OT: RIAA and Their Law Suits

Joachim · #1 September 18th, 2003, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dogscoff:
[QB]

quote:

one of our ministers downloaded some songs, burned them to cd and gave to

Wow... most of our ministers don't even know what a computer is, let alone know how to download a bunch of crap and burn it to cd. Doesn't stop them passing laws on technical matters though.

That's half the problem- in the absence of knowledge, policy-makers rely on ppl with vested interests (ie the music companies) to explain things to them and shape the law.
QB]

Ditto in Oz, I remeber the debate about internet gambling, some archaic pollies calling for its banning

. Any one with half a brain saying that it is pointless 'cause they will go offshore - much better to allow it and tax and regulate it.
Of course if you could ban gambling world wide that might be a good thing as it is a tax on stupidity - then again if you *really* think you can beat the odds - heh go for it.

narf poit chez BOOM · #2 September 18th, 2003, 06:56 AM

oh, sure, anybody can beat the odds...

...oh, you mean without cheating

Jack Simth · #3 September 18th, 2003, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joachim:
Ditto in Oz, I remeber the debate about internet gambling, some archaic pollies calling for its banning . Any one with half a brain saying that it is pointless 'cause they will go offshore - much better to allow it and tax and regulate it.
Of course if you could ban gambling world wide that might be a good thing as it is a tax on stupidity - then again if you *really* think you can beat the odds - heh go for it.

Anyone who gambles for profit without being the house is an idiot, granted. However, for those who gamble properly, a loss is expected - gambling takes on the role of entertainment, where a loss of money is reasonable, not something done for profit. For that portion of the population, gambling is not a stupidity tax. For the rest of the population, however....

Joachim · #4 September 18th, 2003, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:
Originally posted by Joachim:
Ditto in Oz, I remeber the debate about internet gambling, some archaic pollies calling for its banning . Any one with half a brain saying that it is pointless 'cause they will go offshore - much better to allow it and tax and regulate it.
Of course if you could ban gambling world wide that might be a good thing as it is a tax on stupidity - then again if you *really* think you can beat the odds - heh go for it.

Anyone who gambles for profit without being the house is an idiot, granted. However, for those who gamble properly, a loss is expected - gambling takes on the role of entertainment, where a loss of money is reasonable, not something done for profit. For that portion of the population, gambling is not a stupidity tax. For the rest of the population, however....

Problem is that it can become a very expensive from of entertainment that can result in all sorts of crazy stuff. Such as kids locked in cars at Casinos, no money for food because the pokies ate it instead.
It is hard when a form of entertainment can be so obviously problematic to some - the question is - when is the social detriment worse by allowing it than banning it?
(aren't we all happy that a SEIV addiction is so comparatively cheap!)

Atrocities · #5 September 18th, 2003, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:
Originally posted by Joachim:
Ditto in Oz, I remeber the debate about internet gambling, some archaic pollies calling for its banning . Any one with half a brain saying that it is pointless 'cause they will go offshore - much better to allow it and tax and regulate it.
Of course if you could ban gambling world wide that might be a good thing as it is a tax on stupidity - then again if you *really* think you can beat the odds - heh go for it.

Anyone who gambles for profit without being the house is an idiot, granted. However, for those who gamble properly, a loss is expected - gambling takes on the role of entertainment, where a loss of money is reasonable, not something done for profit. For that portion of the population, gambling is not a stupidity tax. For the rest of the population, however....

Jack, do you want to play some 7 card roll your own, no peek, low spade in whole stud poker? Or do you prefer the odds of Black Jack?

tesco samoa · #6 September 19th, 2003, 01:53 AM

I can beat the odds in betting on football and hockey.

But there is an investment of time and keeping strict control on your balance and percentage of bet. 3% of the total is good number for a wager. And you never increase that percentage. That way when times are lean or good your bets reflect that.

And lots of reading. and stats to analyse. It can be done. But one must also look at what they picked and why they picked it. Each week as well.

Loser · #7 September 18th, 2003, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Jack, do you want to play some 7 card roll your own, no peek, low spade in whole stud poker? Or do you prefer the odds of Black Jack?

No Peek makes it a monkey game, much like uncounted Black Jack.

While playing for money inarguably makes it gambling, properly played Poker is not a Game of Chance, but a Game of Skill. Luck might determine the course of a single hand, but Skill determines the course of a night.

That said, I prefer Texas Hold'em, Seven Card Stud, or Five Card Draw for their simplicity, or any number of insane 'home games' for variety and to keep the Math Masters on their toes.

We play once a week, and 'friendly' means that the buy in is low enough that losing it is no cause for sympathy.