Randomness thread, part two.

[wufwugy]

dun get it

[MadMojoMonkey]

Phone boasting ain't easy

My point is that EG doesn't say that GR is true or false. EG makes no statements about GR's truth or falsehood, so it isn't correct to say, "GR ain't true to those of us in EG". It would be correct to say, "EG can not determine the truth or falsehood of GR."

And I realize my drop from perfect to 'if nothing is identical, nothing is perfect' is just shifting the burden from perfect to identical. This is why realism is the bees knees - there's an answer key.

All electrons are identical. All Up quarks are identical. All Tau neutrinos are identical.

EDIT: Furthermore, photons can be identical in frequency and location/momentum, as in the beam of a laser.

[a500lbgorilla]

We've hit bottom when you both need to explain a point I fully understood and then need to point out what was wrong with a point I was visibly throwing in the trash.

[wufwugy]

All electrons are identical.

Are they? I remember asking my chemistry professor: "Is a hydrogen electron, which the atom shares with oxygen to make h2o, a general electron or a hydrogen-specific one?" And he said hydrogen-specific. So if what he told me is true, wouldn't that mean all electrons aren't the same?

[Chelle]

meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer

[surviva316]

Does anybody know if I'm right about Plato? As far as I can tell, he is the origin of the idea of the ideal

I wrote and deleted a lot of posts. Plato's effectively the flagship of the idea of perfection in value philosophy (IE: ethics and aesthetics), if for no other reason because of the logistics surrounding the Library of Alexandria.

I agree that it sucks. It explains a lot of foundational problems of modern thought, ranging from Judeo-Christian theology, to contemporary ethics, to art criticism and appreciation (fuck me, I can't find it, but Glenn Gould has the perfect [ahahahaha, ucwidt?] quote on this about concert performances becoming too much about waiting to see the performer make a mistake), right down to why everyone sucks at value betting (would rather miss an opportunity to do something good than risk doing something bad).

As for whether it's Plato's "fault" that these ideas exist, are as pervasive as they are, etc is debatable. He was a brilliant thinker and advanced thought much more than he stagnated it, so I'd personally prefer to say it's either a somehow intuitive approach the things that's somehow preternatural in human thought, or better yet, it could be the Middle Ages' (and to a lesser extent, the Renaissance's) fault for advancing thought sosososososo little for such a large percentage of human existence.

[surviva316]

On a semi-related note, Aristotle is the real sack of shit. A great quote from an incredible article on Galileo that shows how Aristotelianism was basically just an intellectually glorified religion:

"In the fifteen-eighties, Galileo studied at the University of Pisa, where he absorbed the Aristotelian orthodoxy of his time—one as synthetic as most orthodoxy is. There were Arab-spiced versions of Aristotle, which led first to alchemy and then to chemistry; more pious alternatives merged the Greek philosopher with St. Thomas Aquinas. They all agreed that what made things move in nature was an impetus locked into the moving things themselves. The universe was divided into neat eternal zones: the earth was rough, rugged, and corrupt with mortality, and therefore had settled in, heavy and unhappy, at the center of the universe. Things up above were pure and shining and smooth, and were held aloft, like the ladies in the Renaissance romances, by the conceited self-knowledge of their perfection. Movement was absolute. Things had essences, constantly revealed. You could know in advance how something would move or act by knowing what it was. A brick and a cannonball, dropped from a tower, would fall at different rates based on their weight. And the best argument, often the only argument, for all these beliefs was that Aristotle had said so, and who were you to say otherwise?"

Another semi-related note, I don't know if the Dark Ages ended with Galileo, but I personally think he's one of the most important thinkers in Western history. Like I'm really tempted to say THE most important. How he forced his fist through the Catholic thought cherry, and out popped wide acceptance of heliocentrism, the Enlightenment and the scientific method just makes me so happy.

How "impolitic" he was in debate is more of an inspiration imo than it is an indictment.

[wufwugy]

I wrote and deleted a lot of posts. Plato's effectively the flagship of the idea of perfection in value philosophy (IE: ethics and aesthetics), if for no other reason because of the logistics surrounding the Library of Alexandria.

I agree that it sucks. It explains a lot of foundational problems of modern thought, ranging from Judeo-Christian theology, to contemporary ethics, to art criticism and appreciation (fuck me, I can't find it, but Glenn Gould has the perfect [ahahahaha, ucwidt?] quote on this about concert performances becoming too much about waiting to see the performer make a mistake), right down to why everyone sucks at value betting (would rather miss an opportunity to do something good than risk doing something bad).

As for whether it's Plato's "fault" that these ideas exist, are as pervasive as they are, etc is debatable. He was a brilliant thinker and advanced thought much more than he stagnated it, so I'd personally prefer to say it's either a somehow intuitive approach the things that's somehow preternatural in human thought, or better yet, it could be the Middle Ages' (and to a lesser extent, the Renaissance's) fault for advancing thought sosososososo little for such a large percentage of human existence.

Thank you so much for the response. This stuff is super fascinating. I'm an anthropologist, sociologist, and philosopher at heart.

My amateur blame for the Middle Ages is the permeation of a stoic sensibility in a secular world. The Romans had gods, but they didn't really believe in them, so when Christianity came along and provided a more true ideal for their stoicism, the public good left the Roman society for the Christian churches. Then Rome collapsed and a millennium of wallowing about ensued. Only after the fall of Constantinople did classicism return westward and provide a contrast against the Catholic ideals.

[wufwugy]

On a semi-related note, Aristotle is the real sack of shit. A great quote from an incredible article on Galileo that shows how Aristotelianism was basically just an intellectually glorified religion:

"In the fifteen-eighties, Galileo studied at the University of Pisa, where he absorbed the Aristotelian orthodoxy of his time—one as synthetic as most orthodoxy is. There were Arab-spiced versions of Aristotle, which led first to alchemy and then to chemistry; more pious alternatives merged the Greek philosopher with St. Thomas Aquinas. They all agreed that what made things move in nature was an impetus locked into the moving things themselves. The universe was divided into neat eternal zones: the earth was rough, rugged, and corrupt with mortality, and therefore had settled in, heavy and unhappy, at the center of the universe. Things up above were pure and shining and smooth, and were held aloft, like the ladies in the Renaissance romances, by the conceited self-knowledge of their perfection. Movement was absolute. Things had essences, constantly revealed. You could know in advance how something would move or act by knowing what it was. A brick and a cannonball, dropped from a tower, would fall at different rates based on their weight. And the best argument, often the only argument, for all these beliefs was that Aristotle had said so, and who were you to say otherwise?"

Another semi-related note, I don't know if the Dark Ages ended with Galileo, but I personally think he's one of the most important thinkers in Western history. Like I'm really tempted to say THE most important. How he forced his fist through the Catholic thought cherry, and out popped wide acceptance of heliocentrism, the Enlightenment and the scientific method.

Don't blame Aristotle, blame those who unwittingly espoused Platonism and called Aristotle a god. Aristotle brought inductive logic to the world, but the empires that came after him treated his arguments deductively. It was only until Francis Bacon that Aristotle lost his god status. He told the world to wake the fuck up and stop claiming that everything is Aristotle. Biblical fundamentalism is little different than Aristotelianism. Both Jesus and Aristotle said some true things, and both have been converted into infallible gods.

The question may be where this idea of infallibility comes from. I think its origin is in the concept of the ideal, because the ideal is prerequisite for infallibility.

Hence I blame Plato.

[MadMojoMonkey]

From what I understand, humans have existed in their current form for at least 25,000 years (by the most modest estimates), and probably a lot longer. As such, I doubt Plato and Aristotle were the first people to think such thoughts.

However, they did end up having a huge influence on our culture. Right place, right time, probably rather exceptional charisma. Having a written language helped a bit, I'm sure.

It's fascinating how a movement of thought can happen, and somehow it all seems derivative of a single person's initiative.

I read a rather convincing argument that Kierkegaard's philosophy laid the intellectual groundwork for the world wars. He had the notion that the progress of states was something akin to Darwinism on a geopolitical scale. Something along the lines of the largest nations were the best nations. Yada yada... World War I.

On one hand, I don't think you can point to a philosopher and draw such conclusions. On the other hand, the decisions that change the world are made by fallible humans, who were just as much a product of their culture as any of us.

[wufwugy]

From what I understand, humans have existed in their current form for at least 25,000 years (by the most modest estimates), and probably a lot longer. As such, I doubt Plato and Aristotle were the first people to think such thoughts.

However, they did end up having a huge influence on our culture. Right place, right time, probably rather exceptional charisma. Having a written language helped a bit, I'm sure.

It's fascinating how a movement of thought can happen, and somehow it all seems derivative of a single person's initiative.

I read a rather convincing argument that Kierkegaard's philosophy laid the intellectual groundwork for the world wars. He had the notion that the progress of states was something akin to Darwinism on a geopolitical scale. Something along the lines of the largest nations were the best nations. Yada yada... World War I.

On one hand, I don't think you can point to a philosopher and draw such conclusions. On the other hand, the decisions that change the world are made by fallible humans, who were just as much a product of their culture as any of us.

Well yes, attributing causality is, well, specious. I do so for brow-furrowing.

Plato may not have been the first to think such thoughts, but the first to popularize and give credibility to such thoughts. Many human cultures have endured without such thoughts; it's the West that has not. Perhaps importantly, the West was founded on the principles of those thoughts.

I have unfortunately not delved much into the post-Enlightenment eras, specifically that which gave rise to Napoleon and European modernism. Without that, my underlying explanation for post-Napoleonic wars is Nazism, which is an extension of Italian fascism, which is an extension of classical Roman stoicism. World War 1 wasn't that much about ideology, but about politics. Bad politics. Secret alliances level bad politics. WW2, however, saw a society founded in irrationality and uncertainty (Germanic cultures) put to their greatest test against all oppressors, of whom French and Russian socialism could be blamed. The irony is that fascism and socialism are the same thing. The divide must be due to the Holy Roman Empire, which created three different Europes: The west (Britain and France), the center (Germany and Italy), and the East (the third Rome, Russia). The 20th Century wars were the showdowns declaring the lines. Being more Hellenized* than Germany, Russia sided with France and Britain (and US), but ultimately their Russianness and Eastern Orthodoxness were too different, and the West/East divide perpetuated. This time, instead of between the Greeks and the Persians, it was the US capitalists and the Soviet Communists

How does that sound?



*Which is a crazy thought since Russia was never conquered by the Hellenes, like how Germania was never Hellenized. However, Russia's relationship with Constantinople was intricate, and Constantinople was as Rome as Rome was Rome, but it doesn't get the rep in history books because it was never purely westernized with the rest of Europe. I am unsure why because I haven't done my reading yet

[wufwugy]

BTW I want to say that I'm sorry if you find frustration in the points I make. I am super tricky with my logic. I don't know if my premises can be countered, but I assume they can be. So if you think something I say is bullshit, be sure to point the fuck out of it. The more syllogistic and sound your assertion, the more I will need to reevaluate my premise. A long time ago I developed a reputation on this forum for being an incorrigible debater, but the truth is that I'm a debater for the purpose of truth dissection. I have no problem with being wrong, or really wrong. Wrongness is the seed that bears the fruit of rightness.

So if you think I'm pushing bullshit, call that bullshit. Under no suns will your argument go unconsidered (lol how dumb does that description sound. I'm whiskey shut up)

[MadMojoMonkey]

I am clearly not worried about calling BS on you... have you read the thread today?

I'm not too studied in philosophy. I took a couple of courses at freshman level. Same for Anthropology. Well, by couple... I mean I failed freshman Anthro due to sleeping through the final exam. So I took it again from a different prof.

As such, I'm not nearly as likely to call BS as some other spoons in the drawer.

[Galapogos]

I know I'm late to the Stop Girl discussion, but look! I brought with me the ultimate Stop Girl boner killer. Another picture of Stop Girl!

[wufwugy]

meh, would provide boner. and accept sandwich afterwards

[jyms]

Thanks for that Gala. I was starting to feel heat on my scroll wheel from this page.

[jyms]

I must be getting too old for the internet, I am starting to skip long posts of text.

[jyms]

And by long I mean more than 3 or 4 lines

[abelardx]

'Manly Women' the new internet meme in China:

http://www.chinasmack.com/2013/pictu...nly-women.html

Apparently it can mean either tomboy or buff chick.

[jyms]

Can someone explain this? Was their a video about how to tell if someone had hooped things at customs

[abelardx]

How bout that Georgia LSU game? Yeah buddy 85 points. That was classic.

[kiwiMark]

I must be getting too old for the internet, I am starting to skip long posts of text.

As a still young spring flower I can assure you that the only time I'm reading lots-of-lines posts is when the post directly after it is a one-liner that suckers me into going back. Spanning attention is a fool's ga

[abelardx]

I doubt Stop Girl makes it another year without getting pregnant. OTOH bicep girl could go a while.

[Jack Sawyer]

Can someone explain this? Was their a video about how to tell if someone had hooped things at customs

One Thousand years of death aka Sennen Goroshi (千年殺し)

[Jack Sawyer]

Obligatory Youtube vid

[eugmac]

apparently this "ninja move" stems from an anime series where males are seen prodding opponent's arses with their index fingers.

[eugmac]

[Chelle]

these boys need their asses beat.

[wufwugy]

[Jack Sawyer]

http://www.inquisitr.com/963817/jack...ually-existed/

[abelardx]

http://www.inquisitr.com/963817/jack...ually-existed/

Hmmm just as I thought ...

[jackvance]

We need a new movie now about the journalist that made up the jack the ripper persona haha.

[bode]

I must be getting too old for the internet, I am starting to skip long posts of text.

this is called "wufwugy syndrome".

[wufwugy]

lengthy text is a trick to keep all the unwashed masses from improving themselves

[rong]

Wuf, I actually imagine you to look somewhat like your avatar, only less happy.

[Chelle]

i am ace at procrastination. the photoshoot is sunday and i'm probably only 45% done with my costume. oh, and i haven't even done a test-run with the makeup. fuuuuck.

but i did make some bad ass homemade chicken noodle soup yesterday.
with carrots, celery, onion, garlic, chicken[duh], couscous, tricolored noodles, white pepper and salt. oh and coconut oil+butter+flour to make the roux. i'mma go eat some and then stare back and forth between the computer and the pile of crafty shit I need to be workin' on.

p.s. - ohfuck i take my painting in 2 days to the fair. i know i have no need to be nervous, but, fuck. this is the first time i've ever done anything like this, and i just this year got back to working with oil paint after not doing so in 10+ years.

p.s.s. holy fuck decaf white chocolate mocha = fucking AMAZING.


also, i feel like i'm overly feminine, but, that's okay. sorry for girlying-up the randomness thread with fucktons of estrogen, fellas.

[wufwugy]

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IM FUCKING HAPPY

[rong]

But that happy?

[wufwugy]

dont make me w0t mate you. i'll drubber up some scally-wags and do it, tosser

[jackvance]

So is the US government really going into shutdown over obamacare?

[wufwugy]

So is the US government really going into shutdown over obamacare?

It is far more damaging to most House Republicans to be seen voting for Obamacare than to shut down the government. They're afraid of primaries, not the general elections

In addition, the GOP is tying much of their electoral ambitions on Obamacare sucking. Lindsey Graham let the cat out of the bag a few days ago when he called it Clintoncare and claimed that if the law is a success, she will win 2016

[wufwugy]

Also, they really want to delay implementation to time perfectly with the 2014 elections

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't know... It seems like we hired them to do a job, and they shut down the company 'cause they didn't like the company's procedural rules. All the while, they have a ability/responsibility to create and change the rules, so it's pretty much a no-brainer when they can't even follow their own rules that they're incompetent.

The party system might make it harder for one party or the other to accomplish their own goals at any given time, but that's the nature of the beast. If they aren't willing to follow the rules, they shouldn't have run for office.

This whole thing is just a mind-fuck to me. I mean, the issue they're protesting was something that already passed a vote... their opportunity to oppose this issue has come and gone... if they lost, they lost... propose another bill that retracts the prior one or changes it in a positive way. Use the system you volunteered to work in.

Do the job you asked to do... or quit, and let yourself be replaced.


I may not be making a lot of sense, or I may be completely mis-characterizing the issue, so whatever. I'm not a politician and I basically hate politics for this kind of childish crap.

[Chelle]

I don't know... It seems like we hired them to do a job, and they shut down the company 'cause they didn't like the company's procedural rules. All the while, they have a ability/responsibility to create and change the rules, so it's pretty much a no-brainer when they can't even follow their own rules that they're incompetent.

The party system might make it harder for one party or the other to accomplish their own goals at any given time, but that's the nature of the beast. If they aren't willing to follow the rules, they shouldn't have run for office.

This whole thing is just a mind-fuck to me. I mean, the issue they're protesting was something that already passed a vote... their opportunity to oppose this issue has come and gone... if they lost, they lost... propose another bill that retracts the prior one or changes it in a positive way. Use the system you volunteered to work in.

Do the job you asked to do... or quit, and let yourself be replaced.


I may not be making a lot of sense, or I may be completely mis-characterizing the issue, so whatever. I'm not a politician and I basically hate politics for this kind of childish crap.

This makes perfect sense to me. You're pretty spot on, imho.

[bikes]

[boost]

I don't know... It seems like we hired them to do a job, and they shut down the company 'cause they didn't like the company's procedural rules. All the while, they have a ability/responsibility to create and change the rules, so it's pretty much a no-brainer when they can't even follow their own rules that they're incompetent.

The party system might make it harder for one party or the other to accomplish their own goals at any given time, but that's the nature of the beast. If they aren't willing to follow the rules, they shouldn't have run for office.

This whole thing is just a mind-fuck to me. I mean, the issue they're protesting was something that already passed a vote... their opportunity to oppose this issue has come and gone... if they lost, they lost... propose another bill that retracts the prior one or changes it in a positive way. Use the system you volunteered to work in.

Do the job you asked to do... or quit, and let yourself be replaced.


I may not be making a lot of sense, or I may be completely mis-characterizing the issue, so whatever. I'm not a politician and I basically hate politics for this kind of childish crap.

Yeah, pretty much this.

It's enough to make me want to vomit when people try to argue that it's the fault of the democrats. It's not a(shouldn't this be an? but it sounds awful that way..) universal healthcare issue, that issue has passed. Because they don't like the outcome of that issue, they're holding up every other issue. It's really absurd, and I kinda feel sorry for the people who actually believe the rhetoric and can't see it for the disingenuous bullshit it is.

[Galapogos]

It's "an" when the vowel sounds like a vowel. Not that sometimes vowel imposter of a "y" sound.

[bigred]

You guys remember Lukie and how he started this thread?

[bikes]

I heard he has a nice watch.

[Chelle]

boyfran got gta5 a week or so ago. he disappears hours at a time into a dark pit of vidagame-land.

[Chelle]

fuck kidney stones.

[wufwugy]

comp died today. bought new one. fucking hate windows 8

[wufwugy]

xp should have just been improved. then after vista was fixed, that should have just been improved. no idea why companies feel so compelled to screw with something that works

[d0zer]

xp should have just been improved.

arguably, that's what 7 was. almost every other version of windows sucks. M$ never releases two good windows in a row, they get complacent and then are forced to step it up after releasing garbage.

[bikes]

windows 7 for life

[Hawk]

windows 3.1 for life!

-me in high school

[d0zer]

I was just flossing my teeth and became aware of how I hadn't washed my hands since banging wife and was like....ohi

[d0zer]

windows 7 for life

that's wat people said, and continue to say about XP and 2k...which admittedly violate the "no 2 good in a row" rule but they were basically the same thing so rule holds imo.

[bikes]

if i could still use xp i would!

[bikes]

so i am listening to sigur ros for the 2nd time ever and this band is absolutely fantastic.

[Luco]

comp died today. bought new one. fucking hate windows 8

I just click 'desktop' and it's problem solved

[eugmac]

I just click 'desktop' and it's problem solved

That and changing the default programs for everything so that you never accidentally load full screen programs and actually end up using Windows 8.

[eugmac]

A couple times, Windows 7's explorer.exe has crashed on me recently and restarted, as in the desktop and task bar reloaded. Reminded me of Windows 98/2000/XP days, and made me glad that Microsoft has a sense of tradition.

[Luco]

That and changing the default programs for everything so that you never accidentally load full screen programs and actually end up using Windows 8.

Oh like changing music associations back to a media player instead of the music app? Yeah that too, good catch

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't know... It seems like we hired them to do a job, and they shut down the company 'cause they didn't like the company's procedural rules. All the while, they have a ability/responsibility to create and change the rules, so it's pretty much a no-brainer when they can't even follow their own rules that they're incompetent.

The party system might make it harder for one party or the other to accomplish their own goals at any given time, but that's the nature of the beast. If they aren't willing to follow the rules, they shouldn't have run for office.

This whole thing is just a mind-fuck to me. I mean, the issue they're protesting was something that already passed a vote... their opportunity to oppose this issue has come and gone... if they lost, they lost... propose another bill that retracts the prior one or changes it in a positive way. Use the system you volunteered to work in.

Do the job you asked to do... or quit, and let yourself be replaced.


I may not be making a lot of sense, or I may be completely mis-characterizing the issue, so whatever. I'm not a politician and I basically hate politics for this kind of childish crap.

As best as I can tell they're operating under a rational framework set out by this guy:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling

In his paper "An Essay on Bargaining"

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/rich.../Schelling.pdf

he talks about the value of commitment in negotiations. The entire paper is a blockbuster piece of amazing and I really recommend everyone read it but his point is that if you can show the other party that your hands are absolutely tied and that you can not budge from your position AND the other party values agreement over no agreement, then you can elicit one final concession from the other party. It has nothing to do with your rational position, it has everything to do with how you can present yourself as stuck rationally or otherwise.

In this frame-work, it seems clear that the Rs were attempting to illicit concessions from Obama by showing how inflexible they are in their unrealistic commitment to the far-right and in response the Ds are putting their foot down saying that if they concede here on this issue, they're are fully boned for the debt ceiling negotiations on the horizon because the Rs will never get enough, will never budge, and will simply squeeze the Ds harder in the next round - eliciting more concessions. Beyond that, the Ds have no reason to concede anything to achieve an end everyone universally desires.

The Ds have way the winning hand, the situation frames too well for them - everyone agrees that they want to fund the government, the Rs recognize that this implies that the Ds want to fund the gov't and if the Ds want something, they've got to pay the toll. The Rs really don't have any rhetorical weapons in their wheelhouse to frame the situation any differently and they can only win support from people who were going to support them anyway (either because they don't know, don't care, or only know whats going on filtered through an R-tinted lense). Even the reason the Rs present as to why they're stuck isn't very good - they're afraid of being primaried on their right flank. edit Oh and that Obamacare is the Apocalypse.

If Obama continues to put out there that he will not negotiate on funding the gov't and will not negotiate on raising the debt ceiling, he wins. Everyone values agreement on the debt ceiling over disagreement but it will be Obama who will be rationally committed to his position against a whole slew of Rs who aren't. If they need to come together to hash things out to get through both these 'crises', Obama will have the fire power to illicit concessions from the Rs and may be able to wiggle through that 'grand bargain' everyone keeps talking about.

[rong]

Fantastic link. Thank you Mr Rilla. It's interesting how many of those tactics you use without being aware of what you're doing, for example the third party contract to reduce your potential movement.

[bikes]

i would like to thank that giant fucking racoon for fucking up my car -.-

[aubreymcfate]

i would like to thank that giant asshole who peed on the toilet seat that i proceeded to obliviously plant my ass on.

[eugmac]

I would love to thank the lovely pizza delivery man who brought me my dinner which I ate and thoroughly enjoyed.

[wufwugy]

i would like to thank obama

[boost]

i would like to thank that giant asshole who peed on the toilet seat that i proceeded to obliviously plant my ass on.

I just... I don't get it. I use public restrooms too, and I have lived with small children who are inconsiderate pricks and piss on the seat-- When I need to defecate, I too must sit on the seat. However, I never would ever dream of sitting on any toilet seat without giving it at least a quick glance first. The seedier the place, the closer the inspection.

How is it that someone, whose entire toilet career consists of sitting, is capable of neglecting such a basic tenet of personal bathroom hygene? When I've had chats with women about how it's a bit absurd to take such a hard stance and make such a big issue about putting the seat back down, they often cite such incidences in which they sat down while the seat was still up, thereby sitting on the bare rim of the bowl. I mean.. come on.. take on some personal responsibility.

[wufwugy]

Women lose all sense of hygiene the moment they entire a womens restroom. Haven't you seen one of those things?

[bikes]

this is the second time in my life the government has told me my job isn't legit.

fuck you rick snyder you piece of shit

[boost]

haha, what?

[bikes]

state of michigan is making charity poker rooms impossible to operate by shutting out the charities and non-profits