For what it is worth, I did seriously consider turning down the job over moral objections. I won't work for a company I see as evil.
When I was offered the job working for Harrah's, my wife had just been laid off, she was pregnant and we were a broke couple. I really needed work.
And while my experiences working for Harrah's weren't great, at no point did I feel like they were out to get people. The company tried to detect people with gambling problems and banned them from their properties.
Gambling is an entertainment expense like any other. I don't partake in it, but I don't believe it is ultimately evil.
Casinos actually prefer to take from the rich. In the end, Vegas certainly doesn't mind people feeding nickle slots, but they go out of their way to cater to Michael Jordan or Charles Barkley dropping $100,000 in a weekend.
The house wins without cheating. Any casino getting caught cheating with a rigged table would lose a massively profitable business. No one would ever want to go to that casino for anything ever again. And given how heavily the casinos are regulated by law, you'd see people in jail very quickly. And because casinos are under massive surveillance, it isn't like people can just screw around with the tables to rig them without someone noticing it. I'm not saying one person isn't stupid enough to attempt it, but I can't say I've ever heard of a single documented case of that happening.
I'm not applying the story of Robin Hood to a larger scale. The poster above me did. I'm examining Robin Hood as a specific case.
In that case, Robin Hood was not needed to remove an unjust government as King Richard was coming home either way. The end result is that Robin Hood got a lot of people killed. If he hadn't done anything, people would have been better off eventually.
Having worked for Harrahs and having been trained on roulette, I'm highly skeptical. Even if you spun at roughly the same force every time, the position of your hand, the twist of your fingers, and the variables of a BOUNCING ball will change greatly.
There are a few individuals who have exceptional fine motor control with their fingers (card magicians come to mind), but I doubt even someone with exceptional fine motor control could get a ball on a certain number 2 times out of 10, let alone 8. And I certainly don't believe all experienced roulette dealers could do this.
I worked for a casino. I worked in IT, but the company trained all employees to root for the customer. Celebrate their winnings. The house isn't worried because they know they'll win in the long run.
I worked for Harrahs. We had poker at both Council Bluffs properties. Certainly it makes less money directly than other table games, and less money than slots. But Harrahs owning the World Series of Poker creates a lot of visibility for the company and gets people in the door.
Often men don't enjoy slots as much as women. For some, having poker allows a couple to come and have both partners play something they enjoy.
Slots will make more money in the same space, but I don't know that you're more profitable overall dropping poker in the long run.
I worked for Harrahs which has two casinos in Council Bluffs. We had a customer take us for a few million between our two properties in a month. There is a competing casino in town. He ended up losing the millions back to the third casino.
People focus on the stories when people win big, but that usually isn't sustained long term. If the casinos gave up their statistical advantage, that is foolish and they'll revise those decisions. But you're absolutely correct that people should not for a moment believe that this is something you can do under most circumstances.
Before Robin Hood you had financial inequality. Then Robin Hood robs from the rich to give to the poor. This provokes the ruling class, and in the end a lot of people die. Clearly this is a fine example of how criminal activity made people's lives better.
In most variations of the story, King Richard eventually comes home from the Crusades and resumes his just rule, which he would have done regardless. All Robin Hood did was get a lot of poor people killed.
The terrorists in question disagreed with the federal government. They felt that the only way to enact change was to break the law. So they murdered innocent civilians, including toddlers in the daycare.
The families of the victims were unhappy with the federal government and how the death penalty was applied in federal cases. So they wrote a law. They traveled to Washington D.C. and testified before Congress. They got their law passed less than a year after the attacks.
Being unhappy with a system doesn't mean criminal activity is justified when you can legally make changes within the system. I was extremely unhappy with SOPA and PIPA. I spoke to my representatives. Lee Terry here in Nebraska was a co-sponsor of SOPA. After people like me explained our concerns to him, he removed his support for it. I didn't have to commit a crime just because I was unhappy with a situation.
We shouldn't support criminals just because they target people we don't like. Effectively that is saying that rights and protection should be applied only to those we favor in a given moment.
And in some of these cases, passwords, credit cards and personal data was leaked publicly. So the customers are the ones suffering more than companies like Verizon.
I found a recent example because it was easier to find, so you're accusing me of deceit. Frankly, if I was a liar or if my usual posts were worthy of negative moderation, I wouldn't always have Excellent karma. I've had the same online identity my whole life, and I'm the only Enderandrew on the internet. I value that identify, and I don't lie.
The day I made that post, several people went and started to down-mod all of my posts. Given that my email address and information is public, I got a lot of crap for that statement both on and off/.
I should also stipulate that I wasn't claiming that Gates is a better person that Jobs was. I was throwing out a random example of a statement that might get down-modded simply due to people disagreeing with it.
And I think it is simply fact that/. has more Apple fans than Microsoft fans amongst its readers. I don't think I've ever seen a single pro-Microsoft statement on/. that wasn't following by people claiming it was a plant/astro-turfing.
I made anecdotal statements about what people have told me directly, and what people have told my wife directly. And I have heard quite a bit in my life that no one with a brain believes in God, or that all Christians are anti-science mouth-breathers. Repeating my own experiences is entirely valid.
I did state quite clearly that I was making an assumption that many intellectual Christians hide their faith, and I maintain that. But I make it clear I don't know that for a fact, nor did I present it as fact.
I don't normally comment on moderation, but brought it up because it has specific context to this article. The article questions whether or not a person might be harassed for their belief in God in a scientific setting. In this specific case, it may be that they overstepped their bounds by bringing in DVDs to work to make their case. However, I was echoing my own personal experiences that I have been harassed for my beliefs. While the majority of the world's population believes in a Creator (going off religious demographics that would peg over 5 billion out of the 6.8 billion people on the planet claiming a theistic religion), I believe the inverse is true in science, academia and other intellectual circles.
Accepting a Creator for truly unanswerable questions isn't the same as saying "I discount all science because it is a threat to the ideas I was raised into, but am afraid to question."
The universe is moving towards entropy and eventual destruction. I'm not sure I accept the notion that the universe runs itself is proof that a Creator doesn't exist.
I think the most logical response is agnosticism. There are some clear paradoxes and unanswerable questions. To believe definitively that a Creator exists or doesn't takes a level of blind faith. One answer makes sense to some people, and the other to others.
I do however agree that these questions are unknowable and that people should move on and focus on what we can ascertain.
Without a doubt, there are some common sentiments amongst most/. readers. Making a statement that goes against those common beliefs will be unpopular. If I argued that Bill Gates was a better human that Steve Jobs because Gates is giving to charity where as Jobs rarely/never did, I'd probably be down-modded by those who disagree. Apple is popular on Slashdot, where as Microsoft is hated.
But that's my point. People should offer counter points rather than use the moderation system.
I didn't make such statements at the time. I merely stated that I simultaneously believe in a Creator and that evolution occurs. I said the two weren't necessary in direct opposition and then was attacked repeatedly.
In fact, any time I've ever admitted to believing in God on/, I've been down-modded. I personally really like the democratic moderation system of/., but it shows that many people incorrectly use down-modding to disagree with something rather than offering a counter-point. There is no -1 disagree.
In the end, I state what I believe. I don't cater to moderation.
FWIW, I am a Christian and thusly believe in a Creator. But I don't care for that logic of proving a Creator. I don't think complexity is at all relevant. However, if I were to play devil's advocate, I assume the theory is that a Creator exists outside our known limitations.
Similarly you can ask if an omnipotent God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot himself lift it. Either answer suggests that omnipotence is impossible in and of itself, but it assumes limitations that may not apply. If a Creator can create the Cosmos, are they bound by the laws of physics, or are the laws of physics also simply part of their creation?
Conversely you could ask what existed before the beginning of time, or where did all mass in the universe come from originally, or what exists beyond the boundary of finite space. Ultimately, you realize that these are utterly unanswerable questions. Any answer we accept is one of faith and we should not judge others for their conclusions to unanswerable questions without clear answers.
I've always had Excellent karma on Slashdot for years until I made a post that the believe that evolution occurs is not in direct opposition to the belief that there is a Creator/God.
I was down-modded like crazy and people came out of the woodwork to make personal attacks.
My wife tells me of how she was harassed while working at a Jesuit university for believing in God, because she was in a lab. Fellow Jesuit employees spoke of how only absolute idiots would believe in God, and how it is an absolute accepted fact amongst intellectuals that God cannot exist.
I still maintain that if it is a great offense to believe in the existence of God (which cannot be tested), then it is equally a great offense to believe definitely in the inverse of something that cannot be tested.
I think most intellectuals who believe in God hide their beliefs out of fear and shame that they will be judged and ostracized for that belief. I would assume that intellectuals would easily spot the logical fallacy that judging a belief solely on the merits of the stupidest people who believe in it doesn't hold water.
Read the article? Heck, I didn't finish the headline. As soon as I realized it didn't mention iPads I went straight to the comments to argue we should instead discuss iPads.
Why don't we have iPad 4 speculation yet?
1. I for one welcome our new iPad 4 overlords and their app that allows you to put hot grits on Natalie Portman and disguise it in a bad car analogy. 2. Ask if it runs Linux, and then cite another failed year of Linux on the desktop. 3. ??? 4. Profit.
Slashdot Mirror
For what it is worth, I did seriously consider turning down the job over moral objections. I won't work for a company I see as evil.
When I was offered the job working for Harrah's, my wife had just been laid off, she was pregnant and we were a broke couple. I really needed work.
And while my experiences working for Harrah's weren't great, at no point did I feel like they were out to get people. The company tried to detect people with gambling problems and banned them from their properties.
Gambling is an entertainment expense like any other. I don't partake in it, but I don't believe it is ultimately evil.
Casinos actually prefer to take from the rich. In the end, Vegas certainly doesn't mind people feeding nickle slots, but they go out of their way to cater to Michael Jordan or Charles Barkley dropping $100,000 in a weekend.
You'll note that people like Rosa Parks didn't victimize others in her peaceful protest because she didn't have civil rights.
Stealing credit card info and releasing it publicly because you don't like a company isn't the same. Don't for a moment pretend they are.
The house wins without cheating. Any casino getting caught cheating with a rigged table would lose a massively profitable business. No one would ever want to go to that casino for anything ever again. And given how heavily the casinos are regulated by law, you'd see people in jail very quickly. And because casinos are under massive surveillance, it isn't like people can just screw around with the tables to rig them without someone noticing it. I'm not saying one person isn't stupid enough to attempt it, but I can't say I've ever heard of a single documented case of that happening.
I'm not applying the story of Robin Hood to a larger scale. The poster above me did. I'm examining Robin Hood as a specific case.
In that case, Robin Hood was not needed to remove an unjust government as King Richard was coming home either way. The end result is that Robin Hood got a lot of people killed. If he hadn't done anything, people would have been better off eventually.
Having worked for Harrahs and having been trained on roulette, I'm highly skeptical. Even if you spun at roughly the same force every time, the position of your hand, the twist of your fingers, and the variables of a BOUNCING ball will change greatly.
There are a few individuals who have exceptional fine motor control with their fingers (card magicians come to mind), but I doubt even someone with exceptional fine motor control could get a ball on a certain number 2 times out of 10, let alone 8. And I certainly don't believe all experienced roulette dealers could do this.
I worked for a casino. I worked in IT, but the company trained all employees to root for the customer. Celebrate their winnings. The house isn't worried because they know they'll win in the long run.
I worked for Harrahs. We had poker at both Council Bluffs properties. Certainly it makes less money directly than other table games, and less money than slots. But Harrahs owning the World Series of Poker creates a lot of visibility for the company and gets people in the door.
Often men don't enjoy slots as much as women. For some, having poker allows a couple to come and have both partners play something they enjoy.
Slots will make more money in the same space, but I don't know that you're more profitable overall dropping poker in the long run.
I worked for Harrahs which has two casinos in Council Bluffs. We had a customer take us for a few million between our two properties in a month. There is a competing casino in town. He ended up losing the millions back to the third casino.
People focus on the stories when people win big, but that usually isn't sustained long term. If the casinos gave up their statistical advantage, that is foolish and they'll revise those decisions. But you're absolutely correct that people should not for a moment believe that this is something you can do under most circumstances.
The house wins over time.
Before Robin Hood you had financial inequality. Then Robin Hood robs from the rich to give to the poor. This provokes the ruling class, and in the end a lot of people die. Clearly this is a fine example of how criminal activity made people's lives better.
In most variations of the story, King Richard eventually comes home from the Crusades and resumes his just rule, which he would have done regardless. All Robin Hood did was get a lot of poor people killed.
Do you remember the Oklahoma City bombing?
The terrorists in question disagreed with the federal government. They felt that the only way to enact change was to break the law. So they murdered innocent civilians, including toddlers in the daycare.
The families of the victims were unhappy with the federal government and how the death penalty was applied in federal cases. So they wrote a law. They traveled to Washington D.C. and testified before Congress. They got their law passed less than a year after the attacks.
Being unhappy with a system doesn't mean criminal activity is justified when you can legally make changes within the system. I was extremely unhappy with SOPA and PIPA. I spoke to my representatives. Lee Terry here in Nebraska was a co-sponsor of SOPA. After people like me explained our concerns to him, he removed his support for it. I didn't have to commit a crime just because I was unhappy with a situation.
We shouldn't support criminals just because they target people we don't like. Effectively that is saying that rights and protection should be applied only to those we favor in a given moment.
And in some of these cases, passwords, credit cards and personal data was leaked publicly. So the customers are the ones suffering more than companies like Verizon.
I found a recent example because it was easier to find, so you're accusing me of deceit. Frankly, if I was a liar or if my usual posts were worthy of negative moderation, I wouldn't always have Excellent karma. I've had the same online identity my whole life, and I'm the only Enderandrew on the internet. I value that identify, and I don't lie.
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2684817&cid=39118231
The day I made that post, several people went and started to down-mod all of my posts. Given that my email address and information is public, I got a lot of crap for that statement both on and off /.
Case in point. Thanks.
I should also stipulate that I wasn't claiming that Gates is a better person that Jobs was. I was throwing out a random example of a statement that might get down-modded simply due to people disagreeing with it.
And I think it is simply fact that /. has more Apple fans than Microsoft fans amongst its readers. I don't think I've ever seen a single pro-Microsoft statement on /. that wasn't following by people claiming it was a plant/astro-turfing.
I made anecdotal statements about what people have told me directly, and what people have told my wife directly. And I have heard quite a bit in my life that no one with a brain believes in God, or that all Christians are anti-science mouth-breathers. Repeating my own experiences is entirely valid.
I did state quite clearly that I was making an assumption that many intellectual Christians hide their faith, and I maintain that. But I make it clear I don't know that for a fact, nor did I present it as fact.
I don't normally comment on moderation, but brought it up because it has specific context to this article. The article questions whether or not a person might be harassed for their belief in God in a scientific setting. In this specific case, it may be that they overstepped their bounds by bringing in DVDs to work to make their case. However, I was echoing my own personal experiences that I have been harassed for my beliefs. While the majority of the world's population believes in a Creator (going off religious demographics that would peg over 5 billion out of the 6.8 billion people on the planet claiming a theistic religion), I believe the inverse is true in science, academia and other intellectual circles.
Here's an example.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2684817&cid=39118785
Oddly enough, merely stating that I believe in God got me massively down-modded and attacked.
Criticizing the system and making broad statements here gathered me positive karma. Clearly the system is imperfect.
Accepting a Creator for truly unanswerable questions isn't the same as saying "I discount all science because it is a threat to the ideas I was raised into, but am afraid to question."
I think there is an important distinction there.
The universe is moving towards entropy and eventual destruction. I'm not sure I accept the notion that the universe runs itself is proof that a Creator doesn't exist.
I think the most logical response is agnosticism. There are some clear paradoxes and unanswerable questions. To believe definitively that a Creator exists or doesn't takes a level of blind faith. One answer makes sense to some people, and the other to others.
I do however agree that these questions are unknowable and that people should move on and focus on what we can ascertain.
Without a doubt, there are some common sentiments amongst most /. readers. Making a statement that goes against those common beliefs will be unpopular. If I argued that Bill Gates was a better human that Steve Jobs because Gates is giving to charity where as Jobs rarely/never did, I'd probably be down-modded by those who disagree. Apple is popular on Slashdot, where as Microsoft is hated.
But that's my point. People should offer counter points rather than use the moderation system.
I didn't make such statements at the time. I merely stated that I simultaneously believe in a Creator and that evolution occurs. I said the two weren't necessary in direct opposition and then was attacked repeatedly.
In fact, any time I've ever admitted to believing in God on /, I've been down-modded. I personally really like the democratic moderation system of /., but it shows that many people incorrectly use down-modding to disagree with something rather than offering a counter-point. There is no -1 disagree.
In the end, I state what I believe. I don't cater to moderation.
FWIW, I am a Christian and thusly believe in a Creator. But I don't care for that logic of proving a Creator. I don't think complexity is at all relevant. However, if I were to play devil's advocate, I assume the theory is that a Creator exists outside our known limitations.
Similarly you can ask if an omnipotent God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot himself lift it. Either answer suggests that omnipotence is impossible in and of itself, but it assumes limitations that may not apply. If a Creator can create the Cosmos, are they bound by the laws of physics, or are the laws of physics also simply part of their creation?
Conversely you could ask what existed before the beginning of time, or where did all mass in the universe come from originally, or what exists beyond the boundary of finite space. Ultimately, you realize that these are utterly unanswerable questions. Any answer we accept is one of faith and we should not judge others for their conclusions to unanswerable questions without clear answers.
I've always had Excellent karma on Slashdot for years until I made a post that the believe that evolution occurs is not in direct opposition to the belief that there is a Creator/God.
I was down-modded like crazy and people came out of the woodwork to make personal attacks.
My wife tells me of how she was harassed while working at a Jesuit university for believing in God, because she was in a lab. Fellow Jesuit employees spoke of how only absolute idiots would believe in God, and how it is an absolute accepted fact amongst intellectuals that God cannot exist.
I still maintain that if it is a great offense to believe in the existence of God (which cannot be tested), then it is equally a great offense to believe definitely in the inverse of something that cannot be tested.
I think most intellectuals who believe in God hide their beliefs out of fear and shame that they will be judged and ostracized for that belief. I would assume that intellectuals would easily spot the logical fallacy that judging a belief solely on the merits of the stupidest people who believe in it doesn't hold water.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
Read the article? Heck, I didn't finish the headline. As soon as I realized it didn't mention iPads I went straight to the comments to argue we should instead discuss iPads.
Why don't we have iPad 4 speculation yet?
1. I for one welcome our new iPad 4 overlords and their app that allows you to put hot grits on Natalie Portman and disguise it in a bad car analogy.
2. Ask if it runs Linux, and then cite another failed year of Linux on the desktop.
3. ???
4. Profit.
What were we talking about again?