×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Nuclear Commander Suspended Over Gambling

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the I-fold dept.

United States 149

mdsolar writes "The No 2 officer at the military command in charge of all US nuclear war-fighting forces has been suspended and is under investigation by the naval criminal investigation command for issues related to gambling, officials said on Saturday. The highly unusual action against a high-ranking officer at US strategic command was made more than three weeks ago but not publicly announced. Air force general Robert Kehler, who heads Strategic Command, suspended the deputy commander, navy vice admiral Tim Giardina, from his duties on September 3, according to the command's top spokeswoman, navy captain Pamela Kunze. Giardina is still assigned to the command but is prohibited from performing duties related to nuclear weapons and other issues requiring a security clearance, she said."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

149 comments

Bulffing with nukes (0)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 7 months ago | (#44987869)

Just don't take real people out of the loop and hand over control to joshua

Re:Bulffing with nukes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44987887)

"Just don't take real people out of the loop and hand over control to joshua"

Joshua was the password, you moron!

Re:Bulffing with nukes (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 7 months ago | (#44987909)

and the unofficial name of the system.

Re:Bulffing with nukes (1)

Freshly Exhumed (105597) | about 7 months ago | (#44987949)

Goldie, how many times have I told you guys that I don't want no horsin' around...

ooooops, wrong movie.

Re:Bulffing with nukes (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 7 months ago | (#44988061)

"I'm not horsing around, that's how it decodes..."

(The first draft of the film script had Goldberg reveal the code as "L.S.M.F.T...")

Re:Bulffing with nukes (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 7 months ago | (#44987965)

Whopper was the computer (spelled differently with abbreviation periods).

Re:Bulffing with nukes (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 7 months ago | (#44988457)

More precisely, the acronym is W.O.P.R [rollins.edu]

Re:Bulffing with nukes (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 7 months ago | (#44988685)

I'm glad someone else looked it up. I knew what it was, but it's better with a cite. Thanks.

Re:Bulffing with nukes (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 7 months ago | (#44988787)

No worries - I just remember it because that's what we named our first VMWare farm installation. ;)

Re:Bulffing with nukes (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44987979)

Just don't take real people out of the loop and hand over control to joshua

That'd be a WHOPR of a mistake. ;)

Re:Bulffing with nukes (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 7 months ago | (#44987987)

To the idiot mods: Don't you know about WarGames?

Turn in your geek card.

Re:Bulffing with nukes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988499)

But it's WOPR, they're just spelling pedants.

Admiral of Vice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44989067)

That explains it all, really.

Chips (5, Informative)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 7 months ago | (#44987871)

Pay Scales (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 7 months ago | (#44987935)

Also, here's the current military pay scales:

http://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/militarypaytables.html [dfas.mil]

The guy is making around 12K a month.

That's got to be a serious habbit to resort to using fake chips.

Re:Pay Scales (5, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about 7 months ago | (#44988003)

Gambling, hookers, and blow all scale to however much money you have.

This is basic security clearance stuff. It you're doing anything that gives someone leverage over you (outside of your job), you don't get to know anything important. Seems reasonable to me.

Re:Pay Scales (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 7 months ago | (#44988259)

So no girlfriends or wives then?

Re:Pay Scales (5, Funny)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 7 months ago | (#44988397)

So no girlfriends or wives then?

You can have either, but not both.

Re:Pay Scales (3, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 7 months ago | (#44988535)

Pretty much. The simple rule is this. If you have secrets than you can not be trusted to keep the nations secrets.

Re:Pay Scales (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988801)

Yay! I'm more entertained then ever before!

Re:Pay Scales (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988805)

Pretty much. The simple rule is this. If you have secrets than you can not be trusted to keep the nations secrets.

Or, more accurately, you can keep secrets from your loved ones, but not your employer.

Back in the day the NSA didn't care if a man kept it secret that he was gay from his wife, they did mind if he tried to keep it secret from them.

Re: Pay Scales (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988879)

Bullshit. If you can keep your mouth shut with your secrets - I can trust you with mine.

Secrets vs. Security Clearances (5, Interesting)

billstewart (78916) | about 7 months ago | (#44989079)

Yup. I was a defense contractor back in the 80s. While you couldn't be gay in the uniformed military, you could still have a security clearance and be a contractor or in the NSA or CIA - but you couldn't be in the closet, because that might be used for blackmail, especially in states where it was still illegal to be gay. So there were some famous researchers who'd had to come out to their families.

They asked about a lot of other things; they didn't mind that some of my coworkers had used drugs back in college and then stopped, but they really freaked out when one guy said he'd smoked dope, liked it, and might well do it again :-) (It took an extra six months for his clearance to come through.) And they really cared a lot about people who had relatives in Communist countries, not because they were worried that Cousin Ivan might have corrupted you into being a Commie, but because the KGB might threaten to kill your grandma if you didn't give them the secret plans. In my case, they asked a bunch of questions one year about my involvement in the Libertarian Party, because some of them weren't quite familiar with the concept that there were more than two political parties (plus the Commies, and they'd kind of forgotten about George Wallace.)

A friend of mine in the Air Force had a buddy who'd put down that his previous job experience included working at a candy store back home in the Bronx, and the guy who ran the place said he'd never heard of him. Had to have his dad go tell Cousin Luigi that it was the Feds checking on his security clearance for the service, not anybody checking into the numbers game that might or might not have been running out of the back room.

Re:Pay Scales (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44989107)

Must be morman?

Re:Pay Scales (1)

mrmeval (662166) | about 7 months ago | (#44988645)

It's very reasonably and they will actively look for it. They have the authority to get bank account records, credit reports and traceable purchases such as land or cars and other indicators. If there is any hint investigators will go ask everyone in a command about everyone else.

When the government spies on it's self it's just good clean fun.

Re:Pay Scales (-1, Flamebait)

pclminion (145572) | about 7 months ago | (#44989589)

This is basic security clearance stuff. It you're doing anything that gives someone leverage over you (outside of your job), you don't get to know anything important. Seems reasonable to me.

No, it's completely insane, and a circular argument. If you gamble, you could be blackmailed by somebody threatening to tell your boss. Your boss will fire you for that because... it creates leverage? It's only leverage because the boss makes it leverage. If the boss would butt his dumb ass out of your private life, it wouldn't be effective as leverage anymore.

Example: Dickhead calls your boss and tattles on you for gambling. Your boss yawns and says "Who gives a fuck?" and hangs up. Look! No leverage!

Re:Pay Scales (5, Insightful)

Full of shit (2908417) | about 7 months ago | (#44989629)

What makes you think this is about his boss? This is about the favors he might have to do to pay off a six figure debt that he built up because he couldn't quit when he was down.

Re:Pay Scales (1)

PairOfBlanks (2952901) | about 7 months ago | (#44988111)

One wonders how much greed is needed to cheat for more with that kind of salary. Would it be enough greed to drop a secret or two? Greed itself sounds like the biggest thing to remove him for.

Re:Pay Scales (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 7 months ago | (#44988481)

drop a secret or two? under the Uniform Code of Military Justice you can face death by firing squad for that.

Re:Pay Scales (1)

jkroll (32063) | about 7 months ago | (#44988463)

Actually, Vice Admiral is an O-9. Based on his bio [navy.mil], he has over 34 years of service, so base pay alone is $16.4K/month. Probably lives in base housing, so with BAS and sub pay it totals close to $17K/month.

If found guilty in the investigation, he will probably be retired at a lower rank. In addition to whatever civilian penalties are incurred. Assuming that there are no instances of military misconduct found, otherwise all bets are off.

Re:Pay Scales (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 7 months ago | (#44988527)

If found guilty in the investigation, he will probably be retired at a lower rank.

Unlikly. A reduction in rank would require an Article 15 as a minimum, and at his level, it's not going to happen. Retirement certainly. And he'd better do it now.

Re:Pay Scales (1)

schnell (163007) | about 7 months ago | (#44988687)

My understanding (sorry can't find a source to cite) is that in the current US military, no general officer has an "real" rank higher than G-2 (Major General / Rear Admiral Upper Half). You only get appointed to jobs that require a G-3 or G-4, but if you didn't hold those jobs you would be treated as your "real" rank. If you retire while holding one of those jobs, then your retirement is treated at that rank level.

Can anyone more knowledgeable than me confirm/deny or improve this explanation?

Re:Pay Scales (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 7 months ago | (#44988815)

Can anyone more knowledgeable than me confirm/deny or improve this explanation?

Google, can you help this man?

Yes. [wikipedia.org]

Thanks again, Google.

Re:Pay Scales (3, Informative)

Decker-Mage (782424) | about 7 months ago | (#44989205)

Actually this goes beyond your security clearance. To be around and handle nukes you are subject to the Personnel Reliability Program. There are a whole manual's worth of things that can get you knocked out of PRP but don't mean anything concerning your Nuclear security clearance. A gambling addiction? Yeah that'd get you knocked off. Being treated by steroids, or any drug that has psychiatric effects will do it too. As I well know from personal experience. Still have the clearance, can't work even under the two-man rule.

I love it when the chips are down (1)

jennatalia (2684459) | about 7 months ago | (#44987883)

Especially the Kettle brand ones with the Spicy Thai. Too bad you're paying for overpriced air when you buy a bag...

Re:I love it when the chips are down (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 7 months ago | (#44987895)

Too bad you're paying for overpriced air when you buy a bag...

Drumroll...

That's how I felt after reading your post!

Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all week. Tip your waitress.

Re:I love it when the chips are down (1)

jennatalia (2684459) | about 7 months ago | (#44987915)

You mean you didn't know you were paying for overpriced air until you read my post? You are most certainly welcome young one.

Re:I love it when the chips are down (1)

lgw (121541) | about 7 months ago | (#44988013)

Too bad you're paying for overpriced air when you buy a bag...

The weight of the contents are printed right there on the bag for you. I like it when chips come in a bag that's inflated a bit, adds a little padding during shipping.

Re:I love it when the chips are down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988019)

Maybe you should try Pringles.

Re:I love it when the chips are down (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 7 months ago | (#44988811)

No brand or flavour would be edible if it were not for the packaging.
- The 'air' is pure nitrogen, it keeps the contents fresh for months rather than hours.
- The inflated bag protects the contents from being crushed during transport.

Wargames? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44987927)

The only winning move is not to play...

Gambling?! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 7 months ago | (#44987933)

What was he betting on? The outcome of WWIII? Well, I certainly hope he put his money on the right team.

Re:Gambling?! (2)

billstewart (78916) | about 7 months ago | (#44988967)

He was betting that he wouldn't get caught trying to play with counterfeit chips, and that whoever provided him with them wouldn't try to blackmail him later. He definitely lost the first bet...

Yeah... (2, Insightful)

painehope (580569) | about 7 months ago | (#44987941)

We really want a guy who owes the Mob 200K in gambling debts being leaned on to turn over top-secret information to erase his gambling debts. It's pretty easy for someone with an addiction like that to snowball from handing out a floor-plan to an office containing harmless stuff to handing over access codes or whatever. One of the things about being in a position where you're entrusted with the safety and lives of your countrymen is that no one should be able to have leverage over you. It's one thing if someone threatens to kill your family if you don't give them XYZ information - you can go to the appropriate agency for protection or whatever needs to be done and it will get handled, no matter how high and hard it needs to be escalated.

It's entirely different if it's over gambling debts. Especially if you've caved before. Your career is over and you might go to prison. Some people, especially the kind that are gambling addicts, simply cannot see the long-term ramifications or can justify damn near anything to themselves. That makes them extremely dangerous in any position that has the word "nuclear" and "commander" in it's title.

He ought to emulate Admiral Boorda... (0, Flamebait)

couchslug (175151) | about 7 months ago | (#44988065)

and commit suicide.

Yes, really. That's the only way to atone for that level of disgrace.

Re:He ought to emulate Admiral Boorda... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988339)

Boorda died honorably, one of the last true officers we've had.

Re:He ought to emulate Admiral Boorda... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988689)

and commit suicide.

Yes, really. That's the only way to atone for that level of disgrace.

Amen, for the Holy Bible demands it. This man has turned away from the grace of God and ignored the Holy Scriptures that are the foundation of our country.

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ loves you, couchslug, and your Holy condemnation.

Re:Yeah... (3, Informative)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 7 months ago | (#44988551)

We really want a guy who owes the Mob 200K in gambling debts being leaned on to turn over top-secret information to erase his gambling debts.

There is no evidence that he is "owes the Mob 200K". There *is* evidence he used counterfit chips.

Also, if you think "the Mob" still has any control over legitimate licenced gambling establishments (such as those in NJ and NV), you really need to get out of the basement and take off the tinfoil, get a bit of sun.

Re:Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988857)

Those who have control over gambling establishments are, by definition, "the mob"

Sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988863)

I'm sorry, but you are full of shit. Better get some sleep, school starts early tomorow!

nuclear deterrent... (2)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 7 months ago | (#44987981)

...is based on the assumption that, for the rest of eternity, no one group of people with access to nuclear weaponry will get trigger-happy.

Hilarious.

Actually, it's based on (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988197)

the idea that the people on both sides are intelligent, self-interested, and want to stay alive. This is generally true for most humans (as demonstrated by U.S./Soviet/Chinese/French/British etc history) who rise to the level of control in any society not run by radical Muslims. Islam is not a problem just because of the words "Islam" and "Muslim" (and it has nothing to do with "race" as even Muslims insist that they are of all races) but rather because of the content of their "Holy" book. Unlike the Judeo-Christian Bible (which contains historical accounts of specific violent acts conducted at specific times and places in the past (Some allegedly ordered by God, and some not) accompanied by a general teaching against future violence, and (Christian New Testament prediction of a future war started by evil people)) the book at the center of the Muslim faith contains many general instructions to wage war against non-Muslims wherever they may be found and promises of life in paradise for those who die in the act. People who take this set of beliefs seriously are not good candidates for participation in a MAD scenario.

As is nearly always the case, the substance of a person's beliefs (no matter what they are) are far more important than the lunatic post-modern idea that it does not matter what you believe, as long as you believe in something

Re:Actually, it's based on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988727)

You said the "Judeo-Christian Bible" so I assume that you're including the old and new testaments. So, you somehow don't believe that executing children who hit or swear at their parents is an instruction to do violence. Let's also not forget that: "He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." Not suffering witches to live is also nice and non-violent. I suppose executing people who break the sabbath is just good sense as it is with executing any many who giveth his seed unto Molech (because, um, yeah...). Also "ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword." Also the stranger that cometh nigh [to the tabernacle] shall be put to death." Also "when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:". You're also supposed to kill anyone who tries to get you to convert to another religion, even if they're your wife or child, or just kill them if they don't share your religion.

There's just so much of that sort of thing in there, it boggles the mind.

Re:nuclear deterrent... (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 7 months ago | (#44988543)

Actually it is based on the assumption that anyone that works hard enough to gain the level of power that grants access to nuclear weapons loves themselves and their power more than anything else. Which probably an extremely good bet.

Highly unusual? Hardly. (4, Insightful)

VinylRecords (1292374) | about 7 months ago | (#44987995)

"The highly unusual action against a high-ranking officer at US strategic command was made more than three weeks ago but not publicly announced."

This is only "highly unusual" because it is being reported throughout the mainstream media. But anyone who has been through an FBI/CIA interview knows that gambling issues are something that they probe for quite a bit. I doubt he was the first person fired or reprimanded that week for gambling.

Want to work in the defense industry? Then don't gamble or bet on sports because it is a red flag that often disqualifies people from employment or association. The higher up you go the more they'll pry into your personal life. Asking friends from college or even high school if you ever gambled (or had a drinking problem, used drugs, etc.).

Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. (4, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 7 months ago | (#44988147)

A little gambling is fine. I have a clearance, and many of my coworkers gamble on occasion. A gambling addiction, OTOH, is a problem. It opens you up to bribery or blackmail. Someone with a serious gambling problem and mountains of debt could more easily be persuaded to divulge secrets if someone offered to clear up the debt.

Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988235)

A little gambling is fine.

Next you'll say, "I don't have a problem." The DoD and Intel Agencies tolerate way too much of this bullshit. You and your coworkers who regularly gamble have proven that you're willing to take stupid risks, and that shows that you simply are not trustworthy.

Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. (4, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 7 months ago | (#44988285)

You and your coworkers who regularly gamble have proven that you're willing to take stupid risks

A stupid risk is hopping into the cockpit of a helicopter without any flying lessons. Gambling, unless you are addicted to it or just careless, can be a claculated risk. Take for example sports betting: if you can pick the outcomes of 3 games at 6:1 odds or 4 games at 11:1, it is not very difficult to pick correctly, especially if you follow the stats. Now, if you are going for the big 20:1 odds or are betting large sums of money (especially sums you cannot afford), then yes, it's stupid. To modify a line that is said often in EVE Online, if you cant afford to lose it, don't bet it. But plenty of people find it enjoyable to gamble a little every now and then, myself included (craps is fun, and so is playing poker with your buddies). Dropping a couple hundred bucks gambling in a casino maybe once a year, or maybe $20-50 a week during football season does not mean you are taking stupid risks or are a security risk.

Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988445)

^^^ this

Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988537)

+1

Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988555)

I dont want you to take _any_ unnecessary risks (and we very likely define "careless gambling" very differently). calculated or not. on my behalf. as a taxpayer i expect the system to hire people who are beyond approach on these matters, anything else is an unnecessary risk.

CAPTCHA: disarm (i kid you not)

Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44989089)

Gambling, unless you are addicted to it or just careless, can be a claculated risk.

It's a calculated risk, because you can work out the expected return. It's a stupid risk if the expected return is below 100%, and you go ahead anyway.

Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988825)

You and your coworkers who regularly gamble have proven that you're willing to take stupid risks, and that shows that you simply are not trustworthy.

My uncle and aunt go to Vegas every so often. He sets a budget for gambling for every trip, usually $50 or $100.

He walks up to the roulette table and places a bet on red or black, and the wheel is spun. He either wins or loses, but either way, after the result he walks away and continues other activities.

It's a bit of fun, he can say he gambled, and he doesn't risk too much for the entertainment value.

Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. (1)

Raven42rac (448205) | about 7 months ago | (#44988149)

It's not that you can't do it, it's that you can't do it to a level that would allow anyone to have leverage over you.

Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 7 months ago | (#44988739)

For my "run of the mill" TS, they contacted people I had forgotten I even knew from high school (I'm 49). They knew about increadibly minor things I did 35 years ago and had long since forgotten.

If the money were not as good as it is, I would have skipped the extended anal probe, specially because I get to do it all over again every few years.

After the second time, I requested and recieved (via FOIA) a copy of the report that I keep and review when ever a "reinvestigation" comes up.

Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 7 months ago | (#44989105)

Petraeus left the CIA not long ago. Allen left the Army as well. The "unusual" claim seemed strange to me as well.

news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988057)

News for nerds?

I'll bet you $40 bucks... (3, Funny)

tokencode (1952944) | about 7 months ago | (#44988059)

I can hit this part with a hammer and it won't go off... any takers?

Re:I'll bet you $40 bucks... (3, Funny)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 7 months ago | (#44988291)

I can hit this part with a hammer and it won't go off... any takers?

I wouldn't risk it. This is the government we're talking about. That hammer is probably worth (well, cost) $15,000.

I don't believe it (1)

BradMajors (995624) | about 7 months ago | (#44988067)

I don't believe gambling is the reason. I think it is more likely he is being suspended for another reason, but they don't want this "other" reason to be made public.

Yeah, "Gambling" (3, Funny)

Tau Neutrino (76206) | about 7 months ago | (#44988083)

That's just the cover story. He's really been cooking meth.

Re:Yeah, "Gambling" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44989459)

Cooking meth is a calculated risk. Sure, stupid if you have a meth addiction... but if you know what you're doing, you can cook meth safely, and use it effectively to enhance your military career. A lot of guys in the military cook meth. Some are at the higher levels. They're not addicts, they just have high-pressure jobs and everyone needs to blow off steam once in a while. Hey, you nerds smoke dope and drink beers, so you're no saints.

Even Cpt. Picard didn't gamble till the end... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988225)

Now deal me in.

failzMOrs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988379)

troubles of tHose

Bud Selig says no Hall of Fame for you! (1)

DaveyJJ (1198633) | about 7 months ago | (#44988389)

If it's only been actually cheating while serving your team, like Bonds, McQuire, Rodriguez or the other cheats, then you could be in. But gambling? No HoF for you.

MAD x Straight Gambling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988403)

Gambling sometimes pays off, for a while.

Nuke wasted at admiral level (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44988407)

Shame they likely wont put him two months in CCU and then on a toilet scrubbing billet afterwards. All those fun times are only reserved for enlisted. Am I right?

Gambling is a terrible vice (1)

sandbagger (654585) | about 7 months ago | (#44988989)

Obviously, he needs to be removed from his super-duper secret duties if the possibility of blackmail is significant but let's hope the poor fellow gets straightened out. Gambling is so terrible because first you go through disposable money, then the milk money and finally the money to which you have access but is not yours. My grandfather lost a house thanks to cards and horses; a friend's marriage broke up because her husband's business partner was a gambler. One day the fellow went to work and found his own office padlocked because his partner's gambling debts.

I hope it works out for the guy.

Re:Gambling is a terrible vice (2)

Full of shit (2908417) | about 7 months ago | (#44989669)

Or alternatively, Fuck him. Why should anyone have any sympathy for him? He's an irresponsible jerk, Fuck him.

About Time (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44989353)

Kill the fucker.

Yeah, makes sense. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44989639)

"Hey boss, why is gambling against the rules here?"

"Because somebody could blackmail you."

"How would they do that?"

"They could call me and tell me about your gambling."

"And why would I care if they did that?"

"Because I would fire you."

"Why?"

"Because gambling is against the rules."

"Didn't you talk in a fucking circle just now?"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...