While you're all reminiscing about Marty McFly's mom's breast implants (see my last post), here's a question:
Well... err.. see subject. Can you go to Party Poker, Full Tilt Poker, Poker Stars, etc... and deposit money via your checking account, a credit card, etc... and just play online for real money?
But... "Walt", you ask, "Why is this worthy of a blog post? Why don't you just google search for the answer?"
Ahh... "I'm glad you asked," I respond. "I invite you to search the web and give me a lucid, intelligent, well-thought out answer to this question."
And, after you do that and remain as confused as I am, the simple question remains: What are the exact legalities of online gambling? This reminds me of something that sticks with me from my teenage years. I remember smoking cigarettes, underage, in high school and, somehow knowing, that if Rocklin's (Cedar Lane, represent!) sold me cigarettes, they were culpable, not me. Is that similar to online poker? Can I request to play for money, and if a site says, "Sure... we'll take your money.", it's on them?
Can any poker players, or web-savvy individuals, answer this for me?
Monday, May 25, 2009
An alternate 1985
Actual part of a conversation between my brother and I a few days ago:
Me: "You know, think of how much it would help our [state's] economy if casinos, brothels, and drugs were legal across the whole state.
If brothels were legal, not only would people not be arrested for dumb shit like having sex, but women who are forced to turn to prostitution would have protection. The state could regulate this service, making money off of it through 'fees' or taxation or something. [We've discussed this before, so I didn't elaborate more.]
Regarding drugs, fuck it, let's just legalize and regulate drugs already. How many non-violent drug offenders are in prison? Forget about all the money they could make on taxing drugs. [etc, etc... we've also been down this road before.]
The biggest thing, though: they could put a huge luxury casino up in Mahwah in the mountains there. The NYC market, who currently has to travel 2-3 hours to Connecticut or to A.C., would pour out to Mahwah, generating a bunch of income for the state. Did you know that casinos have to give something like 30% of their *profits* back to the state? And think of the jobs that would create..."
My brother, who had been quietly listening and without missing a beat, says:
"Yeah, but do you really want everything to be like Biff Tannen's 1985 in Back to the Future II?"
I cracked up for like 5 minutes. And while this is potentially the start of an interesting discussion, I could do nothing but laugh and think of the alternate 1985 in Back to the Future II.
Me: "You know, think of how much it would help our [state's] economy if casinos, brothels, and drugs were legal across the whole state.
If brothels were legal, not only would people not be arrested for dumb shit like having sex, but women who are forced to turn to prostitution would have protection. The state could regulate this service, making money off of it through 'fees' or taxation or something. [We've discussed this before, so I didn't elaborate more.]
Regarding drugs, fuck it, let's just legalize and regulate drugs already. How many non-violent drug offenders are in prison? Forget about all the money they could make on taxing drugs. [etc, etc... we've also been down this road before.]
The biggest thing, though: they could put a huge luxury casino up in Mahwah in the mountains there. The NYC market, who currently has to travel 2-3 hours to Connecticut or to A.C., would pour out to Mahwah, generating a bunch of income for the state. Did you know that casinos have to give something like 30% of their *profits* back to the state? And think of the jobs that would create..."
My brother, who had been quietly listening and without missing a beat, says:
"Yeah, but do you really want everything to be like Biff Tannen's 1985 in Back to the Future II?"
I cracked up for like 5 minutes. And while this is potentially the start of an interesting discussion, I could do nothing but laugh and think of the alternate 1985 in Back to the Future II.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Basketball Friday
I have a handful of long posts coming up, but in the meantime, to keep my multitudes of readers satisfied, here's some Larry Bird highlights.
And here's some Alvin Williams highlights. I played with him at my gym. His highlight reel is not as impressive as Larry's.
And here's some Alvin Williams highlights. I played with him at my gym. His highlight reel is not as impressive as Larry's.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
For a Tuesday Laugh
Was there any line delivered better than this in Lebowski, or for that matter, in the history of humanity?
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Reunited...
... and it feels so good.
For the first time in years, the Daffys all together on 5/16/09 where they all should be - at a poker table. From left to right: Dustin, Daffy, Pops (head obscured) J. Daffy, A. Daffy, and ChuckJerry.
For the first time in years, the Daffys all together on 5/16/09 where they all should be - at a poker table. From left to right: Dustin, Daffy, Pops (head obscured) J. Daffy, A. Daffy, and ChuckJerry.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Birthday Paradox (Math Questions V)
To wrap up this string of math questions... the answers to Part II and III Jerry answered very well in the comments thread. The Monty Hall Paradox (Math Questions IV) is easily google-able... but the gist of it is that if you have a one in three chance of winning a prize (or, identically, a three-card monte winning card), and the host of the game shows you a non-winner of the remaining two options and offers to switch, you have a 2/3 chance of winning if you switch, and only a 1/3 chance of winning if you stay. That is because you will only choose correctly originally 1 out of 3 times, and if you have chosen incorrectly you should switch and will therefore win. This should happen two out of three times. Essentially the host is giving you the choice of "do you want to stay with the option you've chosen? Or, do you want BOTH of the other two?" to which one would obviously say, "Well, I'd rather have the other two." Very counterintuitive and a cool problem
The birthday paradox that Jerry referred to is not a question as much as an interesting fact: In a randomly chosen group of 23 people, the probability that two people have the same birthday is about 50%. So, if you are a teacher and have a class of 23 people and ask them all their birthdays, half the time two students will have the same birthday. More mathematical explanation that you probably care about is on the Wikipedia page, which is linked to above.
The birthday paradox that Jerry referred to is not a question as much as an interesting fact: In a randomly chosen group of 23 people, the probability that two people have the same birthday is about 50%. So, if you are a teacher and have a class of 23 people and ask them all their birthdays, half the time two students will have the same birthday. More mathematical explanation that you probably care about is on the Wikipedia page, which is linked to above.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
The Monty Hall Paradox (Math Questions IV)
Since ChuckJerry provided a lucid, intelligent, well-thought answer to the last two math questions, I thought I'd provide another one. You can easily search for the answer on the web. Please don't. And if you've heard it already, let people guess first. Use your intuition and ponder the following scenario. This is one of my favorites.
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others are goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the other doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to keep your choice (Door No. 1)? Or do you want to switch to Door No. 2?"
Should you keep Door #1? Should you switch to Door #2? Or does it not matter which option you take?
(Chuck, birthday paradox to follow.)
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others are goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the other doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to keep your choice (Door No. 1)? Or do you want to switch to Door No. 2?"
Should you keep Door #1? Should you switch to Door #2? Or does it not matter which option you take?
(Chuck, birthday paradox to follow.)
Pumping Gas in New Jersey
The other day I pulled up to a gas station. The attendant was having an animated cell phone conversation, which apparently was more important to him than giving service like the young men who darted over to the car in Back to the Future when Marty first hits downtown Hill Valley in 1955. Anyway, I waited for a little while patiently, and finally said to myself something like, "I'll count to 20 and then I'll get out of the car and say something." Fortunately, he promptly hung up, jogged over and apologized (at least I think he did, his English was a bit unclear) and then we proceeded with our transaction ("Fill it, regular, cash." "Ok, boss.")
But, it got me thinking: it's silly that I can't just get out of the car and start pumping my own gas. As I'm sure you know, it is legal to pump your own gas in other states. I've filled my own gas before while travelling, as I'm sure we all have, and I seem to have the hang of the whole process. Must be some insurance thing, I wondered. If somehow I was to injure myself while pumping the gas, the gas station must be liable.
So later, our of curiousity, I consulted Google. Turns out, NJ is one of just two states where it is *illegal* to pump your own gas. Yahoo! Answers, umm... answers below:
The Garden State is one of two states where it's illegal to fill 'er up yourself. Only gas station owners or employees can pump gas in New Jersey and Oregon -- "the only two states atavistic, sadistic, and masochistic enough to still require thousands of 'professionals' to waste time, money, and inconvenience customers," according to one columnist.
The ban on self-service gas stations is a highly combustible issue and makes for some heated debates. New Jersey passed the law making it illegal to pump your own gas in 1949. At the time, legislators felt it was too dangerous to have untrained people dispensing such a flammable liquid.
That may have been sensible at the time, but pumping gas is much safer today, and some motorists feel the ban is outdated and needs to go. Opponents of the law argue that removing it would lower the cost of gas and make refueling much quicker and more convenient. Proponents of the ban argue that it creates jobs and customers like full service.
Ahh. So it creates jobs. But wait, doesn't that cost the gas companies money to have people manning the pumps? And if it does, would they just charge the higher amount anyway and pocket the profits? Or would it be cheaper for us? This article from three years ago addressed these issues (as well as containing the awesome Beavis-and-Butthead-esque line "Fear of putting it in the wrong hole?"), pointing out that elderly or less mobile motorists rely on not having to get out of their cars. Maybe true, but how do they manage in the other 48 states where they must pump themselves? Why don't New Jersey gas station offer two lanes, "pump your own" and "full service" and charge people like 3 cents more per gallon for "full service"?
I wonder what the real deal is, and why this has not been rectified yet.
But, it got me thinking: it's silly that I can't just get out of the car and start pumping my own gas. As I'm sure you know, it is legal to pump your own gas in other states. I've filled my own gas before while travelling, as I'm sure we all have, and I seem to have the hang of the whole process. Must be some insurance thing, I wondered. If somehow I was to injure myself while pumping the gas, the gas station must be liable.
So later, our of curiousity, I consulted Google. Turns out, NJ is one of just two states where it is *illegal* to pump your own gas. Yahoo! Answers, umm... answers below:
The Garden State is one of two states where it's illegal to fill 'er up yourself. Only gas station owners or employees can pump gas in New Jersey and Oregon -- "the only two states atavistic, sadistic, and masochistic enough to still require thousands of 'professionals' to waste time, money, and inconvenience customers," according to one columnist.
The ban on self-service gas stations is a highly combustible issue and makes for some heated debates. New Jersey passed the law making it illegal to pump your own gas in 1949. At the time, legislators felt it was too dangerous to have untrained people dispensing such a flammable liquid.
That may have been sensible at the time, but pumping gas is much safer today, and some motorists feel the ban is outdated and needs to go. Opponents of the law argue that removing it would lower the cost of gas and make refueling much quicker and more convenient. Proponents of the ban argue that it creates jobs and customers like full service.
Ahh. So it creates jobs. But wait, doesn't that cost the gas companies money to have people manning the pumps? And if it does, would they just charge the higher amount anyway and pocket the profits? Or would it be cheaper for us? This article from three years ago addressed these issues (as well as containing the awesome Beavis-and-Butthead-esque line "Fear of putting it in the wrong hole?"), pointing out that elderly or less mobile motorists rely on not having to get out of their cars. Maybe true, but how do they manage in the other 48 states where they must pump themselves? Why don't New Jersey gas station offer two lanes, "pump your own" and "full service" and charge people like 3 cents more per gallon for "full service"?
I wonder what the real deal is, and why this has not been rectified yet.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)