Uncommunicative, casino operator oriented and player insensitive were some of the more common and heated accusations made against the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC) on message boards across the internet during the Golden Palace confiscated winnings dispute.
Angry and frustrated players unable to open a reasoned personal dialogue with the casino or its software provider turned their guns on the IGC, which appeared not to take a position on the issue by remaining silent amidst the escalating furore.
In all things there are generally two sides to a story. And it is true that although message boards perform an invaluable function in exchanging information there are times when accusations levelled in the heat of the moment can take on a life of their own in the ensuing storm of vituperation – and that can obscure the truth.
So what is the IGC’s attitude towards daftar disini players, and how does their complaint structure operate? What powers do they have over members and who are those members? For these and other answers we turned to the IGC Executive Director, Rick Smith, and Deputy Executive Director, Keith Furlong, and found them both willing and keen to respond.
Winneronline (WO): Is the IGC focused on fair treatment for online casino players?
IGC: Absolutely. It is a major objective for us, and our membership conditions and programs are based on building player confidence in IGC casinos which voluntarily comply with our codes.
This was one of the key components in the IGC organization in 1996. Development of a Code of Conduct to protect players in the then new industry was one of the first initiatives.
A key mission of the IGC is to promote an environment where there is an absence of fraud, both fraud by players as …
Perhaps the most asked questions pertaining to gambling on the Net: Are online casinos honest? Will I get cheated? Will I get paid?
Simply put, people are afraid that they will be cheated out of their money by the next big “scam” and they don’t want to be one of those people.
First it was credit-card scams, but since then millions of people have purchased online goods without much hassle. And credit card information, despite many reports to the contrary, is generally safe online.
Then it was personal information, such as address, telephone number, age etc. that was purportedly being used by and/or sold to others, in some cases by very large companies such as Doubleclick.net, which provides the ads for a great majority of the sites on the Net. And yet again, I wish to point out that your information is generally safe – in fact the Federal Trade Commission recently dropped their investigation into Doubleclick’s activities.
Now it’s online gambling. All sorts of governmental agencies and personnel are just hoping to make online gambling their ride to the big-time – a star to hang their hat on. And guess what? Surprise, surprise… there aren’t any stars in the making – only fools.
So, you ask, why do I always seem to be losing?
Let’s start with the basics. Every casino in the WORLD, online or land-based, offers games which give the house an edge. No matter what you do, you generally can’t beat that edge. Casinos always make money. Gamblers as a whole always lose money. That’s the way the system works.
Obviously some people are winning when they hit jackpots, or they apply the proper strategy to a particular game and QUIT when they are ahead. The longer you play, the more likely it is that you …
Instructions for a wide range of Sturmey-Archer hubs from 1902 to 2001. Includes the original 1902 3-speed, the popular K type of the 1920s and 30s, the T and TF 2-speeds, the ever popular AW, the SW, SG, SB, AB, AG, TCW, AM, AC, ASC, FW, FG, FM, FC, BR, GH6, S3B, S3C, all 5-speeds, the Columbia 3-speed, the BSA 3-speeds (based on a Sturmey-Archer design) and the hubs in production when Sturmey-Archer ceased to be British-owned in 2001. Also included is information on the DBU and FSU accessories for use with hub dynamos.
The files are in Adobe Acrobat format, making them zoomable and easily printable. Some of these files may take 5 minutes or so to download if you do not have broadband.…
This collection has now been dispersed but before that happened, Arnfried and I recorded it for posterity. Enjoy the slideshow!
Tony Hadland’s great-great uncle, Captain William Gill, inherited a fortune and spent it on exploration. He won the Gold Medal of the Royal Geographical Society and was murdered whilst working undercover in Egypt. This book in PDF format, downloadable free of charge, tells his story and contains many extracts from his copious travel diaries. You can order a softback printed copy from Tony for just £10 plus post and packing. For further details, email him at email@example.com
Alex Moulton hated the idea that his bicycles would be considered as folding bicycles. He always made the point that his aim was to produce a better bicycle, not a folder. A small proportion of the 1960s Moultons were separable for stowing in the boot of car, as were the majority of his post-1983 spaceframe machines, but Alex never, ever, made a folding bicycle.
A number of people have adapted Moultons into folding bicycles but Alex never did. The question that many Moulton researchers and enthusiasts have asked themselves is “Did he ever, in secrecy, produce a folding prototype?” More than 20 years ago, when I first saw a colour slide in the Moulton archives of the bike featured here, I thought for a few seconds that I had found evidence of just such a machine. But it did not take long to establish that this, too, is a separable machine, albeit a unique variant on the theme.
The original Moulton Stowaway joint, used in a minority of production F-frame Moultons in the 1960s, was very unforgiving if the bike was ridden without the joint bolt being fully tightened. Just one short ride with the bolt loose would distort the joint, making it looser in the vertical plane when ridden yet harder to separate.
In the 1970s, Alex Moulton made a little known attempt to improve the Stowaway joint. The only known example exists in a prototype Mk 4 Moulton. (The Mk 4 was a development of the Mk 3 that never went into production.)
Alex’s aim was to produce a joint that was fail-safe and that would not be damaged if ridden without being fully tightened. The resulting design is shown in the photos below. The front section of the main beam has a primary hook at the lower …
In 1965, Vic Nicholson won 15 major time trials on the Moulton bicycle, was placed in 9 others and won the Reading Track League. In 1967, again on the Moulton, he broke the Birmingham-Bristol-Birmingham record by more than 25 minutes and regained the Cardiff-London record for Moulton by an 18 minute margin.
In this interview, recorded in February 2015, Vic talks to Tony Hadland about his cycle racing career, with special reference to his time on the small-wheeler. The interview is just under 32 minutes long and can be found in the Cycling section of this website. (Hover your mouse pointer over the word “Cycling” in the banner at the head of the page, then click on “Interviews”.) Or you can go straight to the Interviews page via this link:
I’ve updated my bibliography. This follows the publication of the fourth edition of Mike Burrows’ book Bicycle Design: towards the perfect machine (which I edited and co-authored) and the reissue of my book The Moulton Bicycle in a new binding as The F-frame Moultons.
You can get to my bibliography via the ‘Talks, books & biography’ tab above or via this direct link: https://hadland.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/tony-hadlands-bibliography/
Some instructions for disassembling Sturmey-Archer gears include a mysterious statement such as this:
“Next, unscrew the right-hand ball ring but because it has a two-start thread and must be replaced in its original position, that position must be marked. String or adhesive tape may be attached to the spoke nearest to the letters ‘SA’ which are stamped in one of the notches on the ring.” (From the 1956 Master Catalogue, sub-section 4, page 15, paragraph 1.)
The reason for replacing the right-hand ball ring in the same position is as follows. If the ring is screwed back in the alternative position, 180 degrees out from its original position, there could be some slight distortion of the completed assembly, due to a very slight difference of alignment between the hub shell and the ball ring. Whilst not noticeable at the hub end, it can result in the rim being slightly out of true. (The longer the spokes, the more the discrepancy is amplified.) So the precaution is in order to avoid the possible need to re-true the wheel.
This matter is not well documented but the rare 1992 Sutherland’s Handbook of Coaster Brakes and Internally Geared Hubs makes the point clearly. To facilitate correct re-assembly, Sutherland’s advises marking the ball ring at the point nearest the lubricator, rather than attaching tape or string to a spoke.
The reason for the two-start thread is to facilitate screwing the ball ring in relatively quickly, while having a stronger mechanical connection than an equally fast single-start thread would offer. For a given screw pitch, a two-start thread will screw in twice as fast as a single-start thread.
Bruce D Epperson is, among other things, an eminent American cycle historian. His paper ‘A New Class of Cyclist: Banham’s Bicycle and the Two-wheeled World it didn’t Create’ should be compulsory reading for anybody studying the history of cycling in the United Kingdom in the 1960s and 1970s. It appeared in the journal Mobilities, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2013.
Here’s the abstract:
While not uncommon for innovator and innovation to merge into a single identity, it is more unusual for this to occur between object and critic. But it did happen in the 1960’s with a novel small-wheeled bicycle, the Moulton, and the British architecture and design critic Reyner Banham. Banham believed the Moulton would give rise to a new generation of middle-class urban radical cyclists who would eventually come to rely on bicycles for their transport needs. While this did not happen, the Moulton’s attention-getting technology did lead to a revived market in bicycles among young, newly affluent consumers who bought small-wheeled utility bicycles as fashion statements and status symbols.
The article is particular relevant to those interested in the history of Moulton bicycles, the Raleigh cycle company and the Raleigh 20 series of small-wheelers – Raleigh’s biggest selling product line in the mid 1970s.
The article can be purchased online here from the publisher, Taylor & Francis:
Web of Science provides more information about the article, including contact details for the author: