rkcallaghan writes "The Washington Post is reporting that the House passed a measure that makes it illegal for banks in the US to handle online gambling transactions." There's still no such move in the Senate, but it's a step towards banning online gambling nonetheless. Since this bill isn't expected to affect the usual, legal ways of gambling domestically, one wonders if such legislation would be sought after, were online gambling to be headquartered here in the states, rather than overseas.
The new gambling provision is not expected to affect gambling at tracks or casinos.
That's right, gambling at tracks and casinos will be restricted to our nation's poorest areas, with the exception of Nevada. Indeed, something is rotten in the states of Louisiana, South Dakota, Mississippi, New Jersey... all states with gambling in poor areas. It simply baffles me because if this was a legitimate business, the sensible person would allow it to thrive in a large city or everywhere. So, by these restrictions and odd placements, it's quite obvious that everyone knows gambling is detrimental to the populace and only promotes Pareto Law.
Does anyone else question why gambling can only happen out in the middle of nowhere or in places where the a lot of the populace lives below the poverty line? Is there a correlation between these or is it causation?
I'm from the mid-west and if you drive out to South Dakota, there'll be multi-million dollar casinos out in the middle of nowhere. Why aren't they in DC or New York City? It just doesn't make sense to me.
I just don't understand things like slots where they show you the payouts right in front of you and they're not in your favor. Maybe I'm just more statistical than other people but I've only been gambling once like that. Poker, on the other hand, can be fun and social. It also has a clear cut 0 sum (aside from the rake) outcome for the players -- which is nice.
And I don't want to hear any of this Native American loophole crap because there's an act for that enacted by our Federal Government. They control it in the end -- I don't buy it that it's affirmative action for the Native peoples. None of this "The Indians stole my money BS" because the government controls where it happens and takes their own cut through taxes.
I don't think gambling needs to be abolished because it is, in fact, fun for people. In moderation, it probably makes you feel good -- just like drinking or tobacco. But when you sit down and do the math, people are raking in cash. Why doesn't the government enforce something like a maximum 5% take by the house? What I mean is that I'm sure the house is making on average something like 10-15% so why doesn't the government tax them back to 5% or allow the casino to give back to the local community through donations of this excess or building of community buildings? This isn't going to solve the social problems but I've heard that the tribe running Mystic Lake in Minnesota rakes in millions per member quarterly. I know a lot of them hand it out to members of their tribe but I don't know if that money is spent on things that necessarily benefit the community.
I am truly baffled when it comes to the history of gambling.
"I don't think gambling needs to be abolished because it is, in fact, fun for people. In moderation, it probably makes you feel good -- just like drinking or tobacco." The Alcohol and Tobacco industries arn't built on a central pillar of trying to effectively con people out of money though. Sure, it can make people happier but to sustain the industry it is a simple fact that far more people must be made unhappy to make those few happy.
Also, as tobacco is bad, it come with a large amount of health warnings, a
Alcohol, tobacco & gambling are the trifecta of 'sin' activities that are taxed.
If Congress could figure out a way to tax all online gambling winnings, they'd do it in a heartbeat. (Specifically winnings paid out by companies outside the U.S.A.)
I wrote a longer post [slashdot.org] in a previous discussion on online gambling. I also discussed how alcohol prohibition is very similar to this 'ban' on online gambling.
Alcohol, tobacco & gambling will not go away unless the tax revenues can be made up elsewhere.
"Alcohol, tobacco & gambling are the trifecta of 'sin' activities that are taxed."
Whatever happened to the USA being a secular government? The way the entire online gambling discussion is given such a priority in the federal government, despite being extremely trivial compared to the many more important issues facing the USA, shows that the fundamentalists are still in control.
Are you serious? Every casino I've ever been in posts the odds at every game except poker (which would be impossible anyway). It's quite clear that your chances of winning are small and they're stated quite specifically. Slots are among the most popular "games" at casinos and the odds for every combination are laid right out there for you. I've never met a single person who thought they had a good statistical chance of winning at a casino. The rush people get is from winning when they know the odds of it happening are so slim!
And what makes you consider gambling at a casino a con? All of the rules of every game are quite clear. You can read books about them. The casino tells you exactly how much they get to keep at each game.
he Alcohol and Tobacco industries arn't built on a central pillar of trying to effectively con people out of money though.
I have to disagree with this - these industries are constantly trying to con you out of money by making you think that you will gain a more desirable social status by using their products. It has, and is, one of the biggest, and ongoing con games that exist. And the deadliest - remember those billions of dollars that the tobacco industry lost in the suit filed against it, wasn't the result of its charity work - it was the result of a decades-long campaign to engage in calculated and deceitful advertising that conned millions of people into believing that smoking cigarettes neither addictive nor unhealthy.
Does anyone else question why gambling can only happen out in the middle of nowhere or in places where the a lot of the populace lives below the poverty line? Is there a correlation between these or is it causation?
It's the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY)syndrome
Rich people have enough clout to say NIMBY when it comes to Casinos, powerplants, garbage dumps or pretty much any other item that could bring with it social negatives.
One explanation about why people gamble is that they get some entertainment in exchange for their statistically predictable losses. Another is variable-interval variable-ratio conditioning (look it up -- powerful stuff). (Statistical losses are worse than they appear: winnings are taxable, losses aren't deductible except to offset winnings).
Gambling establishments aren't guaranteed a living because of the money people lose. High rollers have to be attracted with expensive comps. The house edge [insidervlv.com] is all over th
Indeed, something is rotten in the states of Louisiana, South Dakota, Mississippi, New Jersey... all states with gambling in poor areas.
Don't talk about things you don't know about.
In Mississippi, the vast majority of the casinos were put up on the coast in the more populated areas of the region. I suppose you could say that they're the "poor areas" now that the entire coast has been bushwhacked, but no - there are *WAY* poorer areas than Biloxi, which was probably the fourth or fifth largest city in th
Does anyone else question why gambling can only happen out in the middle of nowhere or in places where the a lot of the populace lives below the poverty line? Is there a correlation between these or is it causation?
I live in Illinois, and I wouldn't say that's the case here. While Chicago doesn't have a casino (yet...they've been talking about it for years), most of the towns that do have them also have relatively thriving economies. Many of them are Chicago suburbs, like Elgin and Aurora. There are ot
Driving out to South Dakota is worse than sitting on a hot cattle iron. I grew up there myself, and I tell you, the casinos are an amazing break from the drab flat field after endless field.:P But in all honesty, the reason Deadwood is such a run down little dump is probably because the only people that live there that DON'T work in the casinos, blow all their money in them.
Also South Dakota has a few reservations... so that also makes a lot of sense.
I just don't understand things like slots where they show you the payouts right in front of you and they're not in your favor
Well, there are a few issues at play. First, many people don't understand statistics, or even believe that playing at a slot machine for several turns make the next turn more likely to win. Second, some people enjoy risk and uncertainty, and find it exciting or addicting to gamble for the sake of gambling. For these people, the payoff is enough.
From what I've seen in these "poor" areas, the local poor people are working there, while the gamblers are generally tourist. Of course local poor also attempt to gamble some, but people who are compulive gamblers are going to find ways to throw away to gamble away their money, casino or no. But large casinos simply couldn't maintain profitability very long on the backs of a small poor community.
So, if I can say what I want, and I can give money to whoever I want, and the government isn't allowed to interfere, how do they get to dictate that I can't offer money to someone in exchange for something random happening or not happening?
It's no different that prostitution laws. Something that is perfectly legal to give away for free becomes a crime when money exchanges hands.
How to they get to dicate that? Start at "Think of the children," proceed through "The Constitution is just a godamned piece
Is it the gambling casinos in the states. How much money is beig channeled through the lobby system in Washington.
Wonder if any money is actually needed.... they casino reps only need to sidle up to them and point out "We're in the state and provide jobs, tax incomes etc. On-line gambling gets you nothing, Do you really want that?"
Yes in for the Indian tribes. And no [game-culture.com] for Vegas. Could well be a tough cop/nice cop routine, if you believe they're more connected that generally admitted.
How much money is being channeled through the lobby system in Washington?
At least $85 million [wikipedia.org], that we know of. Not all on this issue, but much of it aimed at keeping out competition. Most likely, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I have never understood why the USA government is so against online gambling. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't allow it but it has always seemed odd to me that when some of the US states have amongst the most liberal gambling laws in the world, the federal government should be so keen on stopping internet gambling.
The sceptic in me wonders if some of the rich US casino owners don't have a hand in this, my only guess is that the casino owners are worried about gamblers using overseas websites in tax-haven countries that offer better odds maybe?
I have never understood why the USA government is so against online gambling.
For the last 20 years or so there has been a massive movement toward local and state government sponsorship of gambling. It is often referred to as a "lottery." Sometimes it's "Indian Casino Gambling." No matter how you slice it, the state governments get revenues from these deals, either directly or indirectly. Given that during that same 20 year period, Americans have become increasingly opposed to taxes, the scramble for rev
As far as I can tell, the only real reason fed. govt. has been concerned about off-shore gambling sites is because they have no way of regulating them to ensure they do, in fact, operate the games as stated. If gambling is done on U.S. soil, it's possible to send in government regulators to verify that the posted odds really are correct, to place daily betting limits, and other such rules. They can't realistically put any such controls on some web site running in a foreign country.
It's also a conveniently moralistic issue to push during campaign season. Lots of "family values" types out there to stem the tide of gambling abuse, and also stop the dreaded terrorists from funneling money through these unregulated channels.
Companies got around that restriction by moving offshore, since the Internet makes it easy to do business anywhere in the world. The purpose of this law is not to actually outlaw online gambling, but to close a loophole by not allowing U.S. banks to be involved in it.
Online betting on sporting events is illegal in the US. Casino games currently are not illegal to play online. Go research it, the case that decided this was appealed all the way to the supreme court I believe.
In addition enforcing any ban on onine gambling is in violation of our WTO trade obligations (an organization we invented). We agreed to allow international trade in gambling services years ago and only relatively recently tried to claim that we didn't mean to sign up for that. International treaties are second only to the constitution it terms of legal standing, so our obligations cannot be changed by our own statutes.
And just how do they propose that US banks be able to discern that any particular international transaction is actually due to online gambling so they can reject it?
automobiles alltogether are a flaw. People shouldn't be driving cars to get places w/o much cargo, and the government shouldn't be spending so much on highways. The public transit systems should be far better and expansive - PRT's, light rail and heavy rails. Not automobiles. They are a bad solution.
My mind was actually changed on seat-belt law by another slashdotter. I had been thinking in terms of personal liberty, and the exceedingly rare odds that a ballistic corpse would strike a living person. However the argument that changed my mind was this: the seatbelt helps the driver maintain control of the vehicle, which is a critical factor in the scope of an accident. Without a seatbelt, it is very likely that you WILL lose control of the vehicle in a severe accident. Requiring seatbelts for drivers i
According to this article [latimes.com] , the Republicans in congress attached a measure to install radiation detectors in U.S. Ports and pushed it through early this morning. It is now awaiting Bush's signature.
There's are lots and lots (and lots) of well eductated, moderate, intelligent posters on Slashdot (no its true!) who realise their rights are being progressively infringed upon, and taken away. But unfortunately the sheeple populating a good chunk of the US still provides your president with ~ 30% approval rating. Its scary the % of the population willing to give the great leader (tm) a blank cheque in terms of executive power.
I can only equate the last ~ 5 years of political discourse in the US as the p
In a month, on TUE November 7, 2006, Americans can vote whether to fire their Representative in the House, and probably half their Senators, too. Here's how your Representative voted for Theocracy Protection [house.gov] (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it). Here's how your Representative voted for torture [house.gov] (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Senators voted for torture [senate.gov] (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted aga
What the fuck does outlawing gambling have to do with theocracy? THEOCRATS PROHIBIT GAMBLING. Unless it's their own, like bingo, or state lotteries/horceracing. Your Republican government is installing theocracy and torture, and you, Anonymous Taliban Coward, are gibbering about "lefties"?
You sick fuck, you'll be screaming for your own "nutroots" when your fascists are ripping your balls off because they caught you gambling, or whatever else they want to charge you with in secret.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday September 30 2006, @11:38AM (#16258767)
...a zillion of ignorant posts get modded +5.
1. The bill is a joke. Here is why: - It makes a clear difference between ONLINE gambling & gambling, without realising that the first has way more safety nets to deal with the two main problems - underage gambling & gambling addicts. - It makes a difference between sports gambling, poker & "wagering on horses", which is of course fine. - It is a protectionist bill, against current WTO decisions that banning an activity is ok ONLY if you apply the same rules to domestic & foreign operators. - It forbids US citizens an activity under a moral pretext(which fails on the 2 points above) or on the grounds of "money is getting out of the country". If US people feel ok being forbidden doing something because of that, I suggest next time you want to visit another country you hold on it. I'm sure postponing my next US visit for unforseeable future.
2. This bill will NOT work. Here is why: - Unfortunately for the US, it has NOT power whatsoever. Bookies will find many new ways of moving the money around. - The Bill has an excempt on banning transactions to e-wallet companies, ergo, this is a HUUUUGE loophole as you'll still have no problem using your funds trough an intermediare. - There is no possible way for ISP's to block access to gambling sites, not with the current development of technology.
3. What will happen? - It will get SLIGHTLY more difficult for the after dinner poker mums to enjoy the game they like, but they'd still be able to do it. - We'd get AT LEAST on case of a high profile offshore player being sued under the RICO act OR by the IRS(much more likely), however it'll be presented as a victory for the new legislation.
>one wonders if such legislation would be sought after, were online gambling to be headquartered here in the states
I live in a state with an online gambling ban, a remarkably repressive one.
The state senator who introduced the bill had, as her top campaign contributors, offline gambling enterprises.
(flame)This happens all the time, businesses buying legislation to put competitors in prison. It's just that it usually happens in Third World countries.(/flame)
CN did not RTFA, but Frist used some procedural trickery to attach this to the Port Security bill late last night. Frist is from Tennessee, where they have a Lotto. (AKA: A tax on people who are bad at math) Frist's amendment carves out a ridiculous exception for horse racing, also. But playing poker - a game of skill - will now be nearly impossible if you are in the United States.
I'm just glad Frist is considering a run for President, so I will hopefully get a chance to oppose him with my vote.
rkcallaghan writes, "The Washington Post is reporting that the House passed a measure that makes it illegal for banks in the US to handle online gambling transactions." There's still no such move in the Senate, but it's a step towards banning online gambling nonetheless.
Googling the topic or checking thomas.loc.gov would have quickly told you that the House ban passed months ago and today's passage by the Senate makes it likely that the measure will become law.
Overseas casinos aren't monitored, and thus probably cheat.
In some ways it's harder for online casinos to cheat, because you can keep a perfect record of your history and analyze it for statistical discrepancies. There are guys with databases of millions of poker hands they've played. If the cards were non-random, they'd have found it.
They also return absolutely nothing of value to the US for the money being sent to them.
Except that people seem to enjoy playing. But the preferences of mere mortals are gener
Legitimate Business? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone else question why gambling can only happen out in the middle of nowhere or in places where the a lot of the populace lives below the poverty line? Is there a correlation between these or is it causation?
I'm from the mid-west and if you drive out to South Dakota, there'll be multi-million dollar casinos out in the middle of nowhere. Why aren't they in DC or New York City? It just doesn't make sense to me.
I just don't understand things like slots where they show you the payouts right in front of you and they're not in your favor. Maybe I'm just more statistical than other people but I've only been gambling once like that. Poker, on the other hand, can be fun and social. It also has a clear cut 0 sum (aside from the rake) outcome for the players -- which is nice.
And I don't want to hear any of this Native American loophole crap because there's an act for that enacted by our Federal Government. They control it in the end -- I don't buy it that it's affirmative action for the Native peoples. None of this "The Indians stole my money BS" because the government controls where it happens and takes their own cut through taxes.
I don't think gambling needs to be abolished because it is, in fact, fun for people. In moderation, it probably makes you feel good -- just like drinking or tobacco. But when you sit down and do the math, people are raking in cash. Why doesn't the government enforce something like a maximum 5% take by the house? What I mean is that I'm sure the house is making on average something like 10-15% so why doesn't the government tax them back to 5% or allow the casino to give back to the local community through donations of this excess or building of community buildings? This isn't going to solve the social problems but I've heard that the tribe running Mystic Lake in Minnesota rakes in millions per member quarterly. I know a lot of them hand it out to members of their tribe but I don't know if that money is spent on things that necessarily benefit the community.
I am truly baffled when it comes to the history of gambling.
Re: (Score:2)
The Alcohol and Tobacco industries arn't built on a central pillar of trying to effectively con people out of money though. Sure, it can make people happier but to sustain the industry it is a simple fact that far more people must be made unhappy to make those few happy.
Also, as tobacco is bad, it come with a large amount of health warnings, a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If Congress could figure out a way to tax all online gambling winnings, they'd do it in a heartbeat. (Specifically winnings paid out by companies outside the U.S.A.)
I wrote a longer post [slashdot.org] in a previous discussion on online gambling. I also discussed how alcohol prohibition is very similar to this 'ban' on online gambling.
Alcohol, tobacco & gambling will not go away unless the tax revenues can be made up elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to the USA being a secular government?
The way the entire online gambling discussion is given such a priority in the federal government, despite being extremely trivial compared to the many more important issues facing the USA, shows that the fundamentalists are still in control.
Re:Legitimate Business? (Score:5, Informative)
And what makes you consider gambling at a casino a con? All of the rules of every game are quite clear. You can read books about them. The casino tells you exactly how much they get to keep at each game.
Parent
Re:Legitimate Business? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to disagree with this - these industries are constantly trying to con you out of money by making you think that you will gain a more desirable social status by using their products. It has, and is, one of the biggest, and ongoing con games that exist. And the deadliest - remember those billions of dollars that the tobacco industry lost in the suit filed against it, wasn't the result of its charity work - it was the result of a decades-long campaign to engage in calculated and deceitful advertising that conned millions of people into believing that smoking cigarettes neither addictive nor unhealthy.
Parent
NIMBY (Score:3, Insightful)
Rich people have enough clout to say NIMBY when it comes to Casinos, powerplants, garbage dumps or pretty much any other item that could bring with it social negatives.
Trying to handle the "why" questions (Score:2)
(Statistical losses are worse than they appear: winnings are taxable, losses aren't deductible except to offset winnings).
Gambling establishments aren't guaranteed a living because of the money people lose. High rollers have to be attracted with expensive comps. The house edge [insidervlv.com] is all over th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't talk about things you don't know about.
In Mississippi, the vast majority of the casinos were put up on the coast in the more populated areas of the region. I suppose you could say that they're the "poor areas" now that the entire coast has been bushwhacked, but no - there are *WAY* poorer areas than Biloxi, which was probably the fourth or fifth largest city in th
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Illinois, and I wouldn't say that's the case here. While Chicago doesn't have a casino (yet...they've been talking about it for years), most of the towns that do have them also have relatively thriving economies. Many of them are Chicago suburbs, like Elgin and Aurora. There are ot
Re: (Score:2)
Also South Dakota has a few reservations... so that also makes a lot of sense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, there are a few issues at play. First, many people don't understand statistics, or even believe that playing at a slot machine for several turns make the next turn more likely to win. Second, some people enjoy risk and uncertainty, and find it exciting or addicting to gamble for the sake of gambling. For these people, the payoff is enough.
Third, and most important, is people'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's no different that prostitution laws. Something that is perfectly legal to give away for free becomes a crime when money exchanges hands.
How to they get to dicate that? Start at "Think of the children," proceed through "The Constitution is just a godamned piece
Who is pushing this (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes in for the Indian tribes. And no [game-culture.com] for Vegas. Could well be a tough cop/nice cop routine, if you believe they're more connected that generally admitted.
At least $85 million [wikipedia.org], that we know of. Not all on this issue, but much of it aimed at keeping out competition. Most likely, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
--MarkusQ
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
The sceptic in me wonders if some of the rich US casino owners don't have a hand in this, my only guess is that the casino owners are worried about gamblers using overseas websites in tax-haven countries that offer better odds maybe?
State governments (Score:2)
I have never understood why the USA government is so against online gambling.
For the last 20 years or so there has been a massive movement toward local and state government sponsorship of gambling. It is often referred to as a "lottery." Sometimes it's "Indian Casino Gambling." No matter how you slice it, the state governments get revenues from these deals, either directly or indirectly. Given that during that same 20 year period, Americans have become increasingly opposed to taxes, the scramble for rev
re: That's a crock.... (Score:2)
If gambling is done on U.S. soil, it's possible to send in government regulators to verify that the posted odds really are correct, to place daily betting limits, and other such rules. They can't realistically put any such controls on some web site running in a foreign country.
And how fair is it to let
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, that's the entire answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they need to appeal to their brainless goober Christian fundamentalist redneck trailer trash constituency.
Title is misleading (Score:3, Informative)
Companies got around that restriction by moving offshore, since the Internet makes it easy to do business anywhere in the world. The purpose of this law is not to actually outlaw online gambling, but to close a loophole by not allowing U.S. banks to be involved in it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Violation of personal liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
Gambling is a personal activity which, when not abused, harms no one else.
You do not outlaw an entire activity from ALL people because it can be abused; you simply take steps to deal with the problem of abusive.
The only justification for *forceable* intervention in another individual's life is *self-defence*.
This principle is the very antithisis of Big Government.
We pay tax through our noses for other people to progressively control our lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There, no seatbelts necessary.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However the argument that changed my mind was this: the seatbelt helps the driver maintain control of the vehicle, which is a critical factor in the scope of an accident. Without a seatbelt, it is very likely that you WILL lose control of the vehicle in a severe accident. Requiring seatbelts for drivers i
Passed Both Houses (Score:2)
Hopefully, this will backfire in November.
--
Last Minute Games On Capital Hill [apathy.net]
Re: (Score:2)
--
Under-Reported News and Comments [apathy.net]
American Inquisition (Score:4, Insightful)
Grand Inquisitor Abu Gonzales will now have the option of torturing you when god tells him you're bluffing.
Re: (Score:2)
I can only equate the last ~ 5 years of political discourse in the US as the p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here's how your Representative voted for Theocracy Protection [house.gov] (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Representative voted for torture [house.gov] (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Senators voted for torture [senate.gov] (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted aga
FASCIST (Score:2)
Your Republican government is installing theocracy and torture, and you, Anonymous Taliban Coward, are gibbering about "lefties"?
You sick fuck, you'll be screaming for your own "nutroots" when your fascists are ripping your balls off because they caught you gambling, or whatever else they want to charge you with in secret.
Even if actual humans save y
Here is a short overview before... (Score:3, Interesting)
1. The bill is a joke. Here is why:
- It makes a clear difference between ONLINE gambling & gambling, without realising that the first has way more safety nets to deal with the two main problems - underage gambling & gambling addicts.
- It makes a difference between sports gambling, poker & "wagering on horses", which is of course fine.
- It is a protectionist bill, against current WTO decisions that banning an activity is ok ONLY if you apply the same rules to domestic & foreign operators.
- It forbids US citizens an activity under a moral pretext(which fails on the 2 points above) or on the grounds of "money is getting out of the country". If US people feel ok being forbidden doing something because of that, I suggest next time you want to visit another country you hold on it. I'm sure postponing my next US visit for unforseeable future.
2. This bill will NOT work. Here is why:
- Unfortunately for the US, it has NOT power whatsoever. Bookies will find many new ways of moving the money around.
- The Bill has an excempt on banning transactions to e-wallet companies, ergo, this is a HUUUUGE loophole as you'll still have no problem using your funds trough an intermediare.
- There is no possible way for ISP's to block access to gambling sites, not with the current development of technology.
3. What will happen?
- It will get SLIGHTLY more difficult for the after dinner poker mums to enjoy the game they like, but they'd still be able to do it.
- We'd get AT LEAST on case of a high profile offshore player being sued under the RICO act OR by the IRS(much more likely), however it'll be presented as a victory for the new legislation.
Will post more if I think of something.
Why wonder? (Score:3, Informative)
I live in a state with an online gambling ban, a remarkably repressive one.
The state senator who introduced the bill had, as her top campaign contributors, offline gambling enterprises.
(flame)This happens all the time, businesses buying legislation to put competitors in prison. It's just that it usually happens in Third World countries.(/flame)
Remind me... (Score:3, Interesting)
They hate our freedoms... (Score:2)
Thank goodness. (Score:2)
Wait, what?
This Could Effect State Lotteries... (Score:2)
Wouldn't this Bill make that illegal as well?
We thank you. (Score:2)
Let us do it instead. We have experience in this filed.
Don Corleone
"The family" LTD/Inc.
Offshore Gambling, Savings an Loans
Sicily - Moscow - Cayman Islands
Contact us for insurance as well.
Ah, America. (Score:2)
CowboyNeal is wrong; Senate Passed It (Score:2)
I'm just glad Frist is considering a run for President, so I will hopefully get a chance to oppose him with my vote.
Under the guise of trying to protect people... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why doesn't Slashdot check facts? (Score:3, Informative)
Googling the topic or checking thomas.loc.gov would have quickly told you that the House ban passed months ago and today's passage by the Senate makes it likely that the measure will become law.
Non troll (Score:2)
Re:Gambling and national debt, another perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
In some ways it's harder for online casinos to cheat, because you can keep a perfect record of your history and analyze it for statistical discrepancies. There are guys with databases of millions of poker hands they've played. If the cards were non-random, they'd have found it.
They also return absolutely nothing of value to the US for the money being sent to them.
Except that people seem to enjoy playing. But the preferences of mere mortals are gener