Most casinos have a rule that blackjack dealers cannot hit above 17. But if the dealer does hit on a hand totalling 18 anyway, and loses, they owe me the amount of money I won, not just my bet back. They can subsequently fire the dealer, if they want, but their screwup is not my problem, nor should I be denied a win based upon "Oops, we didn't mean for it to work that way...".
The scenario doesn't change because the "dealer" making the error is a machine. They can take the machine right out of service, and I imagine they would, but I was still shown a win and am owed winnings, not my bet back.
I agree with all of this.
One would think they would pay a sufficient amount of money for code auditing to ensure that these things cannot happen. If they fail to do so, fallout from that is their problem, not mine.
And why would they do this when its cheaper just to buy legislation?
Casino gambling, like the lottery is just another regressive tax in a country that has been embracing regressive taxation more and more in the past three decades (at least).
Taxes are compulsory; the exchange of money in a casino is not.
Without having read the post or article, here is my shot at what is going on just based on the headline:
Counting youtube as a TV station obligates it to be regulated or otherwise bound by some strictures that will hinder its ability to compete with some media outlet(s) owned by Berlusconi.
FTFP:
The main reason for this is probably that it will force YouTube to assume editorial responsibility for all published content, which facilitates the ongoing € 500M lawsuit of Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi against YouTube because of content copyrighted by Berlusconi's TV networks that some users uploaded on YouTube.
hey-oh!
Somehow this kind of corrupt BS surprises me no matter how many times I see it in my own government (USA) and in foreign ones.
Without having read the post or article, here is my shot at what is going on just based on the headline:
Counting youtube as a TV station obligates it to be regulated or otherwise bound by some strictures that will hinder its ability to compete with some media outlet(s) owned by Berlusconi.
I wasn't very clear with the point I was trying to make, so I'll take another shot. Guessing from the tone of your post I will say that I think we agree that personal freedom is an important issue. I was just using the economy as an illustration of the fact that, when voting, a person may have to choose one issue or set of issues from among many to choose how to cast their vote.
To the unfortunately few number of people who don't strictly or closely follow party lines, this can lead to a choice where I disagree on seemingly-small (though arguably large in its implications) issues such as whether 6 year olds or their caretakers should be forced to pay for the songs they sing, opting instead to cast a vote based on some other issue that more directly affects my own freedom (eg, reigning in the TSA).
I didn't mean to imply that I think the economy is the only important issue around, nor that it is more important than issues of personal liberty.
UNtil the citizens of each and every country make their vote contingent on putting the recording industry back in its place via new laws, this crap will continue to happen.
Your post highlights one of the major problems with representative democracy. People can't be expected, and rightfully so, to use the single tiny/weak signal they can send to their government (their vote) to take up a cause like this since they might be more concerned about, say, the economy. So it goes unchecked.
Slashdot Mirror
Most casinos have a rule that blackjack dealers cannot hit above 17. But if the dealer does hit on a hand totalling 18 anyway, and loses, they owe me the amount of money I won, not just my bet back. They can subsequently fire the dealer, if they want, but their screwup is not my problem, nor should I be denied a win based upon "Oops, we didn't mean for it to work that way...".
The scenario doesn't change because the "dealer" making the error is a machine. They can take the machine right out of service, and I imagine they would, but I was still shown a win and am owed winnings, not my bet back.
I agree with all of this.
One would think they would pay a sufficient amount of money for code auditing to ensure that these things cannot happen. If they fail to do so, fallout from that is their problem, not mine.
And why would they do this when its cheaper just to buy legislation?
Casino gambling, like the lottery is just another regressive tax in a country that has been embracing regressive taxation more and more in the past three decades (at least).
Taxes are compulsory; the exchange of money in a casino is not.
but the limit as it is now, is way to lenient in my view.
Yeah the .05 BAC limit where I live corresponds to 50% degradation in driving ability. I wouldn't drive if my brakes were half gone.
[Citation needed]
Also, what does it mean for "driving ability" to be 50% degraded?
Without having read the post or article, here is my shot at what is going on just based on the headline: Counting youtube as a TV station obligates it to be regulated or otherwise bound by some strictures that will hinder its ability to compete with some media outlet(s) owned by Berlusconi.
FTFP:
The main reason for this is probably that it will force YouTube to assume editorial responsibility for all published content, which facilitates the ongoing € 500M lawsuit of Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi against YouTube because of content copyrighted by Berlusconi's TV networks that some users uploaded on YouTube.
hey-oh!
Somehow this kind of corrupt BS surprises me no matter how many times I see it in my own government (USA) and in foreign ones.
Without having read the post or article, here is my shot at what is going on just based on the headline: Counting youtube as a TV station obligates it to be regulated or otherwise bound by some strictures that will hinder its ability to compete with some media outlet(s) owned by Berlusconi.
I wasn't very clear with the point I was trying to make, so I'll take another shot. Guessing from the tone of your post I will say that I think we agree that personal freedom is an important issue. I was just using the economy as an illustration of the fact that, when voting, a person may have to choose one issue or set of issues from among many to choose how to cast their vote. To the unfortunately few number of people who don't strictly or closely follow party lines, this can lead to a choice where I disagree on seemingly-small (though arguably large in its implications) issues such as whether 6 year olds or their caretakers should be forced to pay for the songs they sing, opting instead to cast a vote based on some other issue that more directly affects my own freedom (eg, reigning in the TSA). I didn't mean to imply that I think the economy is the only important issue around, nor that it is more important than issues of personal liberty.
UNtil the citizens of each and every country make their vote contingent on putting the recording industry back in its place via new laws, this crap will continue to happen.
Your post highlights one of the major problems with representative democracy. People can't be expected, and rightfully so, to use the single tiny/weak signal they can send to their government (their vote) to take up a cause like this since they might be more concerned about, say, the economy. So it goes unchecked.