Venom: Knull Just Killed a Dark Guardian of the Galaxy | CBR – CBR – Comic Book Resources

Posted on by

In Web of Venom: Wraith #1, Wraith searches for answers about the Exolon and faces Knull, god of the symbiotes -- and it doesn't exactly end well.

WARNING: The following contains spoilers for Web of Venom: Wraith #1 by Donny Cates, Guiu Villanova, Dean White and VC's Clayton Cowles, on sale now.

Web of Venom: Wraith #1 picks up on a story that first began in 2019's Guardians of the Galaxy #3. In the latter, the Kree warrior known as Wraith joined Eros' Dark Guardians of the Galaxy, a team whose mandate was to hunt down Gamora, the adopted daughter of Thanos. Wraith is generally more of an anti-hero, so his presence on the team was curious. But the truth is he only joined the team because Eros promised him something in return: answers about the Exolon, the dark parasites that have granted him immortality for so very long.

Wraith seeks to put an end to his curse and, in Web of Venom: Wraith #1, he goes on a quest for answers. However, what none of us expect is that this turns out to be Wraith's final adventure in the Marvel Universe.

RELATED: King in Black Teaser Unleashes a Swarm of Grendels on the Marvel Universe

Wraith firstappeared in 2007's Annihilation: Conquest event. The character played a central role in the cosmic story, but he didn't have a whole lot of appearances outside of it. However, his return in 2019's Guardians of the Galaxy was noteworthy, especially considering that Eros teased the character had some sort of connection to Knull, the god of the symbiotes.

Now, in Web of Venom, Wraith uses a teleportation device and coordinates left to him by Eros to get the answers he so desperately wants. He starts by visiting his father's old lab, where he discovers thatthe scientist knew about Knull, and the threat of his darkness. It's why his father tried to invent a powerful source of light, to counter the menace Knull represented.

After learning of this connection, Wraith then travels to the planet Klyntar, which is essentially a cage that the symbiotes built to contain their god. Little does Wraith know however that at this very moment, on Earth, Cletus Kasady collected all of the symbiote codices to awaken Knull, as seen in the 2019 event,Absolute Carnage. Therefore, shortly after Wraith arrived on Klyntar, the planet is ripped apart and the god of the symbiotes reveals himself toWraith.

Go here to see the original:

Venom: Knull Just Killed a Dark Guardian of the Galaxy | CBR - CBR - Comic Book Resources

Cubs: 3 players whose futures with team are doomed after shortened season – Cubbies Crib

Posted on by

Use your (arrows) to browse

Cubs pitcher Tyler Chatwood has likely thrown his last pitch for the team. (Photo by Duane Burleson/Getty Images)

Despite carrying the second-best record in the National League into Wednesday nights matchup with the Cleveland Indians, the Chicago Cubs have a great deal of uncertainty around them.

The pitching staff feels like trying to plug holes in a sinking ship using your fingers, guys you counted on to carry the offense havent showed up and beyond 2020, the financials for the organization will be a huge focus for ownership.

Underperforming stars like Kris Bryant, Anthony Rizzo, Willson Contreras, Kyle Schwarber and Javier Baez arent going anywhere. Why? Because Theo Epstein isnt about to sell low on any of them. It seems far more likely the club hopes for a return to form with eyes cast toward some potential trade deadline deals in 2021.

Chicago is hoping to pull off one more deep postseason run before the group that gained baseball immortality in 2016 begins to go its separate ways. Next years Cubs could look vastly different and for a variety of reasons, these three guys seem highly unlikely to be a part of the 2021 club.

Use your (arrows) to browse

See the article here:

Cubs: 3 players whose futures with team are doomed after shortened season - Cubbies Crib

DCeased Makes the Justice League’s Most Powerful Foe More Dangerous Than Ever – CBR – Comic Book Resources

Posted on by

In DCeased: Dead Planet, one of the Justice League's most powerful foes is even more dangerous after the end of the world.

WARNING: The following contains spoilers for DCeased: Dead Planet #3 by Tom Taylor, Trevor Hairsine, Gigi Baldassini, and Rain Beredo, on sale now.

One of the Justice League's most dangerous supervillains, Amazo, is back in DCeased: Dead Planet #3. Amazo has plagued the Justice League since the 1960s and proves to be as formidable a foe as ever. In this issue,the surviving members of the Shadowpactenter the Southern Bunker they believe houses more survivors. What they find in the Southern Bunkeris just as terrible as the horrors that lie outside.

After Zatanna kills the infected Plastic Man, who was guarding the Southern Bunker, the remaining survivors enter the fortress and are greetedby Maxwell Lord, the Penguin, and Jason Blood. It's revealed that the Southern Bunker was built by billionaires long ago as a place of refuge after the fall ofcivilization. Jason Blood pulls Constantine aside and takes the form of Etrigan and tellsthe Hellblazer that the souls of the infected and dead are "locked inside the anti-living," and that Hell isn't pleased that it's not getting its fair share of souls. Etrigan tells Constantine that Trigon is planning towipe out everything on earth, both the infected and the living, and plans to start all over again.

Related: DCeased Turns Every DC Hero Into A Stone-Cold Killer

To try and save what is left of this world, the billionaire super villains have been creating an army of Amazo androids. Amazo is a Gardner Fox and Mike Sekowsky creation and first appeared in The Bold and the Brave #30. After it's debut in 1960, Amazo has gone on to become one of the most fearsome and powerfulJustice Leaguevillains.

Amazo was created by the mad scientist Professor Ivo who was obsessed with immortality. Ivo programmed Amazo to focus on the Justice League in the hopes that their defeat would prove his genius and grant him immortality. Amazo is built using Ivo's Absorption Cell technology, which makes the android able to absorb all the natural skills and super abilities of any hero. When Amazo gets close enough, he can absorb, for example, the superpowers of Superman and the speed of the Flash. Even worse, the android can physically replicate the weapons and equipment of heroes as well. Amazo can simulate Green Lantern's power ring, Harley Quinn's huge hammer, and Wonder Woman's Lasso of Truth.

Related: DCeased Revives A Doomed Fan-Favorite DC Team

Though originally created as a mindless android, Amazo achieved self-awareness over time due to its ability to adapt to any situation. Now able to think on its own, Amazo is constantly upgrading itself, becoming more and more intelligent and powerful. The limits to Amazo's power haven't been reached and it has evolved into being able to use multiple powers at the same time. Amazo has confronted and beaten the Justice League on several occasions.

All these powers are what one Amazo android can do. In DCeased: Dead Planet #3, Ivo has created an army of Amazo droids. One Amazo has proven capable of handily defeating the Justice League. An army of Amazos could easilyconquer the world, which is what it seems Jason Blood, is hoping for. If they are able to save the planet, then Trigon will not interfere, and the villains will then be in control of everything. This is a win-win situation for the super villains and just made the heroes' jobs that much more difficult.

Originally posted here:

DCeased Makes the Justice League's Most Powerful Foe More Dangerous Than Ever - CBR - Comic Book Resources

Are Mushrooms the Future of Wellness? – The New York Times

Posted on by

Even before the onset of the pandemic, which has increased the demand for all manner of so-called organic immunity elixirs, wellness-minded Americans were warming to mushrooms. To be clear, mushrooms dont cure Covid-19, but they are thought to provide a host of other benefits, from serving as an aphrodisiac to bolstering ones defenses to toxins. As Ligaya Mishan explains in her essay for Ts Fall Mens issue, Eastern cultures have long been enthusiastic about edible fungi, both in culinary and health contexts mushrooms are rich in umami, the Japanese fifth taste that denotes savoriness, and woody species such as reishi are often prescribed in traditional Chinese medicine while the West has been more ambivalent. Today, though, American cooks and diners delight in foraged morels and matsutakes, while others mix mushroom-based powders into shakes and teas. In an article published in 2014 over 80 years after the British scientist Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, the powerful group of antibiotics derived from the fungus Penicillium the mycologist Paul Stamets, best known for the TED Talk 6 Ways Mushrooms Can Save the World, described mushrooms as natures miniature pharmaceutical factories.

Fungi have the ability to soak up and escort waste from our cells, and have a digestive system almost identical to that of humans, says Liz Smithers, who studied Ayurvedic medicine and herbal sciences before launching the sustainable Kauai-based nutrition brand Laka Living with her sister, Kate, in 2015. The line includes a chocolate-flavored hemp protein ($34) containing mushrooms such as lions mane (shown in studies to reduce anxiety and prevent cognitive decline), and Super Shroom Dip ($30), a macadamia nut butter laced with a five-mushroom blend. At this point, only 7 percent of the worlds fungi have been discovered, and Hawaii, the most isolated archipelago in the world, has some of the most understudied species, says Benjamin Lillibridge, the Kailua-Kona-based founder of the wellness company Mlama Mushrooms, and of the Hawaii Fungi Project, a nonprofit dedicated to the discovery and responsible use of the islands native species. Of course, there are also plenty of noteworthy mushroom nutraceutical ventures Stateside see Shizu Okusas brand Apothkary, which has teams in San Francisco and Washington, D.C. but Lillibridges wider point, perhaps, is that with so much still to discover about fungi, who knows what heretofore unknown powers they may possess? Here, a list of just some of the beneficial properties mushrooms are thought to have, and where to find the best blends.

I grew up in a super-traditional immigrant Japanese family where my parents wouldnt give me Tylenol or Advil, says Okusa, who was instead given dark, oozy drinks of mushrooms and dried herbs that had been brewed for days in stone pots. Last year, she launched Apothkary, offering her Immunity Set ($45), a trio of different mushroom powders that draw on the blends of her youth: One pairs reishi with ashwagandha root to reduce inflammation, while another is made purely of ground reishi and meant to be used as a concentrated booster in teas and smoothies by advanced herb users, she says. Reishi by itself can be a bit more difficult, taste and potency wise. Meanwhile, Steven Gundry, a Palm Springs-based cardiologist, has grouped what he calls the big three reishi, chaga and coriolus, the latter two best known for their high antioxidant content and immune support benefits in his Gundry MD M Vitality immune support tonic ($66), drops of which can be applied directly to your tongue. If youd prefer something sweeter, consider Forest Juice ($31), a reishi- and chaga-infused maple syrup from Rainbo, a line of mushroom-based supplements and food products founded by the holistic chef and nutritionist Tonya Papanikolov.

Lions mane, which has the look of a shaggy, faux-fur ottoman, was found in a 2016 study published by the Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine to promote peripheral nerve regeneration in rats. For humans, the mushroom is typically used with the goal of enhancing concentration, memory and mental clarity. It has a mild taste and is fantastic sauted in butter, says Wooden Spoon Herbs founder Lauren Haynes, who gets hers from Oregon and upstate New York. For the brands Mushroom Cocoa powder ($38), a scoop of which can be added to your morning coffee, fruiting bodies of lions mane and other varieties are extracted via a long-simmer method and flavored with vanilla and mesquite. Another option for those hoping to improve recall is Gaia Herbss Mind Spring powder ($35), which contains lions mane and turmeric. Cordyceps, on the other hand, whose stems often resemble Cheetos in both shape and color, may contribute to physical acuity. In the 1993 Olympics, three Chinese runners were screened for steroids, but all the panel found were cordyceps, says the naturopathic doctor Nadia Musavvir. She recommends Four Sigmatics Instant Mushroom Coffee With Chaga and Cordyceps ($15) the chaga is purported to neutralize caffeine jitters.

Tremella is amazing for boosting gut and skin health from the inside out its been revered as a beauty mushroom in Asia for hundreds of years, Stephanie Park, the founder of the Brooklyn supplement label Wylde One, says of the vitamin D-rich variety. Wrapped in single-serving packets, the brands Golden Glow Up ($29) adaptogenic turmeric latte blend contains astragalus and tremella, also known as silver ear mushrooms, along with cardamom, black pepper and digestion-enhancing ginger. Another option is Moon Juices Collagen Protect powdered creamer ($58), which incorporates organic tremella extracts and rice bran-derived tocotrienols, or tocos, natural sources of vitamin E that lend a mildly malty finish. Picking up some raw shiitake mushrooms from your local farmers market might also be a boon: Jeannette Graf, assistant clinical professor of dermatology at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, says the familiar umbrella cap contains significant levels of vitamin D, selenium and zinc, which help to maintain skin health. And then theres Sun Potions Astragalus the Great Protector ($57), made with ingredients grown wild at high elevations, and filled with polysaccharides, which have long been endorsed as natural aids for hydration and soothing stomach ulcers.

The repeatedly invoked cure-all of functional fungi is reishi. Its most popular and well-known benefits are its ability to reduce stress and fatigue, and, in general, help chill you out, says Lillibridge, who suggests Mlama Mushroomss Reishi Mushroom Extract Powder ($30). When taken consistently, the multitasking queen healer, as reishi is sometimes called, is even believed to help regulate rest cycles: Its been shown to increase deep delta-wave sleep, Lillibridge says. For a soothing nightcap enjoyed half an hour before bed, try the reishi- and valerian root-filled Sleep Superfood Water Enhancer by BareOrganics ($12), which will dissolve in liquid at any temperature, or Kamu Labs Dream nightly sleep drops ($60), which enhance the mushrooms calming effects with those of CBD and California poppy. Its no wonder emperors of the Qing dynasty were said to exchange gifts of ceremonial ruyi scepters sculpted to resemble reishi, the so-called mushroom of immortality.

Read more here:

Are Mushrooms the Future of Wellness? - The New York Times

The Water Man | TIFF 2020 Review | The GATE – The GATE

Posted on by

With his feature directorial debut, the Spielbergian family adventure and drama The Water Man, actor David Oyelowo shows that he might have a true knack for big budget blockbuster filmmaking. An unabashed love letter to young adult literature and the slightly-scary coming of age stories that were all the rage in the 1980s, The Water Man is a moving, well performed, and gorgeously shot effort that should entertain viewers of almost any age.

Twelve-year-old bookworm and budding graphic novelist Gunner Boone (Lonnie Chavis) sets aside his dream of writing a detective series when he learns his mother (Rosario Dawson) is battling an aggressive form of leukemia. With his father (Oyelowo) not offering much support, Gunner puts all his bookish efforts into trying to find a cure for moms suffering. One day, he stumbles upon a young girl named Jo (Amiah Miller) telling a bunch of kids about her encounter with a mythological legend known as The Water Man, an immortal humanoid creature that dwells in the forests. Gunner goes down another rabbit hole of research and begs Jo to help him find The Water Man, believing that the mythological beings immortality holds the key to curing his mothers cancer.

Oyelowo and screenwriter Emma Needell refuse to take easy or hammy shortcuts with their story, instead preferring old school, layered storytelling and character work over jump scares, set pieces, and teary eyed manipulation. Unlike many family films pitched at a similar level, The Water Man (executive produced by Oprah Winfrey) comes about its adventure and heart-tugging emotions naturally, with Oyelowo preferring to focus on performance and story. Its a story that couldve been cheesy in lesser hands, but Oyelowo and his young stars who boast exceptional chemistry together have crafted a genuine, cynicism-free bit of wonderment.

The Water Man is nostalgic and modernist in equal measure, with lots of nice touches that enhance the overall tone and entertainment value. Theres some clever use of animation, delightful supporting performances from acting luminaries Alfred Molina and Maria Bello (as a local historian and the town sheriff, respectively), and it builds to a perfect emotional payoff. Hopefully this film finds the audience it deserves, because The Water Man has the potential to be a family movie classic in the making.

The Water Man screens at the 2020 Toronto International Film Festival outdoors at the Visa Skyline Drive-In at Cityview on Saturday, September 19 at 7:30 pm and indoors at TIFF Bell Lightbox on Saturday, September 19 at 4:00 pm. It will also be available to stream online for a limited time during TIFF 2020 via Bell Digital Cinema starting at 6:00 pm on Saturday, September 19. All online screenings during TIFF 2020 are geolocked to Canada. If seeing a film in cinemas, please take all necessary precautions. Practice social distancing, wear a mask, and stay home if feeling ill.

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

See the original post here:

The Water Man | TIFF 2020 Review | The GATE - The GATE

I’m Thinking Of Ending Things: Who The Caller On The Phone Is – Screen Rant

Posted on by

In I'm Thinking of Ending Things, a young female character receives mysterious phone calls, so who's on the other end? Here's our breakdown.

WARNING: Spoilers for I'm Thinking of Ending Things.

In I'm Thinking of Ending Things, a young female characterreceives mysteriousphone calls, so who's on the other end? The Netflix film initially plays out like a quirky relationship drama, but then evolves into a surrealist character study about love, loss, and regret. Written and directed by the eclectic filmmaker Charlie Kaufman, I'm Thinking of Ending Thingsis based on Iain Reid's 2016 eponymous novel.

Starring Jesse Plemons andJessie Buckley,I'm Thinking of Ending Things' titular concept stems from insecuritiesfaced by a couple during the early stages of their relationship. On a snowy evening, Jake (Plemons) drives girlfriendLucy (Buckley) to his parents' home for a first meeting, only something feels off from the start. Jake can seemingly hear Lucy's inner dialogue, and then behaves oddly when arriving at the country destination; he refuses to enter his formerhome right away, and instead gives Lucy a property tour while explaining the deaths of various sheep and pigs. When the couple finally joins "Mother" (Toni Collette) and "Father" (David Thewlis) for dinner, Lucy comes to realize that Jake most likely had a difficult childhood. But what troubles her the mostare incoming phone callsthat she doesn't respond to.

Related:I'm Thinking Of Ending Things: How The Movie Compares To The Book

Within the first 10 minutes of I'm Thinking of Ending Things, Lucy receives a call from someone named "Lucy."Shortly after, Jake references an early 19th century poem by English writerWilliam Wordsworthentitled "Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood." Jake then informs his girlfriend Lucy thatWordsworth once wrote a series of poems for a woman named Lucy, whom he describes as a "beautiful, idealized woman who dies young." Later, during the family dinner, Lucy notices that she has several missed calls from "Lucy" and now"Louisa." After the family dinner, she spots a photo that appears to be herself as a child, and theface then changes to a younger version of Jake during a second glance. Seconds later, Lucy receives a phone call from "Yvonne." From this point forward, it's heavily implied in I'm Thinking of Ending Things that Lucy is a figment of Jake's imagination, and that the older janitor (Gus Boyd) - who frequently appears in side sequences -has dreamed up the entire narrative while reflecting about his life. The mysterious calls are messages from the janitor to his subconscious.

The cryptic phone calls in I'm Thinking of Ending Things thematically link tothe opening minutes. During voiceover narration, Lucy states that "It feels like I've known Jake longer than I have." The character stands on a city sidewalkand looks to the sky as snow falls, and then feels drawn to something in the second or third level of a nearby building. The aforementioned janitor looksdown at Lucy and mutters to himself: "The assumptions are right. I can feel my fear growing. Now is the time for the answer. Just one question." Seconds later, Plemons' Jake shows up, and the narrative properly begins, or so it seems. With this early passing moment in I'm Thinking of Ending Things, Kaufman establishes the premise for the cryptic phone calls, evidenced by the fact that the mid-movie voicemail from"Yvonne" includes a line from the opening: "There's only one question to answer."

Here is the original post:

I'm Thinking Of Ending Things: Who The Caller On The Phone Is - Screen Rant

In the Garden: Peony is the perfect plant for lazy gardeners – Mansfield News Journal

Posted on by

Richard Poffenbaugh, In the Garden Published 5:58 a.m. ET Sept. 15, 2020

It would be helpful if plant breeders and growers would rate plants according to their maintenance level, such as low-medium-high. Any veteran gardener can quickly classify a plant according to a maintenance rating.

For example, my rating for the tall bearded iris is high, the peony low. But I must add the peony is an exception; not too many plants have a low rating.

The indoor plant like the African violet would be high maintenance. My mother grew them, and she spent hours caring for her plant collection.

The garden rose is another high maintenance plant. Gardeners spend many hours growing these special plants.

The peony is an unusual plant in that it has a short bloom period of only one week. I'm amazed some breeder hasn't come up with a peony that blooms for at least a month.

As I used to tell my biology classes, "The world is wide open for new ideas in the plant world." And this is certainly true in horticulture.

If you want a low maintenance plant for the landscape, the peony should be at the top of the list little or no maintenance. Deadhead the flowers and fall cleanup is all. It's a perfect plant for the lazy gardener.

A tall bearded iris displays exceptional colored flowers in late May. Some are rebloomers with another flower in the fall.(Photo: Richard Poffenbaugh Photo.)

Then we come to the tall bearded iris; a very high maintenance plant in the garden.

The tall iris stem with large colored flower on top puts on a strong color display. But the thick roots grow fast and require frequent attention to prevent crowding. Generally, this plant is a fast grower, which means extra labor. Most of this work is best done on your hands and knees, which is no easy task. There are few iris growers working beyond age 80-85.

My active iris growing was from age 45 to 60. The later years included growing reblooming iris. These plants had two bloom periods during the year spring in late May and a second bloom period in September into October.

I remember one year there was a very late iris bloom and also late watermelon ripe in the garden at the same time. Timing was not right for both of these plants, but it did happen.

Reblooming iris are gaining in popularity. I visited a grower and breeder of them named Earl Hall in 1995. He grew hundreds of them at his home at West Alexandria, Ohio (near Dayton). It was the only time I saw gravel used as mulch in his fields of iris plants. Normally you do not mulch iris, but he said the gravel had great drainage and helped control weeds.

One of Earl's colorful pink rebloomers he named Pink Attraction, and it had a beautiful pink color.

A favorite catalog with assorted plants for fall planting, this large catalog has 103 pages with a wide assortment of plants. Call 1-800-803-9624.

It includes all the typical bulbs for fall planting plus, rarely found in catalogs, rebloomer iris like Immortality and Pink Attraction; also organic fertilizers from Espoma in New Jersey.

Richard Poffenbaugh is a retired biology teacher and active home gardener since 1960. He is a member of the Mansfield Men's Garden Club and was editor of the club newsletter (The Greenhorn) for 21 years. He resides in Ontario with his wife, Barbara. Reach him at 419-529-2966.

Poffenbaugh, Richard(Photo: NJ file photo)

Read or Share this story: https://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/story/news/2020/09/15/garden-plant-maintenance-varies-widely/3458383001/

See the article here:

In the Garden: Peony is the perfect plant for lazy gardeners - Mansfield News Journal

Letter: Don’t need to agree on issues, do need to respect free speech – Whidbey News-Times

Posted on by

Editor,

I am writing because a large number of Black Lives Matter signs on South Whidbey have been taken down or vandalized. I fail to understand the sense of entitlement it must take to steal from a neighbor and, at the same time, attempt to squelch free speech.

Taking someones BLM sign says way more about you than it does about your neighbors support of Black lives.

Speaking only for myself, I choose to display a BLM sign because I believe it is time for our country to take an honest look at the historical and current injustices imposed on and hurled at Black people our neighbors, friends, co-workers and co-citizens. It is a time of reckoning with who we are and who we want to be, and most important time to make some real changes!

An anonymous letter that showed up in my mailbox made the statement that All Lives Matter.

If All Lives Matter, then Black lives, by definition, would be part of that narrative.

If I noted something special about one of your children and commented how much she or he mattered, would you yell back at me that all of your children matter?

My question to the author of that letter is, where do Black people fit in your narrative of All Lives and why does my statement Black Lives Matter upset you so?

The Black Lives Matter movement is bigger than the Portland rioting that Fox News continues to portray as the real issue, as opposed to protesting the killing of Black men and women.

We do not have to agree on the related issues. We do need to allow each other our free speech rights, e.g., signs on our property. Removing or vandalizing your neighbors sign is criminal act. Wouldnt it be better to simply ask your neighbor to help you understand her or his intended meaning behind their posting of a BLM sign?

Barbara Dunn

Langley

Original post:

Letter: Don't need to agree on issues, do need to respect free speech - Whidbey News-Times

Between hate and state – The Indian Express

Posted on by

Written by Pratap Bhanu Mehta | New Delhi | September 19, 2020 3:10:56 amThe issue is fundamentally political and we should not pretend that fine legal distinctions will solve the issue. The big lesson of the last two decades is that an over-reliance on legal instruments to solve fundamentally social and political problems often backfires.

In the case of free speech jurisprudence in India, history repeats itself first as tragedy and then as greater tragedy. The Sudarshan TV case, at one level, is very simple. In principle, Indian law allows prior restraint on broadcasting. This prior restraint should be used sparingly and must meet a high constitutional bar. Indian law also allows regulation for hate speech, which is different from offensive speech. Hate speech often targets and degrades a community. So, as the law is currently constituted, the issue seems to be simple: Was Sudarshan TVs programme, Bindas Bol, as clear-cut a case of hate speech as one can see? Certainly, the material available in the public domain suggests that the show is vile. The Court passed an interim restraining order and will presumably settle the matter based on a careful consideration of the content.

But whichever way this case turns out, it looks like dark days are ahead for both democracy and freedom. In some ways, cases like this one are a repeat of the tragedy of 1951. It has been pointed out (most recently by Tripurdaman Singh, in Sixteen Stormy Days), that Indias First Amendment, enacted by Nehru, was a betrayal of liberal values. But the underlying structure of the problem was similar.

The government feared that if it did not have the power to regulate speech, all kinds of communal and insurrectionary venom could spread through society. The defence of a fragile republic required the state to be armed with the power to regulate speech. The spectre of hate and violence got the state to betray its own liberal commitments. And then began Indias crooked journey on free speech. Liberals never acquired the confidence in the demos to let go of these crutches of state regulation in the name of defending the republic. The Right used such protections as it had to spread its hate and its dog whistles. And whenever it was questioned, it weaponised free speech arguments to expose liberal hypocrisy, even as it itself cracked down on dissent.

This uneasy equilibrium still allowed Indian democracy to survive so long as hate was within certain bounds. The use of state power, while sometimes unjustified, was also still within bounds that could be contested. What kept the republic together was not the consistency of principle or the majesty of law, but elements of a political culture and fragmentation of power. What makes the crisis of free speech deeper now is that both ends of the problem have intensified. The spread of hate speech and its political consequences are now infinitely greater. The precedents of a Rwanda-like situation, where communication mediums are used to target communities, are not outside the realm of possibility. It is for this reason we still have so many restraints on speech.

On the other hand, the spectre of authoritarianism is also greater. And here is the dilemma. Almost every regulation of speech, no matter how well intentioned, augments the power of the state. But now, in the current context, where to all intents and purposes most independent institutions have crumbled, empowering the state is a frightening prospect as well. In the Fifties, we arguably feared hate more than the state. But now, when we fear both hate and the state, to whom do we turn?

This background needs to be kept in mind when thinking about cases like Sudarshan TV. The issue is fundamentally political and we should not pretend that fine legal distinctions will solve the issue. The big lesson of the last two decades is that an over-reliance on legal instruments to solve fundamentally social and political problems often backfires. In the case of free speech, this is even more so. First, if you look at the larger politics, the game of the Right is to trap liberals into being the censoring party. They get more mileage and victimhood, and create more scepticism about constitutional first principles by showing that when it comes to the crunch no one believes in free speech. We can make all the fine distinctions we want between different forms of speech. But the blunt truth is that the more the state regulates, the more it politicises the regulation of speech, and ultimately legitimate dissent will be the victim.

Second, there is a whole bunch of laws and regulation already on the books, from the Cable Broadcasters Act to the ability to sue, that should in principle provide enough restraints on the most egregious forms of speech. These have been ineffective because of institutional dysfunction. But if our institutions are truly dysfunctional, does it make sense to create another set of institutions to regulate. Or should we not draw the lesson that any regulation is only as good as the political culture that supports it? Third, it is true that the structures of democratic deliberation are deeply broken. But there is a deeper political economy here. Social media operates on a set of monetising incentives. But broadcast media has also been the creation of a particular kind of political economy. The granting of licences has always been a political affair; the pricing structures set by the TRAI have perverse consequences for quality and competition. Our current media landscape is neither a market nor a state. The more the underlying political economy of media is broken, the less likely it is that free speech will stand a chance.

This is an area that does require serious thinking: Not post facto content regulation, but a market structure that can help provide more checks and balances, and not let bad media drive out good. But with all due respect to the Supreme Court, this is something for Parliament to think about. The Court suo motu setting up a regulatory framework does not inspire confidence. It is not its jurisdiction to begin with.

The need for more regulation for speech, the fear that it can incite, is also always a judgment on the people. When we regulate speech too much, we are not just targeting the speech. We are in effect saying: We cannot trust the people to make the right kinds of distinctions. The tragedy of our situation is that hate speech mongers think hate speech makes them popular in the eyes of the people, and the state by repressing them, unwittingly confirms the argument. If the people dont want to be saved from both the power of hate and the power of the state, the law will be a feeble instrument to save them.

The writer is contributing editor, The Indian Express

The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App.

Continued here:

Between hate and state - The Indian Express

Opinion: The right to free speech doesn’t include hate speech – The Appalachian Online

Posted on by

Opinion: The right to free speech doesn't include hate speech The Appalachian

#content .sharing-icon {border-radius: 5px;margin-right: 5px;margin-bottom: 5px;width: 30px;}.innerbackgroundwrap, #fullwrap { background-color: #ffffff}h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 { font-family: Lora !important; font-weight: 500; }a, a:visited, a h3, h3 a, .widgetheadline a, a .widgetheadline { color: #ffcc00; }a:hover, a:hover h3, a:hover .widgetheadline, h3 a:hover, .widgetheadline a:hover { color: #ffcc00; text-decoration: underline; }a h3.homeheadline, a.homeheadline, a.headline, #content h1 a, .widgetheadline .headline, .storyheadline a, .searchheadline, h2.searchheadline, h2.searchheadline a, h2.catprofile a, #searchapge h2, #catpage h2, .maingridheadline, .homeheadline { color: #000000 !important; font-family: Lora !important; font-weight: 600; }.topboxsmallwide h3, topboxsmall h3, .desc h3, .relatedtitle {font-family: Lora !important; font-weight: 600; }a:hover h3.homeheadline { color: #000000 !important; text-decoration:underline !important; }#homepagefull h3.gridfallback, .bottom-row-blocks h3, .top-row-blocks h3 { font-family: Lora !important; font-weight: 600; }.storyheadline { font-family: Lora !important; font-weight: 600; }#storypage h1 {font-size: 4.6em !important;text-align: center !important;}#storyrails h1 {font-size: 4.6em !important;text-align: center;}#classic_story h1 {font-size: 4.6em !important;text-align: center !important;}.innerbackgroundwrap { background: #fff !important; }.sno-search-close{color: #fff; background: #ffcc00; }#sno_teaserbar { top: -80px; }.sno_teaserbar #stb-container { background: #fff !important; }.sno_teaserbar_home #stb-container { background: #fff !important; }.sno_teaserbar .stb_left:hover, .sno_teaserbar .stb_right:hover { color: #023597; }.sno_teaserbar_home .stb_left:hover, .sno_teaserbar_home .stb_right:hover { color: #023597; }.photo-container, .caption-container, .slideshow-caption-container a, .caption-container a { color: #fff !important; }.remodal-story-image, .remodal-story-image .flexslider, #sfi-email { background: #000 !important; }#sfi-email {border: 1px solid #fff; }#sfi_submit_email, #sfi_cancel_email { color: #000; }.sfi-title a, .sfi-title a:hover { color: #fff; }.sfi-title a:hover { border-bottom: 1px solid #fff;}.sfi-right:hover, .sfi-left:hover { color: #ffcc00;}@media only screen and (min-width: 1100px) and (max-width: 1199px) {#classic_story #contentleft p { font-size:17px; line-height:27px; }}#storyrails #content { margin: 0 auto; }@media only screen and (min-width: 1100px) {.full-width .postarea { width: 900px;}}

Ella AdamsSeptember 12, 2020|262 Views

The extent of free speech is a debate happening across the country with the focus on hate speech. Hate speech is discriminatory speech, writing or behaviour that attacks religion, race, gender, sexuality and other factors of identity. With the rise of political polarization and an increased spotlight on social issues, people are quick to police each others language. This debate over the First Amendment is happening among students and administrators in Boone. People are not afraid to express their opinions and American universities have cautiously navigated free speech on campus, balancing between too much restriction and not enough. So where should we draw the line between free speech and hate speech?

It is App States responsibility to ensure students have a voice on campus. But, App State must ensure students feel accepted. Students have the right to express their beliefs, however, the line is crossed when free speech infringes on another students right to feel safe on campus.

A student reported to Black at App State an incident in which they and eight of their friends were verbally harassed by two white fellow students shouting racial slurs at them on campus. The student says in the Instagram post, I realized how unprotected Black students were in this community. It is unclear if the incident was reported to the university. But regardless of if incidents are reported to administration, fighting hate speech begins with App State students. Hate speech should not be accepted on App States campus. Free speech is a pillar of American ideals but shouldnt be used to alienate and harass fellow citizens in the name of freedom.

Americans are familiar with the First Amendment: Congress cannot make any law restricting freedom of speech, religion, the press etc. But, the First Amendment does not give Americans the right to say whatever they want: there are restrictions. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected free speech because it falsely expresses clear and present danger. Additionally, reasonable threats against another person are not protected. Unregulated hate speech normalizes prejudice therefore, it is extremely dangerous. For example, the United States is currently experiencing a spike in hate crimes the highest numbers in 16 years. Hate speech encourages discrimination so App State is in its right to take action against students who use it.

Free speech is important on college campuses, but students freedom to exist on campus hate and harassment free is far more important.

Read the original here:

Opinion: The right to free speech doesn't include hate speech - The Appalachian Online

What Does the Education Department’s New Final Rule Mean For… – Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

Posted on by

September 16, 2020 | :

Last Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Education issued its final rule on religious liberty and free inquiry, which details protections for faith-based institutions and religious student groups at public universities and seeks to bolster campus free speech.

The rule reflects and sometimes contradicts a fraught, growing body of case law about religion and free speech in higher education.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos

The final rule, which came after 17,000 public comments, requires universities to give equal treatment to religious student groups, which means equal access to university facilities, recognition and funding from student fees, among other things. The rule also defines what it means to be a religious higher education institution so that these schools can continue to be officially exempted from adhering to Title IX where it conflicts with a religious creed. Plus, it reaffirms that these institutions can benefit from department grant programs, so long as the funding isnt going to religious instruction, worship or proselytization.

Meanwhile, if a public university violates the First Amendment, thats grounds for the department to withhold federal cash, but only if the university receives a judgement against it in a state or federal court. Private universities can face the same repercussions if they violate their own institutional policies on freedom of speech and academic freedom.

This administration is committed to protecting the First Amendment rights of students, teachers, and faith-based institutions, said U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos in a statement. Students should not be forced to choose between their faith and their education, and an institution controlled by a religious organization should not have to sacrifice its religious beliefs to participate in Department grants and programs.

To Dr. Martha McCarthy, presidential professor of educational leadership at Loyola Marymount University, the new rule falls in line with the recent trajectory of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, at least in terms of ensuring government funding can go to religious institutions.

She cited Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, which ruled in favor of a church pre-school receiving federal grant money in 2017, and the 2020 case Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which sided with parents who wanted to use Montana state government scholarships to send their children to religious schools.

These decisions make the clause separating church and state somewhat second-tier or maybe even impotent, she said. The new regulations conform in spirit with where the court seems to be going.

But the rule also conflicts with the Supreme Court case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, said Dr. Charles J. Russo, a research professor of law and Joseph Panzer Chair in Education at University of Dayton.

In 2010, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that allowed the University of California at Hastingss law school to deny recognition to a chapter of the Christian Legal Society. The student group wanted an exemption from the universitys non-discrimination policy on the basis that their umbrella organizations statement of faith prohibited sexual activity outside the context of marriage between a man and a woman.

Thats why Russo foresees legal conflict over the new rule.

Im pretty convinced that someone will bring a lawsuit challenging it, he said. I would just about bet that somebody will challenge this.

He personally likes the rule as a basic protective measure for religious student groups. For example, he cited another case, Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, in which the university wouldnt allow a religious student group to publish its newsletter using funding from a student activities fund in 1995. Here, the Supreme Court decided, in favor of the students, that this was viewpoint discrimination.

But regardless, the rule feels like a possible landmine to challenge Supreme Court precedent. Whether one agrees with the Christian Legal Society, the case in California, or disagrees, this certainly overturns it, he added. And I dont think the Department of Education has the authority to do that.

McCarthy predicts another kind of legal challenge. The final rule requires private institutions to follow their own self-determined guidelines on First Amendment rights and doesnt require them to have anti-discrimination policies. That means if, for example, LGBTQ students were barred from a religious student club at a private university, faith-based or otherwise, the institution would still be in full compliance with the rule.

In her interpretation, if [private colleges] have institutional policies that allow discrimination, thats what theyd be judged on, she said. That, to me, does not seem appropriate.

Meanwhile, public universities find themselves in a very difficult position with the impending threat to federal funding, according to Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) President Peter McPherson.

Freedom of speech on campus is an area of continuing difficulty [and] conflict within the law, he said, and different circuit courts interpret Supreme Court decisions on it differently. He thinks the fear of losing education department grants will force public universities to do one of two things: immediately fold to whoever files a free speech lawsuit against them or pour resources into fighting them because the financial stakes of losing a case are too high.

As a former president of Michigan State University, he thinks First Amendment rights are taken very seriously at public universities, he added, and he sees open and free speech as one of their core values. But putting their federal funding on the line shifts the scale of justice.

Granted, government putting requirements on funding is a common deterrent to encourage compliance to regulations, said Russo. But if the department actually withdrew a universitys federal funding over First Amendment litigation, that would be new.

The ultimate hammer that the feds have against a state, against a school, against an institution is that we can stop funding you if you dont get in line and follow this rule, he said. Im not aware of any case where thats actually happened. [Universities are] going to go to court before they let that happen. I dont think universities are going to roll over and play dead. I think theyre going to question the motivation of the federal government and its action.

Sara Weissman can be reached at sweissman@diverseeducation.com.

View original post here:

What Does the Education Department's New Final Rule Mean For... - Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

New Freedom of Speech and Expression Statement released – The Record

Posted on by

With only one day left for student feedback, the Freedom of Speech and Expression Statement is nearing finalization.

The statement, which passed through multiple drafting and review phases before hitting students inboxes, lays out the institutions commitment to protecting and setting necessary boundaries around the freedom of communication within the Goshen College community.

The writing process began in the spring of 2020, when President Rebecca Stoltzfus asked LaKendra Hardware, director for diversity, equity and inclusion, and Jodi Beyeler, vice president for communication and people strategy, to draft a statement that would regulate campus norms and provide a groundwork for existing and new policies.

The statement is not a direct response to the hate speech incident that took place on campus around the same time last spring, said Hardware, but incidents like that one make it clear that articulating ground rules for communication on campus is important.

This is an opportunity for us to look at our campus and say, how can we ensure that all persons feel protected, but also empowered to stand in their freedom to speak and to express themselves, Hardware said.

The deadline for student feedback on the statement is this Friday, Sept. 18, and Hardware encourages as many students as possible to participate by responding with comments and questions.

Julia Schiavone Camacho, associate professor of history, offered her perspective on the importance of the first-amendment right of freedom of speech.

In United States history, freedom of expression has been closely linked to religious freedom, and the value placed on these freedoms have set us apart (as a nation), she said.

Schiavone Camacho believes dialogue between diverse people is crucial in institutions of higher education, like Goshen College.

In a healthy society, ideas, intellectual curiosity and debate flourish, she said.

The Freedom of Speech and Expression Statement encourages students, faculty and staff to act according to the principle that the best response to ideas that they find offensive is more speech, not censorship.

But it also clarifies that Freedom of speech and expression does not protect speech or behavior against individuals or groups that is discriminatory, slanderous, threatening, intimidating, harassing or incites violence.

Hardware understands that finding a balance between protecting free speech and setting boundaries to avoid harm is of utmost importance.

There is a time and place when freedom of speech can become problematic, she said.

Nathan Pauls, a senior communication and art double major, remembers a time he experienced conflicting ideas on the Goshen College campus.

His first year at GC, a disagreement broke out on his floor over politics and values. He remembers that the situation led to some tension and white-board writing that turned nasty.

When underlying trends of discrimination and oppression are added to the mix, there is potential for things to get even nastier, Hardware explained.

She used an example to illustrate this idea.

I can tell you, she begins, that I dont like your shirt. Its my freedom of speech [to say that]. But lets say, your shirt was your identity, and I said, I hate your shirt because your shirt is trash. Your shirt has always been trash. And lets say that that argument has been used historically for folks who have your shirt as their identity. So now Im not just attacking you, Im attacking you on the history of what has been said and done in the past. Im articulating it as freedom of speech, but its problematic because of the historical connection to the terrorization of others in that way.

I think the time and climate were living in calls for people to think about [language], Hardware said, Whether its political, whether its around racial or ethnic identity, whether its around sex or gender identity.

Mindfulness around language is what the Freedom of Speech and Expression statement is meant to encourage.

The final version of the statement will be re-presented to the campus community and adopted once student feedback is reviewed and final revisions made.

Read this article:

New Freedom of Speech and Expression Statement released - The Record

Will Trump’s Herd Immunity Strategy Crash the Economy? – Free Speech TV

Posted on by

Donald Trump's plan for COVID-19 is herd immunity, and the effects of this dangerous policy could crash the remains of our economy, Richard Wolff joins in for this special and grim warning.

What effect will a disproven strategy like herd immunity have on our economy? Richard Wolff tells Thom Hartmann that it's a grim outlook.

--

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them.

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out TH on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org

Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump Economy Herd Immunity Richard Wolff The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann

See original here:

Will Trump's Herd Immunity Strategy Crash the Economy? - Free Speech TV

Fed Troops In US Cities & HeatRay Machines : Is this real life or a Bond movie? – Free Speech TV

Posted on by

In this clip, Randi Rhodes discusses Bill Barr's most recent congressional testimony, the use of heat rays and more!

The Randi Rhodes Show delivers smart, forward, free-thinking, entertaining, liberal news and opinion that challenge the status quo and amplifies free speech.

Dedicated to social justice, Randi puts her reputation on the line for the truth. Committed to the journalistic standards that corporate media often ignores, The Randi Rhodes Show takes enormous pride in bringing the power of knowledge to her viewers.

Watch The Randi Rhodes Show every weekday at 3 pm ET on Free Speech TV & catch up with clips from the program down below!

Missed an episode? Check out The Randi Rhodes Show on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org

Bill Barr Corruption Facism Government Corruption heat rays Randi Rhodes The Randi Rhodes Show

View original post here:

Fed Troops In US Cities & HeatRay Machines : Is this real life or a Bond movie? - Free Speech TV

Analysing the Effects of Turkey’s Social Media Regulation Bill – JURIST

Posted on by

Akshita Tiwary, student at Government Law College, Mumbai and JURIST Staff Writer, analyses the implications of the newly passed social media bill in Turkey...

On July 29th, 2020, the Parliament of Turkey passed a controversial bill to regulate content posted on social media platforms, which will come into effect on October 1st, 2020. The bill is expected to have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression within the country. Several human rights groups are viewing it as a political tactic to curb criticism against government functionaries within the country, including President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The passing of the bill is a concerning development, especially amidst the pandemic when social media platforms exist as one of the few alternatives through which people can assess and denounce wrongful government actions.

In Turkey, print and broadcast media platforms are already under government control. In such a scenario, social media platforms are one of the few outlets through which citizens can voice their independent opinions. Under the new bill, social media giants like Facebook and Twitter are expected to have local representatives in Turkey. They are also required to comply with court orders over the removal of certain content. The bill demands social media companies to store user data within Turkey, which also raises privacy concerns. The new law could see companies facing fines, blocking of advertisements, or have bandwidth slashed by up to 90 percent, which could essentially block peoples access to their sites. All these measures are severely expected to increase censorship, which would be a major blot on the exercise of free expression within the country.

The bill goes against Turkeys international commitments to protect free speech and expression within the nation, which is reflected through its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19(2) of the ICCPR provides for the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to seek, receive, and impart information of all kinds through any form of media. This right can be restricted only for the purposes of protecting the rights and reputation of others, national security, public order, health, or morals. General Comment No. 34 rightly states that the freedom of expression is the founding stone for every democratic society. It leads to transparency and accountability that further helps in the protection of human rights. Paragraphs 42 and 43 assert that the penalization of media outlets or restricting information dissemination systems, solely because they may be critical of the government, lies beyond the permissible restrictions on the exercise of free speech and expression. On account of these requirements, the passing of the bill in the present case cannot be justified.

In particular, Turkeys obligation to protect freedom of expression draws inspiration from Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In the judgment of Sunday Times v. United Kingdom, the ECHR demonstrated how any restriction on free speech and expression must be established convincingly and in keeping with a pressing social need. The absence of exigent circumstances prior to the approval of the bill makes its intentions questionable. Moreover, past instances of censorship portray how the bill merely seeks to stifle dissent to make people adhere to the governments notions of right and wrong.

Turkey leads the world in removal requests to Twitter, with more than 6,000 demands in the first half of 2019. By the end of 2019, Turkey had blocked access to 400,000 websites. A ban imposed on Wikipedia in 2017 was lifted only in January 2020 after a court decision. The organization, Reporters without Borders, ranks Turkey at 157 out of 180 countries in a global index for media freedom. In a nation where criminal proceedings are regularly instituted against the critics of the President, it is not difficult to imagine that such a bill operates according to the same objectives. This also goes against the spirit of Articles 26, 27 and 28 of the Turkish Constitution.

One cannot undermine the significance of the freedom of speech and expression in a democratic society. Given current tumultuous times, social media platforms act as important agents for bridging the gap between government directives and peoples assessment of the same. Popular criticism cannot be banned over alleged notions of immorality. Such draconian measures threaten to destroy the very foundation of a free and informed society.

Human rights organizations and activists around the world, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, have censured this move of the Turkish Parliament. International outcry, coupled with active efforts of civil society organizations, can ensure that the provisions of this bill are not used in a mala fide manner. Against this backdrop, there is an urgent need for the government to carefully deliberate upon this measure. This becomes imperative considering that the duty to uphold and protect freedom of speech and expression, first and foremost, lies with the government.

Akshita Tiwary is a 3rd-year law student at Government Law College, Mumbai. She serves as a Staff Writer for JURIST, and is keenly interested in international law, human rights, and constitutional law.

Suggested citation: Akshita Tiwary, Analysing the Effects of Turkeys Social Media Regulation Bill, JURIST Student Commentary, September 17, 2020, https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/09/akshita-tiwary-turkey-social-media-bill/.

This article was prepared for publication by Khushali Mahajan, a JURIST staff editor. Please direct any questions or comments to her at commentary@jurist.org

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.

View post:

Analysing the Effects of Turkey's Social Media Regulation Bill - JURIST

Instagram CEO, ACLU slam TikTok and WeChat app bans for putting US freedoms into the balance – TechCrunch

Posted on by

As people begin to process the announcement from the U.S. Department of Commerce detailing how it plans, on grounds of national security, to shut down TikTok and WeChat starting with app downloads and updates for both, plus all of WeChats services, on September 20, with TikTok following with a shut down of servers and services on November 12 the CEO of Instagram and the ACLU are among those speaking out against the move.

The CEO of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, wasted little time in taking to Twitter to criticize the announcement. His particular beef is the implication the move will have for U.S. companies like his that also have built their businesses around operating across national boundaries.

In essence, if the U.S. starts to ban international companies from operating in the U.S., then it opens the door for other countries to take the same approach with U.S. companies.

Meanwhile, the ACLU has been outspoken in criticizing the announcement on the grounds of free speech.

This order violates the First Amendment rights of people in the United States by restricting their ability to communicate and conduct important transactions on the two social media platforms, saidHina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Unions National Security Project, in a statement today.

Shamsi added that ironically, while the U.S. government might be crying foul over national security, blocking app updates poses a security threat in itself.

The order also harms the privacy and security of millions of existingTikTokand WeChat users in the United States by blocking software updates, which can fix vulnerabilities and make the apps more secure. In implementing President Trumps abuse of emergency powers, Secretary Ross is undermining our rights and our security. To truly address privacy concerns raised by social media platforms, Congress should enact comprehensive surveillance reform and strong consumer data privacy legislation.

Vanessa Pappas, who is the acting CEO of TikTok, also stepped in to endorse Mosseris words and publicly asked Facebook to join TikToks litigation against the U.S. over its moves.

We agree that this type of ban would be bad for the industry. We invite Facebook and Instagram to publicly join our challenge and support our litigation, she said in her own tweet responding to Mosseri, while also retweeting the ACLU. (Interesting how Twitter becomes Switzerland in these stories, huh?) This is a moment to put aside our competition and focus on core principles like freedom of expression and due process of law.

The move to shutter these apps has been wrapped in an increasingly complex set of issues,and these two dissenting voices highlight not just some of the conflict between those issues, but the potential consequences and detriment of acting based on one issue over another.

The Trump administration has stated that the main reason it has pinpointed the apps has been to safeguard the national security of the United States in the face of nefarious activity out of China, where the owners of WeChat and TikTok, respectively Tencent and ByteDance, are based:

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has demonstrated the means and motives to use these apps to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and the economy of the U.S., todays statement from the U.S. Department of Commerce noted. Todays announced prohibitions, when combined, protect users in the U.S. by eliminating access to these applications and significantly reducing their functionality.

In reality, its hard to know where the truth actually lies.

In the case of the ACLU and Mosseris comments, they are highlighting issues of principles but not necessarily precedent.

Its not as if the U.S. would be the first country to take a nationalist approach to how it permits the operation of apps. Facebook and its stable of apps, as of right now, are unable to operate in China without a VPN (and even with a VPN, things can get tricky). And free speech is regularly ignored in a range of countries today.

But the U.S. has always positioned itself as a standard-bearer in both of these areas, and so apart from the self-interest that Instagram might have in advocating for more free-market policies, it points to wider market and business position thats being eroded.

The issue, of course, is a little like an onion (a stinking onion, Id say), with well more than just a couple of layers around it, and with the ramifications bigger than TikTok (with 100 million users in the U.S. and huge in pop culture beyond even that) or WeChat (much smaller in the U.S. but huge elsewhere and valued by those who do use it).

The Trump administration has been carefully selecting issues to tackle to give voters reassurance of Trumps commitment to Make America Great Again, building examples of how its helping to promote U.S. interests and demote those that stand in its way. China has been a huge part of that image building, positioned as an adversary in industrial, defence and other arenas. Pinpointing specific apps and how they might pose a security threat by sucking up our data fits neatly into that strategy.

But are they really security threats, or are they just doing the same kind of nefarious data ingesting that every social app does in order to work? Will the U.S. banning them really mean that other countries, up to now more in favor of a free market, will fall in line and take a similar approach? Will people really stop being able to express themselves?

Those are the questions that Trump has forced into the balance with his actions, and even if they were not issues before, they have very much become so now.

Go here to see the original:

Instagram CEO, ACLU slam TikTok and WeChat app bans for putting US freedoms into the balance - TechCrunch

TikTok, WeChat ban: UM experts can discuss – University of Michigan News

Posted on by

EXPERTS ADVISORY

The Trump administration is adding more restrictions on TikTok and WeChat. University of Michigan experts are available to discuss its implications.

Mary Gallagher

Mary Gallgaher is the Amy and Alan Lowenstein Professor of Democracy, Democratization, and Human Rights and director of the International Institute.

Its well known that the Chinese government blocks many U.S. social media corporations from freely operating in China, including Twitter, Facebook and Google, she said. And many Chinese citizens do not support their governments restrictions on their access to information.

Rather than banning WeChat and Tiktok, which many Chinese are rightly proud of for their innovative technology, the U.S. government should highlight the lack of reciprocity in market access for U.S. firms and the Chinese governments inexcusable restrictions on free speech and expression for U.S. firms and Chinese citizens alike. We should protect our comparative advantage in openness and not fritter it away in a race to see which country can become more closed to the other.

Contact: metg@umich.edu, 734-358-0638

Nicholas Howson

Nicholas Howson is the Pao Li Tsiang Professor of Law. His areas of expertise include public law, regulatory policy and Chinese corporate law.

Parties seeking to enjoin the implementation of President Trumps executive order concerning WeChatwhether users or the platform itselfhave extremely robust legal arguments on their side, arguments that should be familiar from similar challenges to the presidents travel bans or new questions regarding citizenship on the U.S. census, he said.

Those arguments are grounded in U.S. constitutional law, including equal protection and First Amendment or free speech concernsthe power of the U.S. government to act in this way without a legislative mandate and pursuant to remarkably thin national security justifications, notwithstanding. Because this is directed at a platform associated with the Peoples Republic of China, there remains a question in my mind as to whether our federal courts are able to navigate an environment soaked in the China Threat hostility fanned by the administration in recent years, and properly enjoin the implementation of the executive order in its present form.

Contact: nhowson@umich.edu

Erik Gordon

Erik Gordon is a clinical assistant business professor. His areas of interest include entrepreneurship, venture capital, private equity, mergers and acquisitions, and the biomedical, IT and digital marketing industries.

He thinks that Americas perception of Chinas actions has eliminated the ability of China or the companies to avoid the ban by making promises.

The powerful lever of credibility has been broken, Gordon said. It is unlikely that the U.S. will accept mere promises from a company controlled directly or indirectly by Chinese entities. The nominal location of the companys headquarters doesnt matter if the company is controlled by Chinese entities.

If a U.S. company has sole access to and control over data that never leaves the U.S., it might be possible for the U.S. to accept an arrangement in which Chinese entities derive revenue from operations in the U.S. It seems less valid for the U.S. to impose a ban if there is sufficient data protection and the sole purpose of the ban is to force the company to sell its U.S. operations to a U.S. company.

Contact: rmegordo@umich.edu, 734-764-5274

Continued here:

TikTok, WeChat ban: UM experts can discuss - University of Michigan News

LETTER: Free speech means freedom to call out bad opinions – St. Albert Today

Posted on by

"Someone can reserve their right to an opinion, but I reserve my right to call that opinion the garbage that it is."

Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing. It allows each person to express their ideas freely, without fear of reprisal. What doesnt it do? Protect us from having another person call our ideas garbage! (If a group, corporation or government did so, that might be considered censorship another story).

So, loosely in response in to Kelly Kerrs Aug. 12 letter, No one deserves to be personally attacked for writing an opinion, I agree with the statement of avoiding personal attacks when writing or responding to a letter. However, in regards to mask-wearing, a lot of people who may be fine, upstanding citizens otherwise have very dumb opinions!

Dumb opinions are open to being called out at any time, but are especially vulnerable when it comes to this respiratory pandemic. Almost everyone can wear a mask to no ill effect. Oxygen levels dont deplete. You dont re-inhale carbon dioxide. Its not an affront to human rights.

Compare two other well-known failsafes in our society: vaccines and seatbelts. There is an extremely small number of people who really, really, really cannot have a vaccine. So the rest of us vaccinate to help give that person protection they wouldnt otherwise have. There is, however an increasing number of people who refuse to vaccinate, even though they can do so safely. This behaviour should be pointed out for the reckless one that it is! Compare it to seatbelts. Would any of us accept the argument: I dont need to wear a seatbelt ... I know better. My Body, My Choice!? Well, it sounds silly doesnt it? If a person crashes their car, flies out of the seat, and that car continues on to run someone else over, it was only their body now, was it?

To compare to vaccination, there is an infinitesimally small number of people who shouldnt be forced to wear a mask, even though it probably wouldnt hurt. However, there is, again, that increasing number of people who are sheep to use their own words against them and believe any content they read online, and think they shouldnt wear a mask. Who are the sheep? The ones who read, and parrot word for word, alternative slop from crummy, easily-debunked websites, or the ones who understand and respect science?

Someone can reserve their right to an opinion, but I reserve my right to call that opinion the garbage that it is. May freedom of speech persist!

Damon Davies, St. Albert

Read the original:

LETTER: Free speech means freedom to call out bad opinions - St. Albert Today

Here is the latest news from The Associated Press at 3:40 am EDT – KESQ

Posted on by

UNDATED (AP) Tropical storm-force winds are spreading onshore along the northern U.S. Gulf Coast as Hurricane Sally lumbers off the coast. The National Hurricane Center said Tuesday evening that life-threatening flooding is likely as the hurricane edges toward the coast. At 7 p.m., the center of the storm was located about 75 miles south of Mobile, Alabama and about the same distance southwest of Pensacola, Florida. The hurricanes top sustained winds have been clocked at 80 mph. The hurricane is crawling northward toward the coast at 2 mph.

WASHINGTON (AP) Joe Biden is calling President Donald Trump a fool for comments hes made questioning Bidens mental acuity and suggesting Biden takes performance-enhancing drugs. During an interview with Tampas NBC affiliate Tuesday, Biden was asked about Trumps accusations that he is mentally shot and has taken drugs to boost his debate performance. Biden dismissed the presidents comments, calling them foolish and declaring, Im looking forward to the debate and hes a fool. The Democratic presidential nominee continued: Get ready, Mr. President. Here I come. The two will meet for their first presidential debate on Sept. 29 in Cleveland.

WASHINGTON (AP) A Trump health appointee is apologizing for a video in which he reportedly says scientists battling the coronavirus are conspiring against President Donald Trump and warns of shooting in America if Trump loses the election. Michael Caputo, the top spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, apologized to his staff for the Facebook video, an administration official tells The Associated Press. Separately, Caputo is accused of trying to muzzle an important publication from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the midst of the pandemic. HHS is standing by Caputo, who was not available for an interview.

WASHINGTON (AP) Israel on Tuesday signed historic diplomatic pacts with two Gulf Arab states at a White House ceremony that President Donald Trump declared would mark the dawn of a new Middle East. He also hoped to cast himself as an international peacemaker at the height of his reelection campaign. Hundreds of people massed on the sun-washed South Lawn to witness the signing of agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. The agreements formalize the normalization of the Jewish states already warming relations with the two countries over Iranian aggression in the region. But they do not address the decades-long conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) Models released by the U.S. government suggest a future with less water may arrive sooner than previously projected for the seven states that rely on the Colorado River. After a relatively dry summer, government scientists project Lake Powell and Lake Mead are 12% more likely to fall to critically low levels by 2025 than they projected in the spring. Climate change and prolonged drought have compelled some cities and farms to conserve water to secure the river long term, but it remains overtapped. The projections could complicate already-fraught negotiations between Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming and Mexico over the rivers future.

Read more here:

Here is the latest news from The Associated Press at 3:40 am EDT - KESQ

Roulette – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Game of chance

Roulette is a casino game named after the French word meaning little wheel. In the game, players may choose to place bets on either a single number, various groupings of numbers, the colors red or black, whether the number is odd or even, or if the numbers are high (1936) or low (118).

To determine the winning number, a croupier spins a wheel in one direction, then spins a ball in the opposite direction around a tilted circular track running around the outer edge of the wheel. The ball eventually loses momentum, passes through an area of deflectors, and falls onto the wheel and into one of 37 (single zero French/European style roulette) or 38 (double zero American style roulette) colored and numbered pockets on the wheel. The winnings are then paid to anyone who has placed a successful bet.

The first form of roulette was devised in 18th century France. Many historians believe Blaise Pascal introduced a primitive form of roulette in the 17th century in his search for a perpetual motion machine.[1] The roulette mechanism is a hybrid of a gaming wheel invented in 1720 and the Italian game Biribi.[2]

The game has been played in its present form since as early as 1796 in Paris. An early description of the roulette game in its current form is found in a French novel La Roulette, ou le Jour by Jaques Lablee, which describes a roulette wheel in the Palais Royal in Paris in 1796. The description included the house pockets, "There are exactly two slots reserved for the bank, whence it derives its sole mathematical advantage." It then goes on to describe the layout with, "...two betting spaces containing the bank's two numbers, zero and double zero". The book was published in 1801. An even earlier reference to a game of this name was published in regulations for New France (Qubec) in 1758, which banned the games of "dice, hoca, faro, and roulette".[3]

The roulette wheels used in the casinos of Paris in the late 1790s had red for the single zero and black for the double zero. To avoid confusion, the color green was selected for the zeros in roulette wheels starting in the 1800s.

In 1843, in the German spa casino town of Bad Homburg, fellow Frenchmen Franois and Louis Blanc introduced the single 0 style roulette wheel in order to compete against other casinos offering the traditional wheel with single and double zero house pockets.[citation needed]

In some forms of early American roulette wheels, there were numbers 1 through 28, plus a single zero, a double zero, and an American Eagle. The Eagle slot, which was a symbol of American liberty, was a house slot that brought the casino extra edge. Soon, the tradition vanished and since then the wheel features only numbered slots. According to Hoyle "the single 0, the double 0, and eagle are never bars; but when the ball falls into either of them, the banker sweeps every thing upon the table, except what may happen to be bet on either one of them, when he pays twenty-seven for one, which is the amount paid for all sums bet upon any single figure".[4]

In the 19th century, roulette spread all over Europe and the US, becoming one of the most famous and most popular casino games. When the German government abolished gambling in the 1860s, the Blanc family moved to the last legal remaining casino operation in Europe at Monte Carlo, where they established a gambling mecca for the elite of Europe. It was here that the single zero roulette wheel became the premier game, and over the years was exported around the world, except in the United States where the double zero wheel had remained dominant.

In the United States, the French double zero wheel made its way up the Mississippi from New Orleans, and then westward. It was here, because of rampant cheating by both operators and gamblers, that the wheel was eventually placed on top of the table to prevent devices being hidden in the table or wheel, and the betting layout was simplified. This eventually evolved into the American-style roulette game. The American game was developed in the gambling dens across the new territories where makeshift games had been set up, whereas the French game evolved with style and leisure in Monte Carlo.

During the first part of the 20th century, the only casino towns of note were Monte Carlo with the traditional single zero French wheel, and Las Vegas with the American double zero wheel. In the 1970s, casinos began to flourish around the world. By 2008, there were several hundred casinos worldwide offering roulette games. The double zero wheel is found in the U.S., Canada, South America, and the Caribbean, while the single zero wheel is predominant elsewhere.

The sum of all the numbers on the roulette wheel (from 0 to 36) is 666, which is the "Number of the Beast".[5]

Roulette players have a variety of betting options. Placing inside bets is either selecting the exact number of the pocket the ball will land in, or a small range of pockets based on their proximity on the layout. Players wishing to bet on the 'outside' will select bets on larger positional groupings of pockets, the pocket color, or whether the winning number is odd or even[citation needed]The payout odds for each type of bet are based on its probability.

The roulette table usually imposes minimum and maximum bets, and these rules usually apply separately for all of a player's inside and outside bets for each spin. For inside bets at roulette tables, some casinos may use separate roulette table chips of various colors to distinguish players at the table. Players can continue to place bets as the ball spins around the wheel until the dealer announces no more bets or rien ne va plus.

When a winning number and color is determined by the roulette wheel, the dealer will place a marker, also known as a dolly, on that winning number on the roulette table layout. When the dolly is on the table, no players may place bets, collect bets, or remove any bets from the table. The dealer will then sweep away all other losing bets either by hand or rake, and determine all of the payouts to the remaining inside and outside winning bets. When the dealer is finished making payouts, the marker is removed from the board where players collect their winnings and make new bets. The winning chips remain on the board.

In 2004, California legalized a form of roulette known as California Roulette.[6] By law, the game must use cards and not slots on the roulette wheel to pick the winning number.

The pockets of the roulette wheel are numbered from 0 to 36.

In number ranges from 1 to 10 and 19 to 28, odd numbers are red and even are black. In ranges from 11 to 18 and 29 to 36, odd numbers are black and even are red.

There is a green pocket numbered 0 (zero). In American roulette, there is a second green pocket marked 00. Pocket number order on the roulette wheel adheres to the following clockwise sequence in most casinos:[citation needed]

The cloth-covered betting area on a roulette table is known as the layout. The layout is either single-zero or double-zero. The European-style layout has a single zero, and the American style layout is usually a double-zero. The American-style roulette table with a wheel at one end is now used in most casinos. The French style table with a wheel in the centre and a layout on either side is rarely found outside of Monte Carlo.[citation needed]

In roulette, bets can either be inside or outside bets.

Outside bets typically have smaller payouts with better odds at winning. Except as noted, all of these bets lose if a zero comes up.

In the United Kingdom, the farthest outside bets (low/high, red/black, even/odd) result in the player losing only half of his/her bet if a zero comes up.

The expected value of a $1 bet (except for the special case of Top line bets), for American and European roulette, can be calculated as

where n is the number of pockets in the wheel. The initial bet is returned in addition to the mentioned payout. It can be easily demonstrated that this payout formula would lead to a zero expected value of profit if there were only 36 numbers. Having 37 or more numbers gives the casino its edge.

Top line (0, 00, 1, 2, 3) has a different expected value because of approximation of the correct 615-to-1 payout obtained by the formula to 6-to-1. The values 0 and 00 are not odd or even, or high or low.

En prison rules, when used, reduce the house advantage.

The house average or house edge or house advantage (also called the expected value) is the amount the player loses relative for any bet made, on average. If a player bets on a single number in the American game there is a probability of 138 that the player wins 35 times the bet, and a 3738 chance that the player loses his bet. The expected value is:

For European roulette, a single number wins 137 and loses 3637:

For triple-zero wheels, a single number wins 139 and loses 3839:

The presence of the green squares on the roulette wheel and on the table is technically the only house edge. Outside bets will always lose when a single or double zero comes up. However, the house also has an edge on inside bets because the pay outs (including the original player's bet) are always set at 36 to 1 when you mathematically have a 1 out of 38 (1 out of 37 for French/European roulette) chance at winning a straight bet on a single number. To demonstrate the house edge on inside bets, imagine placing straight $1 wagers on all inside numbers (including 0 and 00) to assure a win: you would only get back $36, having spent $38. The only exceptions are the five numbers bet where the house edge is considerably higher (7.89% on an American wheel), and the "even money" bets in some European games (French Roulette) where the house edge is halved because only half the stake is lost when a zero comes up. This is commonly called the "la partage" rule, and it is considered the main difference between European and French roulette. There is also a modification of this rule, which is called the "en prison" rule. These rules cut the house edge into half (1.35%) in French roulette, when playing even-money bets, as half of the even-money bets are given back to the player if the zero is drawn in the wheel.

The house edge should not be confused with the "hold". The hold is the average percentage of the money originally brought to the table that the player loses before he leavesthe actual "win" amount for the casino. The Casino Control Commission in Atlantic City releases a monthly report showing the win/hold amounts for each casino. The average win/hold for double zero wheels is between 21% to 30%, significantly more than the 5.26% house edge. This reflects the fact that the player is churning the same money over and over again. A 23.6% hold, for example, would imply that, on average, the player bets the total he brought to the table five times, as 23.6% is approximately equal to 100% (100% 5.26%)5. For example, a player with $100 making $10 bets on red (which has a near 50/50 chance of winning) is highly unlikely to lose all his money after only 10 bets, and will most likely continue to bet until he has lost all of his money or decides to leave. A player making $10 bets on a single number (with only 1/38 chance of success) with a $100 bankroll is far more likely to lose all of his money after only 10 bets.

In the early frontier gambling saloons, the house would set the odds on roulette tables at 27 for 1. This meant that on a $1 bet you would get $27 and the house would keep your initial dollar. Today most casino odds are set by law, and they have to be either 34 to 1 or 35 to 1. This means that the house pays you $34 or $35 and you get to keep your original $1 bet.

As an example, we can examine the European roulette model, that is, roulette with only one zero. Since this roulette has 37 cells with equal odds of hitting, this is a final model of field probability ( , 2 , P ) {displaystyle (Omega ,2^{Omega },mathbb {P} )} , where = { 0 , , 36 } {displaystyle Omega ={0,ldots ,36}} , P ( A ) = | A | 37 {displaystyle mathbb {P} (A)={frac {|A|}{37}}} for all A 2 {displaystyle Ain 2^{Omega }} .

Call the bet S {displaystyle S} a triple ( A , r , ) {displaystyle (A,r,xi )} , where A {displaystyle A} is the set of chosen numbers, r R + {displaystyle rin mathbb {R} _{+}} is the size of the bet, and : R {displaystyle xi :Omega to mathbb {R} } determines the return of the bet.

The rules of European roulette have 10 types of bets. First we can examine the 'Straight Up' bet. In this case, S = ( { 0 } , r , ) {displaystyle S=({omega _{0}},r,xi )} , for some 0 {displaystyle omega _{0}in Omega } , and {displaystyle xi } is determined by

The bet's expected net return, or profitability, is equal to

Without details, for a bet, black (or red), the rule is determined as

and the profitability

For similar reasons it is simple to see that the profitability is also equal for all remaining types of bets. r 37 {displaystyle -{frac {r}{37}}} .[7]

In reality this means that, the more bets a player makes, the more he is going to lose independent of the strategies (combinations of bet types or size of bets) that he employs:

Here, the profit margin for the roulette owner is equal to approximately 2.7%. Nevertheless, several roulette strategy systems have been developed despite the losing odds. These systems can not change the odds of the game in favor of the player.

It is worth noting that the odds for the player in American roulette are even worse, as the bet profitability is at worst 3 38 r 0.0789 r {displaystyle -{frac {3}{38}}rapprox -0.0789r} , and never better than r 19 0.0526 r {displaystyle -{frac {r}{19}}approx -0.0526r} .

For a roulette wheel with n {displaystyle n} green numbers and 36 other unique numbers the chance of the ball landing on a given number is 1 ( 36 + n ) {displaystyle {frac {1}{(36+n)}}} . For a betting option with p {displaystyle p} numbers that define a win, the chance of winning a bet is p ( 36 + n ) {displaystyle {frac {p}{(36+n)}}}

For example, betting on "red", there are 18 red numbers, p = 18 {displaystyle p=18} , the chance of winning is 18 ( 36 + n ) {displaystyle {frac {18}{(36+n)}}} .

The payout given by the casino for a win is based on the roulette wheel having 36 outcomes and the payout for a bet is given by 36 p {displaystyle {frac {36}{p}}} .

For example, betting on 1-12 there are 12 numbers that define a win, p = 12 {displaystyle p=12} , the payout is 36 12 = 3 {displaystyle {frac {36}{12}}=3} , so the better wins 3 times their bet.

The average return on a player's bet is given by p ( 36 + n ) 36 p = 36 ( 36 + n ) {displaystyle {frac {p}{(36+n)}}times {frac {36}{p}}={frac {36}{(36+n)}}}

For n > 0 {displaystyle n>0} the average return is always lower than 1 so on average a player will lose money.With 1 green number n = 1 {displaystyle n=1} the average return is 36 37 {displaystyle {frac {36}{37}}} , that is, after a bet the player will on average have 36 37 {displaystyle {frac {36}{37}}} of their original bet returned to them.With 2 green numbers n = 2 {displaystyle n=2} the average return is 36 38 {displaystyle {frac {36}{38}}} .

This shows that the expected return is independent of the choice of bet.

Although most often named "call bets" technically these bets are more accurately referred to as "announced bets". The legal distinction between a "call bet" and an "announced bet" is that a "call bet" is a bet called by the player without him placing any money on the table to cover the cost of the bet. In many jurisdictions (most notably the United Kingdom) this is considered gambling on credit and is illegal. An "announced bet" is a bet called by the player for which he immediately places enough money to cover the amount of the bet on the table, prior to the outcome of the spin or hand in progress being known.

There are different number series in roulette that have special names attached to them. Most commonly these bets are known as "the French bets" and each covers a section of the wheel. For the sake of accuracy, zero spiel, although explained below, is not a French bet, it is more accurately "the German bet". Players at a table may bet a set amount per series (or multiples of that amount). The series are based on the way certain numbers lie next to each other on the roulette wheel. Not all casinos offer these bets, and some may offer additional bets or variations on these.[citation needed]

This is a name, more accurately "grands voisins du zro", for the 17 numbers that lie between 22 and 25 on the wheel, including 22 and 25 themselves. The series is 22-18-29-7-28-12-35-3-26-0-32-15-19-4-21-2-25 (on a single-zero wheel).

Nine chips or multiples thereof are bet. Two chips are placed on the 0-2-3 trio; one on the 4-7 split; one on 12-15; one on 18-21; one on 19-22; two on the 25-26-28-29 corner; and one on 32-35.

Zero game, also known as zero spiel (Spiel is German for game or play), is the name for the numbers closest to zero. All numbers in the zero game are included in the voisins, but are placed differently. The numbers bet on are 12-35-3-26-0-32-15.

The bet consists of four chips or multiples thereof. Three chips are bet on splits and one chip straight-up: one chip on 0-3 split, one on 12-15 split, one on 32-35 split and one straight-up on number 26.

This type of bet is popular in Germany and many European casinos. It is also offered as a 5-chip bet in many Eastern European casinos. As a 5-chip bet, it is known as "zero spiel naca" and includes, in addition to the chips placed as noted above, a straight-up on number 19.

This is the name for the 12 numbers that lie on the opposite side of the wheel between 27 and 33, including 27 and 33 themselves. On a single-zero wheel, the series is 27-13-36-11-30-8-23-10-5-24-16-33. The full name (although very rarely used, most players refer to it as "tiers") for this bet is "le tiers du cylindre" (translated from French into English meaning one third of the wheel) because it covers 12 numbers (placed as 6 splits), which is as close to 13 of the wheel as one can get.

Very popular in British casinos, tiers bets outnumber voisins and orphelins bets by a massive margin.

Six chips or multiples thereof are bet. One chip is placed on each of the following splits: 5-8, 10-11, 13-16, 23-24, 27-30, and 33-36.

The tiers bet is also called the "small series" and in some casinos (most notably in South Africa) "series 5-8".

A variant known as "tiers 5-8-10-11" has an additional chip placed straight up on 5, 8, 10, and 11m and so is a 10-piece bet. In some places the variant is called "gioco Ferrari" with a straight up on 8, 11, 23 and 30, the bet is marked with a red G on the racetrack.

These numbers make up the two slices of the wheel outside the tiers and voisins. They contain a total of 8 numbers, comprising 17-34-6 and 1-20-14-31-9.

Five chips or multiples thereof are bet on four splits and a straight-up: one chip is placed straight-up on 1 and one chip on each of the splits: 6-9, 14-17, 17-20, and 31-34.

A number may be backed along with the two numbers on the either side of it in a 5-chip bet. For example, "0 and the neighbors" is a 5-chip bet with one piece straight-up on 3, 26, 0, 32, and 15. Neighbors bets are often put on in combinations, for example "1, 9, 14, and the neighbors" is a 15-chip bet covering 18, 22, 33, 16 with one chip, 9, 31, 20, 1 with two chips and 14 with three chips.

Any of the above bets may be combined, e.g. "orphelins by 1 and zero and the neighbors by 1". The "...and the neighbors" is often assumed by the croupier.

Another bet offered on the single-zero game is "final", "finale" or "finals".

Final 4, for example, is a 4-chip bet and consists of one chip placed on each of the numbers ending in 4, that is 4, 14, 24, and 34. Final 7 is a 3-chip bet, one chip each on 7, 17, and 27. Final bets from final 0 (zero) to final 6 cost four chips. Final bets 7, 8 and 9 cost three chips.

Some casinos also offer split-final bets, for example final 5-8 would be a 4-chip bet, one chip each on the splits 5-8, 15-18, 25-28, and one on 35.

A complete bet places all of the inside bets on a certain number. Full complete bets are most often bet by high rollers as maximum bets.

The maximum amount allowed to be wagered on a single bet in European roulette is based on a progressive betting model. If the casino allows a maximum bet of $1,000 on a 35-to-1 straight-up, then on each 17-to-1 split connected to that straight-up, $2,000 may be wagered. Each 8-to-1 corner that covers four numbers) may have $4,000 wagered on it. Each 11-to-1 street that covers three numbers may have $3,000 wagered on it. Each 5-to-1 six-line may have $6,000 wagered on it. Each $1,000 incremental bet would be represented by a marker that is used to specifically identify the player and the amount bet.

For instance, if a patron wished to place a full complete bet on 17, the player would call "17 to the maximum". This bet would require a total of 40 chips, or $40,000. To manually place the same wager, the player would need to bet:

The player calls his bet to the croupier (most often after the ball has been spun) and places enough chips to cover the bet on the table within reach of the croupier. The croupier will immediately announce the bet (repeat what the player has just said), ensure that the correct monetary amount has been given while simultaneously placing a matching marker on the number on the table and the amount wagered.

The payout for this bet if the chosen number wins is 392 chips, in the case of a $1000 straight-up maximum, $40,000 bet, a payout of $392,000. The player's wagered 40 chips, as with all winning bets in roulette, are still his property and in the absence of a request to the contrary are left up to possibly win again on the next spin.

Based on the location of the numbers on the layout, the number of chips required to "complete" a number can be determined.

Most typically (Mayfair casinos in London and other top-class European casinos) with these maximum or full complete bets, nothing (except the aforementioned maximum button) is ever placed on the layout even in the case of a win. Experienced gaming staff, and the type of customers playing such bets, are fully aware of the payouts and so the croupier simply makes up the correct payout, announces its value to the table inspector (floor person in the U.S.) and the customer, and then passes it to the customer, but only after a verbal authorization from the inspector has been received.

Also typically at this level of play (house rules allowing) the experienced croupier caters to the needs of the customer and will most often add the customer's winning bet to the payout, as the type of player playing these bets very rarely bets the same number two spins in succession. For example, the winning 40-chip / $40,000 bet on "17 to the maximum" pays 392 chips / $392,000. The experienced croupier would pay the player 432 chips / $432,000, that is 392 + 40, with the announcement that the payout "is with your bet down".

There are also several methods to determine the payout when a number adjacent to a chosen number is the winner, for example, player bets 40 chips on "23 to the maximum" and number 26 is the winning number. The most notable method is known as the "station" system or method. When paying in stations, the dealer counts the number of ways or stations that the winning number hits the complete bet. In the example above, 26 hits 4 stations - 2 different corners, 1 split and 1 six-line. The dealer takes the number 4, multiplies it by 30 and adds the remaining 8 to the payout: 4 30 = 120, 120 + 8 = 128. If calculated as stations, they would just multiply 4 by 36, making 144 with the players bet down.

In some casinos, a player may bet full complete for less than the table straight-up maximum, for example, "number 17 full complete by $25" would cost $1000, that is 40 chips each at $25 value.

Over the years, many people have tried to beat the casino, and turn roulettea game designed to turn a profit for the houseinto one on which the player expects to win. Most of the time this comes down to the use of betting systems, strategies which say that the house edge can be beaten by simply employing a special pattern of bets, often relying on the "Gambler's fallacy", the idea that past results are any guide to the future (for example, if a roulette wheel has come up 10 times in a row on red, that red on the next spin is any more or less likely than if the last spin was black).

All betting systems that rely on patterns, when employed on casino edge games will result, on average, in the player losing money.[citation needed] In practice, players employing betting systems may win, and may indeed win very large sums of money, but the losses (which, depending on the design of the betting system, may occur quite rarely) will outweigh the wins. Certain systems, such as the Martingale, described below, are extremely risky, because the worst-case scenario (which is mathematically certain to happen, at some point) may see the player chasing losses with ever-bigger bets until he runs out of money.

The American mathematician Patrick Billingsley said[8] that no betting system can convert a subfair game into a profitable enterprise.At least in the 1930s, some professional gamblers were able to consistently gain an edge in roulette by seeking out rigged wheels (not difficult to find at that time) and betting opposite the largest bets.

Whereas betting systems are essentially an attempt to beat the fact that a geometric series with initial value of 0.95 (American roulette) or 0.97 (European roulette) will inevitably over time tend to zero, engineers instead attempt to overcome the house edge through predicting the mechanical performance of the wheel, most notably by Joseph Jagger at Monte Carlo in 1873. These schemes work by determining that the ball is more likely to fall at certain numbers. If effective, they raise the return of the game above 100%, defeating the betting system problem.

Edward O. Thorp (the developer of card counting and an early hedge-fund pioneer) and Claude Shannon (a mathematician and electronic engineer best known for his contributions to information theory) built the first wearable computer to predict the landing of the ball in 1961. This system worked by timing the ball and wheel, and using the information obtained to calculate the most likely octant where the ball would fall. Ironically, this technique works best with an unbiased wheel though it could still be countered quite easily by simply closing the table for betting before beginning the spin.

In 1982, several casinos in Britain began to lose large sums of money at their roulette tables to teams of gamblers from the USA. Upon investigation by the police, it was discovered they were using a legal system of biased wheel-section betting. As a result of this, the British roulette wheel manufacturer John Huxley manufactured a roulette wheel to counteract the problem.

The new wheel, designed by George Melas, was called "low profile" because the pockets had been drastically reduced in depth, and various other design modifications caused the ball to descend in a gradual approach to the pocket area. In 1986, when a professional gambling team headed by Billy Walters won $3.8 million using the system on an old wheel at the Golden Nugget in Atlantic City, every casino in the world took notice, and within one year had switched to the new low-profile wheel.

Thomas Bass, in his book The Eudaemonic Pie (1985) (published as The Newtonian Casino in Britain), has claimed to be able to predict wheel performance in real time. The book describes the exploits of a group of University of California Santa Cruz students, who called themselves the Eudaemons, who in the late 1970s used computers in their shoes to win at roulette. This is an updated and improved version of Edward O. Thorp's approach, where NewtonianLaws of Motion are applied to track the roulette ball's deceleration; hence the British title.

In the early 1990s, Gonzalo Garcia-Pelayo believed that casino roulette wheels were not perfectly random, and that by recording the results and analysing them with a computer, he could gain an edge on the house by predicting that certain numbers were more likely to occur next than the 1-in-36 odds offered by the house suggested. This he did at the Casino de Madrid in Madrid, Spain, winning 600,000 euros in a single day, and one million euros in total. Legal action against him by the casino was unsuccessful, it being ruled that the casino should fix its wheel.[9][10]

To defend against exploits like these, many casinos use tracking software, use wheels with new designs, rotate wheel heads, and randomly rotate pocket rings.[11]

At the Ritz London casino in March 2004, two Serbs and a Hungarian used a laser scanner hidden inside a mobile phone linked to a computer to predict the sector of the wheel where the ball was most likely to drop. They netted 1.3m in two nights.[12] They were arrested and kept on police bail for nine months, but eventually released and allowed to keep their winnings as they had not interfered with the casino equipment.[13]

The numerous even-money bets in roulette have inspired many players over the years to attempt to beat the game by using one or more variations of a martingale betting strategy, wherein the gambler doubles the bet after every loss, so that the first win would recover all previous losses, plus win a profit equal to the original bet. The problem with this strategy is that, remembering that past results do not affect the future, it is possible for the player to lose so many times in a row, that the player, doubling and redoubling his bets, either runs out of money or hits the table limit. A large financial loss is certain in the long term if the player continued to employ this strategy. Another strategy is the Fibonacci system, where bets are calculated according to the Fibonacci sequence. Regardless of the specific progression, no such strategy can statistically overcome the casino's advantage, since the expected value of each allowed bet is negative.

The Labouchre System is a progression betting strategy like the martingale but does not require the gambler to risk his stake as quickly with dramatic double-ups. The Labouchere System involves using a series of numbers in a line to determine the bet amount, following a win or a loss. Typically, the player adds the numbers at the front and end of the line to determine the size of the next bet. When he wins, he crosses out numbers and continues working on the smaller line. If he loses, then he adds his previous bet to the end of the line and continues to work on the longer line. This is a much more flexible progression betting system and there is much room for the player to design his initial line to his own playing preference.

This system is one that is designed so that when the player has won over a third of his bets (less than the expected 18/38), he will win. Whereas the martingale will cause ruin in the event of a long sequence of successive losses, the Labouchre system will cause bet size to grow quickly even where a losing sequence is broken by wins. This occurs because as the player loses, the average bet size in the line increases.

As with all other betting systems, the average value of this system is negative.

The system, also called montant et demontant (from French, meaning upwards and downwards), is often called a pyramid system. It is based on a mathematical equilibrium theory devised by a French mathematician of the same name. Like the martingale, this system is mainly applied to the even-money outside bets, and is favored by players who want to keep the amount of their bets and losses to a minimum. The betting progression is very simple: After each loss, you add one unit to the next bet, and after each win, one unit is deducted from the next bet. Starting with an initial bet of, say, 1 unit, a loss would raise the next bet to 2 units. If this is followed by a win, the next bet would be 1 units.

This betting system relies on the gambler's fallacythat the player is more likely to lose following a win, and more likely to win following a loss.

There are numerous other betting systems that rely on this fallacy, or that attempt to follow 'streaks' (looking for patterns in randomness), varying bet size accordingly.

Many betting systems are sold online and purport to enable the player to 'beat' the odds. One such system was advertised by Jason Gillon of Rotherham, UK, who claimed you could 'earn 200 daily' by following his betting system, described as a 'loophole'. As the system was advertised in the UK press, it was subject to Advertising Standards Authority regulation, and following a complaint, it was ruled by the ASA that Mr. Gillon had failed to support his claims you could earn 200 daily, and that he had failed to show that there was any loophole.

Read more:

Roulette - Wikipedia