"The logic is similar to putting a $1 bet on number 7, which comes up, putting the $36 winnings on number 2, which doesn't come up, and then claiming that you have 'lost' $36. You haven't. You've lost $1. (Since you didn't cash in after the first win, but immediately put it back in play, it was never yours)"
You absolutely did lose $36, because your $1 bet did not necessitate the subsequent bet. They are two completely seperate occurrances.
1. You make a $1 bet and win. Now you have $36 that are YOURS (albeit in the form of Roulette chips that must be cashed twice before they are in a form worthwhile to you).
That occurrance is now over. You start life fresh, with $36.
2. You make a $36 bet and lose. You have lost $36. It doesn't matter if the bet you made is 5 seconds after, or 5 years after, your first bet. You are still wagering the $36 that belong to you on a new bet.
Just because the money belonged to you in an inconvenient fashion, and making a bet was the only thing you could do with it without having it converted, does not somehow conjoin the two bets into one action. Neither does that fact that you bet on the very next spin of the wheel. It simply shows your inability to walk away from the table ahead (or your inherent laziness).
Either way, you had $36, and you lost it playing Roulette. Congratulations, you have a gambling problem.
This also started happening at my office when we implemented SAV10 (upgrading from 9, which worked great). It has to do with the Tamper Protection, which is cool in theory (prevents any application from shutting down or altering the AV software) but in practice is just too restrictive. We finally starting having Tamper Protection off by default. The ironic thing is that tamper protection can't protect itself: change two unprotected reg keys, and it shuts off.
Slashdot Mirror
"verucasalt"... I WANT IT NOW!!!! NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW!!!!!
Or, perhaps...
"This baby can flash-fry a buffalo in 8 seconds."
"Oh, but I want it now..."
No, this is faulty logic:
"The logic is similar to putting a $1 bet on number 7, which comes up, putting the $36 winnings on number 2, which doesn't come up, and then claiming that you have 'lost' $36. You haven't. You've lost $1. (Since you didn't cash in after the first win, but immediately put it back in play, it was never yours)"
You absolutely did lose $36, because your $1 bet did not necessitate the subsequent bet. They are two completely seperate occurrances.
1. You make a $1 bet and win. Now you have $36 that are YOURS (albeit in the form of Roulette chips that must be cashed twice before they are in a form worthwhile to you).
That occurrance is now over. You start life fresh, with $36.
2. You make a $36 bet and lose. You have lost $36. It doesn't matter if the bet you made is 5 seconds after, or 5 years after, your first bet. You are still wagering the $36 that belong to you on a new bet.
Just because the money belonged to you in an inconvenient fashion, and making a bet was the only thing you could do with it without having it converted, does not somehow conjoin the two bets into one action. Neither does that fact that you bet on the very next spin of the wheel. It simply shows your inability to walk away from the table ahead (or your inherent laziness).
Either way, you had $36, and you lost it playing Roulette. Congratulations, you have a gambling problem.
This also started happening at my office when we implemented SAV10 (upgrading from 9, which worked great). It has to do with the Tamper Protection, which is cool in theory (prevents any application from shutting down or altering the AV software) but in practice is just too restrictive. We finally starting having Tamper Protection off by default. The ironic thing is that tamper protection can't protect itself: change two unprotected reg keys, and it shuts off.
That's the real problem - ALL telephone polls are inherently biased, because they don't include most cell phone users.