Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Legal Online Gambling Could Return To the US (digitaltrends.com)

Posted by msmash on from the up-next dept.

A new report says legal online gambling may be coming back to the U.S., not from an casino magnate such as Steve Wynn or Sheldon Adelson, but rather a headphone industry executive. From a report: Now Monster, the same company that turned the headphone industry upside down with Dr. Dre, plans to revive online gambling in America by enlisting someone with a different kind of notoriety: Fred Khalilian. He's a former telemarketing kingpin, wannabe reality TV personality, two-time FTC loser -- and now, the new COO of Monster. He plans to open the company's gambling site, PokerTribe.com, on or before December 15. And he might just make the company billions. So he might also be a genius. But we're getting ahead of ourselves. Gambling is illegal, right? Sort of. How will a headphone maker succeed in online gambling where Trump, Branson, and others have failed? "The roadmap is unbelievable, fraught with laws, certifications, international law, gaming commissions, all that stuff. Very, very complex," Monster CEO Noel Lee exclusively told Digital Trends. "But [Fred] has overcome. He's found his niche, he's worked his way through the government, through the Federal Trade Commission, through all of that, with a strategy that's built around the American Indians."

103 comments

  1. Misread title... by ITapeFatCashews · · Score: 1

    Why would Monster (a job search website) get involved with online gambling?

    1. Re:Misread title... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like the editor removed the "Monster" part from the title.

    2. Re:Misread title... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would Monster (a job search website) get involved with online gambling?

      So that when you fail to get a job with monster.com you can instead whittle away your government handout by gambling to try and make it rich that way instead... it all fits together.

    3. Re:Misread title... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Or energy drinks.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    4. Re:Misread title... by omnichad · · Score: 2

      You're not wrong. The other Monster might want to sue for Trademark infringement if Monster starts offering money-making opportunities on the Internet.

  2. Tell me, what side am I on here? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    On one hand, why not?

    On the other hand, do I want to side with someone who is "a former telemarketing kingpin, wannabe reality TV personality, two-time FTC loser"?

    I feel kinda reminded of the whole "MAFIAA vs. Kimmie Dotcom" deal. There, I just wanted both sides to lose. Here, I wouldn't mind legalized gambling, but at the price of having such a slimeball getting his way?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Tell me, what side am I on here? by H3lldr0p · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think it's safe to be against the pro-gambling this time around. Not only because it's gambling we're talking about and we all know how bad humans are at figuring odds, but they're also hinting in the blurb that it involves further exploiting the already exploited.

    2. Re:Tell me, what side am I on here? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Deciding which principles to defend based on who else will be "on your side" is a throwback to the elementary school playground where everyone wanted to be picked on the team with the cool kids.

      Pick the side whose principles you believe in. Don't worry about who else is on your side - it simply doesn't matter. I believe in free speech so I defend it, even though it sometimes puts me on the same side as Nazi sympathizers. MAFIAA vs Kim Dotcom was easy because there were long-established rules for foreign asset seizure and extradition, which the U.S. (under pressure from the MAFIAA) violated or got the New Zealand government to ignore. If you believed in due process, you were on Kim Dotcom's side. If you believed the ends justified the means, you were on the MAFIAA's side. The proper venue for the MAFIAA to address their grievances was in the New Zealand court system. Basically charging Kim Dotcom with copyright violation in New Zealand.

      For online gambling, it basically resolves down to the right to spend your money in whatever way you see fit, vs people needing to be protected because a gambling addiction supersedes your ability to make rational decisions on how to spend your money. Decide for yourself which you think is more important, and that's your side. (Do note that this is the same fundamental conflict found in smoking, addictive substance abuse, people spending too much time on Internet games, etc. Unless you come up with a very nuanced rationale for which principle takes precedence, the side you pick here is the same side you pick for these other issues.)

    3. Re:Tell me, what side am I on here? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Not only because it's gambling we're talking about and we all know how bad humans are at figuring odds,

      Some are, some aren't. Some are good enough that they succeed as full-time professionals. Some are so bad that they might as well just toss the money on the table and walk away. But it is entertainment, and those who want to do it should be allowed.

      Some people are terrible at controlling their consumption of alcohol. Do we ban alcohol to protect them from themselves, meanwhile denying it to those who have no problem? Been there, done that, failed.

      but they're also hinting in the blurb that it involves further exploiting the already exploited.

      I don't see that in "the blurb". Where is the exploitation? I'm going to GUESS that you mean the reference to the American Indians. Other than using an old name, how does this say he's exploiting them? I see that as saying that he's using the same laws that allow gambling operations run by Native Americans.

      In case you weren't aware, these gambling operations are a huge source of revenue for the Native American community. They rake in money and get a lot of jobs for their people. One local tribe that has a thriving casino also has a section set aside showing the benefits that come to the tribe from that casino.

      No, casino operation is not a way that Native Americans are being exploited.

    4. Re:Tell me, what side am I on here? by Alok · · Score: 1

      Not so sure its about 'exploiting' the American Indians, I expect they will be using a similar loophole to what all the IP companies are doing with assigning their crappy patents to some tribe to avoid IPR fast-track reviews. Then have a revenue share, so they extort other companies being patent trolls, the victims can't resolve the issue quickly, and the 'sovereign' tribes get millions of dollars for their help in doing an end run around the law.

      Imho either get rid of their sovereign immunity, or have them as the sovereign be responsible for policing their IP laws i.e. the US shouldn't enforce any patents assigned to other sovereigns, who are free to ban non-payers from their land :)

    5. Re:Tell me, what side am I on here? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's not a matter of popularity, more one of consciousness.

      I'm in favor of allowing people to do what they want to do, including gambling. I just don't feel that someone like THIS should run it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Overwatch Loot Boxes by decipher_saint · · Score: 0

    'nuff said

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
  4. likely to be a state by state thing and WI and oth by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    likely to be a state by state thing and WI and others may give them a had time.

  5. other monster the one with over priced cables by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Informative

    other monster the one with over priced cables

    1. Re:other monster the one with over priced cables by tepples · · Score: 1

      Sometimes Monster is overpriced, and sometimes Monster is less overpriced than the alternative. When I bought a Wii console a decade ago, Monster's component cable was $25 and Nintendo's was $35.

    2. Re:other monster the one with over priced cables by guruevi · · Score: 1

      I can get you a component cable for a tenth that cost though.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:other monster the one with over priced cables by will_die · · Score: 1

      So an even bet returns $1 for every $2 bet.

    4. Re:other monster the one with over priced cables by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      monoprice.com ?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:other monster the one with over priced cables by tepples · · Score: 1

      For one thing, the $2.50 cable wasn't in U.S. electronics showroom chains at the time. For another, would the $2.50 cable have sturdy connectors on both the proprietary end (connected to the console) and the 5xRCA end (connected to the TV)?

    6. Re:other monster the one with over priced cables by lgw · · Score: 1

      Often. I've been able to buy cables that clearly came from the same factory as Monster cables for 10-20% with the price, just without the logo. What you want to avoid is the cheapest cable.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:other monster the one with over priced cables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've bought those cheap cables before. The connectors are sturdy, but that's not the important thing here. The wiring inside is not shielded, leading to crosstalk interfence. But the Wii-end connector is snapped together instead of molded so if you're of the DIY type you can make yourself a really nice component/RGB cable for really cheap by reusing said connector.

  6. The Simpsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Smithers: Sir, you haven't slept since the casino opened five days ago.
    Mr. Burns: Yeah, well, I've discovered the perfect business: people swarm in, empty their pockets, and scuttle off.

  7. American Indians by Jharish · · Score: 0

    I'm really confused, how are people from India helping with gambling? Isn't this article being racist nowadays when you use archaic terms like 'Indian' to refer to a indigenous native of the Americas?

    1. Re:American Indians by spun · · Score: 1

      I think the statement is indicative of what sort of people we are dealing with here. As if we didn't already know what sort of people sell $27,000 cables. Now they've hired some sort of carnival barker as their COO? What a shitshow.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:American Indians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So instead of calling them by the mistaken name the white explorer gave them, we should remind everyone they're natives of [white man's new name for their ancient land].

      If you want to be sensitive about it, we would recognize that there was a network of tribes every bit as diverse and rich as in Europe, and refer to each by name. But no one has time for that, even the people who would like to pretend to be more enlightened.

      And so in that same spirit of taking a step back, in the interest of brevity and clarity: Indians.

    3. Re:American Indians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we took our cue from the British.

    4. Re:American Indians by guruevi · · Score: 1

      I think it's talking about the football team. But the "pathway to success" here makes no more sense than a bunch of buzzwords. There is no way in hell that legislation will change in less than a decade to let this all through. Just opening a case with the FTC will take that long.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    5. Re:American Indians by lgw · · Score: 1

      If you want to be sensitive about it, we would recognize that there was a network of tribes every bit as diverse and rich as in Europe, and refer to each by name.

      That systematically slaughtered each other over land and power. Or are we glossing over that fact now?

      What part of "every bit as diverse and rich as in Europe" was confusing?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:American Indians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's America. A country founded on the principles of not giving a crap what people want to be called and profiting off the exploitation of native populations for corporate profit.

      ...founded by Europeans. All this started long before the colonies gained independence. Or before they were even founded, in most cases.

    7. Re:American Indians by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      If you want to be sensitive about it ...

      If you want to be sensitive, perhaps you should use the term that they prefer. A poll by the Census Bureau found that a plurality prefer "American Indian" over "Native American".

      Disclaimer: I am a Scottish-Irish-Dutch-Bavarian-French-Cherokee-??? American. My Y chromosome is Scottish. My mitochondrial DNA is Dutch.

    8. Re:American Indians by omnichad · · Score: 1

      every bit as diverse and rich as in Europe, and refer to each by name.

      We call the diverse peoples of Europe "Europeans," don't we? It's perfectly fine to have a blanket term of some sort, even if you don't like the current one.

    9. Re:American Indians by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      We call the diverse peoples of Europe "Europeans," don't we? It's perfectly fine to have a blanket term of some sort,

      And consider the term "Americans", which covers more geographic area and peoples than "Europeans" does.

    10. Re:American Indians by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And consider "People of Earth" which covers an even broader geographic area.

    11. Re:American Indians by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      "People of Earth" is only used when beings like Klaatu come visit. Otherwise, both "Americans" and "Europeans" are nearly ubiquitous current references.

      I think the larger point is, the fact that Columbus got it wrong doesn't make the name derogatory, only technically incorrect, just like calling a Nintendo cartridge a "tape".

    12. Re:American Indians by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I think the larger point is, the fact that Columbus got it wrong doesn't make the name derogatory, only technically incorrect, just like calling a Nintendo cartridge a "tape".

      Definitely. But I'm somewhat offended by this entire pair of continents being named after an Italian cartographer.

    13. Re:American Indians by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Who are you talking about, Native Americans or American Indians? I remember be lectured about 15 years ago by a American Indian that this was what they considered themselves. He was the Architect on a software team... I will let you figure out where he was originally from.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    14. Re:American Indians by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      But I'm somewhat offended by this entire pair of continents being named after an Italian cartographer.

      Well, imagine being a call center employee who wakes up every morning in a country that is named after the natives of a continent in the opposite hemisphere. And you can't have a Big Mac for lunch because the cows are your dead Uncle Fred. That's got to suck, huh?

    15. Re:American Indians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In german, we refer to "native americans" as Indianer and to people from the Indian subcontinent or that heritage as "Inder", I really wish the english language had a similar alternative that wasn't another word or multitude of words.

  8. "But Fred has overcome" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, with his track record, it isn't so much that he has "overcome", it is that he has ignored the law.

  9. Puff Piece by Luthair · · Score: 1

    You can easily tell this because it uses the Monster position that they changed the world with Beats, however when Beats dropped them as the manufacturer they also tried suing and lost...

  10. Which Monster? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    Is this the Monster of Monster Cables infamy?

    That'll go well.

    1. Re:Which Monster? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Is this the Monster of Monster Cables infamy?

      That'll go well.

      Yes, it is... It's not the monster of monster.com, or the monster of monster fish keepers https://www.monsterfishkeepers... , or the monster of monster energy drinks. Heck it's not even the monster of "there's a monster at the end of this book".

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Which Monster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monster Cables were good when they started as just upscale musical instrument cables, I have some old ones from back in the day and they were a big step up from your typical market-standard guitar cables.

      The problem is when they went full-retard on a bunch of other markets and played up the audiophile angle to absurd degrees.

    3. Re: Which Monster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imma just go watch the munsters, eddies gotten himself into some trouble again. That boy, I swear.

  11. "So he might also be a genius." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the bar for "genius" is lowered yet again. Now all it takes is to have a plan to do a thing that's been done before, and, if successful, would obviously make a lot of money.

  12. WE ALREADY HAVE IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what the stock market is.

  13. Faking it with financial derivatives by grahamsz · · Score: 1

    I've always wondered if you could somehow structure some kind of super-short-term set of futures contracts that would roughly approximate a roulette wheel. Instead of placing a bet you'd simply buy a futures contract that would either pay out handsomely or return absolutely nothing a few minutes later.

    Add some pretty animations to show which contract was successful and the whole thing could look like a roulette wheel while you are really just trading some kind of derivative.

  14. Poker is not gambling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poker is a game of skill. This, combined with the fact that the US is a "free" country meaning something is legal unless specifically made illegal, is why DoJ lost in the courts.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/nyregion/poker-is-more-a-game-of-skill-than-of-chance-a-judge-rules.html

    1. Re:Poker is not gambling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither is darts, or football, or knitting... Unless there's money and a pot involved.

  15. American Indian Casinos... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Legally skirt the law... All of them. I feel sorry for people who work there who are NOT protected by any workers rights or local/federal employment laws. I know several that work there and are denied basic rights, like ignoring doctors orders for pregnant women to reduce their work load.

    1. Re:American Indian Casinos... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      They are not legally skirting anything, they are sovereign nations (although on US soil) and the state cannot regulate them. They are free to do whatever, do not have to pay taxes and have their own legal systems. You can see a 'true' map of the US here: https://nativeheritageproject....

      Also makes you shudder when you think that USCS and DHS have designated 100 miles away from every border a constitution-free zone.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  16. Re:WE ALREADY HAVE IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is not gambling.

  17. I thought we already had legal online gambling by hAckz0r · · Score: 1
    Its just that they call it by another name, "The Stock Market". The best part is its not even rigged in favor of the house! Just try getting those odds in a Trump casino.

    btw - What are the odds that Trump wants a piece of this action?

    1. Re:I thought we already had legal online gambling by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Its just that they call it by another name, "The Stock Market". The best part is its not even rigged in favor of the house!

      In poker, the money is mostly traded between the players. The losers pay the winner. The house takes a rake on each pot to pay for the dealer and facilities, and usually the small blind to pay for jackpots.

      Compare this to the stock market where the losers pay the winners, and the trading house takes a rake, I mean "sales fee", on each sale. I'd say that the stock market is rigged for the house to the same extent that poker is.

      btw - What are the odds that Trump wants a piece of this action?

      Zero. But nice try at making this a Trump rant.

    2. Re:I thought we already had legal online gambling by lgw · · Score: 1

      The problem with the analogy is Goldman-Sachs - where parasites like that are involved it's more like slots than poker. Fortunately, that's not every market.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  18. Apache called themselves Indians before Euros came by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Apache word for "people" is Ndee, sounding roughly like "in-day". It resembles Diné in closely related Navajo and similar words in other Athabaskan languages. It's not a big leap from there to "Indian".

  19. Legalized gambling... Yay! by Lucas123 · · Score: 2

    Government sanctioned gambling -- the ultimate tax on the poor, who have such high hopes that by throwing what little money they have at high-risk lotteries, casinos and now online gambling, they can someday see all their financial troubles vanish in the blink of an eye.

    The great thing about lotteries and casinos is that the government can capture significant revenue from the poor and lower middle class without having to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for stuff like, you know, schools and roads.

    It's an awesome scheme to keep the wealthy in good standing while sucking the last ounce of blood like a vampire from those who can least afford to lose a drop.

    1. Re:Legalized gambling... Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor people are too stupid to have freedom of choice. They should not be allowed to decide for themselves how to spend their money. Think of the children!

    2. Re:Legalized gambling... Yay! by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

      You're right. Why didn't I think of that?

      We should just legalize other things that tend to affect the poor far greater than the rich, like drugs. Cause, you know, the poor are exactly the same as the rich; they have all the same educational and career opportunities and social privileges as the middle and upper-class... they just have less money. /s

    3. Re:Legalized gambling... Yay! by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      Government sanctioned gambling -- the ultimate tax on the poor,

      Other than the fact that taxes are involuntary contributions and gambling is not, you're right. You have a hard time avoiding income taxes except by foregoing income. You can trivially avoid gambling losses. For the latter, you have lost essentially nothing by giving up gambling because you were losing anyway. If you are a winner then it isn't a tax, it's income.

      The great thing about lotteries and casinos is that the government can capture significant revenue from the poor and lower middle class without having to raise taxes on the wealthy

      The great thing about lotteries and casinos is that the government can capture significant revenue from people who want to give away their money instead of taking it from people who would rather hold onto it for their own use. Nobody forces anyone into a casino or to buy a lottery ticket, but gosh if there aren't people whose job it is to collect taxes from people who don't want to pay them.

      Perhaps you have cause and effect swapped because you are relying on correlation to prove your point? Can it be that poor people are poor because they make poor money decisions, like "buy lottery tickets as a way of saving for retirement", and the rich are rich(er) because they don't?

      while sucking the last ounce of blood like a vampire from those who can least afford to lose a drop.

      When a government agent shows up at my door with a gun and a stack of lottery tickets telling me to give him my money, your analogy would be valid. As long as I can walk right past the places that sell lottery tickets (or have to drive 45 miles to the closest casino), then there is no "sucking", only poor choices made by free people.

    4. Re:Legalized gambling... Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be so happy when your idiot children are fucked due to gambling.

      Then you might understand why this is a bad idea.

  20. UH? wut? it exists already today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.nj.gov/lps/ge/gamingsites.html

    "The following Internet gaming sites are approved to conduct continuous 24 hour Internet gaming operations.
    Internet gaming site approvals will
    be issued on a rolling basis.

    Any site not included on this list is NOT approved to offer Internet gaming in the State of New Jersey:

    All sites authorized to offer Internet gaming in the State of New Jersey will display this logo:"

  21. Former telemarketing kingpin, reality TV star by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Funny

    _and_ two-time FTC loser with a history in gambling? I think we just found our next president.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  22. No Credit Cards, no online gambling by Ghostworks · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Even if they try to do a legal run around based on tribal sovereignty, the simple fact remains that it's against Federal law for credit card companies to do business with casinos. This is what originally killed the American online gambling industry. (And while I think that basic goal was short sighted, it is what it is.)

    Credit card companies care a lot more about pissing off the Feds than they do about doing business with what they admit is a shady, untested casino scheme. The money is good, I'm sure, but the legal theory would have to be rock-solid to convince them that they're not going to just burn through it all in legal fees and penalties.

    It would actually be easier to go to President Trump -- literally the most sympathetic possible person for this cause -- and bitch about how all those casino dollars are going off-shore to GoldenPalace.com, and get him to put a pet bill through a Republican-controlled Congress.

    1. Re:No Credit Cards, no online gambling by crashumbc · · Score: 1

      True, but Bitcoin is nearing mainstream enough to possibly offer a path around that...

    2. Re:No Credit Cards, no online gambling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the transfer fees and delays it won't work very well for gambling. Almost any other crypto should work though. Dogecoin transfers happen quite fast and you only pay 1 Dogecoin for the transfer.

    3. Re:No Credit Cards, no online gambling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't illegal for credit card companies to do business with casinos. Been to many casinos and had no problems using my CCs anywhere I wanted to.

      It isn't technically illegal for credit card companies to do business with online casinos which is what I think you meant. However if it is illegal for a person to use an online casino then CC companies are going to be prohibited from facilitating that. So if the online casinos are deemed legal for some reason (using the native american loophole in this case) then I can't imagine that CCs would be prohibited from them.

      It is like saying it is illegal for a CC company from working with a drug dealer. Sure, that would be a no no. But legalize pot in a state like Colorado and then CCs are perfectly fine.

    4. Re:No Credit Cards, no online gambling by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      the simple fact remains that it's against Federal law for credit card companies to do business with casinos.

      Citation required. I find a lot of online information saying that some casinos won't accept credit cards for chips, and that some credit card companies won't deal with casinos for the same thing, but no federal law that prohibits credit card companies from dealing with casinos. In fact, the local casino is quite happy to accept credit cards for various things other than gambling chips.

      If you are referring to Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), then you need to consider that this act deals with "illegal internet gambling". While credit card companies may take the safe approach and just not deal with any online gambling operation, they are only legally prohibited, as far as the information I see about UIGEA, from dealing with the illegal sites. If this new site is legal, then UIGEA doesn't apply to them.

      From here: "To be clear, the UIGEA does not make Internet poker playing illegal," Pappas says. "It simply says that banks must block 'unlawful Internet gambling' transactions, and therein lies the rub."

      Credit card companies care a lot more about pissing off the Feds than they do about doing business with what they admit is a shady, untested casino scheme.

      Yep. Banks, too. In Oregon there is a significant issue with banks refusing to deal with pot dispensaries, which are legal under Oregon law but not under Federal. This has created a huge cash-only business system, and created a problem for the state when it collects the taxes. They're getting boxes of cash, and dispensaries are having to tote that cash to Salem to pay the taxes. They can't just write a check -- banks won't handle the account.

      and get him to put a pet bill through a Republican-controlled Congress.

      If Trump proposes a bill, neither Reps or Dems will want to deal with it. He's neither one, and neither side shows him any allegiance.

    5. Re:No Credit Cards, no online gambling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have obviously never gambled online with a credit card....

      All of the payments are charged to front companies, that can be rotated in and out as needed. As a player, as long as the money you deposited shows in your account, and the money you withdraw can be had in cash.... what do you care?

      The CC companies can not keep up. Government is pointless, and jungle warfare is inevitable.

    6. Re:No Credit Cards, no online gambling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are more and more crypto vending machines being placed in the United States and around the world. In my little state of New Hampshire we have at least one Bitcoin vending machine in every major city and within 25 minutes of every major population center. If you are in Keene, Portsmoth, Manchester, or Concord you are literally within a handful of minutes away from a crypto vending machine. My town of 25,000 people is going to be getting its 2nd vending machine this year. We already have had one for a few years now and dozens of local businesses accept Bitcoin. Keene is the Bitcoin capital of the world on a per capita basis because of the Free State Project and its participants. However Bitcoin is hardly a libertarian thing... it's just something that appeals to those who want more decentralization and for government to stop utilizing violence against peaceful people in the name of "safety" or racism (ie the wall, military, etc, both the left and right attract violent psychopaths who want to control people). Those who prefer liberty and freedom to safety (even though most government action is just security theatre anyway) are moving to New Hampshire from across the United States and even around the world to take part in this migration for freedom (for instance we have a Russian community, a Muslim community, etc all within the libertarian movement here).

    7. Re:No Credit Cards, no online gambling by omnichad · · Score: 1

      But legalize pot in a state like Colorado and then CCs are perfectly fine.

      Except that's not even true. Sellers in CO aren't even allowed to have bank accounts.

    8. Re:No Credit Cards, no online gambling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are referring to Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), then you need to consider that this act deals with "illegal internet gambling". While credit card companies may take the safe approach and just not deal with any online gambling operation, they are only legally prohibited, as far as the information I see about UIGEA, from dealing with the illegal sites. If this new site is legal, then UIGEA doesn't apply to them.

      The theory requires some circular logic: the law forbids all illegal gambling sites, but this site is legal and so the law cannot forbid it!

      The fact is that the law required the Treasury Dept. to set up rules for payment systems (read: credit cards) to prevent any of that money from going to gambling. Which they did in 2008. All the enforcement meat of the law is in the regulations that the law required federal agencies to investigate and develop.

      Video poker eventually managed to squeak through on judicial opinion that poker was not a game of chance, but rather skill. Some credit card companies are lax in enforcement, especially as long as users go through token acts of laundering to get around the law, as by sending money to front companies for casinos that don't reside in the U.S. or care about U.S. law. But that doesn't make it any more legal.

    9. Re:No Credit Cards, no online gambling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I have bitcoins, what do I need another online gambling option for?

    10. Re:No Credit Cards, no online gambling by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      That is because pot hasn't actually been properly legalised, some states have "legalised" it but it's still a violation of federal law and while the feds are currently turning a blind eye they could change their stance on that at any time.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  23. Good news for my retirement by Ichijo · · Score: 1

    If this goes through, I'd like to start funding my retirement with a bunch of climate bets, tax-advantaged or not.

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    1. Re:Good news for my retirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this goes through, I'd like to start funding my retirement with a bunch of climate bets, tax-advantaged or not.

      why can't you make the bets now? mom won't unlock the basement door?

  24. Re:Apache called themselves Indians before Euros c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Apache word for "people" is Ndee, sounding roughly like "in-day". It resembles Diné in closely related Navajo and similar words in other Athabaskan languages. It's not a big leap from there to "Indian".

    I agree with you tapeless

  25. Re:UH? wut? it exists already today? by crashumbc · · Score: 1

    I think you need to be a NJ resident though...

  26. You mean loot boxes right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    :)

  27. can't happen, sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's a pretty complex thing, but court cases, tribal sovereignty and the igra (plus states, compacts, dept of interior, etc).. all those are mix of items, rulings, law and policy which allow the gaming in the first place do not and cannot extend to the internet... plus you also still need to rewrite or repeal the federal regs that prohibit the online gambling in the first place which is.

    monster is just looking for the next cash cow since their scam of overpriced accessories and cables has been called-out and amazon's cheap stuff killed their business of relying on upsells at retail locations. but they won't find it here.

  28. American Indians = People from India in US? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    Ironically enough, they will probably will be involved. This tool is probably just going to put the servers in a data center on Native American land, and claim that it is just another casino. Because there will need to be tech support for the users of this site /service, they will outsource the tech support to India.

    Yeah, 'Indian' is culturally insensitive, but I don't know if it falls into the 'racist' category. Racism the act of claiming that one race is superior or inferior to another. I don't really see anything inherently racist about confusing West Indies inhabitants with North American natives. Just being stupid isn't automatically racist.

    Suspect that there will be a lot more morally questionable stuff going on behind the scenes than just cultural insensitivity.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re: American Indians = People from India in US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, are the tribes who still call THEMSELVES "Indian", culturally insensitive as well?

    2. Re:American Indians = People from India in US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, 'Indian' is culturally insensitive

      The Indians I have asked about that unanimously disagree with you.

    3. Re:American Indians = People from India in US? by ghoul · · Score: 1

      It is racist towards real Indians. Their name has been misappropriated. How do you think a young boy of Indian origin feels when he sees the word Indians used to describe games like Cowboys and Indians?

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
  29. Dear USA, from the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't want this.

    You really really don't want this.

    New Labour had many upsides, but the greatest downside aside from the Iraq War was greatly deregulated online and in-store gambling.

    It's really very, very bad, and you should not let it happen.

    1. Re:Dear USA, from the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a software engineer involved with online gaming in the UK, I was curious if you could elaborate on why it is bad. (I'm not defending it, but am sincerely looking to better understand it.)

  30. It never was illegal by leretard · · Score: 0

    As long as you employ the appropriate loopholes

    https://magic.wizards.com/en/c...

  31. Yikes... by XMadtowner · · Score: 1

    Anything gaming involving the internet either is or will be corrupt.

  32. Redskin trumps Orangeskin by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    They'll lose their Indianity license.

  33. casino's, racetracks's, state lotteries, et al by mbaGeek · · Score: 1

    of course the organization against legalizing sports gambling nationwide (in the United States) tends to come from casino's and other gambling institutions - so obviously just because people are in favor of something doesn't mean it is going to happen ...

    --
    It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
  34. Digital Pachinko by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    that's basically how Japan does gambling. You play Pachinko to gamble. You get little balls that you trade in for stuffed animals and such and there just happens to be a shop across the street that buys said stuffed animals for exorbitant prices. People are doing this with video game skins too. The only question is will the government (at the behest of Las Vegas) start cracking down on bitcoin & crypto currency.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  35. Re:Apache called themselves Indians before Euros c by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Is it even true the CC thought he had found India, like the world is flat thing? I think your explanation that it was a variation on an Native term makes more sense. I grew up in NJ and Native words are used everywhere for place names and even businesses (like Wawa)

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  36. Quick Disk by tepples · · Score: 1

    the fact that Columbus got it wrong doesn't make the name derogatory, only technically incorrect, just like calling a Nintendo cartridge a "tape".

    You're right. NES Game Paks aren't tapes; FDS disks are. The Mitsumi Quick Disk mechanism treats the spiral track on each side of a disk as a single rewindable stream of magnetic media.

  37. Yeah, obviously by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    And it's called Counterstrike Global Offensive and you don't need to be 18. I can't wait for congress to drop the hammer on that garbage.

  38. Re:Apache called themselves Indians before Euros c by _merlin · · Score: 1

    It wasn't that people thought the world was flat at the time, it was that Columbus thought the globe was a lot smaller than everyone else thought it was, and hence he thought there may be a more efficient westward route to India. I don't know if he really thought he'd reached India when he got to America though.

  39. Re: ayy by Brockmire · · Score: 1

    Your comment would make sense if you said "native" instead of Indian. Making the point many generations have been born and died that there's hundreds of millions of natives...

  40. Dre owns Beats by Brockmire · · Score: 1

    What the fuck does Monster have to do with Dr Dre? Dre and Jimmy Iovine started BEATS. I'm not aware of Dr Dre doing fuck all with Monster. What is this shit?

    1. Re: Dre owns Beats by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Fuck, needed to scroll down further in Google results.

  41. Re: ayy by thebullshitpatrol · · Score: 1

    The difference is "indian" is objectively wrong, whereas "native american" has some semblance of correctness depending on your definition of "native".

    There is no fallacious premise that has to be assumed when using the word "native" to refer to indigenous people. Native is quite literally synonymous to aboriginal in this context (i.e., colonization, not citizenship).

    I'm sure you'll have other examples of things people refer to incorrectly like "tin foil". The difference is that it's not beyond reasonable doubt that people think some foil is made of tin, or perhaps they think tin and aluminium are the same thing. I seriously doubt anyone thinks "american indians" have any relationship to indians.