I agree in the belief people aren't pushing false information for profit but you'd have to be foolish to not see that the climate and weather related damage has a market.
Contractors and firms bid for infrastructure before and after as well as clean up. This trickles to increase sales on most equipment they use. It wouldn't be hard to think of more instances.
I am astounded by the number of meaningless objections with entirely uncreative reasoning.
If one actually thinks of the analogy in terms of the show, it is perpetrated by the Cylons decades after they analyze their opponent, mankind, begin to infiltrate them and the largest source of their offense was made possible through a honey pot. Nothing more than social engineering followed by a well orchestrated attack on an unsuspecting opponent. Mankind was caught completely unawares due to the fact they saw no threat.
Networking is not just electronic, it bridges both human and machine and nations have been using this to their advantages in intelligence gathering and war making with for decades. If any nation were to attack it would be from years of setting things in place, key assets with high ranking officials or technical officers. Why not infiltrate numerous communications and mobile devices or nearly any technological corporation and over years, make backdoors, gather your information, blackmail key targets or terrorize them for information and ways into more secure areas. Cripple infrastructure and cause widespread panic economically and either let it fester and cause civil unrest or further use electronic attacks.
The arguments about militaries being able to rely on older methods of communication, surveying or information gathering are purely asinine. If you cripple a modern militaries communications and targeting capability and then attack, the force that react quicker and is not wondering why everything went black will win. Grab the tempo, use it to your advantage. Their inability to pass information efficiently will allow you keep the tempo, you're not for one bite you're going for the whole thing. Blitzkrieg with overwhelming force, physically and digitally thanks to years of patience.
Not sure why you replied to me. Should have been more explicit but you covered it and i agree. True on Minsc having most to say and the nostalgia surrounding the humor of it.
Since the next planescape is confirmed I was leaning for Baldurs without a care.
Woh, calm down looks like you're too far in the frenzy of your orgasm to notice I was not disputing, nor in anyway arguing the historical precedent of those incidents. I was saying that in the context of an argument if you only take into account what benefits you, then you really aren't actually producing an argument. You are simply restating something I learned about in 6th grade.
Again...refer to above before throwing around hyperlinks like it means anything. In case you still don't understand this concept it means that while an agency may do something wrong in the moral context of a citizens understanding you have failed to actually list any of their worth. By saying all these agencies should cease to be please actually consider their historical precedent and use before spouting off 4-5 incidents in the 20-21st century.
Reread your article bud, they declined to hear. Does not amount to not having the actual right to sue them. Nor did you specifically say what to sue them for beyond the generalization of their inclusion with government agencies.
This is a statement of caution, not at a demographic of the travel of people to foreign nations or their mood about going there. I have friends who have been to China, Russia, Mongolia, Tibet, the Middle East as well Africa. They were not so afraid that they opted to stay in Europe. You have to understand that there is a risk everywhere and whether or not the state cautions in those area it is not equivalent to the statement of their general malaise in the travel to these places.
Rights are regularly circumvented for this very reason, they're called exigent circumstances. Your weirdly hyperbolic sarcasm aside, I wasn't talking about Kim Dotcom or NZ. Don't really care about them. I was mainly speaking non-violent intelligence gathering to preclude violence.
If you really want to drag it out, this doesn't have to do with what should be but with what is. Stop barking at the status quo and reality, he was made out to worse than a murder too bad. He stole from rich people, shouldn't have been that dumb. That simple. You want to commit crimes know who you are commiting them against and don't be surprised when you get caught or held for what is flimsy legal reasoning or downright illegal. It's like pissing off the mob and expecting not to have your family tortured or something.
Wow, you really eat this shit up. You do realize I wasn't speaking about the US in particular, it was a generalization since you said all agencies with their authority. You can list as many of the negatives as you wish but your argument has no merit if you only include those. I don't care about the current battle with Kim Dotcom.
Of course, all intelligence is gathered through the use of torture and state licensed assassins wander the world in search of depriving foreign and domestic citizens of the life and liberty alike. Makes perfect sense.
I am not really sure where the whole travel point is going as it is patently incorrect. We do have the right to AT&T et al, actually. Since you have brought the corporations up, non-state agencies are ones with greater authority. It is a readily acknowledged fact of civilization that governing bodies allow smaller specializing policing agencies to break laws in the interest of the people. If you want the sublimation of these agencies the only thing that would have happen is non-state agencies would gain the power in that vacuum and the legitimacy of the states authority would be undermined.
I agree on the right to due process, but before making idealistic declarations actually consider how it would be achieved and how little benefit it would be.
What I have a problem with is if they just set up their service and US customers start using it, and the US government think that means that company is now US jurisdiction.
I hate to say but it is, at least in this case. Although it isn't really jurisdiction, they could do it regardless. The US District and other federal court which the CFTC acts through has authority through their laws and the connection with other nations to bring legal recourse to foreign companies. First don't take this as if it were unique to the US and second don't believe that its a blanket statement.
You're very unlikely to see the US governement sue a foreign company over more munane things, this has to do with the sale of commodities futures, not stuffed bears. You will note how long it took the CFTC to begin this suit of litigation after years of infraction. The choice to do so now is for among other reasons to highlight their lack of tolerance for this exact type of behavior because of potential foreign and domestic companies considering it.
I don't think it should be the burden of every online service to follow every law of every country on the planet just because their business takes place on the internet.
This not about following every law as the majority will not affect them or their business. It is about actually being aware of the laws of your clients home country, which in this case was not asking much. If you're going to sell commodity futures, then you know what they are and that selling them off exchange is illegal. Sometimes people falsely believe that the internet is a mystical place wherein if you subvert the intent of the law you magically have no legal obligation or recourse.
Again, its not about business it is the specific instance of the infraction in the commodities futures. If you will for a moment consider if the CFTC had no legal authority to sue them and consider how corporations would utilize their unregulated foreign futures exchange or any similar design.
Several things to note here. First, a "well managed fund" is not HFT. HFT is a very specialized category of trading.
You're correct, I understand the difference and must admit I was both sleep deprived and sick. I neglected to type parts of what I intended and ending up with that. I earlier made mentioned HFT platforms and should have been more precise in that I meant the electronic trading systems were merely capable of performing proficiently such trading techniques. I was refering mainly to those using algorithmic trading types as a primary form of trading.
I concede on your second and third notes, and that I was somewhat over zealous from sleep deprivation. I did not intend to preclude the chance of individuals getting returns postively but rather that the influx of inexperienced traders through different trading sites has given people the false belief that they should move from losing their money in Vegas and now to the NYSE. There probability dictates through research that it would be wiser to entrust to a longer term more equitable security investment.
For those who actually have some experience through their profession they should still not be blind to dangers known from psychology and mathematics, nor so arrogant to ignore the changing times. It has been a long time since the fall of LTCM and the continued research and exponential advances in technology promise rough seas in trading from increased liquidity.
My positon is to interpret and follow the law. If they are not in the US yet are soliciting US citizens to buy and sell futures then they are entering our market by engaging them. They are not expected to regulate their behavior towards all their patrons only those in the US. They had the option, they completely ignored it. If you have US customers you have varying degrees of legal obligation to the regulatory committees of the US. If their job is to enforce their laws and police those who are offering services to a US citizen then they should have civil authority to act against them. If not this seriously undermines their ability to perform their function.
If your intent is to dissuade me of this belief on the grounds that it being unfair or similarly over reach in their regulation then you don't to. I have lauded Intrade's platform before regardless of their legality and I am hesitant to believe the CFTCs stated objective was their true motivation. Ideally one should not be penalized for the potential bad luck of others but time has shown government to not be so conservative in their beliefs of the expectations of their citizens. Nonetheless the CFTCs formal action will note likely impede their business and questioning the legitimacy of their action has little chance to motivate overturning its decision.
Finally if a US citizen is truly motivated to engage Intrades services again this is really quite unlikely to be difficult. Use a proxy server and either set up accounts with non-US banks or buy prepaid cards from non US banks.
Yes they did begin to refuse to accept US credit cards, however they continued to break their cease and desist order well before that. Also the refusal was based on US based banks, you can circumvent this easily. The law regarding off exchange trades was already established and just because on belives that it is ok to break laws because you feel like doesn't make it right. You think it is over reach because the CFTC is telling an Irish company not to allow US citizens to buy and sell options through them as they would not be regulated as per the law. Yeah that makes sense. There is a reason why the options market has been regulated you can simply look at their role along with CDSs in the financial crisis.
If the CFTC simply ignores the actions of sites like Intrade then it doesn't take an idiot to realize that in order to avoid financial regulation in a market that could
make you billions of dollars just set up a server overseas and avoid the law. Hell companies in other countries will realize how to completely avoid the financial regulation their nation, the answer is to simply place it in a different country. If they hadn't continued as they did there probably wouldn't be a complete denial of service to US citizens, it'd only be for the predictions that happened to be actual options.
Didn't say it was magic, there are faults. The market is not discontinuous, you certainly are not in direct competition but
undoubtedly indirectly at their mercy. It would be foolish to think whatever acumen you may have will out perform and consistently perform as well
as a well managed fund. Advances in programming, technology, the placement of servers and their large capital make it illogical to go throw away your money in cheap thrill. I am not saying you can't make some money, I'm saying its not worth the risk or time.
I don't completely agree with the ruling, however I am not one much for the practice of escaping jurisdiction by the argument of the hosts location.
Don't take my words out of context. Just actually take a minute of your day to read one of the many takes on this event and the history preceding it before you respond. Intrade knew how they had violated a previous agreement with the CFTC. This not an issue of juris prudence or a debate on CFTC overstepping their bounds. Two parties came to an agreement, one broke it and punitive action was brought. Don't make it out to be anything else.
Refer to CFTCs brief and the many in agreement. This isn't libel. Intrade decided to stop for US traders without being directly ordered. Constitutional law is not even in the ball park. This not a matter of prohibition but regulation. It doesnt matter the host is in ireland if they are trading futures off exchange. If you cannot detect the potential issues at stake you do not deserve to trade.
No it's not legal. They had already agreed to stop solicitation and had paid a fine for it. They were allowing off-exchange options trading on gold,oil and currencies which already have a clearly legal and regulated way for traders to participate in the trade of those. By ignoring US law and their own agreement they are breaking the law. Don't use some moralist cop out logic based on false assumptions and inherit bias. I am not arguing with you on any philosophical or ideaological ground as such tenuous and tedious arguments are clearly without merit in a very cut and dry case of litigation. Detecting, policing and prosecuting fraud is by no means an easy job. Prosecuting Intrade only makes their job easier in allowing them go after the traders, and it should be their priority as they are the corporation perpetrating mass fraud not the traders.
Wow your sarcasm has completely damaged my argument by utterly avoiding it, congratulations. I'll restrain myself from ad hominem attacks further. Law enforcement is actually very difficult especially in an international setting with digital evidence and many plaintiffs. If the CFTC wants to enforce their laws setting precedent through pressuring the service's provider is a better option than dragging out litigation over 10-15 years it can even be done while much of the evidence is gone or blocked. In the meantime much more trading would continue only incentivising unregulated and potentially harmful futures trading.
It would ideal for them to go after the traders but as the provider of service Intrade is just as, if not more, culpable. While the litigation stands on rather poor ground it has legal precedent and there is justifiable reason to use this case to further establish the CFTCs role.
I see your point, but going after the individuals is likely to take much, much longer and also due to how small the trades were, their likely ignorance of their wrong doing, the difficulty in gathering all the financials records and proving the culpability is insane. The potential political blow black is likely minor compared to being stuck in court for ten years. Instead using their political power and knowledge of the InTrades negligence in handling the situation the CFTC made the correct choice of attempting to cut the problem off at the head. Someone will figure out how to do it under the noses of the CFTC sooner than later.
Why is there so much effort in making things effortless? No mechanical buttons, no leavers, no wheels.... Are humans trying to evolve into non-corporeal beings?
Refer to Platonism then skip to Descartes "Cogito Ergo Sum" and finish it off with the wide spread application and industrialization of digital technologies
We need tactile feedback, and physical effort to operate, be efficient and accurate and help our brains learn new tasks.
Completely agree, there are many other HCI technologies in the works, mainly in haptics. The visual component however cannot be ignored as a queuing
signal.
We have evolved in a physical world. I'm certain there will be more and more consequences on health with these technologies including obesity, RSI, tendon and muscle damage, nervous system complaints, depression and other mental illnesses.
This is true, although it isn't as if there isn't oversight into the development and proliferation of the technology. There is continued development in non invasive brain computer interfaces like NeuroSky,Emotiv and BrainPut. Other personal growth technologies like Fitbit,Fuelband and Jawbone are examples in the rapidly growing life tracking/"Quantitative Self" movement; technologies to make users more aware and motivate them to healthier life styles.
I don't believe I formatted that nicely. Nonetheless...
A quote "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." -- attributed to Edsger Dijkstra. As it has been said by other posters and Dijkstra, CS is in no way about the application. It is about algorithms among many other things and if by teaching a child about ecology you can give them a greater respect for the interrelationship between populations and their environment, perhaps teaching them simple CS will give them a better understanding of how to solve problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Hahah, quite nice. You sir should do standup.
I agree in the belief people aren't pushing false information for profit but you'd have to be foolish to not see that the climate and weather related damage has a market.
Contractors and firms bid for infrastructure before and after as well as clean up. This trickles to increase sales on most equipment they use. It wouldn't be hard to think of more instances.
I am astounded by the number of meaningless objections with entirely uncreative reasoning.
If one actually thinks of the analogy in terms of the show, it is perpetrated by the Cylons decades after they analyze their opponent, mankind,
begin to infiltrate them and the largest source of their offense was made possible through a honey pot. Nothing more than social engineering followed by a well
orchestrated attack on an unsuspecting opponent. Mankind was caught completely unawares due to the fact they saw no threat.
Networking is not just electronic, it bridges both human and machine and nations have been using this to their advantages in intelligence gathering and war making with for decades. If any nation were to attack it would be from years of setting things in place, key assets with high ranking officials or technical officers. Why not infiltrate numerous communications and mobile devices or nearly any technological corporation and over years, make backdoors, gather your information, blackmail key targets or terrorize them for information and ways into more secure areas. Cripple infrastructure and cause widespread panic economically and either let it fester and cause civil unrest or further use electronic attacks.
The arguments about militaries being able to rely on older methods of communication, surveying or information gathering are purely asinine. If you cripple a modern militaries communications and targeting capability and then attack, the force that react quicker and is not wondering why everything went black will win. Grab the tempo, use it to your advantage. Their inability to pass information efficiently will allow you keep the tempo, you're not for one bite you're going for the whole thing. Blitzkrieg with overwhelming force, physically and digitally thanks to years of patience.
I think it was only brought up because of Tor's recent mentions in news...meh
They probably will say they use VPN, how horrid!
Not sure why you replied to me. Should have been more explicit but you covered it and i agree. True on Minsc having most to say and the nostalgia surrounding the humor of it.
Since the next planescape is confirmed I was leaning for Baldurs without a care.
That's a very tough decision. I want to go with Baldurs Gate for Minsc and Boo, but Planescape is Planescape.
Woh, calm down looks like you're too far in the frenzy of your orgasm to notice I was not disputing, nor in anyway arguing the historical precedent of those incidents.
I was saying that in the context of an argument if you only take into account what benefits you, then you really aren't actually producing an argument. You are simply restating something I learned about in 6th grade.
Again...refer to above before throwing around hyperlinks like it means anything. In case you still don't understand this concept it means that while an agency may do something wrong in the moral context of a citizens understanding you have failed to actually list any of their worth. By saying all these agencies should cease to be please actually consider their historical precedent and use before spouting off 4-5 incidents in the 20-21st century.
Reread your article bud, they declined to hear. Does not amount to not having the actual right to sue them. Nor did you specifically say what to sue them for beyond the generalization of their inclusion with government agencies.
This is a statement of caution, not at a demographic of the travel of people to foreign nations or their mood about going there. I have friends who have been to China, Russia, Mongolia, Tibet, the Middle East as well Africa. They were not so afraid that they opted to stay in Europe. You have to understand that there is a risk everywhere and whether or not the state cautions in those area it is not equivalent to the statement of their general malaise in the travel to these places.
Rights are regularly circumvented for this very reason, they're called exigent circumstances. Your weirdly hyperbolic sarcasm aside, I wasn't talking about Kim Dotcom or NZ. Don't really care about them. I was mainly speaking non-violent intelligence gathering to preclude violence.
If you really want to drag it out, this doesn't have to do with what should be but with what is. Stop barking at the status quo and reality, he was made out to worse than a murder too bad. He stole from rich people, shouldn't have been that dumb. That simple. You want to commit crimes know who you are commiting them against and don't be surprised when you get caught or held for what is flimsy legal reasoning or downright illegal. It's like pissing off the mob and expecting not to have your family tortured or something.
Wow, you really eat this shit up. You do realize I wasn't speaking about the US in particular, it was a generalization since you said all agencies with their authority.
You can list as many of the negatives as you wish but your argument has no merit if you only include those. I don't care about the current battle with Kim Dotcom.
Of course, all intelligence is gathered through the use of torture and state licensed assassins wander the world in search of depriving foreign and domestic citizens of the life and liberty alike. Makes perfect sense.
I am not really sure where the whole travel point is going as it is patently incorrect. We do have the right to AT&T et al, actually. Since you have brought the corporations up, non-state agencies are ones with greater authority. It is a readily acknowledged fact of civilization that governing bodies allow smaller specializing policing agencies to break laws in the interest of the people. If you want the sublimation of these agencies the only thing that would have happen is non-state agencies would gain the power in that vacuum and the legitimacy of the states authority would be undermined.
I agree on the right to due process, but before making idealistic declarations
actually consider how it would be achieved and how little benefit it would be.
Cue heart attack of pilot followed by crazy AI. Ha, jigabachis were the first thing I thought of too.
What I have a problem with is if they just set up their service and US customers start using it, and the US government think that means that company is now US jurisdiction.
I hate to say but it is, at least in this case. Although it isn't really jurisdiction, they could do it regardless. The US District and other federal court which the CFTC acts through has authority through their laws and the connection with other nations to bring legal recourse to foreign companies. First don't take this as if it were unique to the US and second don't believe that its a blanket statement.
You're very unlikely to see the US governement sue a foreign company over more munane things, this has to do with the sale of commodities futures, not stuffed bears. You will note how long it took the CFTC to begin this suit of litigation after years of infraction. The choice to do so now is for among other reasons to highlight their lack of tolerance for this exact type of behavior because of potential foreign and domestic companies considering it.
I don't think it should be the burden of every online service to follow every law of every country on the planet just because their business takes place on the internet.
This not about following every law as the majority will not affect them or their business. It is about actually being aware of the laws of your clients home country, which in this case was not asking much. If you're going to sell commodity futures, then you know what they are and that selling them off exchange is illegal. Sometimes people falsely believe that the internet is a mystical place wherein if you subvert the intent of the law you magically have no legal obligation or recourse.
Again, its not about business it is the specific instance of the infraction in the commodities futures. If you will for a moment consider if the CFTC had no legal authority to sue them and consider how corporations would utilize their unregulated foreign futures exchange or any similar design.
Several things to note here. First, a "well managed fund" is not HFT. HFT is a very specialized category of trading.
You're correct, I understand the difference and must admit I was both sleep deprived and sick. I neglected to type parts of what I intended and ending up
with that. I earlier made mentioned HFT platforms and should have been more precise in that I meant the electronic trading systems were merely capable of performing proficiently such trading techniques. I was refering mainly to those using algorithmic trading types as a primary form of trading.
I concede on your second and third notes, and that I was somewhat over zealous from sleep deprivation. I did not intend to preclude the chance of individuals getting returns postively but rather that the influx of inexperienced traders through different trading sites has given people the false belief that they should move from losing their money in Vegas and now to the NYSE. There probability dictates through research that it would be wiser to entrust to a longer term more equitable security investment.
For those who actually have some experience through their profession they should still not be blind to dangers known from psychology and mathematics, nor
so arrogant to ignore the changing times. It has been a long time since the fall of LTCM and the continued research and exponential advances in technology promise rough seas in trading from increased liquidity.
My positon is to interpret and follow the law. If they are not in the US yet are soliciting US citizens to buy and sell futures then they are entering our market by engaging them. They are not expected to regulate their behavior towards all their patrons only those in the US. They had the option, they completely ignored it. If you have US customers you have varying degrees of legal obligation to the regulatory committees of the US. If their job is to enforce their laws and police those who are offering services to a US citizen then they should have civil authority to act against them. If not this seriously undermines their ability to perform their function. If your intent is to dissuade me of this belief on the grounds that it being unfair or similarly over reach in their regulation then you don't to. I have lauded Intrade's platform before regardless of their legality and I am hesitant to believe the CFTCs stated objective was their true motivation. Ideally one should not be penalized for the potential bad luck of others but time has shown government to not be so conservative in their beliefs of the expectations of their citizens. Nonetheless the CFTCs formal action will note likely impede their business and questioning the legitimacy of their action has little chance to motivate overturning its decision. Finally if a US citizen is truly motivated to engage Intrades services again this is really quite unlikely to be difficult. Use a proxy server and either set up accounts with non-US banks or buy prepaid cards from non US banks.
Yes they did begin to refuse to accept US credit cards, however they continued to break their cease and desist order well before that. Also the refusal was based on US based banks, you can circumvent this easily. The law regarding off exchange trades was already established and just because on belives that it is ok to break laws because you feel like doesn't make it right. You think it is over reach because the CFTC is telling an Irish company not to allow US citizens to buy and sell options through them as they would not be regulated as per the law. Yeah that makes sense. There is a reason why the options market has been regulated you can simply look at their role along with CDSs in the financial crisis. If the CFTC simply ignores the actions of sites like Intrade then it doesn't take an idiot to realize that in order to avoid financial regulation in a market that could make you billions of dollars just set up a server overseas and avoid the law. Hell companies in other countries will realize how to completely avoid the financial regulation their nation, the answer is to simply place it in a different country. If they hadn't continued as they did there probably wouldn't be a complete denial of service to US citizens, it'd only be for the predictions that happened to be actual options.
Didn't say it was magic, there are faults. The market is not discontinuous, you certainly are not in direct competition but undoubtedly indirectly at their mercy. It would be foolish to think whatever acumen you may have will out perform and consistently perform as well as a well managed fund. Advances in programming, technology, the placement of servers and their large capital make it illogical to go throw away your money in cheap thrill. I am not saying you can't make some money, I'm saying its not worth the risk or time.
I don't completely agree with the ruling, however I am not one much for the practice of escaping jurisdiction by the argument of the hosts location. Don't take my words out of context. Just actually take a minute of your day to read one of the many takes on this event and the history preceding it before you respond. Intrade knew how they had violated a previous agreement with the CFTC. This not an issue of juris prudence or a debate on CFTC overstepping their bounds. Two parties came to an agreement, one broke it and punitive action was brought. Don't make it out to be anything else.
I don't trade thats what my computer is for. You will only be swept away by all of the HFT platforms
Refer to CFTCs brief and the many in agreement. This isn't libel. Intrade decided to stop for US traders without being directly ordered. Constitutional law is not even in the ball park. This not a matter of prohibition but regulation. It doesnt matter the host is in ireland if they are trading futures off exchange. If you cannot detect the potential issues at stake you do not deserve to trade.
No it's not legal. They had already agreed to stop solicitation and had paid a fine for it. They were allowing off-exchange options trading on gold,oil and currencies which already have a clearly legal and regulated way for traders to participate in the trade of those. By ignoring US law and their own agreement they are breaking the law. Don't use some moralist cop out logic based on false assumptions and inherit bias. I am not arguing with you on any philosophical or ideaological ground as such tenuous and tedious arguments are clearly without merit in a very cut and dry case of litigation. Detecting, policing and prosecuting fraud is by no means an easy job. Prosecuting Intrade only makes their job easier in allowing them go after the traders, and it should be their priority as they are the corporation perpetrating mass fraud not the traders.
Wow your sarcasm has completely damaged my argument by utterly avoiding it, congratulations. I'll restrain myself from ad hominem attacks further. Law enforcement is actually very difficult especially in an international setting with digital evidence and many plaintiffs. If the CFTC wants to enforce their laws setting precedent through pressuring the service's provider is a better option than dragging out litigation over 10-15 years it can even be done while much of the evidence is gone or blocked. In the meantime much more trading would continue only incentivising unregulated and potentially harmful futures trading. It would ideal for them to go after the traders but as the provider of service Intrade is just as, if not more, culpable. While the litigation stands on rather poor ground it has legal precedent and there is justifiable reason to use this case to further establish the CFTCs role.
I see your point, but going after the individuals is likely to take much, much longer and also due to how small the trades were, their likely ignorance of their wrong doing, the difficulty in gathering all the financials records and proving the culpability is insane. The potential political blow black is likely minor compared to being stuck in court for ten years. Instead using their political power and knowledge of the InTrades negligence in handling the situation the CFTC made the correct choice of attempting to cut the problem off at the head. Someone will figure out how to do it under the noses of the CFTC sooner than later.
Why is there so much effort in making things effortless? No mechanical buttons, no leavers, no wheels.... Are humans trying to evolve into non-corporeal beings?
Refer to Platonism then skip to Descartes "Cogito Ergo Sum" and finish it off with the wide spread application and industrialization of digital technologies
We need tactile feedback, and physical effort to operate, be efficient and accurate and help our brains learn new tasks.
Completely agree, there are many other HCI technologies in the works, mainly in haptics. The visual component however cannot be ignored as a queuing signal.
We have evolved in a physical world. I'm certain there will be more and more consequences on health with these technologies including obesity, RSI, tendon and muscle damage, nervous system complaints, depression and other mental illnesses.
This is true, although it isn't as if there isn't oversight into the development and proliferation of the technology. There is continued development in non invasive brain computer interfaces like NeuroSky,Emotiv and BrainPut. Other personal growth technologies like Fitbit,Fuelband and Jawbone are examples in the rapidly growing life tracking/"Quantitative Self" movement; technologies to make users more aware and motivate them to healthier life styles. I don't believe I formatted that nicely. Nonetheless...
A quote "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." -- attributed to Edsger Dijkstra. As it has been said by other posters and Dijkstra, CS is in no way about the application. It is about algorithms among many other things and if by teaching a child about ecology you can give them a greater respect for the interrelationship between populations and their environment, perhaps teaching them simple CS will give them a better understanding of how to solve problems.