As my grandmother explained it (and this was many years ago and may have since changed), some bookies gave you the choice, some didn't. It may have been the policy of individual bookmakers although they could (legally) do it either way.
I'd assume so, but it's going to be a lot harder to do with an online casino. It would take only a few seconds to substitute your cheating code with fair code when the inspectors turn up.
I guess the same might be true of real casino machines if they are networked, but I doubt that they are.
Perhaps the solution is for a state (or federal) gaming commission to set up a service that online casinos must use (and pay for) that takes care of the "random" parts of the game. Basically, an API for dealing cards, rolling dice, spinning a roulette wheel, etc., with some kind of encryption to prevent tampering and an audit trail that can be inspected.
True enough, but what if I set up shop, run for a few months and then tear it down when players start losing interest. Then I'll set up a new online casino and I'll be back in business. Rinse, lather, repeat.
The advantage being that I can set up a new web casino in an afternoon by just changing the banners on the webpages.
Well, exactly, which is why I made the point that poker could be subverted if the casino controls one or more players at the table. And, of course, you have no idea if they are or not.
But the difference here as that the odds at a real casino are known (or, at the very least, knowable). In an online casino, whats to stop me dialing the odds slightly more in favor of the house than in a real casino. Law of large numbers, I'll make a boat load more money than my brick and mortar casino friends.
So, about a "6% cut from all wagers..." Which wagers would these be? Win or lose?
My grandmother used to like to bet on the horses, and, in the UK at least, with some bookies you paid tax on the wager itself (with no tax on the winnings), at others you paid tax on the winnings (or nothing if you lose).
Just replying to myself to add. I guess there isn't a problem for online casinos taking bets on, for example, sports. Something they have no control over. I also guess there's no problem if an online casino works only as a venue for players to bet against each other (example: poker) with the casino taking a cut (unless they hire their own players who are given some additional advantage by the code running the game). I was thinking more along the lines of online roulette, online slot machines, or online craps.
It seems to me that it would be inherently hard to monitor online gambling to ensure that the people running the online casino are actually playing fair. After all, it would be fairly trivial to set up a website to take peoples money but behind the scenes code it such that nobody ever wins. Of course, if nobody ever wins anything, they'll eventually stop playing, but you could easily set rules to feedback just enough money to keep them interested. Maybe return 80 cents on the dollar, but have code make sure that nobody can ever break even.
How would the federal government handle this? Do they insist on seeing the full source code running on every online casino site? If they do, how do they know the code the casino gives them is the actual production code? Basically, it would be too easy to load the dice at an online casino and take everybody's money.
This isn't a comment on the morality of gambling in general, or whether or not it's a good thing. It just seems like it'll be too easy to rip people off using some [not even that] clever coding.
We're not comparing Emotiv to Counter-Strike. We are comparing Emotiv to a mouse and a keyboard. Emotiv is a toy with some great marketing spin. A mouse and a keyboard are tools that you can use to get stuff done (including playing Counter-Strike).
I was going to say the same thing. ICE systems are less nickable and harder to resell than the iPad. Also it's harder to accidentally leave it in a hotel room or forget to bring it with you. Not that I'd pay for an ICE system anyway. A cheap portable DVD seems like a better bet.
You didn't answer the question. Would you hire him?
Yes, it's a minor mistake, yes everybody makes mistakes, yes another candidate may have made worse mistakes that you don't know about, but you DO know about this mistake, and that's the difference. And that's why it was a dick move my Gizmodo to reveal his name.
It is a minor mistake, and it shouldn't haunt him. But now it will, thanks to Gizmodo.
So, all things being equal, if you had two candidates and a quick Google search turned up that one of them was the bozo who managed to lose the iPhone prototype, which one would you hire?
And even if, for some reason, you'd still be okay with hiring him, what about your boss? Or your bosses boss? Or the CEO of your company? Are they all okay with it?
At the very least he has demonstrated a disregard for the companies IP.
I don't know what Apple's HR policy is, but a lot of companies now days (including where I work) will do nothing other than confirm employment dates, job titles and (maybe) salary. Anything else (good or bad) isn't worth the risk, legally.
No, the phone is the story. Outing the engineer who lost it is just being an asshole. If it was a government employee in department X, you might have a point, but it's not.
exposure to fast-food symbols -- including the logos of McDonald's, KFC, Subway and Taco Bell -- make people both less likely to save money and more likely to feel like they're running out of time.
Funny, eating McDonald's, KFC, Subway and Taco Bell makes me feel like I'm running out of time. Time left to live that is.
No doubt, by that's kind of the point. Apple didn't need Gizmodo to tell them where the phone came from, so why did Gizmodo feel the need to plaster their name across the web. It doesn't help Apple and only further hurts and embarrasses the engineer in question. It's a dick move to drum up more ad views for Gizmodo that will hopefully blow up in their face.
However, there are realjournalists who have done jail time for refusing to reveal names of sources to the government.
And add to that that nobody asked them to out the engineers name. They just did it for shits and giggles. Real journalists would protect their sources against threats from the government. Gizmodo outs their sources just for the fun of it. As several others have pointed out, no doubt Apple didn't need to ask Gizmodo who the phone belonged to.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. Very informative.
There's no polite way to say this, but it needs to be said.
YOU ARE A RUDE ASSHOLE
Thanks for you pointless contribution and your inability to understand my point.
As my grandmother explained it (and this was many years ago and may have since changed), some bookies gave you the choice, some didn't. It may have been the policy of individual bookmakers although they could (legally) do it either way.
I'd assume so, but it's going to be a lot harder to do with an online casino. It would take only a few seconds to substitute your cheating code with fair code when the inspectors turn up.
I guess the same might be true of real casino machines if they are networked, but I doubt that they are.
Perhaps the solution is for a state (or federal) gaming commission to set up a service that online casinos must use (and pay for) that takes care of the "random" parts of the game. Basically, an API for dealing cards, rolling dice, spinning a roulette wheel, etc., with some kind of encryption to prevent tampering and an audit trail that can be inspected.
True enough, but what if I set up shop, run for a few months and then tear it down when players start losing interest. Then I'll set up a new online casino and I'll be back in business. Rinse, lather, repeat.
The advantage being that I can set up a new web casino in an afternoon by just changing the banners on the webpages.
Well, exactly, which is why I made the point that poker could be subverted if the casino controls one or more players at the table. And, of course, you have no idea if they are or not.
But the difference here as that the odds at a real casino are known (or, at the very least, knowable). In an online casino, whats to stop me dialing the odds slightly more in favor of the house than in a real casino. Law of large numbers, I'll make a boat load more money than my brick and mortar casino friends.
So, about a "6% cut from all wagers..." Which wagers would these be? Win or lose?
My grandmother used to like to bet on the horses, and, in the UK at least, with some bookies you paid tax on the wager itself (with no tax on the winnings), at others you paid tax on the winnings (or nothing if you lose).
So paying taxes itself, was a bit of a gamble.
Just replying to myself to add. I guess there isn't a problem for online casinos taking bets on, for example, sports. Something they have no control over. I also guess there's no problem if an online casino works only as a venue for players to bet against each other (example: poker) with the casino taking a cut (unless they hire their own players who are given some additional advantage by the code running the game). I was thinking more along the lines of online roulette, online slot machines, or online craps.
It seems to me that it would be inherently hard to monitor online gambling to ensure that the people running the online casino are actually playing fair. After all, it would be fairly trivial to set up a website to take peoples money but behind the scenes code it such that nobody ever wins. Of course, if nobody ever wins anything, they'll eventually stop playing, but you could easily set rules to feedback just enough money to keep them interested. Maybe return 80 cents on the dollar, but have code make sure that nobody can ever break even.
How would the federal government handle this? Do they insist on seeing the full source code running on every online casino site? If they do, how do they know the code the casino gives them is the actual production code? Basically, it would be too easy to load the dice at an online casino and take everybody's money.
This isn't a comment on the morality of gambling in general, or whether or not it's a good thing. It just seems like it'll be too easy to rip people off using some [not even that] clever coding.
Hey, I want $0.60 of that in tax.
We're not comparing Emotiv to Counter-Strike. We are comparing Emotiv to a mouse and a keyboard. Emotiv is a toy with some great marketing spin. A mouse and a keyboard are tools that you can use to get stuff done (including playing Counter-Strike).
I wonder if this would give people an edge in Counter-Strike compared to the regular mouse+keyboard setup.
No. It's a toy, nothing more.
Nonsense. Fines for speeding will simply be increased to about £1,000,000. It'll pay for itself in no time.
To compensate for continental drift?
I was going to say the same thing. ICE systems are less nickable and harder to resell than the iPad. Also it's harder to accidentally leave it in a hotel room or forget to bring it with you. Not that I'd pay for an ICE system anyway. A cheap portable DVD seems like a better bet.
You didn't answer the question. Would you hire him?
Yes, it's a minor mistake, yes everybody makes mistakes, yes another candidate may have made worse mistakes that you don't know about, but you DO know about this mistake, and that's the difference. And that's why it was a dick move my Gizmodo to reveal his name.
It is a minor mistake, and it shouldn't haunt him. But now it will, thanks to Gizmodo.
So, all things being equal, if you had two candidates and a quick Google search turned up that one of them was the bozo who managed to lose the iPhone prototype, which one would you hire?
And even if, for some reason, you'd still be okay with hiring him, what about your boss? Or your bosses boss? Or the CEO of your company? Are they all okay with it?
At the very least he has demonstrated a disregard for the companies IP.
In the same way that a wall is more secure than a door. It has less features to start with.
I don't know what Apple's HR policy is, but a lot of companies now days (including where I work) will do nothing other than confirm employment dates, job titles and (maybe) salary. Anything else (good or bad) isn't worth the risk, legally.
No, the phone is the story. Outing the engineer who lost it is just being an asshole. If it was a government employee in department X, you might have a point, but it's not.
FTA:
exposure to fast-food symbols -- including the logos of McDonald's, KFC, Subway and Taco Bell -- make people both less likely to save money and more likely to feel like they're running out of time.
Funny, eating McDonald's, KFC, Subway and Taco Bell makes me feel like I'm running out of time. Time left to live that is.
No doubt, by that's kind of the point. Apple didn't need Gizmodo to tell them where the phone came from, so why did Gizmodo feel the need to plaster their name across the web. It doesn't help Apple and only further hurts and embarrasses the engineer in question. It's a dick move to drum up more ad views for Gizmodo that will hopefully blow up in their face.
However, there are real journalists who have done jail time for refusing to reveal names of sources to the government.
And add to that that nobody asked them to out the engineers name. They just did it for shits and giggles. Real journalists would protect their sources against threats from the government. Gizmodo outs their sources just for the fun of it. As several others have pointed out, no doubt Apple didn't need to ask Gizmodo who the phone belonged to.
Dick move Gizmodo, dick move.
I stopped reading Gizmodo a long time ago. Bunch of Apple fanboy assholes. Try criticizing Apple in their comments and see how quickly you get banned.