text:
Goeldi's marmoset

Goeldi's marmoset, or Goeldi's monkey (Callimico goeldii), is a small New World monkey found on the South American continent, mainly in the upper Amazon basin of Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, and Perú. It is the only species classified in the monotypic genus Callimico, thus these monkeys are sometimes referred to as "callimicos". The species takes its name from its discoverer, Swiss-Brazilian naturalist Emil August Goeldi.

Likely an evolutionary adaptation for camouflage and the evasion of predators, Goeldi's marmosets are a dark-furred species, usually a blackish-gray or darker brown in color. Superficially, the short hair on their head gives them a vague resemblance to the larger woolly monkey (Lagothrix); however, the back of their necks, their backside, and tails often display light, horizontal striping or highlights. Their bodies are about 8 – long, and their tails are about another 10 – long. Captive Goeldi's marmosets weigh around 0.4835 kg, while observed individuals were approximately 0.500 kg in the wild. Their digits have claw-like nails, except for the hallux, which serves for clinging, scansorial (arboreal) movement and escape, and the extraction of certain food sources from trees, such as fruits, honey, seed pods, etc.

Taxonomy and evolution
Goeldi's marmoset was first described in 1904, making Callimico one of the more recent monkey genera to be described. In older classification schemes it was sometimes placed in its own family Callimiconidae and sometimes, along with the marmosets and tamarins, in the subfamily Callitrichinae in the family Cebidae. More recently, Callitrichinae has been (re-)elevated to family status as Callitrichidae.

Molecular phylogenetics shows that C. goeldii evolved from an ancestral callitrichine and shares this origin with marmosets making them sister taxa. One evolutionary argument to account for their differences, states that C. goeldii conserves primitive traits such as single births and a third molar lost in many marmosets. Alternatively, another evolutionary argument indicates that Callimicos came from a two-molar marmoset and reintroduced the remote traits, which in either case selectively give them the ability to access to different resources and occupy different niches. Similarities in delayed embryonic development and secondary limb-bone ossification between C. goeldii and marmosets are evidence of their close evolutionary relationship.

Reproduction
Females reach sexual maturity at 8.5 months, males at 16.5 months. The gestation period lasts from 144 to 159 days. Callimicos studied in captivity in North America and Europe for near 40 years have shown to produce on average 3.5 offspring during their lifetime. However, 30% of the females and 45% of the males observed in these settings never reproduced.

Unlike other New World monkeys, they have the capacity to give birth twice a year. Biannual births occur regularly in captivity and less consistently in the wild and are attributed to postpartum estrus that allows the female to be ready to reproduce soon after parturition. The availability of fungus -an important food source for C. goeldii- throughout the year also contributes to these multiple births.

The mother carries a single baby monkey per pregnancy, whereas most other species in the family Callitrichidae usually give birth to twins. These singleton births provide the offspring with longer maternal care and weaning delay that results in faster growth rates and in turn earlier sexual maturity than the other marmosets.

Infant care
For the first 2–3 weeks the mother acts as the primary caregiver after which the father and the helpers, who are often the siblings, share many of the responsibilities. However, mothers in the wild have been observed giving their babies to other members of the troop as early as 10 days after parturition, which is late for other marmosets.

At birth, Callimicos offspring weigh 10% the weight of their mother's whereas the twinning marmosets weight double that amount, which explains the delay in allocare in C. goeldii since it is not as crucial as it is for its counterparts. Cooperative care in callitrichines is therefore necessary to help mothers recover from gestation, parturition, and lactation as well as to share the energetic cost of carrying the infant among the helpers and the father.

Caregivers must also provide food to the infants when they turn 4 weeks of age. The task of food provisioning includes tolerance to food robbing since infants are at a stage of learning how to forage by themselves. Also at week 4, mothers stop nursing in the wild, but that behaviour is believed to be influenced by the presence of the observers and therefore, it is suspected that nursing resumes when humans are not present. Whereas C. goeldii in captivity, nursing extends until the infant is 8–15 weeks old. Thus, the offspring will be weaned when it becomes about 63 days of age. There is no difference between male and female helpers on the amount of involvement on infant care. Even juvenile C. goeldii participate as active caregivers.

Infants are carried entirely during the first month and 63% of the time on the next month. They do not leave their guardian side until they become 2.5 months of age and around 3 months old, they are rarely carried, but locomotive independence comes more forcibly than voluntarily. Females outnumber males by 2 to 1. The life expectancy in captivity is about 10 years.

Development
From birth to about 18 months old, callimicos grow faster than other marmosets in part because the energy they would otherwise invest on thermal regulation and activity costs if they were not carried by their mothers is instead directed to growth. Likewise, a longer lactation period is also responsible for a faster development. Growth rate and weight gain is similar in both male and female infants and juveniles.

Distribution and habitat
Callimicos 's geographic distribution extends from the Colombian Amazon and the Río Caquetá (Portuguese: Japurá) to the Peruvian and the western Brazilian Amazon, into the Pando department of northwestern Bolivia, where high densities have been reported. Its presence in Ecuador has yet to be officially confirmed. The distribution of the species is patchy, and its density seems to be dependent on polyspecific associations with tamarins.

Sightings of Goeldi’s marmosets have been made at the base of the Cordillera Oriental of the Andes in Colombia, in the Department of Putumayo, along the Putumayo and Caquetá Rivers.

In Perú's northern interior, they occur in the Pucacuro National Reserve, close to the Río Tigre, where they are known as chi-chi by locals. To the south, they have been found at the Centro de Investigación y Capacitación Río Los Amigos (or Los Amigos River Training and Research Center, CICRA), Manu National Park, and the Concesión de Conservación Rodal Semillero Tahuamanu (CCRST), in addition to adjacent and surrounding areas. They were also spotted near the Yura River and Sierra del Divisor National Park in groups of three to twelve individuals.

Some observations were previously recorded via the live-trapping of marmosets, beginning in the 1970s until the early 2010s; on one occasion, the captured marmosets were taken for closer examination and breeding at the Centro de Conservación y Reprodución de Primates, Iquitos. Using food baits at stationary sites, and recordings of their vocalizations, and those of tamarins, with whom they associate, were also employed to attract them.

In Brazil, Goeldi's marmosets occur in the southwest Amazon in the west-central state of Acre, over the Serra do Divisor, south near the Juruá and into the Gregório, Amazonas; they can also be found near the Laco River, further south to the upper Purús and in the Madeira basin, as well as near the Abunã River, Rondônia. High densities of this species have been recorded in the Pando department in Bolivia.

Goeldi's marmosets prefer to forage in dense, scrubby undergrowth; perhaps because of this, they are rare, with groups living in separate patches of preferred habitat, separated by miles of unfavorable habitat. In the wet season, their diet includes fruits, flowers, flying insects, spiders, mollusks, small lizards, tree frogs and small or young snakes. In the dry season, they feed on fungi, the only tropical primates known to choose this as a source of sustenance. They live in small social groups, of approximately six individuals, that stay within a few feet of one another most of the time, staying in contact via high-pitched calls. They are also known to form polyspecific or interspecific groups with tamarins such as the white-lipped tamarin and brown-mantled tamarin. This is perhaps because Goeldi's marmosets are not known to have the X-linked polymorphism which enables some individuals of other New World monkey species to see in full tri-chromatic vision.

title: Goeldi's marmoset


text:
Talk:GNU

I wouldn't call it an operating system
GNU's most important task is to provide open source versions of the UNIX command line tools. There is some other software under the GNU umbrella as well, such as GNOME. But it's still an exaggeration to call GNU an operating system. It's more like a collection of some essential components for an operating system. 80.223.182.224 (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Here on Wikipedia we add content based on verfiable reliable non-primary sources. What should be in the article, if it can be backed up by such sources, is all of the points-of-views of what GNU is, including the one you express here. — Lentower (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * GNU certainly is not a fully functional operating system on its own, so it might be a bit misleading to call it such. 80.220.226.229 (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd call it the operating system that never was, making a point to highlight that Linux, which, unlike GNU, is a real, fully functional operating system, has won.176.83.205.28 (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Linux alone-- the kernel only-- is not a "fully functional operating system" at all.CrazyDave2345 (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How salty. "GNU advocate" here. Ever heard of the Debian GNU/Hurd? That's a fully functioning albeit experimental operating system. If by "won", you mean "every layperson calls Linux a 'fully functional operating system'" even though a minimal fully functioning "Linux" instance (one that can compile and build itself from source) contains more code written by the GNU Project than by Linus (and the kernel team)" (and don't give me crap about how glibc and the coreutils can be replaced, cause the gcc sure can't, and anyway "Linux" itself can be readily replaced by kfreebsd) then you're right. If by "won" you mean "the most successful popularizers of 'Linux' don't give a fuck about freedom and consider 'open source' a profitable buzzword", then you're right again. And if by "won" you mean "people think a blobby monolithic kernel is the height of efficiency and modularity" you're right a third time. So hooray for the successful propagation of an invidious and ultimately harmful lie!
 * That being said, if your intent was to assert that "Linux has defeated GNU and free software", you are mistaken. The greatest bastion of support for the GNU Project and its ideals is (by far) the "Linux" community itself.
 * Thanks for giving me an excuse to rant, annonie.--Monochrome _ Monitor  16:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Friendly reminder here: WP:NOTFORUM. - Ahunt (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * With Richard Stallman out of the way, GNU is finally dead. I wonder how long it'll take Wikipedia to acknowledge it.185.23.220.233 (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how you figure that, got any refs for it? There are still many people doing dev work on GNU projects. It is not like all work ended. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The whole operating system project is the GNU project. Please see the GNU/Linux naming controversy. Linux is just one of the kernels of the GNU operating system. The Linux kernel became this big only after it was freed to GPL licence and made a part of the whole operating system. Hurd is another kernel of the operating system. How can all these facts be ignored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.199.68 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

 * See below. GNU is not an operating system, as it was never completed. - Ahunt (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am using GNU Operating System with the Linux kernel in my laptop, and Android Operating System with the Linux kernel in my phone. HURD is a kernel, just like Linux. HURD, Linux are not Operating Systems.

gzip, 7zip, compress registered trade names or trade marks
GNU compress look so good on a GUI but for legal reasons had to be renamed. Another promising packer software name would be gnu Densify.

Let‘s start the Talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E0:8F0B:8E39:6514:F376:3E3F:51B7 (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

GNU is not an operating system; GNU is not GNU Hurd
I have removed three citations used to support the claim that GNU was an operating system. These were specifically and expressly referring to GNU Hurd, an operating system developed by the GNU project, which as you see has its own article and is not the 'GNU' this article refers to. Hence those citations didn't belong here. Aside from this I mirror the opinion above that calling GNU an operating system is misleading the reader. An operating system is a combination of code capable of operating computational circuitry. While you can argue whether an operating system also is more than that and the basic functions should just be called a kernel, it is indisputably not less than that. But the GNU software collection is by itself not capable of operating computer hardware unless combined with an operating system/kernel. If Hurd is included, this threshold is reached, but it seems universally accepted that the GNU entity does not necessarily include Hurd, as can be seen from the GNU/Linux meme. Therefore, we should not call GNU an operating system in the opening paragraph; we should call it a collection of programmes, which is completely uncontroversial and unambiguous under any definition, and cover the topic of to what extent GNU gets referred to as an operating system in a separate header. Korn (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you have written. Are you able to make those further changes? - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't mislead people. GNU Hurd is a kernel of an OS, just like the kernel known as Linux. GNU is an operating system. They made all the software, and where in the process of making the kernel. Linus made a proprietary kernel, based on a monolithic design, and nobody cared about it. He then freed it, put inside the GNU OS, and called the entire OS as Linux. Other operating systems which have Linux as the kernel are called Operating Systems. Android is called an Operating System, Firefox OS is called an Operating System, Chrome OS is called an Operating System. But somehow some people don't want to call GNU Operating System and Operating System. Use the same standards for all systems. 103.70.199.53 (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The citations in question were unambiguously not about GNU Hurd; they were about GNU as an operating system in general, without respect to what kernel it uses: the Handbook reference claims that GNU is an operating system, the most widely used variants of which use the Linux kernel; the GNU Manifesto refers to GNU as a complete Unix clone and doesn't refer to the kernel at all, since neither Linux nor HURD existed at the time the Manifesto was written; and the ESR reference also refers to GNU as an operating system that completely clones Unix. As the sources supported exactly the claims being made in the article, I have restored them, and added relevant quotations.
 * It's not our place to omit or contradict information contained in reliable sources simply because we have a difference of opinion. Ahunt and Korn, if there is an argument to be made that GNU is not an operating system, then you need to either demonstrate that the three sources given in the article are not reliable (and that no further reliable sources exist in support of this claim), in which case the claim can be removed, or else you need to find further reliable sources arguing that GNU is not an operating system, and then use them to document the controversy of GNU's status in the article (giving due weight to each side of the argument). —Psychonaut (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Upon further digging into the article history, I see now that the references Korn removed weren't the ones I was referring to in my comment above, but actually a great deal more. It looks like the removed references indeed referred to Hurd rather than GNU as a whole.  But the three remaining references in the lede still explicitly refer to GNU as a whole as an operating system, and so my point still stands.  As long as these references remain in the article, there is no basis on which we can remove the claim that GNU is an operating system. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Your refs indeed show that the original intention was to create an GNU operating system, but the FSF ref cited shows that it was never completed to an operational status, because Hurd development was never followed through beyond an unstable testing level. As FSF says today: It may not be ready for production use, as there are still some bugs and missing features. The additional of other software from outside GNU, like Linux and BSD created hybrid, although workable operating systems. The additional of even more outside software, like browsers and office software made them usable on a daily basis. Today the GNU projcet results are useful software that is used to make up components an operating system in typical Linux distributions, but these are just as easily replaced on OSs like Android. Today there still is no completed GNU operating system; there was a plan in the 1980s to create one, but it was never completed. The refs are pretty clear such that that you can state it was "an unrealized plan to create a an operating system" or, alternatively a "collection of software" that is used to create an operating system when combined with outside components". - Ahunt (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Stating it that way would be at best putting words in the mouths of the cited authors and at worst flat-out contradicting them. (What part of "Variants of the GNU operating system, which use the kernel called Linux, are now widely used" justifies the notion that GNU is incomplete?)  If you want to revise the article to cast GNU as a failed or incomplete operating system, then you first need find some references that make this claim explicitly.  But be mindful of 103.70.199.53's argument above: we don't claim that Android is "not an operating system" or "an incomplete operating system" just because it integrates a pre-existing kernel. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are going to argue that GNU is a complete and functional operating system, because it can use the Linux kernel, then we already have a very longstanding consensus as to what those operating systems are called on Wikipedia: Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What I am arguing is that we should use the terminology adopted by reliable sources, and the three reliable sources cited for the nature of GNU in the lede all call it an operating system. To the extent that "longstanding consensus" matters, I should point out that the present article has been calling GNU an operating system as far back in its history as 2002. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you just proved my point in conjuring up those three lead refs. St Amant and Still's quote, as well as Raymond's, show that the aim was to produce an operating system and neither give any statement that that work was ever considered complete. Even Stallman's quote is GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free to everyone who can use it. All of these three refs directly support that the original intention was to write a complete operating system. None state the work was ever completed. Even Stallman's entire document is written in future tense, a direct indication that it remains unrealized.
 * I think the most authoritative ref is the GNU Project itself which says The Hurd, together with the GNU Mach microkernel, the GNU C Library and the other GNU and non-GNU programs in the GNU system, provide a rather complete and usable operating system today. It may not be ready for production use, as there are still some bugs and missing features. However, it should be a good base for further development and non-critical application usage. Despite the rosy language, clearly is an admission that it is not ready for use. Furthermore, that same page it quotes the most recent evaluation from Signell, I don't use GNU/Hurd for my day-to-day business (yet), that is mainly due to some of the above mentioned missing features ... When some of the missing features are implemented (and remaining bugs squeezed out) I will seriously consider using the Hurd on real hardware, as my primary system. For now it stays in the VM environment, mainly for porting and development purposes. If there are any refs that say it has been completed and can now be used, I have not seen them. - Ahunt (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're starting to rehash arguments that have already been addressed as recently as yesterday. I'm not going to belabour the points that I and others have already made. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay then I guess there are no refs that say it was ever considered a complete operating system and ready for production use. - Ahunt (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't mislead people. I know that a lot of people using the GNU Operating System. I use the GNU Operating System with the Linux kernel in my laptop, and the Android Operating System with the Linux kernel in my phone. I have mentioned it before. Cherry picking should not be done intentionally. This fallacy is a common theme here. Other operating systems which have Linux as the kernel are called Operating Systems. Android is called an Operating System, Firefox OS is called an Operating System, Chrome OS is called an Operating System. But somehow you don't want to call GNU Operating System and Operating System. GNU Hurd is a kernel of an OS, just like the kernel known as Linux. GNU is an operating system. They made all the software, and where in the process of making the kernel. Linus made a proprietary kernel, based on a monolithic design, and nobody cared about it. He then freed it, put inside the GNU OS (as the last piece of the jigsaw), and called the entire OS as Linux. Use the same standards for all systems. 103.70.199.74 (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you want to change the the goalposts for the GNU Project and ignore the refs that you cited. This whole thread supports the text changes that User:Korn had made. - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahunt, you have not provided any reference that GNU OS and the Android OS can have different set of standards for qualifying as an operating system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.199.74 (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay now you are down to word games. You know perfectly well that Android never had a design goal of creating a new OS from scratch with a newly designed kernel, as the GNU Project did. It was always intended to use the Linux kernel and it does. Android met its original design goals, whereas GNU never has.
 * You say your laptop is running the GNU operating system, but you haven't provided ref for that. I also have a laptop I am writing this on. It is a System76 and it is running Lubuntu, which is an operating system that uses the Linux kernel, some GNU tools and other applications such as Firefox, FeatherPad and LibreOffice. The developers of it describe it as being Built with a rock-solid Ubuntu Linux base ... Lubuntu works flawless, giving you a smooth Linux experience. The devs don't mention GNU at all and specifically do not call it a GNU operating system, because it isn't. That source's position is also in accordance with the consensus here on Wikipedia that calls Lubuntu a Linux distribution and covers it as an operating system as part of Linux. I am curious as to which GNU operating system you are running and how its devs describe it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The authentic authority is the developers themselves. https://www.gnu.org/
 * Please see the gnu.org: GNU is an operating system that is free software—that is, it respects users' freedom. The GNU operating system consists of GNU packages (programs specifically released by the GNU Project) as well as free software released by third parties. I am using a third party free software called Linux kernel.
 * The operating system project is GNU. They made all the software, and where in the process of making the kernel. Linus made a proprietary kernel, based on a monolithic design, and nobody cared about it. He then freed it, put inside the GNU OS (as the last piece of the jigsaw), and called the entire OS as Linux.
 * If you have a reference that they had a goal where by the entire software stack had to be made by the GNU developers, and that they have since shifted their goal post, please provide the link. As far as I know, that is not the goal of any large software project, and reusing other people's work is how all software is written. 103.70.199.74 (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay we have already been around that one. Stallman himself and that page you cited, too, calls what you are calling a "GNU Operating System" with a Linux kernel, "GNU/Linux". As per MOS:LINUX, on Wikipedia we call that "Linux". I think we can close this thread out. - Ahunt (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. In https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/luispo-rms-interview.en.html as well as https://www.gnu.org/, Richard Stallman and the GNU developers say that GNU is an operating system. I shall update page to include the MOS:LINUX part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.199.74 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything you are quote are all WP:PRIMARY from the GNU Projects itself. You need to show that third party sources agree with that obviously slanted POV, or else it is nothing more than promoting the subject of the article, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay it seems pretty clear from your edits and the discussion above that you are here to promote the GNU Project though this article. From discussions on this page there is no current consensus for your additions so rather than edit war, I would suggest you leave things here for a few days and let's see if other editors would like to express some opinions on this issue. The last editor to work on this page, before you changed it all, has been MIA for a few days and there are other page watchers who will probably chime in, given a chance here. - Ahunt (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was in the middle of editing this document. Sure, I will leave the page as-is. I don't want an edit war, but a neutral point of view. Let us see what others have to say, other than me, you, Psychonaut and Korn.
 * HURD project is not an initial design goal. Technopedia states "GNU is a Unix-compatible operating system developed by the GNU project, which was started in 1983 by Richard Stallman with the goal of producing nonproprietary software"(https://www.techopedia.com/definition/3522/gnu). Linuxandubuntu.com(http://www.linuxandubuntu.com/home/what-is-gnu-in-gnulinux) supports the same views. What I have mentioned is peer reviewed by IEEE (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4021370). IEEE does not publish promotional materials. 103.70.199.74 (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reached here from a conversation forum where one of the editors involved in this debate came to solicit links in support of the idea that GNU is an operating system. I support removing the statement that GNU is an operating system. GNU is a collection of free software packages. But an operating system is defined as "a set of programs that controls the way a computer works and runs other programs" in Oxford dictionary and as a "set of basic programs and utilities that make your computer run" on debian website. If GNU is an operating system, I want to see where I can download it from to make my computer run. The gnu.org website itself points to GNU/Linux operating systems like PureOS and Trisquel which describe themselves as "GNU/Linux". So, GNU is not "an" operating system. GNU is a family of operating systems. And this family includes PureOS, Trisquel, Debian, Ubuntu, etc. It is the family that is widely known as "Linux" family of operating systems (as pointed out elsewhere in this thread). The [Linux] page does talk about the controversy of naming of that family of operating systems. It is sad that the family of operating systems didn't get called GNU operating systems. It is sad that it didn't even get called GNU/Linux. But it is the reality. And wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a historian who gives credit where credit is due. asdofindia (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your thoughts here, but also for letting us know that the IP above was conducting WP:CANVAS, which is not allowed under Wikipedia rules. - Ahunt (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what's the problem. GNU is a collection of software. This is unchallenged consensus and hence is put into the opening line. Whether 'GNU', specifically the software project just called 'GNU' which is the topic of this article, is an operating system is debated. The article mentions that there are two definitions of 'operating system', one of which 'GNU' (again 'GNU' as covered in this article, not 'GNU Hurd', which is a subset of it) without question or doubt does not meet, precisely because it is a software collection, not a kernel. As to whether it meets the other is debated. With 50% of the definitions undeniably not met and the other debated, subsuming GNU as an operating system does not belong in the opening paragraph, as it needs some qualification/explanation, which said paragraph cannot provide, and hence is misleading through omission. As for the debated definition, we present all combinations of GNU with external and internal kernels, point out where names are debated, and which combinations are full operating systems under that definition including nothing but GNU software. So what exaclty is in question here, when the situation is explained by the article in full? It seems to me the only thing really argued about is whether GNU should be called an operating system in the first sentence, which for the reasons given, is not acceptable for a neutral dictionary and, frankly, seems like POV pushing. ps.: Per WP:RS the FSF is one of the least authorities on how to qualify their project. Their viewpoint can be presented unfiltered on their own webpage, an encyclopedia must contextualise it, which the article does and the opening paragraph does not. This contextualisation also creates the asked for neutral POV, which is not 'GNU is a software collection and operating system' but rather 'GNU is a software collection. The FSF considers it an operating system, which is undebated under the following conditions if you define an "operating system" as follows [...] but is debated when [...]"', which, again, the article presents, the opening paragraph does not. Korn (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Okay, with no further discussion in the last five days I think we can close this with the consensus above. I have returned the article to the consensus WP:NPOV text. - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

GNU is the Operting System on which Linux Kernel is based. "Argumentum ad populum" is not Consensus.
There was no consensus when the former discussion is forcefully closed. Normal individuals can not argue with a large number of addresses hired by a PR agency. I can see that another user had already disproved the arguments which says that GNU is not an OS. Please come up with any arguments which prove that GNU is not an OS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.89.85 (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

 * That is no way to start a new consensus discussion. First the discussion had closed after it ended with a consensus. It was closed, "not forcfully" (I think you mean "forcibly") but due to to no further discussion over a lengthy period of time, which is how all discussions normally end. And secondly you start off with a bad faith accusation that somehow anyone you disagree with are somehow "hired by a PR agency". As far as that accusation goes you need to provide some sort of proof of that conspiracy theory or else start by withdrawing it and apologizing. Why would any "PR agency" care about this issue, which one and whom did they hire?

 * As far as your demand, "Please come up with any arguments which prove that GNU is not an OS". The editors working on this page already have a consensus here. That is how Wikipedia works, in Latin or in English. Please refer to WP:CONSENSUS for the details. The onus is on you, in re-opening the discussion, to prove your case, not for anyone else to disprove it. You need to start by presenting third party sources that support what you are saying. You can note that the GNU Foundation and the FSF are not third parties.

 * You can also note that editing warring against consensus to impose your desired wording without first gaining a new consensus will only get you blocked. First make a cogent and persuasive argument and then gain a new consensus.

 * You may also want to to have a read of WP:DEADHORSE before you start. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

 * ✅ The IP is correct. GNU is a full-fledged, and fully functional operating system and HURD is its kernel. The HURD page says this: "GNU Hurd is the multiserver microkernel written as part of GNU". Just because people can swap its official kernel for another – more developed and popular – one (Linux), it doesn’t mean GNU doesn’t have a kernel.
 * Therefore, the following comment written by User:Korn doesn’t make any sense, actually it sounds like an unsourced (I’m not sure whether memes are RS, you may want to double check that lol) personal opinion: "But the GNU software collection is by itself not capable of operating computer hardware unless combined with an operating system/kernel. If Hurd is included, this threshold is reached, but it seems universally accepted that the GNU entity does not necessarily include Hurd, as can be seen from the GNU/Linux meme.".
 * I see no consensus in the discussion above. specially because User:Psychonaut raised concerns that weren't properly addressed, but simply ignored. More importantly, User:Ahunt shouldn’t have, by any means, prematurely closed the discussion by themselves, as a highly involved party. -   (talk)  17:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Striking overstatement.  -   (talk)  06:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I think that the arguments against usage of third party software is already addressed. I shall ask my roommate to address the only remaining argument, which says that FSF is not a third party which endorsed this view. Hopefully he will respond to that argument. As far as I understand, GNU OS can be GNU/Linux, GNU/Hurd or GNU with any kernel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.80.253 (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand this. Some here say that the GNU OS was never finished (or that its kernel was never finished), others say that *maybe* it *could* be an OS if it had a kernel to manage resources and run programs;
 * Meanwhile, in the HURD's article (aka GNU's never materialized kernel), we have a screenshot of HURD running a Window Manager and a Web Browser.
 * Yes, that distro is called Debian HURD, but let me ask you this: We say that Debian is a GNU\Linux distro, but what is left when we take that linux off ? That's right, it is pure GNU. -  (talk)  06:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 * It is nice to see the GNU Project cavalry arrive here all at once. Just to be clear though, you are here to overturn an existing consensus that was established two months ago. So far all you have done it rehash the old arguments that were made in the last discussion and that were rebutted. I would suggest you read the last debate in detail to see where new arguments can be established. To create a new consensus here you need to make persuasive arguments that reliable, third party sources agree with your position. You can note that this would be sources like academic journals, tech media, general media, and so on, in other words, not organizations started by Richard Stallman to promote the GNU project, like the GNU Project itself or the FSF. These are first party sources, in the same way that Ford Motors would be a first party on the merits of the Ford Mustang. So far you have presented no new references and no new or persuasive arguments. I am not going to get into any minutia debates here on your loudly-stated opinions and I doubt other editors watching this page will, either. Like the last one, this discussion will be closed once debate has ended and no new posts are made for five days or so. - Ahunt (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I agree with you about the sources. Primary sources are acceptable in some cases, but this is not one of them. We need sources other than Stallman, FSF, or GNU project. Likewise, we also need sources (not memes) unequivocally stating that GNU is not an operating system. Sources stating that GNU is a "collection of software" do not lead to that conclusion (as most operating system are a collection of software). That being said, apparently there aren’t many good, independent sources calling it an OS, (we can find some so-so sources here and there tho).
 * Alternatively, we could include a line saying something like "GNU's kernel never left the early-development stage."
 * (I see no consensus in the discussions above and please do not rush to close discussions when others are disagreeing with you, things like this never look good). -  (talk)  18:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I will quote myself from the previous consensus: I think the most authoritative ref is the GNU Project itself which says The Hurd, together with the GNU Mach microkernel, the GNU C Library and the other GNU and non-GNU programs in the GNU system, provide a rather complete and usable operating system today. It may not be ready for production use, as there are still some bugs and missing features. However, it should be a good base for further development and non-critical application usage. Despite the rosy language, clearly is an admission that it is not ready for use.

 * You won't find a ref that says something isn't something. To extend my last analogy, a Ford Mustang is not a space ship, but I guarantee you can't find a WP:RS that says that.

 * To address your previous claim "We say that Debian is a GNU\Linux distro, but what is left when take that linux off ? That's right, it is pure GNU." Actually a typical Linux distribution is 8% GNU. ref - Ahunt (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

 * You sure have a very creative way of interpreting things. The way you turn a "rather complete and usable operating system today" into an "admission that it is not ready for use". Being feature-rich, stable and polished aren't the criteria that define OS's. A buggy OS is still an OS. As User:Korn said: An OS manages resources and runs other programs. GNU is capable of doing those things all by itself. You provided no evidence of the contrary. If someone claims that Hurd isn't considered part of GNU, I'm sorry but we'll need sources in order to consider that very odd claim.
 * Somebody above asked: "If it is really an OS, where can I get it?". At Hurd's webpage you can find LiveCD images and system images for Qemu and VirtualBox, for example. Note that Hurd presents itself as part of the GNU project and says that its mission is to create a Kernel for the GNU OS.
 * Regarding the Debian\Ubuntu composition thing, I was referring to the base system: As in "when you take Linux out of GNU\Linux, what is left is GNU". I obviously wasn't referring to apps like Firefox. (and I really thought that I wouldn’t need to explain this). Almost in the same way we call ubuntu "linux", even though only 9% of it is actual linux.
 * Unfortunately, I think we've reached a stalemate, and a broader RfC should be considered in order to settle this. (but I really hope you’ll reconsider, and leave this decade-old version as it now stands). -   (talk)  18:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few editors watching this page, so give it a few days to allow people to respond. You can note if this process does not create a new consensus then the previous consensus stands. - Ahunt (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

There was some self-admitted off-wiki canvassing going on so it's a bit hard to tell which IP is who or is a different editor. The primary source, says that GNU is an operating system, but it's also calling it GNU/Linux, which is a whole different rabbit hole but that page is calling Parabola GNU/Linux-libre and other distros GNU, not Linux (or even GNU/Linux). This is their example of the GNU operating system, which is Linux, which they are calling GNU. Are there any reliable, third party sources that can show that GNU is an operating system, and not just another name for GNU/Linux or GNU/HURD? The article's subject at the moment appears to be the GNU packages and the attempt to create a GNU OS, which was superseded by Linux. Looking through the discussion and the sources given, I'm not seeing anything supporting the idea that GNU is an operating system and not a collection of tools that can be part of an operating system. - Aoidh (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The source you linked above says this: GNU is typically used with a kernel called Linux. This combination is the GNU/Linux operating system. GNU/Linux is used by millions, though many call it “Linux” by mistake. GNU's own kernel, The Hurd, was started in 1990 (before Linux was started). GNU and GNU\Hurd are the same thing (as Hurd is part of GNU). Sometimes ppl write it like that in order to diffentiate it from GNU\Linux. -   (talk)  01:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's kind of exactly my point. GNU and the FSF itself is inconsistent with what exactly the GNU operating system is or is not. Of course the FSF would want to claim Linux as the GNU OS (but only sometimes?), but that's not exactly an unbiased viewpoint. What do the reliable, third party sources say on the matter? - Aoidh (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I see no inconsistencies. GNU+Linux is one type of operating system. GNU+Hurd is another one. It's actually very simple. (Two examples of third-party sources calling it an OS: here and here) -  (talk)  02:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The first source you cited supports exactly what I'm saying. "GNU used alone is meant to meant to represent a full set of tools..." and that GNU, as the OS, is GNU/Linux (or GNU/HURD). This article is about the tools, which can exist independently of GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd. The Linux version is covered in its own article, and GNU HURD is as well. The second source doesn't really support what you're saying, it's defining who Stallman is, likely as part of his own bio, not exactly a non-trivial mention. Based on what you're saying, the lede should reflect that GNU is and can be used as part of Linux and part of GNU HURD, which are the OSes that you're referring to, but the GNU packages are not an OS unto itself. Also the sources already in the article, such as Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar which is no small citation, makes great pains to avoid calling GNU an operating system. The other sources including the GNU manefesto itself do point out that the initial intention was to create a fully fledged operating system, but the sources also point out that this didn't happen but there were an extensive series of packages that were completed, and when used with non-GNU items such as the Linux kernel, can form a full operating system. GNU, as in the collection of packages, is not by itself a full operating system any more than the Linux kernel by itself is, even Stallman readily admits to that. So why are we so insistent that the article make declarations that the non-trivial sources aren't making? - Aoidh (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not stop reading in the middle of a sentence. The source actually says this: GNU is an operating system that is free software. [...] GNU used alone is meant to represent a full set of tools, software, and kernel parts that an operating system needs. 👈👈👈
 * Quoting you: "the lede should reflect that GNU is and can be used as part of Linux and part of GNU HURD, which are the OSes that you're referring to, but the GNU packages are not an OS unto itself"
 * I really don't know why it is so hard for people to understand that Hurd is part of the GNU operating system (while linux is not, even though linux can be used to replace GNU's official kernel). -  (talk)  16:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I actually agree with you that the GNU tools with Hurd is a project to create the GNU operating system, but it needs to specify that as gnu.org says: It may not be ready for production use, as there are still some bugs and missing features. So it is an incomplete, or at least not "production ready", operating system today. I would be fine if we specify that. - Ahunt (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Nice. I also agree with that and this sounds like a good compromise. I'll attempt to add that info, feel free to make further changes as you see fit. -  (talk)  20:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 * And that's why GNU HURD has an article. GNU tools are used in Linux; Linux is not HURD. This article's subject is about the packages. The initial attempt to create an operating system is part of its history but not part of its current identity. More to the point what you quoted doesn't support what you're saying. Yes, they are things that an operating system needs. That does not make it an operating system unto itself. I didn't include that part because it's irrelevant at best, and argues against what you're saying at best. - Aoidh (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

GNU is an operating system
As well as an extensive collection of software (because that's what operating systems are), the two statements are compatible and true according to usage and citeable literature. This was clear and well-referenced by reliable sources in previous versions of the article, which I argue should be restored to replace this mess. It wouldn't surprise me if this mess turned out to be the work of sponsored editing and anti-GNU evangelizers, because it pretty much lingers on vandalistic lines.

Yes, GNU is an experimental OS, that is, when using GNU's own kernel "Hurd" instead of Linux. That also used to be well-referenced in the article. But an experimental OS is still an OS. If you believe this is wrong, go correct the articles for Darwin, ReactOS, TempleOS, Plan 9, etc; all of which are experimental or never see the production light, serving instead as component providers for other systems (macOS, Inferno). Actually, per Wikipedia's own policies (e.g. NPOV), all major views on a subject should be proportionally represented on the article, starting from the lead paragraph. Therefore, current versions are a violation of community standards. I think editors like User:Ahunt are smart enough to understand this and come fix their own mistakes. --isacdaavid 18:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 * You probably should start by reading WP:AGF and WP:NPA and withdraw your remarks, before you start accusing longstanding editors of being vandals. - Ahunt (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

acronym?
isnt the full name "GNU's Not Unix" Supa dan 10G (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 * @Supa dan 10G No – that's not how hackers work. It's just GNU. Also: recursive acronym – very important. -- dsprc   [talk]  21:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Supa dan 10G Also also: please use WP:REFDESK for generalized discussion and inquiries going forward. Talk pages are for improving articles, and (generally) not for discussing their subjects. -- dsprc   [talk]  21:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:GNU


text:
Gambling

Gambling (also known as betting or gaming) is the wagering of something of value ("the stakes") on a random event with the intent of winning something else of value, where instances of strategy are discounted. Gambling thus requires three elements to be present: consideration (an amount wagered), risk (chance), and a prize. The outcome of the wager is often immediate, such as a single roll of dice, a spin of a roulette wheel, or a horse crossing the finish line, but longer time frames are also common, allowing wagers on the outcome of a future sports contest or even an entire sports season.

The term "gaming" in this context typically refers to instances in which the activity has been specifically permitted by law. The two words are not mutually exclusive; i.e., a "gaming" company offers (legal) "gambling" activities to the public and may be regulated by one of many gaming control boards, for example, the Nevada Gaming Control Board. However, this distinction is not universally observed in the English-speaking world. For instance, in the United Kingdom, the regulator of gambling activities is called the Gambling Commission (not the Gaming Commission). The word gaming is used more frequently since the rise of computer and video games to describe activities that do not necessarily involve wagering, especially online gaming, with the new usage still not having displaced the old usage as the primary definition in common dictionaries. "Gaming" has also been used to circumvent laws against "gambling". The media and others have used one term or the other to frame conversations around the subjects, resulting in a shift of perceptions among their audiences.

Gambling is also a major international commercial activity, with the legal gambling market totaling an estimated $335 billion in 2009. In other forms, gambling can be conducted with materials that have a value, but are not real money. For example, players of marbles games might wager marbles, and likewise games of Pogs or Magic: The Gathering can be played with the collectible game pieces (respectively, small discs and trading cards) as stakes, resulting in a meta-game regarding the value of a player's collection of pieces.

History
Gambling dates back at least to the Paleolithic period, before written history. In Mesopotamia the earliest six-sided dice date to about 3000 BCE. However, they were based on astragali dating back thousands of years earlier. In China, gambling houses were widespread in the first millennium BCE, and betting on fighting animals was common. Lotto games and dominoes (precursors of Pai Gow) appeared in China as early as the 10th century.

Playing cards appeared in the 9th century CE in China. Records trace gambling in Japan back at least as far as the 14th century.

Poker, the most popular U.S. card game associated with gambling, derives from the Persian game As-Nas, dating back to the 17th century.

The first known casino, the Ridotto, started operating in 1638 in Venice, Italy.

Great Britain
Gambling has been a main recreational activity in Great Britain for centuries. Queen Elizabeth I chartered a lottery that was drawn in 1569. Horseracing has been a favorite theme for over three centuries. It has been heavily regulated. Historically much of the opposition comes from Nonconformist Protestants, and from social reformers.

United States
Gambling has been a popular activity in the United States for centuries. It has also been suppressed by law in many areas for almost as long. By the early 20th century, gambling was almost uniformly outlawed throughout the U.S. and thus became a largely illegal activity, helping to spur the growth of the mafia and other criminal organizations. The late 20th century saw a softening in attitudes towards gambling and a relaxation of laws against it.

Regulation

Many jurisdictions, local as well as national, either ban gambling or heavily control it by licensing the vendors. Such regulation generally leads to gambling tourism and illegal gambling in the areas where it is not allowed. The involvement of governments, through regulation and taxation, has led to a close connection between many governments and gambling organizations, where legal gambling provides significant government revenue, such as in Monaco and Macau, China.

There is generally legislation requiring that gambling devices be statistically random, to prevent manufacturers from making some high-payoff results impossible. Since these high payoffs have very low probability, a house bias can quite easily be missed unless the devices are checked carefully.

Most jurisdictions that allow gambling require participants to be above a certain age. In some jurisdictions, the gambling age differs depending on the type of gambling. For example, in many American states one must be over 21 to enter a casino, but may buy a lottery ticket after turning 18.

Insurance
Because contracts of insurance have many features in common with wagers, insurance contracts are often distinguished in law as agreements in which either party has an interest in the "bet-upon" outcome beyond the specific financial terms; for example, a "bet" with an insurer on whether one's house will burn down is not gambling, but rather insurance, as the homeowner has an obvious interest in the continued existence of the home independent of the purely financial aspects of the "bet" (i.e., the insurance policy). Nonetheless, both insurance and gambling contracts are typically considered aleatory contracts under most legal systems, though they are subject to different types of regulation.

Asset recovery
Under common law, particularly English Law (English unjust enrichment), a gambling contract may not give a casino bona fide purchaser status, permitting the recovery of stolen funds in some situations. In Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd, where a solicitor used stolen funds to gamble at a casino, the House of Lords overruled the High Court's previous verdict, adjudicating that the casino return the stolen funds less those subject to any change of position defence. U.S. Law precedents are somewhat similar. For case law on recovery of gambling losses where the loser had stolen the funds see "Rights of owner of stolen money as against one who won it in gambling transaction from thief".

An interesting question is what happens when the person trying to make recovery is the gambler's spouse, and the money or property lost was either the spouse's, or was community property. This was a minor plot point in a Perry Mason novel, The Case of the Singing Skirt, and it cites an actual case Novo v. Hotel Del Rio.

Buddhism
Lord Buddha stated gambling as a source of destruction in Singalovada Sutra.

Hinduism
Ancient Hindu poems like the Gambler's Lament and the Mahabharata testify to the existence of gambling among ancient Indians, while highlighting its destructive impact. The text Arthashastra (c. 4th century BCE) recommends taxation and control of gambling.

Judaism
Ancient Jewish authorities frowned on gambling, even disqualifying professional gamblers from testifying in court.

Catholicism
The Catholic Church holds the position that there is no moral impediment to gambling, so long as it is fair, all bettors have a reasonable chance of winning, there is no fraud involved, and the parties involved do not have actual knowledge of the outcome of the bet (unless they have disclosed this knowledge), and as long as the following conditions are met: the gambler can afford to lose the bet, and stops when the limit is reached, and the motivation is entertainment and not personal gain leading to the "love of money" or making a living. In general, Catholic bishops have opposed casino gambling on the grounds that it too often tempts people into problem gambling or addiction, and has particularly negative effects on poor people; they sometimes also cite secondary effects such as increases in loan sharking, prostitution, corruption, and general public immorality. Some parish pastors have also opposed casinos for the additional reason that they would take customers away from church bingo and annual festivals where games such as blackjack, roulette, craps, and poker are used for fundraising. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that gambling should be especially forbidden where the losing bettor is underage or otherwise not able to consent to the transaction. Gambling has often been seen as having social consequences, as satirized by Balzac. For these social and religious reasons, most legal jurisdictions limit gambling, as advocated by Pascal.

Protestantism
Gambling views among Protestants vary, with some either discouraging or forbidding their members from participation in gambling. Methodists, in accordance with the doctrine of outward holiness, oppose gambling which they believe is a sin that feeds on greed. Other denominations that discourage gambling are the United Methodist Church, the Free Methodist Church, the Evangelical Wesleyan Church, the Salvation Army, and the Church of the Nazarene.

Other Protestants that oppose gambling include Mennonites, Schwarzenau Brethren, Quakers, the Christian Reformed Church in North America, the Church of the Lutheran Confession, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Assemblies of God, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Other Christian denominations
Other churches that oppose gambling include the Jehovah's Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Iglesia ni Cristo, and the Members Church of God International.

Islam
There is a consensus among the ‘Ulema’ (عُـلـمـاء, Scholars (of Islam)) that gambling is haraam (حَـرام, sinful or forbidden). In assertions made during its prohibition, Muslim jurists describe gambling as being both un-Qur’anic, and as being generally harmful to the Muslim Ummah (أُمَّـة, Community). The Arabic terminology for gambling is Maisir. "They ask you about intoxicants and gambling. Say: 'In them both lies grave sin, though some benefit, to mankind. But their sin is more grave than their benefit.'" In parts of the world that implement full Shari‘ah, such as Aceh, punishments for Muslim gamblers can range up to 12 lashes or a one-year prison term and a fine for those who provide a venue for such practises. Some Islamic nations prohibit gambling; most other countries regulate it.

Bahá'í Faith
According to the Most Holy Book, paragraph 155, gambling is forbidden.

Casino games
While almost any game can be played for money, and any game typically played for money can also be played just for fun, some games are generally offered in a casino setting.

Electronic gambling

 * Online roulette
 * Pachinko
 * Sic Bo
 * Slot machine
 * Video poker
 * Video bingo

Other gambling

 * Bingo
 * Keno

Non-casino games
Gambling games that take place outside of casinos include bingo (as played in the US and UK), dead pool, lotteries, pull-tab games and scratchcards, and Mahjong.

Other non-casino gambling games include:
 * Non-casino card games, including historical games like Basset, Ecarté, Lansquenet and Put. Technically, a gambling card game is one in which the cards are not actually played but simply bet on.
 * Carnival Games such as The Razzle or Hanky Pank
 * Coin-tossing games such as Head and Tail, Two-up *
 * Confidence tricks such as Three-card Monte or the Shell game
 * Dice-based games, such as Backgammon, Liar's dice, Passe-dix, Hazard, Threes, Pig, or Mexico (or Perudo);

*Although coin tossing is not usually played in a casino, it has been known to be an official gambling game in some Australian casinos

Fixed-odds betting
Fixed-odds betting and Parimutuel betting frequently occur at many types of sporting events, and political elections. In addition many bookmakers offer fixed odds on a number of non-sports related outcomes, for example the direction and extent of movement of various financial indices, the winner of television competitions such as Big Brother, and election results. Interactive prediction markets also offer trading on these outcomes, with "shares" of results trading on an open market.

Parimutuel betting
One of the most widespread forms of gambling involves betting on horse or greyhound racing. Wagering may take place through parimutuel pools, or bookmakers may take bets personally. Parimutuel wagers pay off at prices determined by support in the wagering pools, while bookmakers pay off either at the odds offered at the time of accepting the bet; or at the median odds offered by track bookmakers at the time the race started.

Sports betting

Betting on team sports has become an important service industry in many countries. Before the advent of the internet, millions of people played the football pools every week in the United Kingdom. In addition to organized sports betting, both legal and illegal, there are many side-betting games played by casual groups of spectators, such as NCAA basketball tournament Bracket Pools, Super Bowl Squares, Fantasy Sports Leagues with monetary entry fees and winnings, and in-person spectator games like Moundball.

Virtual sports
Based on Sports Betting, Virtual Sports are fantasy and never played sports events made by software that can be played every time without wondering about external things like weather conditions.

Arbitrage betting
Arbitrage betting is a theoretically risk-free betting system in which every outcome of an event is bet upon so that a known profit will be made by the bettor upon completion of the event regardless of the outcome. Arbitrage betting is a combination of the ancient art of arbitrage trading and gambling, which has been made possible by the large numbers of bookmakers in the marketplace, creating occasional opportunities for arbitrage.

Other types of betting
One can also bet with another person that a statement is true or false, or that a specified event will happen (a "back bet") or will not happen (a "lay bet") within a specified time. This occurs in particular when two people have opposing but strongly held views on truth or events. Not only do the parties hope to gain from the bet, they place the bet also to demonstrate their certainty about the issue. Some means of determining the issue at stake must exist. Sometimes the amount bet remains nominal, demonstrating the outcome as one of principle rather than of financial importance.

Betting exchanges allow consumers to both back and lay at odds of their choice. Similar in some ways to a stock exchange, a bettor may want to back a horse (hoping it will win) or lay a horse (hoping it will lose, effectively acting as bookmaker).

Spread betting allows gamblers to wager on the outcome of an event where the pay-off is based on the accuracy of the wager, rather than a simple "win or lose" outcome. For example, a wager can be based on the when a point is scored in the game in minutes and each minute away from the prediction increases or reduces the payout.

Staking systems
Many betting systems have been created in an attempt to "beat the house" but no system can make a mathematically unprofitable bet in terms of expected value profitable over time. Widely used systems include:
 * Card counting – Many systems exist for blackjack to keep track of the ratio of ten values to all others; when this ratio is high the player has an advantage and should increase the amount of their bets. Keeping track of cards dealt confers an advantage in other games as well.
 * Due-column betting – A variation on fixed profits betting in which the bettor sets a target profit and then calculates a bet size that will make this profit, adding any losses to the target.
 * Fixed profits – the stakes vary based on the odds to ensure the same profit from each winning selection.
 * Fixed stakes – a traditional system of staking the same amount on each selection.
 * Kelly – the optimum level to bet to maximize your future median bank level.
 * Martingale – A system based on staking enough each time to recover losses from previous bet(s) until one wins.

Other uses of the term

Many risk-return choices are sometimes referred to colloquially as "gambling." Whether this terminology is acceptable is a matter of debate:
 * Emotional or physical risk-taking, where the risk-return ratio is not quantifiable (e.g., skydiving, campaigning for political office, asking someone for a date, etc.)
 * Insurance is a method of shifting risk from one party to another. Insurers use actuarial methods to calculate appropriate premiums, which is similar to calculating gambling odds. Insurers set their premiums to obtain a long term positive expected return in the same manner that professional gamblers select which bets to make. While insurance is sometimes distinguished from gambling by the requirement of an insurable interest, the equivalent in gambling is simply betting against one's own best interests (e.g., a sports coach betting against his own team to mitigate the financial repercussions of a losing season).
 * Situations where the possible return is of secondary importance to the wager/purchase (e.g. entering a raffle in support of a charitable cause)

Investments are also usually not considered gambling, although some investments can involve significant risk. Examples of investments include stocks, bonds and real estate. Starting a business can also be considered a form of investment. Investments are generally not considered gambling when they meet the following criteria:
 * Economic utility
 * Positive expected returns (at least in the long term)
 * Underlying value independent of the risk being undertaken

Some speculative investment activities are particularly risky, but are sometimes perceived to be different from gambling:
 * Foreign currency exchange (forex) transactions
 * Prediction markets
 * Securities derivatives, such as options or futures, where the value of the derivative is dependent on the value of the underlying asset at a specific point in time (typically the derivative's associated expiration date)

Negative consequences
Problem gambling has multiple symptoms. Gamblers often play again to try to win back money they have lost, and some gamble to relieve feelings of helplessness and anxiety.

In the United Kingdom, the Advertising Standards Authority has censured several betting firms for advertisements disguised as news articles suggesting falsely that a person had cleared debts and paid for medical expenses by gambling online. The firms face possible fines.

A 2020 study of 32 countries found that the greater the amount of gambling activity in a given country, the more volatile that country's stock-market prices are.

A  or levanting characterises the act of absconding following the outcome of a bet.

Psychological biases
Gamblers may exhibit a number of cognitive and motivational biases that distort the perceived odds of events and that influence their preferences for gambles.
 * Preference for likely outcomes. When gambles are selected through a choice process – when people indicate which gamble they prefer from a set of gambles (e.g., win/lose, over/under) – people tend to prefer to bet on the outcome that is more likely to occur. Bettors tend to prefer to bet on favorites in athletic competitions, and sometimes will accept even bets on favorites when offered more favorable bets on the less likely outcome (e.g., an underdog team).
 * Optimism/Desirability Bias. Gamblers also exhibit optimism, overestimating the likelihood that desired events will occur. Fans of NFL underdog teams, for example, will prefer to bet on their teams at even odds than to bet on the favorite, whether the bet is $5 or $50.
 * Reluctance to bet against (hedge) desired outcomes. People are reluctant to bet against desired outcomes that are relevant to their identity. Gamblers exhibit reluctance to bet against the success of their preferred U.S. presidential candidates and Major League Baseball, National Football League, National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) basketball, and NCAA hockey teams. More than 45% of NCAA fans in Studies 5 and 6, for instance, turned down a "free" real $5 bet against their team. From a psychological perspective, such a "hedge" creates an interdependence dilemma – a motivational conflict between a short-term monetary gain and the long-term benefits accrued from feelings of identification with and loyalty to a position, person, or group whom the bettor desires to succeed. In economic terms, this conflicted decision can be modeled as a trade-off between the outcome utility gained by hedging (e.g., money) and the diagnostic costs it incurs (e.g., disloyalty). People make inferences about their beliefs and identity from their behavior. If a person is uncertain about an aspect of their identity, such as the extent to which they value a candidate or team, hedging may signal to them that they are not as committed to that candidate or team as they originally believed. If the diagnostic cost of this self-signal and the resulting identity change are substantial, it may outweigh the outcome utility of hedging, and they may reject even very generous hedges.
 * Ratio bias. Gamblers will prefer gambles with worse odds that are drawn from a large sample (e.g., drawing one red ball from an urn containing 89 red balls and 11 blue balls) to better odds that are drawn from a small sample (drawing one red ball from an urn containing 9 red balls and one blue ball).
 * Gambler's fallacy/positive recency bias.

title: Gambling