Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Government The Almighty Buck The Internet United States Your Rights Online

Delaware To Permit In-state Online Gambling 148

Posted by Soulskill
from the enjoy-policing-that dept.
schwit1 writes "Delaware became the first state to enter the realm of legal online casino gambling Thursday with the governor's approval of legislation that allows for full-service betting websites offering slots play and games like roulette, poker and blackjack. Federal law limits online gambling to players within the state's borders, which will be verified using geolocation software. The state hopes to launch online gambling in 2013 and intends to make betting available on a variety of digital devices including smart phones and tablets."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Delaware To Permit In-state Online Gambling

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Anybody know any decent Delaware proxies?
    • Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by istartedi (132515) on Friday June 29, 2012 @03:47PM (#40498265) Journal

      So... anybody know the penalty for receiving proceeds from winnings across state lines? This will work with personal information submitted to the casino, including perhaps a routing/transit number, a credit card to buy credits, and other information which leads back to... your home address.

      You could commit address fraud of course. Some student with 500 people "living" in his 1-bed dorm room will probably learn the hard way that it's a serious thing.

      • by Idbar (1034346)
        Well, there's that for a lesson on gambling:

        You may... or may not win^H^H^Hget caught... your move.
      • by Obfuscant (592200)

        You could commit address fraud of course.

        Exactly what is "address fraud"? My mailing address is anywhere that postal mail can be delivered for me. That includes the PO box store in the next state over, if I so choose.

        Similarly, my bank account can be in any bank I so choose, even one in a different state. I currently have accounts in a credit union in a state I haven't lived in for thirty years. Is that "bank fraud"?

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Exactly what is "address fraud"?

          Lying about where you live in order to receive a benefit you're otherwise not entitled to.

          I currently have accounts in a credit union in a state I haven't lived in for thirty years. Is that "bank fraud"?

          Of course not. They don't care where your bank is, but your home address.

          • by Golddess (1361003)

            Lying about where you live in order to receive a benefit you're otherwise not entitled to.

            It's not lying, it's massaging the truth. :)

            But seriously, say I live in an RV. Where exactly is my home address?

            "What does it say on your driver's license?"

            Fair enough, for this scenario anyway.

          • by SomePgmr (2021234)

            I was looking at starting a Delaware business the other day to get around the Amazon Affiliate garbage (since IL sucks). It looked like registering an LLC in the state is about $90 but you have to have an in-state agent.

            There are businesses that exist just to be your in state agent... I think they were another $100 or so per year.

            Beyond that, you're just an out of state employee of a Delware business, and pay yourself as such. Talk to a lawyer before you go doing any of this, but it sounds like that's how

            • by Kalriath (849904)

              Except that most of these services charge at minimum $250 for their "service" (shuffling papers).

              I've considered doing this just to make it easier to get paid royalties on sales by US companies, since the W8 is a fucking bitch to fill out unless you're a local.

          • by KhabaLox (1906148)

            Exactly what is "address fraud"?

            Lying about where you live in order to receive a benefit you're otherwise not entitled to.

            So if I live in PA, but travel to DL and play at an online casino, and have my winnings deposited in a bank in NY, I am not entitled to that money?

            Of course, that scenario might be illegal under the Delaware law (which may proscribe that all transactions occur within Delaware). But I could just as easily open a bank account in Delaware.

          • Are you sure that gambling is defined as a 'benefit' of a state? I would take it to mean things like food stamps or health care in Massachusetts.

      • That makes me wonder how many Delawarians are going to find a new career... the kind where they work for an out-of-state entity, placing bets or making moves in casino gaming. Does the state have a way to verify that isn't happening? The money could flow into a Delaware resident's bank account, and then be moved to anyone else on the planet as "payment for services rendered". Too easy to get past that limitation, which means a ton of people will be trying it... and most of them will pull it off.
        • by BlueStrat (756137)

          That makes me wonder how many Delawarians are going to find a new career... the kind where they work for an out-of-state entity, placing bets or making moves in casino gaming. Does the state have a way to verify that isn't happening? The money could flow into a Delaware resident's bank account, and then be moved to anyone else on the planet as "payment for services rendered". Too easy to get past that limitation, which means a ton of people will be trying it... and most of them will pull it off.

          What typically happens in any type of gambling situation with government-restricted location/participants is that organized crime will move in and set up a cozy deal with the local LE and politicians, and any random people trying to "get a piece of the action" without joining/paying the organization's operation will get their kneecaps introduced to a Louisville Slugger. If they're lucky.

          Strat

  • by wcrowe (94389)

    Even ignoring the obvious statistical problems with gambling, why would anyone play slots, roulette, or even blackjack and poker online? How can you be sure the game is honest?

    • People trust the video slots/poker/roulette/blackjack in the Casinos...
    • by Assmasher (456699) on Friday June 29, 2012 @03:16PM (#40497855) Journal

      How can you be sure it's honest at the casino in person? ;)

      • First time I was in Vegas, I had spent the previous week memorizing a book on black jack strategy and card counting. My dad took the easy route and just xeroxed the cheat sheet out of it. Anyway, we sit down at a table at a major casino on the strip and my dad asks if he can use his cheat sheet. The dealer looks it over and says, "Sure, stick to this and you'll be fine." After a very short time, I was down about $15 and my dad even more. My dad wanted to keep playing and win some money back so I cashed
        • by Anonymous Coward
          That's quite a story, BackwardPawn.

          I like stories.

          I like stories about pinatas.

          In fact, I like everything you have to say.
        • by Splab (574204)

          In the local casino here in Copenhagen, they hand out your "cheat" sheet - why? Because you are still only about 49.x% chance to win, they will win in the long run and they *need* you to feel the pleasure of winning to make sure you stick around for another "fix".

      • by wcrowe (94389)

        A good point. Actually, I don't think they are honest, even in the casinos, which is one reason I don't go to casinos. But at least, with a casino, there is probably a gaming commission, and someone to complain to if you think the game is rigged. How do you know that the game you are playing on the internet is even controlled by a gaming commission? How do you know it is actually in Delaware, or wherever?

    • http://www.jackpotparty.com/ [jackpotparty.com] is run by WMS gameing but it's UK only right now.

      it is the same games as there slots that they make and they would not take the risks of having a rigged system.

  • by Assmasher (456699) on Friday June 29, 2012 @03:15PM (#40497833) Journal

    I wonder if the ISPs with a physical presence in Delaware had a hand in this?

    Hehe...

  • by michaelmalak (91262) <michael@michaelmalak.com> on Friday June 29, 2012 @03:16PM (#40497839) Homepage
    Queue the proxies
    • by Stiletto (12066)

      I think you mean "Cue". Are you and the Mr. "all intensive purposes" the same guy?

  • Proxy server? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 29, 2012 @03:16PM (#40497845)

    "Federal law limits online gambling to players within the state's borders, which will be verified using geolocation software."

    Apparently these people have never heard of an in-state proxy server. The people trying to limit this scheme to within-state activities are as dumb as the people paying the "stupid tax" to play the games.

    • These are the type of people who are too snotty to walk the hallway to their own I.T. department and ask.. "uh.. are we missing something here." They believe they know more than anyone else and I am sure they didn't even think of something like a proxy as they aren't even aware of it.

    • I'm sure Delaware will be delighted to have out-of-state players using proxies. It means more tax revenue for them, and as long as they can claim they made a reasonable effort to limit it to in-state players they won't get fired.

      • by mattack2 (1165421)

        I listen to the Two Plus Two Pokercast (sponsored by PokerStars), and they have a guy from PokerStars on most weeks, and they talk about people routinely being banned for using proxies in the U.S. (e.g. when they're at the WSOP).

        • by Kalriath (849904)

          Ah, PokerStars. That company that runs two identical websites (pokerstars.net and pokerstars.com - one accepts real money the other is "free play") just to get around online gambling advertising restrictions. Pinnacle of honesty, they are.

    • by geekoid (135745)

      Or they have, and this is a token measure so they can get money from another states and assume it was in state money.

    • The usefulness, of course, which will be destroyed the first time there is a legal challenge. A legal challenge not from the casinos, but from the parents of a out of state teen who "borrowed" their credit card, and are attempting to overturn the debt.

  • State Revenue (Score:2, Insightful)

    by twmcneil (942300)

    The Department of Finance estimates the new gambling offerings will generate $7.75 million in revenues for the state in fiscal 2013.

    Just wait until they figure out how much they could make by taxing legalized pot.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Less than the money going into their pockets by the legal drug industry, which wants to make sure pot NEVER becomes legal.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by geekoid (135745)

        False. Please stop with the ignorance.

        Who do you think will be able to industrialize for commercial medical use the best? Pharmacy companies.
        Who already had volume of research on growing, using, and effects from marijuana? Pharmacy companies.
        The fact of the matter is that is't medical effects are minimal, so it's not like it will cure anything. It's best at quelling side effects.

        And then there is the other big player:
        Who would make the most money? Tobacco companies. Since it would take them about 2 weeks to

        • I think you should wake up and look at our political situation.

          If someone thought they could make money off of it then it would be legal by now. No matter what you hear about "morals," there are none in the upper reaches of government right now. If someone thought they could make money the needed legislators would be bought off and it would be a reality.

        • You're ignoring that pharmacological companies operate on high-margin stuff. As in, if you can grow it in your back yard, they can't have a 1000% markup on products sold.

          • by Obfuscant (592200)

            You're ignoring that pharmacological companies operate on high-margin stuff. As in, if you can grow it in your back yard, they can't have a 1000% markup on products sold.

            The vast majority of people can't grow it in their backyard. Many people don't have a backyard. Many people who have a backyard have next door neighbors who know how to climb a fence. Many people couldn't grow weeds if you gave them a backyard already filled with them. Many people would rather buy instead of doing it themselves just to save their own time.

            Me? If I did it, I'd see the lawn maintenance guys more often, I'm sure, but not a lot of my own product.

            There are already people who know they can mak

        • Marijuana is illegal for the simple reason that some right wing religious nuts think it's 'bad'.

          Really? That explains why during the times the Democrat party controlled Congress and the Presidency (2009 to 2011) why pot not only wasn't legalized, but there was no move period from them to legalize it.

          Delaware also isn't exactly a conservative bastion. The Democrat Party has strong majorities in both the State Senate and the State House, and their governor is also a Democrat. If legalizing pot was really a left-right issue (like abortion or gay marriage are), then you would have seen a push to legali

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Who do you think will be able to industrialize for commercial medical use the best? Pharmacy companies.

          I don't agree with this at all. PharmCo's are good in the lab. Last time I checked, they weren't growing aspirin on trees for over the counter meds.

          Yes the PharmCo's have tons of data on Cannabis, however there is still boatloads that aren't known, including the intricate differences of physiological and psychological metabolization between users. Yes, people physiologically react different to Cannabis con

        • Re:State Revenue (Score:5, Interesting)

          by boristdog (133725) on Friday June 29, 2012 @04:33PM (#40498907)

          Marijuana is illegal for the simple reason that some right wing religious nuts think it's 'bad'.

          I used to believe this. I also used to be 48 year-old who had never smoked marijuana.

          But then things happened in my life in the last couple years: I developed horrible acid reflux. I had a lot of trouble sleeping. I got arthritis in my foot. I got high blood pressure. Nothing really major, but I was suddenly getting old and having lots of aches and pains. My wife, a regular pot smoker, said "try this" and handed me her bong. But I couldn't smoke it, it hurt my lungs. So then she made me some magic brownies. Holy crap, it WAS like magic. All the problems went away. I could sleep, I had no pain, I had less stress, my digestion improved, my BP went down.

          I WAS taking over $150/month worth of various drugs for these conditions. And that's just the co-pay amount from insurance, no telling what actual amount is. Now I take...Well, probably $40 worth of cheap pot baked (haha) into brownies every month. It would be less if I could grow it, but I'll let someone else take that risk as long as it's illegal, besides, that's still cheap. I have a small brownie about every other evening and I have none of those problems.

          So I'm now a 50 year-old who has still never smoked marijuana. But I use it, and it is costing the pharmaceutical companies a few hundred a month in lost business.

          So don't discount the Big Pharma role in keeping it illegal. If I were them I would be scared, very scared.

          • by Splab (574204)

            While I applaud you finding it works, just one thing - you really hurt the course when you say you've never smoked when you pretty much start your story with smoking the bong your wife gave you and not liking it. People against legalizing will jump on that inconsistency and void the rest of your story.

            (Side note, I smoke to deal with stress and lack of sleep - tried meds doctors gave me and the side effects gave me a nasty turn)

        • Marijuana is illegal for the simple reason that some right wing religious nuts think it's 'bad'.

          Also incorrect.

          It's the Law "Enforcement" and Incarceration lobbies that want to keep pot illegal; that shit's a cash cow to cops and prison owners.

          Imagine what would happen to the budget of police organizations and private prison owners (like Dick Cheney [democratic...ground.com]), if suddenly they had to release/stop arresting 1/3 - 1/2 of their "customers?"

    • by dontbgay (682790)

      We can get legal amphetamines, legal gamblings, but folks can't smoke a bowl without the Feds busting up the place... I wonder why that is? If our country is running out of money, why are our politicians getting so stinking rich?

  • I bet someone is going to make a lot of money off of this...
  • by skine (1524819) on Friday June 29, 2012 @03:29PM (#40498015)

    To start, I don't live in Delaware.

    However, I live near Syracuse, NY, and my phone's IP registers in Boston, MA.

  • neurology, the less I like legalized gambling.

    People like to think there is some sort of choice involved, but for a great many people it's an illusion of choice.
    If you have high dopemine levels, you're brain is more likely to come up with reasons, or a compulsion to gamble.

    This is why I am now against online gambling in the home, and gambling in places people must go to needs. Grocery stores etc.
    Here is an example:
    http://www.radiolab.org/2009/jun/15/seeking-patterns/ [radiolab.org]

    Some of the details aren't 100% accurate, but close enough for the average person.

    You look at someone that is gambling there life away an think it's just a bad decision they can control may not be correct.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 29, 2012 @03:55PM (#40498365)

      The same can be said for any number of other things - but it's not your job, your responsibility, or your right to tell someone else how to live their life.

      It's extremely pretentious and arrogant to try to 'protect' another adult from something you think could harm them. At what point does that protection end? Will I not be allowed to go rock climbing because the dopamine is really forcing me to do it and it's dangerous? Or allowed to drink alcohol? Or anything else really. Live your own life, offer help where you can, but part of being human should be the freedom to screw up your life on your own terms once you are old enough to know better.

      • by geekoid (135745)

        Restricting access from common public areas isn't telling someone how to live there life.

        It has been shown that people with certain brain chemistry can not help themselves. IT's not a choice they are making.
        That's my point.

        Having an incredible easy way to access these machines hurts everybody except the people who own them.
        "should be the freedom to screw up your life on your own terms"
        did you even read the whole post? understand it?

        Some people DON"T HAVE THAT FREEDOM. Not at all.

      • He's not saying that it shouldn't be allowed at all, but rather that it shouldn't be made so damn easy to access.

        Similarly, we (as a society) don't put beer and cigarettes on the bottom shelves where children can reach them. Same concept.
      • by fantomas (94850) on Friday June 29, 2012 @05:23PM (#40499587)

        "It's extremely pretentious and arrogant to try to 'protect' another adult from something you think could harm them."

        It's called 'society'. Different places have different rules, but pretty well everywhere in the world groups of humans have agreed social rules that override individual choice because as a group, the people have decided where the boundaries lie. Cross the boundaries, and the rest of the people, or some representatives, will pull you back, or even forbid you to cross the boundaries in the first place.

        In some places it's injecting heroin, other places drinking alcohol, or firing guns without a licence, or driving a motor vehicle without proving you can pass a test the other people have agreed upon. But most places have these rules agreed by the wider society. Partly to protect people from themselves, and partly to prevent them harming others.

        Part of being human is being sensitive enough to realise screwing up other people's lives for your own pleasure is not a good thing, that we are social animals, and to win other people's goodwill for the time when we need their help, we shouldn't ignore their concerns.

        Communal groups of humans try to minimise the damage individuals who don't have that sensitivity by restricting them from going too crazy.

        There are a few places in the world where there are no boundaries on individuals doing what ever they want, but not many.

    • by cayenne8 (626475)

      You look at someone that is gambling there life away an think it's just a bad decision they can control may not be correct.

      So...because a few people can't deal with an adult activity, that the majority of people can handle, and enjoy responsibly...we should always cater to the lowest common denominator and ban said activities?

      What's next? The booze industry? Pr0n industry?....hell people likely have OD'ed on Jello before....out with that....

      See my point?

      • by geekoid (135745)

        SIgh.. may to leap to stupid conclusions. Seriously, the extreme logical fallacy? stop being stupid.

        I am simply talking about easy access in common areas. Places where people have to go to live.

        "we should always cater to the lowest common denominator and ban said activities?"
        I am not talking about a ban. Put it in casinos. Fine. But when someone has a problem where their brain chemistry compulses them to do something, where there really is no choice, out of grocery stores and the home is a reasonable compro

        • by cayenne8 (626475)

          As for booze? yeah, it should be sold in liquor stores, not in grocery stores.

          Why do you say that?

          They sell beer, wine and hard liquor in the grocery stores here with I live (in and around the New Orleans area)...and we have no problems with that here....? They sell it all at about anywhere here...even convenience stores (like 7-11) or even at most drug stores even...yes, Walgreens here sells all 3 forms of alcohol.....

    • by Mister Whirly (964219) on Friday June 29, 2012 @04:19PM (#40498725) Homepage
      An addiction is an addiction is an addiction. You pleasure center in your brain doesn't care if it is heroin, porn, gambling, etc. it just wants to get it's fix. Banning activities of any kind becasue a small percentage of the population has a problem with it is ALWAYS a bad idea - doesn't matter what it is you are banning. Regulation and taxation to raise revenue to offer people with help for addiction is the proper way to address things like gambling and drugs.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by geekoid (135745)

        "An addiction is an addiction is an addiction."
        wrong, so I shufd assume the rest of your post is a spewed retread of many other myths regards addiction.

        "Banning activities of any kind becasue a small percentage of the population has a problem with it is ALWAYS a bad idea "
        and I was correct. surprise. with the added bonus that you total took what I said incorrectly. Did you actually read the post, or just scan the first sentence and them immediately start pound you keyboard with you meat hooks what frothing

        • Here's some practical neurological science data for you to chew on. The best way to get me to do something is to tell me I am not allowed to do it.

          And what's with all the inflammatory language in your posts? Calling people stupid does not make your argument any stronger. To me, it makes it much weaker if you have to resort to name-calling. If I had mod points I'd knock you down whether I agreed with what you are saying or not. But I have noticed there seems to be a lot of Beavis&Butthead type mo

          • The best way to get me to do something is to tell me I am not allowed to do it.

            Have you ever stopped to think about why this might be so? Doing "forbidden" things is somehow giving you (or whomever it is we're talking about here) fulfillment -- momentarily filling some hole somewhere, and I'm guessing you don't really care whether that forbidden thing is good or bad for you. This is how addictions work also -- it's pretty much how everything in the human psyche works. The fulfillment is always fleeting,
        • Wow, just wow. I respectfully disagree with your opinions, which is what they are.

          Notice how I didn't resort to name calling just becasue we didn't agree on something? Probably not, if you noticed things like that you probably would not act in such a manner. Perhaps if I were you I would "assume you were simple" but I am willing to give you the benefit of a doubt. Even though you are rude.
    • [The more I learn about human] neurology, the less I like legalized gambling.

      How is excess gambling any different than any other form of entertainment taken to excess? Gambling away the money that was supposed to be the mortgage payment gets you the same net effect as spending that money on eating out, going to the movies, or any other form of entertainment.

      There are plenty of adults who enjoy gambling, even when they lose, and can play the game in a responsible manner. They should not be deprived of fun simply because of a handful of people who cannot control themselves.

    • Reading the many, many responses of people who completely missed your premise, all I can say is, wow.

      For the record, I totally agree with you (for once). Putting certain restrictions on potentially harmful products/services is not prohibition, it's common sense.
    • That reminds me of a story from years ago, made the NY papers then. A guy from Staten Island, N.Y. had everything going for him. He had worked his whole life as a bus driver, lived a normal life, home, wife & kids. He retires at 65, & rewards himself by going to gamble for the very first time ever to Atlantic City. 3 days later, after losing everything, all the $ he saved for retirement, and the deed to his house, he drives back, and jumps off the Verrazano Bridge to his death. I'd expect to se
  • Since the U.S. Supreme Court keeps giving corporations similar rights as people, especially when it comes to financial matters, I'll be setting up a corporation located in Delaware to gamble professionally online. Who wants it?

    Cheers.

    • You would be better setting up a company based in Delaware that charges a modest hourly access fee that provides proxy services. I mean really why risk your own money.
    • by Obfuscant (592200)

      Since the U.S. Supreme Court keeps giving corporations similar rights as people,

      The Supreme Court didn't give anyone anything. They simply ruled that the people that make up a corporation still have the rights that they were born with, especially for a corporation that was formed for the express purpose of exercising one of those rights.

      • by geekoid (135745)

        Wrong.
        If you where correct, the corporate decisions would go when the CEO left.

        • Wrong. If you where correct, the corporate decisions would go when the CEO left.

          Also, when the corporation committed a crime, the CEO would go to prison.

          • by Obfuscant (592200)

            Also, when the corporation committed a crime, the CEO would go to prison.

            Some of them have. Bernie Madoff and Kenneth Lay, to name two. I'm sure you could find more if you cared. Yes, pretty easy. Google "CEO prison".

            • Kevin Cassidy, 30 months in federal prison.
            • Ken Beverly, two years.
            • Dennis Kozlowski, 8 1/3 to 25
            • Bernard Ebbers, 25 years
            • Jeffrey Keith "Jeff" Skilling, 24 years

            That's just a sample from the first page of google results.

            But, of course, you probably meant to say "if anyone working for the corporation committed a crime, the CEO would go to prison." Where did you get

        • by Obfuscant (592200)

          If you where correct, the corporate decisions would go when the CEO left.

          Don't you know that, indeed, some "corporate decisions" change when a new CEO comes on board? They don't "go", but the CEO gets to make many decisions as part of his job. If one of those decisions is what to spend corporate money on, then maybe that decision will change when the current CEO leaves. That means I am correct, because the decision did "go" when the CEO left. Some decisions are in the hands of the stockholders who actually own the company. They can change, too, if the stockholders change.

          The f

  • the odds are always against you.

  • Isn't there any concerns about privacy with this ? I'm not really sure how the state or the USA works with this but here is some info [w3.org] on how the geolocation suppose to work if this is what they use anyway (not sure but should be).

    4 Security and privacy considerations

    The API defined in this specification is used to retrieve the geographic location of a hosting device. In almost all cases, this information also discloses the location of the user of the device, thereby potentially compromising the user's privacy. A conforming implementation of this specification must provide a mechanism that protects the user's privacy and this mechanism should ensure that no location information is made available through this API without the user's express permission.

  • Trying to confine any sort of online activity to any sort of geographical boundaries is an exercise in futility. "In-State" is essentially meaningless on the internet. Sure, they will come up with all kinds of enforcement mechanisms, and some of them might even repel a few Non-Delaware people, but the vast majority will do a quick google search and get around it in less time than it will take them to type in their creditcard and start throwing money away.
  • Subject unrelated lol. Anyway, do note that there are bitcoin casinos already set up on the web and since the US doesn't recognize bitcoins as an actual currency so BTC generated from "nowhere" by mining can be gambled with. That's some stuff someone posted on the bitcoin forum but it sounds true lol.

    So anyway, Fox's On Demand player can't verify that I pay for cable because I'm a Time Warner customer and apparently that's just too complicated for them. So if Fox can't do it, how is Delaware going to
    • by Greyfox (87712)
      I was looking at how to set up a service inside the tor onion network and it's pretty damn easy. I've been pondering a hypothetical design for a hypothetical casino that would live inside tor and use bitcoins. Trust would be a major issue there, but probably not insurmountable. Anyone involved in profiting from such an endeavor would have to commit to never visiting or traveling through the USA though. Or living in a country with an extradition treaty to it. That's actually a bigger problem than writing the
  • This will absolutely not fly. Using the same logic as Wickard v. Filburn, people doing in-state online gambling in DE won't be going to NJ to a casino, and therefore will be having a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Therefore the federal government retains its dominion and can prohibit online gambling in DE, even if it is conducted completely within the State.

Mathemeticians stand on each other's shoulders while computer scientists stand on each other's toes. -- Richard Hamming

Working...