"the utterly clueless government that is championing these Anti-Net-Gambling laws presides over a country with the most pokies (poker machines) per capita in the world!!". ]
Aust may have the most pokies per capita but as it is the state governments that control those pokies i don't see how it is related to the fed govn. Perhaps if the fed govn had the control there would not be so many.
So the gov tries to limit gambling, so what - i can't see how that is a bad thing in a country with far to much gambling (and if you don't believe aust has to much gambling their is something wrong with you). Sure, maybe people can just go to overseas sites but one gamble i would like to take is that some won't. And even if only 1 person does not loose money than cannot afford than that is a victory. An addicted gambler with access to an oline site is quite scary. Self regulation does not work, casinos are not very good at turning people away. Perhaps if various austyralian state goverments with an eye on easy money had not allowed such an explosion of gambling in the last 10 years (here in queensland it is rediculess how much in the last 10 years) than it would not be such a problem.
As to sensorship - lots of people say let people do what they won't, except for child porn. The only diff between the gov and those people is that the line in the sand is different. The real hipporcrites are those who say ban one thing but everybody should be able to do anything else they want because thats "there right" online. Then to backup there comments they take specific bits of law or outcomes under the belief that it is even remotely possible to be 100% consistent with so mnany laws and regulations that a country needs. Like getting 1000 bits of data and neglecting the 995 bits that don't show what you want to say.
Slashdot Mirror
"the utterly clueless government that is championing these Anti-Net-Gambling laws presides over a country with the most pokies (poker machines) per capita in the world!!". ] Aust may have the most pokies per capita but as it is the state governments that control those pokies i don't see how it is related to the fed govn. Perhaps if the fed govn had the control there would not be so many.
So the gov tries to limit gambling, so what - i can't see how that is a bad thing in a country with far to much gambling (and if you don't believe aust has to much gambling their is something wrong with you). Sure, maybe people can just go to overseas sites but one gamble i would like to take is that some won't. And even if only 1 person does not loose money than cannot afford than that is a victory. An addicted gambler with access to an oline site is quite scary. Self regulation does not work, casinos are not very good at turning people away. Perhaps if various austyralian state goverments with an eye on easy money had not allowed such an explosion of gambling in the last 10 years (here in queensland it is rediculess how much in the last 10 years) than it would not be such a problem. As to sensorship - lots of people say let people do what they won't, except for child porn. The only diff between the gov and those people is that the line in the sand is different. The real hipporcrites are those who say ban one thing but everybody should be able to do anything else they want because thats "there right" online. Then to backup there comments they take specific bits of law or outcomes under the belief that it is even remotely possible to be 100% consistent with so mnany laws and regulations that a country needs. Like getting 1000 bits of data and neglecting the 995 bits that don't show what you want to say.