" are most likely the people who need the government to prevent them from completely screwing themselves over... and becoming a burden to the rest of us in the process. Healthcare costs out of control... but why can someone limit me from smoking wherever and whenever I want? Sexually transmitted diseases spreading faster than ever, again becoming a weight on the health care system and taking researchers away from diseases that can't be prevented by a little self control... but who are you to tell me what I can do with MY body? Broken homes and broken children because parents have a gambling problem... but don't you dare make it harder for me to gamble away MY money. You are focused only on yourself... and perhaps that's a responsibility you can control. Regulations are for the people who can not control it and become a weight on society because of it.
I did not say that. You should treat your child as you determine is appropriate, based upon your mores, the child's ability to deal with the situation as you see it, and the give and take that results from the experience in a maturity-appropriate manner. You are responsible for the developmental curve of your child (unless, of course, you defer to TV and grade school like most American sheeple.) Any attempt to treat any one child like all other children is likely to result in a poor outcome, because all children are different and there is a relatively narrow window during which children develop at a very high rate. If you aren't aware of this, you're not particularly fit to be a parent yet, in my view, but then again, you can do what you want with your kids without hearing any objections from me. Just so long as you don't interfere with my family or physically damage your own.
I have three boys. All three are entrepreneurs and millionaires as a result of their own efforts, strong charitable givers, atheists, PhD's, and extraordinary parents within their own families. They're all black belts, physically and mentally fit, all have travelled the world. They're healthy human beings and highly successful by any rational metric. Was I strict? Yes, I was — you have no idea. Stepping out of line resulted in strong correction, and they were forbidden broadcast television and all recreational drugs until they were 18. Did I teach them how to gamble with live funds? Yes, I certainly did. Among many other things. Do I regret it? Not one bit. Would you? Only if you gamble with them.
Sophist nonsense. No healthy human needs a mommy government until they've been trained to depend on one. There is no sufficient justification to hold down the rest of the population based upon the minimal performance standards of the lowest performance level of the population. As for being a burden, only if you let them.
The two are not related. You need to do some remedial work here. Healthcare costs are largely a consequence of the mommy problem, specifically lawyers. Your smoking may incur costs upon you, but that's because you're making a personal choice, and there is no need for society to protect you from yourself beyond warning you. If you can't learn, cancer is a perfectly appropriate outcome, and I feel no need whatsoever to "save you from yourself." You're an adult, you should have solved this problem already. Figure it out or die (or fund the doctors... and probably die anyway), and good riddance to you.
And this should be resolved by government?!?!?! Talk about a non-solution! As a parent, you can nail this particular problem to the wall, drop the odds for yourself and your kids to very near zero. Again, if you can't figure it out, evolution has people waiting to replace you.
Um-hmmm. And every other kind of problem. You are incredibly stupid if you think you can fix these things by legislating away the rights of the healthy. If the parents are determined to be physically damaging their kids, then they've proved they can't parent, and the solution is obvious. Otherwise, it is none of your business. "Broken" children a
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
http://washingtonvotes.org/2006-SB-6613
Now the state has extended the law to prosecute those who even write about online poker:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews
Just last year, online gambling generated around $12 billion. Without United States gamblers, the international online gambling industry is expected to lose around $10 billion a year. With that kind of revenue, it is only a matter of time before a way to get around the law is found and put to use.
https://secure.partyaccount.com/faq/us_legislation .htm
-TheBaron2
But will we have the wherewithal to go back in time to get Jean Claude Van Damme's help when rogue agents start abusing the technology for their own gain?