Delaware To Permit In-state Online Gambling

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Delaware To Permit In-state Online Gambling

Posted by Soulskill on Friday June 29, 2012 @07:05AM from the enjoy-policing-that dept.

schwit1 writes "Delaware became the first state to enter the realm of legal online casino gambling Thursday with the governor's approval of legislation that allows for full-service betting websites offering slots play and games like roulette, poker and blackjack. Federal law limits online gambling to players within the state's borders, which will be verified using geolocation software. The state hopes to launch online gambling in 2013 and intends to make betting available on a variety of digital devices including smart phones and tablets."

148 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 07:08 · Score: 1

Anybody know any decent Delaware proxies?
1. Re:So... by istartedi · 2012-06-29 07:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So... anybody know the penalty for receiving proceeds from winnings across state lines? This will work with personal information submitted to the casino, including perhaps a routing/transit number, a credit card to buy credits, and other information which leads back to... your home address.
  You could commit address fraud of course. Some student with 500 people "living" in his 1-bed dorm room will probably learn the hard way that it's a serious thing.
  
  --
  For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
2. Re:So... by Idbar · 2012-06-29 08:05 · Score: 2
  
  Well, there's that for a lesson on gambling:
  
  You may... or may not win^H^H^Hget caught... your move.
3. Re:So... by Obfuscant · 2012-06-29 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  You could commit address fraud of course.
  Exactly what is "address fraud"? My mailing address is anywhere that postal mail can be delivered for me. That includes the PO box store in the next state over, if I so choose.
  Similarly, my bank account can be in any bank I so choose, even one in a different state. I currently have accounts in a credit union in a state I haven't lived in for thirty years. Is that "bank fraud"?
4. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 08:22 · Score: 0
  
  So... anybody know the penalty for receiving proceeds from winnings across state lines? This will work with personal information submitted to the casino, including perhaps a routing/transit number, a credit card to buy credits, and other information which leads back to... your home address.
  You could commit address fraud of course. Some student with 500 people "living" in his 1-bed dorm room will probably learn the hard way that it's a serious thing.
  "I was on a trip to Delaware, so I felt like playing some poker on my laptop. Prove I wasn't."
  
  Your move.
5. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly what is "address fraud"?
  Lying about where you live in order to receive a benefit you're otherwise not entitled to.
  
  I currently have accounts in a credit union in a state I haven't lived in for thirty years. Is that "bank fraud"?
  Of course not. They don't care where your bank is, but your home address.
6. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 08:42 · Score: 0
  
  I am sorry, but I must point out your signature starter, "For all intensive purposes" should be "For all intents and purposes". Common mistake, usually from oral translation.
7. Re:So... by Golddess · 2012-06-29 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Lying about where you live in order to receive a benefit you're otherwise not entitled to.
  It's not lying, it's massaging the truth. :)
  
  But seriously, say I live in an RV. Where exactly is my home address?
  
  "What does it say on your driver's license?"
  
  Fair enough, for this scenario anyway.
  
  --
  "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
8. Re:So... by Greyfox · 2012-06-29 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Your cell phone records say you were in Hawaii that week. Your friend's facebook page has you tagged at Magic Island beach on Oahu. So now we're also charging you with perjury.
  
  --
  I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
9. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  You could commit address fraud of course.
  Exactly what is "address fraud"? My mailing address is anywhere that postal mail can be delivered for me. That includes the PO box store in the next state over, if I so choose.
  Similarly, my bank account can be in any bank I so choose, even one in a different state. I currently have accounts in a credit union in a state I haven't lived in for thirty years. Is that "bank fraud"?
  As soon as the department of homeland security reads your post, yes, it will be bank fraud.
10. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  But seriously, say I live in an RV. Where exactly is my home address?
  This comes up in RV circles quite a bit. As a US citizen you might attempt to choose a state with no income tax, such as Nevada. However, you must meet residency requirements in a state. IANAL, YMMV, etc. I've heard that registering you vehicle in Nevada and spending a lot of time in California is popular. I've also heard that you can end up owing tax in California if you spend too much time; but they have to catch you. If you're doing that because you have few assets, and you move from place-to-place on BLM land while scrounging an income "trimming buds" and performing at faires, you'll probably fly under the RADAR. OTOH, if you stay at some coastside RV park and you're pulling in 6 bills of investment income, they might figure it out. It all boils down to what you can get away with of course.
11. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  Hah! That's what Bitcoin is for.
12. Re:So... by nighthawk243 · 2012-06-29 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  Not an RV, but many Western PA residents find a way to register their cars in Ohio, dodging the emission/inspection requirements of PA.
13. Re:So... by Zamphatta · 2012-06-29 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  That makes me wonder how many Delawarians are going to find a new career... the kind where they work for an out-of-state entity, placing bets or making moves in casino gaming. Does the state have a way to verify that isn't happening? The money could flow into a Delaware resident's bank account, and then be moved to anyone else on the planet as "payment for services rendered". Too easy to get past that limitation, which means a ton of people will be trying it... and most of them will pull it off.
14. Re:So... by SomePgmr · 2012-06-29 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  I was looking at starting a Delaware business the other day to get around the Amazon Affiliate garbage (since IL sucks). It looked like registering an LLC in the state is about $90 but you have to have an in-state agent.
  There are businesses that exist just to be your in state agent... I think they were another $100 or so per year.
  Beyond that, you're just an out of state employee of a Delware business, and pay yourself as such. Talk to a lawyer before you go doing any of this, but it sounds like that's how so many US businesses are based in Delaware.
15. Re:So... by KhabaLox · 2012-06-29 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly what is "address fraud"?
  Lying about where you live in order to receive a benefit you're otherwise not entitled to.
  So if I live in PA, but travel to DL and play at an online casino, and have my winnings deposited in a bank in NY, I am not entitled to that money?
  Of course, that scenario might be illegal under the Delaware law (which may proscribe that all transactions occur within Delaware). But I could just as easily open a bank account in Delaware.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
16. Re:So... by BlueStrat · 2012-06-29 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  That makes me wonder how many Delawarians are going to find a new career... the kind where they work for an out-of-state entity, placing bets or making moves in casino gaming. Does the state have a way to verify that isn't happening? The money could flow into a Delaware resident's bank account, and then be moved to anyone else on the planet as "payment for services rendered". Too easy to get past that limitation, which means a ton of people will be trying it... and most of them will pull it off.
  What typically happens in any type of gambling situation with government-restricted location/participants is that organized crime will move in and set up a cozy deal with the local LE and politicians, and any random people trying to "get a piece of the action" without joining/paying the organization's operation will get their kneecaps introduced to a Louisville Slugger. If they're lucky.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
17. Re:So... by davester666 · 2012-06-29 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  Are you sure that gambling is defined as a 'benefit' of a state? I would take it to mean things like food stamps or health care in Massachusetts.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
18. Re:So... by Kalriath · 2012-06-29 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  Except that most of these services charge at minimum $250 for their "service" (shuffling papers).
  I've considered doing this just to make it easier to get paid royalties on sales by US companies, since the W8 is a fucking bitch to fill out unless you're a local.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
19. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  If you meet the qualifications for a CU when you sign up, they don't revoke it when you no longer meet the qualifications. I'm a member of San Mateo CU; but if I move to New York I can keep the membership. Of course I have no reason to do that since it's just for local convenience. Maybe he has a mortgage and a credit card with that CU, in which case it makes more sense to maintain membership. Regardless, it's not illegal to maintain membership when you no longer meet the initial quals.
A fool and his money... by wcrowe · 2012-06-29 07:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Even ignoring the obvious statistical problems with gambling, why would anyone play slots, roulette, or even blackjack and poker online? How can you be sure the game is honest?

--
Proverbs 21:19
1. Re:A fool and his money... by nighthawk243 · 2012-06-29 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  People trust the video slots/poker/roulette/blackjack in the Casinos...
2. Re:A fool and his money... by Assmasher · 2012-06-29 07:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  How can you be sure it's honest at the casino in person? ;)
  
  --
  Loading...
3. Re:A fool and his money... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  For slots, define "honest". You win what they say you win when they say you win it, and lose otherwise. The odds aren't listed on the machines, so how would you even claim they were dishonest?
  For Poker and blackjack you could at least theoretically ask that the decks be verified (I have no idea whether the Casinos would actually do this, probably if it was a high enough stakes game). You could still probably have a group of players coordinating to cheat the rest of the table.
  Roulette? I assume the wheels are regulated and inspected in some manner.
4. Re:A fool and his money... by Joe_Dragon · 2012-06-29 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.jackpotparty.com/ is run by WMS gameing but it's UK only right now.
  it is the same games as there slots that they make and they would not take the risks of having a rigged system.
5. Re:A fool and his money... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  And even if you win they may claim software errors and decline payment.
  In this case 57 million...
  http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114744-57-Million-Slot-Machine-Win-Blamed-on-Software-Error-Casino-Wont-Pay
6. Re:A fool and his money... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 07:49 · Score: 0
  
  Hmmm, makes sense. I have an old issue of Linux Journal from June 2000 (Issue #74) with him posing with a Tux doll and a very coy expression with the title "Sexist Geek Alive". I thought it seemed a bit gay and now I know why! If you can find a copy check it out, shit's funny.
7. Re:A fool and his money... by BackwardPawn · 2012-06-29 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  First time I was in Vegas, I had spent the previous week memorizing a book on black jack strategy and card counting. My dad took the easy route and just xeroxed the cheat sheet out of it. Anyway, we sit down at a table at a major casino on the strip and my dad asks if he can use his cheat sheet. The dealer looks it over and says, "Sure, stick to this and you'll be fine." After a very short time, I was down about $15 and my dad even more. My dad wanted to keep playing and win some money back so I cashed out and stood back to watch the play. After a few more hands I put together what was going on. I leaned over and whispered, "this deck is missing face cards." My dad realizes we're being cheated and nearly knocks his chair over getting out of it as fast as possible and leaves the casino. At that point the dealer is looking at me and the pit boss is looking over, so I figure I'll be asked to leave anyway, inform the dealer that I think they're cheating and leave.
  
  About a day later we're riding a bus and talking to the driver about what casinos to go to and my dad mentions the black jack incident and the bus driver says, "Oh, didn't you see the sign that said Spanish Blackjack. You don't want to play those tables because they remove all the 10s."
  
  Moral of this story is that its very easy for a casino to cheat you. The dealer knew full well that my dad would have to adapter his play because of the missing cards, but told him to follow his cheat sheet and never mentioned we were playing Spanish Blackjack.
8. Re:A fool and his money... by BranMan · 2012-06-29 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  For poker, at least, I know you can ask for the cards to be counted, can ask the decks be changed, etc. Blackjack is a little more... uncertain. You may be able to ask for that as well, but since they use 7-10 decks (not sure about the exact numbers, but it is a bunch) in one shoe, it would be harder to detect something amiss anyway.
  In poker, specifically texas hold'em, several of the particular ways they hand is dealt are there to minimize the effects of marked cards, for instance. So keeping it honest is VERY important to everyone.
  Online, you could do a statistical analysis of the hands dealt - after 10-20K hands you'd be able to tell if anything funny was going on - i.e. deviating too much from random.
  So, yes, it can be done, for Poker at least. Anything else ? - maybe roulette as well with enough wheel spins.
9. Re:A fool and his money... by wcrowe · 2012-06-29 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  A good point. Actually, I don't think they are honest, even in the casinos, which is one reason I don't go to casinos. But at least, with a casino, there is probably a gaming commission, and someone to complain to if you think the game is rigged. How do you know that the game you are playing on the internet is even controlled by a gaming commission? How do you know it is actually in Delaware, or wherever?
  
  --
  Proverbs 21:19
10. Re:A fool and his money... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  "I assume the wheels are regulated and inspected in some manner."
  Yes, because all people involved in gambling are scrupulously honest. That is why there is no need for a bunco squad in your local police department.
11. Re:A fool and his money... by BackwardPawn · 2012-06-29 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  While the odds for the particular machine aren't listed, there's usually a sign that says something to the effect of "94% payback." That means that in general, if you play a variety of machines, the machines will slowly take your money. You're pretty much paying for your free drinks and entertainment (what's entertaining about pulling a lever, I'm not sure, but to each their own). I've noticed some of these newer casinos, such as the one in Maryland, offer much lower payback, so they take your money faster.
  
  For poker and blackjack, odds can be looked up in a book (assuming the casino is honest). The house has no advantage in cheating with poker as you play against other people they they take a rake. Blackjack depends on your skill--play basic strategy correctly and the house has slightly better odds than you. Start counting and you now have the advantage (until you are asked to leave). Craps is the only game that gives you 50/50 odds just for playing it right (but good luck playing it right as there are so many rules and side bets--I suck at it). I'm not sure about roulette...I do know they use the extra spaces on the wheel to gain an advantage, but have really never played it. Seems too random to me.
12. Re:A fool and his money... by wcrowe · 2012-06-29 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  People probably thought Bernie Madoff would never take the risk of having a rigged system either.
  
  --
  Proverbs 21:19
13. Re:A fool and his money... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  That's quite a story, BackwardPawn.
  
  I like stories.
  
  I like stories about pinatas.
  
  In fact, I like everything you have to say.
14. Re:A fool and his money... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  Even ignoring the obvious statistical problems with gambling,
  When you play against the house (casino), you will statistically lose money. You will also consistently lose money at a movie theater. Some people consider gambling a form of entertainment with the added bonus that there is a slight chance of winning as well.
  When you play against another person (poker) you will lose the rake but may win or lose to your opponent. There is a fair amount of skill involved.
  
  why would anyone play slots, roulette, or even blackjack and poker online? How can you be sure the game is honest?
  Running the game is profitable. The establishment wants to attract and retain as many players as possible and one of the major ways to achieve that is to build trust. To that effect, many establishments get audited, licensed, etc. Being dishonest is just not worth the risk.
  In short, you don't kill the goose that lays golden eggs.
15. Re:A fool and his money... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  I just got back from Vegas.
  All tables will tell you what game you're playing. Blackjack Switch, Spanish 21, etc. are all different from traditional blackjack.
  I assume the cheat sheet you were using was just a basic strategy card. Some casinos even have those cards there for players, but even at ones that don't any decent dealer will help you make sure you're playing basic strategy properly. Counting cards is extremely difficult in most games when they're chucking a deck or two off a 6+ deck randomized shoe.
  It all doesn't much matter to them because they're still going to make money in the long haul. You're best sticking to regular blackjack and playing basic strategy, but the odds are still always in their favor. That's how a casino makes money. And they're all pretty honest about how the games run. Cheating would get them in all kinds of trouble, and even if it didn't, nobody would play at those locations. Why do that when they win most of the time playing legit, per the rules of the games?
16. Re:A fool and his money... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 13:06 · Score: 0
  
  A good point. Actually, I don't think they are honest, even in the casinos, which is one reason I don't go to casinos. But at least, with a casino, there is probably a gaming commission, and someone to complain to if you think the game is rigged. How do you know that the game you are playing on the internet is even controlled by a gaming commission? How do you know it is actually in Delaware, or wherever?
  With online poker you play enough hands to determine reasonable averages. You'll find out after a few hundred hands if a single guy is getting AA dealt to him 10% of the time.
17. Re:A fool and his money... by Darkness404 · 2012-06-29 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, a casino is a form of entertainment. What's the difference between me playing the penny slots and me playing Area-51 (that game was awesome back in the day, don't know if they still have it) at the local pizza joint?
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
18. Re:A fool and his money... by Papaspud · 2012-06-29 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  Now the trick is they shuffle the deck after every hand, no more counting the cards. At least that is what happens when you play on a full table of people. If there are only 1-3 people playing, you might be able to count the cards for 1 or 2 hands.
  
  --
  Everything above is my opinion....YMMV
19. Re:A fool and his money... by Splab · 2012-06-29 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  In the local casino here in Copenhagen, they hand out your "cheat" sheet - why? Because you are still only about 49.x% chance to win, they will win in the long run and they *need* you to feel the pleasure of winning to make sure you stick around for another "fix".
New business venture idea! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 07:15 · Score: 0

VPN services hosted in Delaware.
1. Re:New business venture idea! by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-29 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  VPN services hosted in Delaware.
  + Delaware P.O. box, forwarded to another P.O. Box, forwarded to your actual P.O. box...
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
2. Re:New business venture idea! by Sparticus789 · 2012-06-29 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  In other news, one bedroom apartments in Delaware have all been rented and large racks of servers are being moved into the closets.
  
  --
  sudo make me a sandwich
Proxy prices are now skyrocketing in Delaware... by Assmasher · 2012-06-29 07:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

I wonder if the ISPs with a physical presence in Delaware had a hand in this?
Hehe...

--
Loading...
Queue by michaelmalak · 2012-06-29 07:16 · Score: 2

Queue the proxies
1. Re:Queue by Stiletto · 2012-06-29 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  I think you mean "Cue". Are you and the Mr. "all intensive purposes" the same guy?
2. Re:Queue by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 22:19 · Score: 0
  
  I think you mean "Cue". Are you and the Mr. "all intensive purposes" the same guy?
  Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I could care less.
Proxy server? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 07:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Federal law limits online gambling to players within the state's borders, which will be verified using geolocation software."
Apparently these people have never heard of an in-state proxy server. The people trying to limit this scheme to within-state activities are as dumb as the people paying the "stupid tax" to play the games.
1. Re:Proxy server? by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-06-29 07:24 · Score: 2
  
  These are the type of people who are too snotty to walk the hallway to their own I.T. department and ask.. "uh.. are we missing something here." They believe they know more than anyone else and I am sure they didn't even think of something like a proxy as they aren't even aware of it.
2. Re:Proxy server? by FriendlyStatistician · 2012-06-29 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure Delaware will be delighted to have out-of-state players using proxies. It means more tax revenue for them, and as long as they can claim they made a reasonable effort to limit it to in-state players they won't get fired.
3. Re:Proxy server? by geekoid · 2012-06-29 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Or they have, and this is a token measure so they can get money from another states and assume it was in state money.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:Proxy server? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  There's also the possibility of an RDP session to a virtual machine.
  Just because the machine is in one location doesn't mean the player is there too.
  A better filter would be to use a driver's license or state ID and cross-reference the name with the billing name.
5. Re:Proxy server? by mattack2 · 2012-06-29 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  I listen to the Two Plus Two Pokercast (sponsored by PokerStars), and they have a guy from PokerStars on most weeks, and they talk about people routinely being banned for using proxies in the U.S. (e.g. when they're at the WSOP).
6. Re:Proxy server? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 13:27 · Score: 0
  
  Of course they have, that just makes it someone elses problem.
  And given the ease of linking a credit card to a person, the Feds should have no trouble at all at sending SWAT teams to shoot a few gamblers now and then.
7. Re:Proxy server? by Kalriath · 2012-06-29 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, PokerStars. That company that runs two identical websites (pokerstars.net and pokerstars.com - one accepts real money the other is "free play") just to get around online gambling advertising restrictions. Pinnacle of honesty, they are.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
8. Re:Proxy server? by lightknight · 2012-06-30 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  The usefulness, of course, which will be destroyed the first time there is a legal challenge. A legal challenge not from the casinos, but from the parents of a out of state teen who "borrowed" their credit card, and are attempting to overturn the debt.
  
  --
  I am John Hurt.
State Revenue by twmcneil · 2012-06-29 07:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Department of Finance estimates the new gambling offerings will generate $7.75 million in revenues for the state in fiscal 2013.
Just wait until they figure out how much they could make by taxing legalized pot.

--
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
1. Re:State Revenue by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-06-29 07:22 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Less than the money going into their pockets by the legal drug industry, which wants to make sure pot NEVER becomes legal.
2. Re:State Revenue by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  Save your bandwidth. I tried online pot once. That stuff sucks.
3. Re:State Revenue by geekoid · 2012-06-29 07:43 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  False. Please stop with the ignorance.
  Who do you think will be able to industrialize for commercial medical use the best? Pharmacy companies.
  Who already had volume of research on growing, using, and effects from marijuana? Pharmacy companies.
  The fact of the matter is that is't medical effects are minimal, so it's not like it will cure anything. It's best at quelling side effects.
  And then there is the other big player:
  Who would make the most money? Tobacco companies. Since it would take them about 2 weeks to start producing pot ' cigarettes'.
  Marijuana is illegal for the simple reason that some right wing religious nuts think it's 'bad'.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:State Revenue by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-06-29 07:57 · Score: 2
  
  I think you should wake up and look at our political situation.
  If someone thought they could make money off of it then it would be legal by now. No matter what you hear about "morals," there are none in the upper reaches of government right now. If someone thought they could make money the needed legislators would be bought off and it would be a reality.
5. Re:State Revenue by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  p>Marijuana is illegal for the simple reason that some right wing religious nuts think it's 'bad'.
  That's the most ignorant statement of them all. As a right-wing non-religious nut, I know that's patently false. It's illegal for sheer propaganda dating back over a century which has since been propagated for special-interest industries. Pure profiteering from propaganda for selfish reasons.
6. Re:State Revenue by dontbgay · 2012-06-29 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  We can get legal amphetamines, legal gamblings, but folks can't smoke a bowl without the Feds busting up the place... I wonder why that is? If our country is running out of money, why are our politicians getting so stinking rich?
  
  --
  Sig not found.
7. Re:State Revenue by i+kan+reed · 2012-06-29 08:11 · Score: 2
  
  You're ignoring that pharmacological companies operate on high-margin stuff. As in, if you can grow it in your back yard, they can't have a 1000% markup on products sold.
8. Re:State Revenue by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  The fact of the matter is that is't medical effects are minimal, so it's not like it will cure anything. It's best at quelling side effects.
  So, in other words, like every other modern pharmaceutical, with the possible exception of antibiotics (which are a pretty small slice of the pie).
  When was the last time you heard of someone being cured of depression or anxiety by SSRIs? Cured of hypertension?
  The vast majority of all modern medicines just remove symptoms.
9. Re:State Revenue by Obfuscant · 2012-06-29 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  You're ignoring that pharmacological companies operate on high-margin stuff. As in, if you can grow it in your back yard, they can't have a 1000% markup on products sold.
  The vast majority of people can't grow it in their backyard. Many people don't have a backyard. Many people who have a backyard have next door neighbors who know how to climb a fence. Many people couldn't grow weeds if you gave them a backyard already filled with them. Many people would rather buy instead of doing it themselves just to save their own time.
  Me? If I did it, I'd see the lawn maintenance guys more often, I'm sure, but not a lot of my own product.
  There are already people who know they can make money off of it, and know that people won't just grow it themselves. They run something called "medical pot dispensaries". That pretty much shoots the idea that if someone knew they could make money it would be legal.
  As for "markup", just how much do you think it costs to make a $6 pack of cigarettes?
10. Re:State Revenue by Kamel+Jockey · 2012-06-29 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Marijuana is illegal for the simple reason that some right wing religious nuts think it's 'bad'.
  Really? That explains why during the times the Democrat party controlled Congress and the Presidency (2009 to 2011) why pot not only wasn't legalized, but there was no move period from them to legalize it.
  Delaware also isn't exactly a conservative bastion. The Democrat Party has strong majorities in both the State Senate and the State House, and their governor is also a Democrat. If legalizing pot was really a left-right issue (like abortion or gay marriage are), then you would have seen a push to legalize it at the state level there.
  Of course, there is more to this issue than the usual left-right dividing lines. There are plenty of conservatives who strongly believe in ending the "War on (some) Drug (users.)"
  
  --
  In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
11. Re:State Revenue by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Who do you think will be able to industrialize for commercial medical use the best? Pharmacy companies.
  I don't agree with this at all. PharmCo's are good in the lab. Last time I checked, they weren't growing aspirin on trees for over the counter meds.
  Yes the PharmCo's have tons of data on Cannabis, however there is still boatloads that aren't known, including the intricate differences of physiological and psychological metabolization between users. Yes, people physiologically react different to Cannabis consumption. A few first-hand experiences .... A close friend of mine is allergic to it(see Emergency Room if he imbibes). I know someone else who vomits the first time they inhale. Subsequent inhalation is normal. I have other friends who can smoke all day, and proceed with life as if they weren't high. I also know people who can't step out the door of their house after they've smoked. All of that goes back to differences in their physiological and psychological metabolization.
  At present, I do not care for the way Medical Marijuana has been implemented. It is being treated as anything BUT a medicine at present. If the PharmCo's and Government were serious about Medical Marijuana, they would be regulating and dispensing Cannabis entirely different than what we have now. Cannabis strains (and the REDICULOUS NAMES they presently sell under) would be ground up, not as buds, and be sold at set cure points (see THC/CBD synthesis and degradation post cultivation), with dosage, frequency, and refill time-frame dependent upon the symptoms and condition of patient.
  As for Cannabis being legalized for recreational use, I could care less. Bring it on!
  Personally, I no longere smoke for recreation. When I do partake, I find it's for specific medicinal benefits that I have observed with use over many many years. In fact, if you could remove the euphoric aspect from the Cannabis, I'd buy more of it and use it more often than any other over the counter or prescription drug in my cabinet. As I presently reside in a state that doesn't have Medicinal Marijuana, I'm very specific about what I buy. Even when it's available in surplus, if it doesn't suit my needs, I don't buy it.
12. Re:State Revenue by drinkypoo · 2012-06-29 08:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If someone thought they could make money off of it then it would be legal by now.
  Almost. If they thought they could make more money and acquire more power by making it legal than by keeping it illegal then they would do so. That's a somewhat different statement.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
13. Re:State Revenue by boristdog · 2012-06-29 08:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Marijuana is illegal for the simple reason that some right wing religious nuts think it's 'bad'.
  I used to believe this. I also used to be 48 year-old who had never smoked marijuana.
  But then things happened in my life in the last couple years: I developed horrible acid reflux. I had a lot of trouble sleeping. I got arthritis in my foot. I got high blood pressure. Nothing really major, but I was suddenly getting old and having lots of aches and pains. My wife, a regular pot smoker, said "try this" and handed me her bong. But I couldn't smoke it, it hurt my lungs. So then she made me some magic brownies. Holy crap, it WAS like magic. All the problems went away. I could sleep, I had no pain, I had less stress, my digestion improved, my BP went down.
  I WAS taking over $150/month worth of various drugs for these conditions. And that's just the co-pay amount from insurance, no telling what actual amount is. Now I take...Well, probably $40 worth of cheap pot baked (haha) into brownies every month. It would be less if I could grow it, but I'll let someone else take that risk as long as it's illegal, besides, that's still cheap. I have a small brownie about every other evening and I have none of those problems.
  So I'm now a 50 year-old who has still never smoked marijuana. But I use it, and it is costing the pharmaceutical companies a few hundred a month in lost business.
  So don't discount the Big Pharma role in keeping it illegal. If I were them I would be scared, very scared.
14. Re:State Revenue by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-29 08:51 · Score: 2
  
  Marijuana is illegal for the simple reason that some right wing religious nuts think it's 'bad'.
  Also incorrect.
  
  It's the Law "Enforcement" and Incarceration lobbies that want to keep pot illegal; that shit's a cash cow to cops and prison owners.
  
  Imagine what would happen to the budget of police organizations and private prison owners (like Dick Cheney), if suddenly they had to release/stop arresting 1/3 - 1/2 of their "customers?"
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
15. Re:State Revenue by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  "Marijuana is illegal for the simple reason that some right wing religious nuts think it's 'bad'."
  Like Barack Obama or did he stop his DEA thugs from going after the use of medical marijuana when states approved its use? I suspect he was too busy pandering to the Hispanic community and selling weapons to the Mexican drug cartels.
16. Re:State Revenue by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-06-29 09:25 · Score: 2
  
  They've also got to have an excuse for all the police forces in the US to have paramilitary gear.
  "DrugS!!!"
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
17. Re:State Revenue by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  As a right-wing religious nut I concur this is not the reason! Stop the madness, you guys sound like a buncha potheads. Why, I think we should just start shooting people that smoke pot~
18. Re:State Revenue by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 13:22 · Score: 0
  
  I have a lot of experience with online poker...since 2000...running prop programs to get games started, and affiliate programs to get the best possible deals for rake reduction for players. I have no doubt that sites cheated, but the games were still beatable by good players. What needs to happen before poker can be set up from the USA is a change in the way taxes are charged. As it is now...if you play ten tables...you are taxed from dollar one on your winnings, and cannot deduct your losses until you reach the standard deduction. THEN you are screwed by the ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX that figures that the $1,000,000 you won, but lost $990,000 bumps you up to the tax area where you lose all your standard deductions! It is a terrible inequity~
19. Re:State Revenue by drinkypoo · 2012-06-29 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  It is a terrible inequity~
  Oh noeesSssss!!! some people with too much money are being overtaxed on luxuries!
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
20. Re:State Revenue by Splab · 2012-06-29 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  While I applaud you finding it works, just one thing - you really hurt the course when you say you've never smoked when you pretty much start your story with smoking the bong your wife gave you and not liking it. People against legalizing will jump on that inconsistency and void the rest of your story.
  (Side note, I smoke to deal with stress and lack of sleep - tried meds doctors gave me and the side effects gave me a nasty turn)
violiation of interstate commerce? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 07:18 · Score: 0

doesn't this violate interstate commerce laws? like those used void laws restricting wine shipping?
1. Re:violiation of interstate commerce? by PPH · 2012-06-29 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Probably not since Delaware is restricting this to in-state gambling.
  And now I put on my tin-foil conspiracy theory hat:
  Proxy services will spring up, allowing anyone to gamble. People will cry, "Oh noes! Evil hosting companies are bypassing Federal laws with VPNs. Regulations are needed to prevent such services or track their users." And those laws will be passed thanks to the Commerce clause of the Constitution.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
2. Re:violiation of interstate commerce? by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-29 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  For the record, the Commerce clause does not give carte blanche to the federal government to do whatever the fuck they want. It does, however, give the federal government as much leeway as the States allow.
  
  Also to be noted, a 2/3 vote by the states effectively negates federal legislation. Funny how we never hear about/use that particular power...
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
3. Re:violiation of interstate commerce? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 13:32 · Score: 0
  
  For the record, the Commerce clause does not give carte blanche to the federal government to do whatever the fuck they want.
  You must have missed Wickard v Fillburn, (or Kelo v. New London, or Didden v. Port Chester) and more recently, Obamacare. The government can basically do whatever it wants, within some narrow boundaries regarding guns and (physical, in person) speech/religion.
  To wit:
  Broadcast speech is restricted heavily. No profanity, etc
  Media ownership is restricted heavily.
  The government can force you not to grow food for your own consumption under the theory that if you didn't grow it, you'd have to buy it.
  The government can force you to buy services from a private corporation by levying an arbitrarily large tax against you if you don't.
  The government can execute US citizens without trial.
  The government can detain suspects without trial for years.
  And we have the highest incarceration rates in the world. (We're pretty close to the all-time record in terms of population percentage, but not there yet.) Land of the free is just what they say in the songs and brochures, dude.
4. Re:violiation of interstate commerce? by PPH · 2012-06-29 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  But I'm sure at least 2/3 of the states do not want on-line gambling in their jurisdiction. Its OK with them if Delaware does it, but the services that permit it to occur over state lines must be prohibited. That will be the claim of the 49 other states.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
5. Re:violiation of interstate commerce? by CanHasDIY · 2012-07-02 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  You're probably right, but FTR, I wasn't necessarily talking about online gambling...
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
delaware based web proxy anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 07:21 · Score: 0

so who has a secure proxy we can use to make it look like we're in delaware so we can gamble? i got the itch!
Every hotel room would be a casino by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 07:25 · Score: 0

Every hotel room would be a casino, every bar could feature slots (rather than just the illegal ones in the veteran clubs).
Paid SOCKS Proxy services by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 07:26 · Score: 0

3... 2... 1... New paid SOCKS Proxy services hosted in Delaware going live!
All your base... by halfkoreanamerican · 2012-06-29 07:26 · Score: 1

I bet someone is going to make a lot of money off of this...
Cell phone apps? by skine · 2012-06-29 07:29 · Score: 2

To start, I don't live in Delaware.
However, I live near Syracuse, NY, and my phone's IP registers in Boston, MA.
1. Re:Cell phone apps? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  Cell phone apps that require geo-location for verification have the added advantage of being able to use GPS to verify where you are.
2. Re:Cell phone apps? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  I was thinking the same thing. Then I realized that my USB dongle on my laptop for 4G broadband access registers in the same way. So they'd have to track cellphone tower location as well, if available to the dongle's software.
3. Re:Cell phone apps? by JobyOne · 2012-06-29 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds pretty secure, bro. Except that on Android there's a little checkbox in the settings, labelled "allow mock locations."
  
  --
  Porquoi?
4. Re:Cell phone apps? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  Any store that's asked for a Zip code for no reason thinks I live in Schenectady, NY.
The more I learn about human by geekoid · 2012-06-29 07:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

neurology, the less I like legalized gambling.
People like to think there is some sort of choice involved, but for a great many people it's an illusion of choice.
If you have high dopemine levels, you're brain is more likely to come up with reasons, or a compulsion to gamble.
This is why I am now against online gambling in the home, and gambling in places people must go to needs. Grocery stores etc.
Here is an example:
http://www.radiolab.org/2009/jun/15/seeking-patterns/
Some of the details aren't 100% accurate, but close enough for the average person.
You look at someone that is gambling there life away an think it's just a bad decision they can control may not be correct.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
1. Re:The more I learn about human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 07:49 · Score: 0
  
  People like to think there is some sort of choice involved, but for a great many people it's an illusion of choice.
  Then they can get screwed over. Truly a shame for them. Banning it entirely is just punishing everyone.
2. Re:The more I learn about human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 07:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The same can be said for any number of other things - but it's not your job, your responsibility, or your right to tell someone else how to live their life.
  It's extremely pretentious and arrogant to try to 'protect' another adult from something you think could harm them. At what point does that protection end? Will I not be allowed to go rock climbing because the dopamine is really forcing me to do it and it's dangerous? Or allowed to drink alcohol? Or anything else really. Live your own life, offer help where you can, but part of being human should be the freedom to screw up your life on your own terms once you are old enough to know better.
3. Re:The more I learn about human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  I dislike gambling for a variety of reasons, some of which you point to.
  On the other hand, prohibition is a disaster in just about any area you can think of, so the solution to the problem (which is to say, the % of folks that have a problem with gambling) isn't illegality. That's not to say that I know what the solution is, but I'm pretty sure that I know what it isn't.
  In other words, life is messy (a point missed by most ideologues).
4. Re:The more I learn about human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  The more I learn about human neurology, the less I like legalized drinking...
5. Re:The more I learn about human by cayenne8 · 2012-06-29 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  You look at someone that is gambling there life away an think it's just a bad decision they can control may not be correct.
  So...because a few people can't deal with an adult activity, that the majority of people can handle, and enjoy responsibly...we should always cater to the lowest common denominator and ban said activities?
  What's next? The booze industry? Pr0n industry?....hell people likely have OD'ed on Jello before....out with that....
  See my point?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
6. Re:The more I learn about human by Mister+Whirly · 2012-06-29 08:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  An addiction is an addiction is an addiction. You pleasure center in your brain doesn't care if it is heroin, porn, gambling, etc. it just wants to get it's fix. Banning activities of any kind becasue a small percentage of the population has a problem with it is ALWAYS a bad idea - doesn't matter what it is you are banning. Regulation and taxation to raise revenue to offer people with help for addiction is the proper way to address things like gambling and drugs.
  
  --
  "But this one goes to 11!"
7. Re:The more I learn about human by Kamel+Jockey · 2012-06-29 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  [The more I learn about human] neurology, the less I like legalized gambling.
  How is excess gambling any different than any other form of entertainment taken to excess? Gambling away the money that was supposed to be the mortgage payment gets you the same net effect as spending that money on eating out, going to the movies, or any other form of entertainment.
  There are plenty of adults who enjoy gambling, even when they lose, and can play the game in a responsible manner. They should not be deprived of fun simply because of a handful of people who cannot control themselves.
  
  --
  In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
8. Re:The more I learn about human by geekoid · 2012-06-29 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Restricting access from common public areas isn't telling someone how to live there life.
  It has been shown that people with certain brain chemistry can not help themselves. IT's not a choice they are making.
  That's my point.
  Having an incredible easy way to access these machines hurts everybody except the people who own them.
  "should be the freedom to screw up your life on your own terms"
  did you even read the whole post? understand it?
  Some people DON"T HAVE THAT FREEDOM. Not at all.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
9. Re:The more I learn about human by geekoid · 2012-06-29 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  SIgh.. may to leap to stupid conclusions. Seriously, the extreme logical fallacy? stop being stupid.
  I am simply talking about easy access in common areas. Places where people have to go to live.
  "we should always cater to the lowest common denominator and ban said activities?"
  I am not talking about a ban. Put it in casinos. Fine. But when someone has a problem where their brain chemistry compulses them to do something, where there really is no choice, out of grocery stores and the home is a reasonable compromise.
  "See my point?"
  yeah, and ti has nothing to really do with what I am saying.
  Spend some time studying neurology and we can get more into the nity gritty. Until them, shut up.
  As for booze? yeah, it should be sold in liquor stores, not in grocery stores.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
10. Re:The more I learn about human by geekoid · 2012-06-29 08:41 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  "An addiction is an addiction is an addiction."
  wrong, so I shufd assume the rest of your post is a spewed retread of many other myths regards addiction.
  "Banning activities of any kind becasue a small percentage of the population has a problem with it is ALWAYS a bad idea "
  and I was correct. surprise. with the added bonus that you total took what I said incorrectly. Did you actually read the post, or just scan the first sentence and them immediately start pound you keyboard with you meat hooks what frothing at the mouth? Or are you simple?
  Since history is full of example where restricting something has curbed it's use, I'll just assume you are simple.
  "Regulation and taxation to raise revenue to offer people with help for addiction is the proper way to address things like gambling and drugs.
  WTF? so you didn't read my post? Not allowing it in the homes, or in common ares like grocery stores IS regulation.
  Keep it in casinos and gambling establishments.
  People make for few decisions then they think they do. I mean, sure you may 'think' about something, but the decsion you rach was determined before the thought bubbled to the top of your brain, as it where.
  As I said in the post,m this is based on neurological science, not on a feeling, or a BS religious position. It is'in fact, quite the opposite then what I would have said 10 years ago.
  When I thought every decision was unknown until thinking at the conscious level occurred. Turns out, I was wrong.
  I am really looking forward to studies about peoples thinking process when they need to solve an out of bounds problem.
  If it goes where it looks like it's going, things are going to get weird.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
11. Re:The more I learn about human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry to post anon, but I moderated in this discussion, to include your post (positively, of course.)
  This dopamine response is true for a number of addictive behaviours and substances, including the nicotine that I just quit using. It all must ultimately come down to a choice, as we already know that the world around us can't be sanitized. Any attempt to prevent behaviours will be sidestepped by those who favour the behaviour.
12. Re:The more I learn about human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  (different AC here)
  
  Restricting access from common public areas isn't telling someone how to live there life.
  Except that you specifically said you were also against allowing people to gamble from their own homes. There is no possible way to spin that as not being telling someone how to live their life.
13. Re:The more I learn about human by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-29 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  He's not saying that it shouldn't be allowed at all, but rather that it shouldn't be made so damn easy to access.
  
  Similarly, we (as a society) don't put beer and cigarettes on the bottom shelves where children can reach them. Same concept.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
14. Re:The more I learn about human by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-29 09:05 · Score: 2
  
  Reading the many, many responses of people who completely missed your premise, all I can say is, wow.
  
  For the record, I totally agree with you (for once). Putting certain restrictions on potentially harmful products/services is not prohibition, it's common sense.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
15. Re:The more I learn about human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  It's not "the extreme logical fallacy" (by which I assume you mean slippery slope). He's simply taking your reasoning and applying it in the same equation, simply changing the variable value from "gambling" to something else.
16. Re:The more I learn about human by SternisheFan · 2012-06-29 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  That reminds me of a story from years ago, made the NY papers then. A guy from Staten Island, N.Y. had everything going for him. He had worked his whole life as a bus driver, lived a normal life, home, wife & kids. He retires at 65, & rewards himself by going to gamble for the very first time ever to Atlantic City. 3 days later, after losing everything, all the $ he saved for retirement, and the deed to his house, he drives back, and jumps off the Verrazano Bridge to his death. I'd expect to see a rise in stories like this, online gambling is too damn easy, and problem gamblers fall into that trap of thinking, "I can get it back, I'm due to hit! All I need is another (enter $ amount here). And if you can't afford to lose, it can easily become a downward spiral. It is a brain issue, like drug addiction, that doesn't show in some people until "activated". By then, for some, it's too late. But screw the human costs, states need revenue, dammit!
17. Re:The more I learn about human by RedDeadThumb · 2012-06-29 10:15 · Score: 2
  
  Here's some practical neurological science data for you to chew on. The best way to get me to do something is to tell me I am not allowed to do it.
  And what's with all the inflammatory language in your posts? Calling people stupid does not make your argument any stronger. To me, it makes it much weaker if you have to resort to name-calling. If I had mod points I'd knock you down whether I agreed with what you are saying or not. But I have noticed there seems to be a lot of Beavis&Butthead type moderating that goes on here that does exactly the opposite. (heh, heh, heh)
18. Re:The more I learn about human by RedDeadThumb · 2012-06-29 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  You may believe it makes sense, but it is still prohibition.
19. Re:The more I learn about human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 10:42 · Score: 0
  
  Talk about exteme logical fallacy - you have no clue what you are talking about and you respond in a condecending and childish manner to anyone who questions your opinion. In short, you are the pride and joy of Slashdot. Keep up the great work!~
20. Re:The more I learn about human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  [The more I learn about human] neurology, the less I like legalized gambling.
  How is excess gambling any different than any other form of entertainment taken to excess? Gambling away the money that was supposed to be the mortgage payment gets you the same net effect as spending that money on eating out, going to the movies, or any other form of entertainment.
  There are plenty of adults who enjoy gambling, even when they lose, and can play the game in a responsible manner. They should not be deprived of fun simply because of a handful of people who cannot control themselves.
  You can loose several thousands dollars in one gambling play, but I don't think you could spent several thousands dollar by watching one single movie no matter how addicted you were... ... oh wait, I forgot about the MPAA....
21. Re:The more I learn about human by Mister+Whirly · 2012-06-29 10:48 · Score: 2
  
  Wow, just wow. I respectfully disagree with your opinions, which is what they are.
  
  Notice how I didn't resort to name calling just becasue we didn't agree on something? Probably not, if you noticed things like that you probably would not act in such a manner. Perhaps if I were you I would "assume you were simple" but I am willing to give you the benefit of a doubt. Even though you are rude.
  
  --
  "But this one goes to 11!"
22. Re:The more I learn about human by j00r0m4nc3r · 2012-06-29 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  The best way to get me to do something is to tell me I am not allowed to do it.
  
  Have you ever stopped to think about why this might be so? Doing "forbidden" things is somehow giving you (or whomever it is we're talking about here) fulfillment -- momentarily filling some hole somewhere, and I'm guessing you don't really care whether that forbidden thing is good or bad for you. This is how addictions work also -- it's pretty much how everything in the human psyche works. The fulfillment is always fleeting, and then you're on the hunt for the next thing...
23. Re:The more I learn about human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  Do we make it illegal for people to have beer and cigarettes in their own homes, just as he's suggesting be done with gambling? No? Then it's not the same concept.
24. Re:The more I learn about human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 12:15 · Score: 0
  
  For me the issue isn't what that the person is doing something risky (that's up to them), it's that some business is making an enormous profit without having to bear the costs of people who develop problem addictions. In fact, businesses make more money if people get seriously addicted. As far as I'm concerned the government should not condone drugs, gambling, or any other highly addictive activity unless the businesses in question somehow pay for all the costs of the medical services people need if they do *decide* (i.e. free choice) to get out of the addictive activity.
  There's something seriously wrong with a business that sell their product and walk away from their customer, while leaving it to the rest of society to bear all the costs of any problem addictions. In other words, tax the hell out of the business so that the real costs/risks can be covered. To use your rock-climbing example, that activity is just fine. But no *business* should be licensed to lead people on rock climbing expeditions without proper training and insurance to cover the risks. They shouldn't be able to pocket the cash, have their customer get injured or killed due to their incompetence, and then say "not my problem". If it's especially risky, there's a responsibility to do it right, and the government should hold businesses to some kind of standard. Consumer standards exist for a good reason for all sorts of products, and there is redress if consumers are neglected (i.e. they can sue the company). It's no different for gambling. People must be fully informed of the risks, and there should be sufficient "insurance" to cover the well-documented biological inevitability that it will go horribly wrong for some people.
  And if a business can't or won't do that, then that high-risk business should simply be prohibited. NOT for reasons of personal choice and freedom, but because making money off people without taking some responsibility for the health impact of your addictive product on your customer is wrong (re: cigarettes).
25. Re:The more I learn about human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 12:20 · Score: 0
  
  And for every one story like that, there are several million sotries of adults acting responsibly and having a fun time gambling with much less drastic consequences. There is nothing particular to gambling that is different from any other addiction
26. Re:The more I learn about human by Kamel+Jockey · 2012-06-29 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  You can loose several thousands dollars in one gambling play, but I don't think you could spent several thousands dollar by watching one single movie no matter how addicted you were... ... oh wait, I forgot about the MPAA....
  Depending on which restaurant you go to it is definitely possible to spend thousands on fine dining too.
  
  --
  In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
27. Re:The more I learn about human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 22:24 · Score: 0
  
  we (as a society)
  I wouldn't trust what the majority wants; they're imbeciles. Another idiotic "for the children" rule. Let natural selection take its place (especially if parents aren't doing their jobs).
28. Re:The more I learn about human by cayenne8 · 2012-07-01 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  As for booze? yeah, it should be sold in liquor stores, not in grocery stores.
  Why do you say that?
  They sell beer, wine and hard liquor in the grocery stores here with I live (in and around the New Orleans area)...and we have no problems with that here....? They sell it all at about anywhere here...even convenience stores (like 7-11) or even at most drug stores even...yes, Walgreens here sells all 3 forms of alcohol.....
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
29. Re:The more I learn about human by CanHasDIY · 2012-07-02 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  No; prohibition, by definition, is a total ban.
  
  Restriction != prohibition.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Proxy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 07:38 · Score: 0

Time to start hosting some pay-to-play proxy servers in Deleware
Delaware: Home to incorporated crooks. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 07:40 · Score: 0

Delaware? The U.S. "inshore" tax haven? (sic)
Already figured it out. by cHiphead · 2012-06-29 07:43 · Score: 1

Since the U.S. Supreme Court keeps giving corporations similar rights as people, especially when it comes to financial matters, I'll be setting up a corporation located in Delaware to gamble professionally online. Who wants it?
Cheers.

--

This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
1. Re:Already figured it out. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-06-29 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  You would be better setting up a company based in Delaware that charges a modest hourly access fee that provides proxy services. I mean really why risk your own money.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
2. Re:Already figured it out. by Obfuscant · 2012-06-29 08:13 · Score: 2
  
  Since the U.S. Supreme Court keeps giving corporations similar rights as people,
  The Supreme Court didn't give anyone anything. They simply ruled that the people that make up a corporation still have the rights that they were born with, especially for a corporation that was formed for the express purpose of exercising one of those rights.
3. Re:Already figured it out. by geekoid · 2012-06-29 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong.
  If you where correct, the corporate decisions would go when the CEO left.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:Already figured it out. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  They often do. Companies are often taken in other directions when a CEO leaves. So what.
5. Re:Already figured it out. by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-29 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. If you where correct, the corporate decisions would go when the CEO left.
  Also, when the corporation committed a crime, the CEO would go to prison.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
6. Re:Already figured it out. by Obfuscant · 2012-06-29 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  If you where correct, the corporate decisions would go when the CEO left.
  Don't you know that, indeed, some "corporate decisions" change when a new CEO comes on board? They don't "go", but the CEO gets to make many decisions as part of his job. If one of those decisions is what to spend corporate money on, then maybe that decision will change when the current CEO leaves. That means I am correct, because the decision did "go" when the CEO left. Some decisions are in the hands of the stockholders who actually own the company. They can change, too, if the stockholders change.
  The fact is, very simply, that the people who own a corporation have rights. They do not lose those rights when they form a corporation. Period. That's what SCOTUS said. They didn't give anything to anyone, since the right to free speech is supposed to be an inalianable right -- part of being alive. They stopped another court from trying to take those rights away.
  Why is it bad when the government tries to take our rights away, but then good when they try to take our rights away? The answer is that "our" rights are "our" rights, but the right to spend lots of money on political speech is affordable only to the rich, and those awful rich people don't deserve rights.
7. Re:Already figured it out. by Obfuscant · 2012-06-29 09:23 · Score: 2
  Also, when the corporation committed a crime, the CEO would go to prison.
  Some of them have. Bernie Madoff and Kenneth Lay, to name two. I'm sure you could find more if you cared. Yes, pretty easy. Google "CEO prison".
  
  Kevin Cassidy, 30 months in federal prison.
  Ken Beverly, two years.
  Dennis Kozlowski, 8 1/3 to 25
  Bernard Ebbers, 25 years
  Jeffrey Keith "Jeff" Skilling, 24 years
  That's just a sample from the first page of google results.
  But, of course, you probably meant to say "if anyone working for the corporation committed a crime, the CEO would go to prison." Where did you get the idea that someone who works for a corporation makes the corporation liable for his actions? Well, board members and officers, yes. A shipping supervisor who dumps trash instead of sending it to through the proper disposal channels? Hardly.
  The people who make up a corporation are still people, and they still have rights. Even in the USA.
also known as "internet voting" by swschrad · 2012-06-29 07:53 · Score: 1

the odds are always against you.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Violation of privacy by fluffythedestroyer · 2012-06-29 08:02 · Score: 1

Isn't there any concerns about privacy with this ? I'm not really sure how the state or the USA works with this but here is some info on how the geolocation suppose to work if this is what they use anyway (not sure but should be).

4 Security and privacy considerations
The API defined in this specification is used to retrieve the geographic location of a hosting device. In almost all cases, this information also discloses the location of the user of the device, thereby potentially compromising the user's privacy. A conforming implementation of this specification must provide a mechanism that protects the user's privacy and this mechanism should ensure that no location information is made available through this API without the user's express permission.
HTTP is Stateless. by sycomonkey · 2012-06-29 08:53 · Score: 1

Trying to confine any sort of online activity to any sort of geographical boundaries is an exercise in futility. "In-State" is essentially meaningless on the internet. Sure, they will come up with all kinds of enforcement mechanisms, and some of them might even repel a few Non-Delaware people, but the vast majority will do a quick google search and get around it in less time than it will take them to type in their creditcard and start throwing money away.

--
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
1. Re:HTTP is Stateless. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 13:33 · Score: 0
  
  None of the online poker sites I've ever played used HTTP for anything but the web site from which you downloaded the client.
  And do you really think the casino operators will be heart broken if some people work out how to use a VPN in a delaware data center and so send the casino more money? Do you really Delaware will hate collecting whatever taxes it decides to levy on it from those non-delaware based gamblers? And other than losing the revenue do you really think either will care if the Feds arrest a few people breaking Federal anti-gambling rules?
It's called 'Society' by fantomas · 2012-06-29 09:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

"It's extremely pretentious and arrogant to try to 'protect' another adult from something you think could harm them."
It's called 'society'. Different places have different rules, but pretty well everywhere in the world groups of humans have agreed social rules that override individual choice because as a group, the people have decided where the boundaries lie. Cross the boundaries, and the rest of the people, or some representatives, will pull you back, or even forbid you to cross the boundaries in the first place.
In some places it's injecting heroin, other places drinking alcohol, or firing guns without a licence, or driving a motor vehicle without proving you can pass a test the other people have agreed upon. But most places have these rules agreed by the wider society. Partly to protect people from themselves, and partly to prevent them harming others.
Part of being human is being sensitive enough to realise screwing up other people's lives for your own pleasure is not a good thing, that we are social animals, and to win other people's goodwill for the time when we need their help, we shouldn't ignore their concerns.
Communal groups of humans try to minimise the damage individuals who don't have that sensitivity by restricting them from going too crazy.
There are a few places in the world where there are no boundaries on individuals doing what ever they want, but not many.
1. Re:It's called 'Society' by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  It's called 'society'. Different places have different rules, but pretty well everywhere in the world groups of humans have agreed social rules that override individual choice because as a group, the people have decided where the boundaries lie. Cross the boundaries, and the rest of the people, or some representatives, will pull you back, or even forbid you to cross the boundaries in the first place.
  Nothing about that makes the grandparent's point any less true.
Time to open an internet cafe on the border by slashmydots · 2012-06-29 09:31 · Score: 1

Subject unrelated lol. Anyway, do note that there are bitcoin casinos already set up on the web and since the US doesn't recognize bitcoins as an actual currency so BTC generated from "nowhere" by mining can be gambled with. That's some stuff someone posted on the bitcoin forum but it sounds true lol.

So anyway, Fox's On Demand player can't verify that I pay for cable because I'm a Time Warner customer and apparently that's just too complicated for them. So if Fox can't do it, how is Delaware going to verify that a person is actually in Delaware?
1. Re:Time to open an internet cafe on the border by Greyfox · 2012-06-29 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  I was looking at how to set up a service inside the tor onion network and it's pretty damn easy. I've been pondering a hypothetical design for a hypothetical casino that would live inside tor and use bitcoins. Trust would be a major issue there, but probably not insurmountable. Anyone involved in profiting from such an endeavor would have to commit to never visiting or traveling through the USA though. Or living in a country with an extradition treaty to it. That's actually a bigger problem than writing the software.
  
  --
  I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
No Vegas has a Lot of old "Family" businesses by RobertLTux · 2012-06-29 09:53 · Score: 1

the odds are somewhat "fixed" but it is regulated. Back in the day you could find yourself in the middle of the desert (with broken limbs) if you tried to cheat Dah Boss.

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Re:Proxy prices are now skyrocketing in Delaware.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 10:10 · Score: 0

If Delaware remains the only state to do this then they will be the mecca for the person who finds gambling irresistible - maybe the gambling fools will move from my state and all US states to Delaware - the other US states can then declare gambling illegal once again (lottery - bingo - etc) so we can finally rid society of this sorry lot of fools - The first state finally will get the recognition in sorely deserves - too bad the flow of cash into the state coffers is just to tempting for this to become a reality - we get less for more
12345 by KingAlanI · 2012-06-29 17:18 · Score: 1

12345 is a valid zipcode, that's what the AC is referring to.
sometimes I use '90210' as a placeholder.

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
1. Re:12345 by Kalriath · 2012-06-29 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'm outside the US, so iTunes, Netflix and Hulu think I'm in whatever the hell 90212 is.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
zipcode geographic pattern by KingAlanI · 2012-06-30 02:50 · Score: 1

US zipcodes start out low in the Northeast (02115 in Boston for example) and get higher as you go south and/or west.
So a 9-something zipcode is somewhere on the west coast.
90210 in particular comes to mind because of the Beverly Hills TV show.

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
1. Re:zipcode geographic pattern by Kalriath · 2012-06-30 22:45 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I know it's in California somewhere - maybe even in Beverley Hills, but that's about it.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
This will not fly, per Wichard v. Filburn by EmagGeek · 2012-06-30 09:00 · Score: 1

This will absolutely not fly. Using the same logic as Wickard v. Filburn, people doing in-state online gambling in DE won't be going to NJ to a casino, and therefore will be having a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Therefore the federal government retains its dominion and can prohibit online gambling in DE, even if it is conducted completely within the State.