I've executed arrest warrants in the same town this occurred, I think I even arrested Broderick Henderson, the driver in this case. My understanding in the same - a warrant to arrest the person necessarily implies a "search incident to arrest" can be made. Having seen Broderick and Turner's criminal history, you damn sure better search them before you have them riding in the back seat of your car! However, search incident to arrest no longer allows you to search the car they were riding in, generally. Before 1950, police could search the car, then several supreme court decisions limited that quite a bit.
However, in this instance looking in the bag doesn't require "search incident to arrest". The defendant does not dispute the following facts: The cop asked him "what's in that bag?" Broderick than *handed the bag to the officer* and said "we bought a bunch of gift cards".
By handing the bag to the officer, he implied consent to look in the bag. So looking in the bag was consensual. After seeing there were over 100 gift cards in there, considering the totality of the circumstances, there was reasonable suspicion. If you add the fact that it was a pair of habitual criminals, there was probable cause.
On a side note, the general culture of the Bryan police department is pretty good - they aren't likely to search without any reason. When they see something suspicious, they will ask questions like "what's in the (suspicious) bag?", and the person who is asked can say "some private stuff" or "I'd rather not say". There was a judge in Bryan, also named Turner, who for many years reminded the cops when they got too close to the line.
Yes, if you hand me a Best Buy gift card, I know the magnetic stripe contains a Best Buy gift card number, placed there by Best Buy, for Best Buy to read back.
An SD card may contain far more information, placed there by anyone (most likely whoever has it), and may well contain personal information. The court in this case pointed out the difference.
My above post covered looking inside the bag (Henderson handed the bag to the officer) and taking possession of the cards (143 gift cards in the possession of a habitual criminal is suspicious). The defendant didn't even argue the first point, because the bad guy did hand the bag to the officer. The defendant questioned the cops reading the stripes on the cards. The court's reasoning is interesting.
In order for a fourth amendment l right of privacy to apply, the person must have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the item. That's two tests - an expectation of privacy must exist, and it must be *reasonable* to expect that the information will remain private. The court pointed out that people often store a lot of personal information on cell phones and computers and are often protect them with a password, so there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. On the other hand, the mag stripe on a Best Buy gift card has a small amount of information put there by Best Buy, so that Best Buy can read it back later. A consumer wouldn't store any personal information, or any information at all, on a Best Buy gift card, and they would fully expect Best Buy to read the mag stripe information. So there's no expectation of privacy - they intended to have the clerk at Best Buy read those cards and for Best Buy to store the info, and there was no personal information, the court ruled. No reasonable expectation of privacy means to fourth amendment violation.
As an abstract matter of law, I would take issue with it if the officer removed and opened the bag without consent. AFTER he saw there were over a hundred gift cards in there, I think that's reasonable suspicion.
In this case,after arresting Turner on the outstanding warrant, the officer asked Henderson "what's in that bag?". Henderson responded by handing the bag to the officer. No Constitutional violation there, IMHO. n fact I'll ask you right now "what's in your pocket, Matful?" I don't think asking violates your rights.
Also, the name Broderick Henderson rings a bell with me, because it just so happens I used to be a private investigator in Bryan, TX. As a factual matter, ANY time you see Broderick Henderson, you are most likely seeing him doing something illegal, if it's the person I'm thinking of. Rap sheet a mile long. When Broderick Henderson and Courtland Turner have 143 gift cards, it's nearly certain they are committing a crime. Any Texas cop who had run their names would know that. That does NOT mean I think that *any* prior arrest is grounds to suspect criminal activity at some point in the future. Clearly that's not true, in general. The suspicious presence of 143 gift cards by a habitual offender - it's pretty obvious he's up to no good, as a practical issue.
> The mobile side of AT&T's business is clearly not > "common carrier" and is regulated by the FTC.
Of course FCC regulates common carriers. In the last few years, under Wheeler, the FCC has said:
mobile voice, but not data, is common carrier and subject to FCC regulation. mobile voice AND data are common carrier and subject to FCC regulation. Neither mobile voice nor data are common carrier and subject to FCC regulation.
It may be clear to YOU which is common carrier and which isn't, but Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC, can't seem to decide.
Yeah I don't know what exactly happened, but I do see that two of the three links in the summary point to "Democracy Now!", an activist group founded by the defendant. That's about as objective as reporting about Trump's past based on what's donaldjtrump.com says about it.
Not only is is linking to one side of the story, but Amy Goodman and her Democracy Now! organization routinely describe their activities as "war". "All's fair in love and war", they say, and since she describes what she does as "war" that suggests to me she probably feel lying about this is perfectly justified in her war against The Man.
It really, really has nothing to do with high frequency traders. Lots of people got screwed. Michael McCarthy is a typical example: https://www.thestreet.com/stor...
As I've explained in another post, people can run the exact same scam on eBay with iPhones, or "selling" F-150 pickups on Craigslist.
> But ebay would (or at least should) catch you if you did that a bunch of times.
I suspect eBay would catch you after a while UNLESS you were clever. Certainly there are ways to set up a new eBay account under a new identity, I've done that. All you need is a different email address and maybe a new prepaid Visa. I have one eBay account for business-related transactions and one for personal. A clever person could probably find a way to keep setting up new accounts as old ones got locked.
> If they allowed someone to commit that transaction thousands of times then it'd seriously undermine the entire platform.
The guy is TFA DID seriously undermine the US stock market, for a short time, so the markets now have mechanisms to protect against a repeat. Some people, like Michael McCarthy, lost a lot of of money, as in stocks that normally trade for $100 were down to $10. Proctor and Gamble lost over 30% of it's value, then quickly recovered most of it. https://www.thestreet.com/stor...
It's from Title 34, Subtitle B. I don't have time right now to find the exact subsection, but it's probably in part 100, or maybe 106. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cf...
I came across it when reading the regulations that apply to education, so that's why I say Title 34, Subtitle B - it could have been another similar subtitle. What really struck me was the wording, "discrimination... is not discrimination".
Believe what you wish. Do note as soon as you said hundreds of billions I knew you got that from Bruce. So many people have analyzed the numbers, only Bruce claims anything like that. Perhaps he's right and every economist and other analyst is completely wrong. Or maybe he's a kook.
Ps people can run the exact same scam on eBay "selling" popular items like iPhones or hard drives, or in some cities on Craigslist. It really has nothing to do with high frequency trading or even with stocks. The only requirement is a marketplace where you can advertise a very low price and string buyers along long enough for real sellers to get discouraged about lack of buyers and reduce their price a bit.
Suppose each day on eBay 20 new iphones are sold, at just about $600 each. Sellers know that every day many buyers bid, so they don't have to set a reserve price at $590 - they know bidders will get the price to about $600. So each day 20 people sell and 20 people buy, for about $600 (or whateve this month's going price is).
Now suppose I go find a few listings with a low reserve or no reserve. They close at 1PM, 1:20PM, and 1:45PM. I could then post 100 listings offering to sell iphones for $400, closing at 1:50M. With a bunch of sellers offering to sell at $400, how much will bidders bid on iphones from the other sellers? Not more than $400, of course.
So between 1:00PM and 1:50PM buyers won't offer more than $400. I bid $405 on the listings ending during that time period and win. Then I click to cancel all my fake offers to sell for $400, claiming that my box full of iphones got stolen or rained on. Now I've bought three iphones for $405 each.
The next day, my fake listings are gone, so the price is back to normal at $600. I sell for $600 each the phones I bought for $405, a profit of $195 per phone.
Ebay has a button for sellers to cancel a sale, in case an itembdoes get rained on or something after it's posted. Cancelling A sale is okay. If I do this thousands and thousands of times, fraudulently posting offers I have no intent to honor, that's fraud and if I kept it up for six years I might well end up in jail.
> The price of a stock is the price at which the last transaction took place.
Suppose a stock was last traded at $10. Does that mean if I want to sell the stock NOW, it'll necesarily sell for $10? Which then becomes the new "last transaction", so that stock permanently buys and sells for $10?
No, there are two CURRENT prices for a stock right now. There's the price someone is offering to sell it for, and the price someone is offering to buy it. These are called "ask" and "bid".
Suppose there are 1,000 orders offering to sell a stock at $55. You want to buy. What price will you offer to buy? You'll offer about $55, of you actually want to buy it, because you know that people are willing to sell it for $55.
Maybe you'd still want to buy even if the offer to sell was $100, but you're damn sure not going to offer $100 when you know people will sell it to you for $55!
If those thousands of offers to sell at $55 were fake you wouldn't know it immediately. You'd still offer to buy at $55, or more likely offer $54.99875 and see if anybody takes it. Without the fake offers to sell, you'd see the real sell orders at $100 and as a buyer you'd offer $99.99875.
> To me it is pretty clear that he put in the sell order, then realised he had made a mistake (perhaps a computer error) and withdrew the order before it was fulfilled.
He did it for SIX YEARS , thousands of times. He admits what he didb. His defense is essentially "there's no law against commiting fraud extremely quickly." There IS a law against comitting fraud . Doing it quickly doesn't make it legal.
It's probably a bad idea to leave your door unlocked. That doesn't excuse the thief who takes advantage of the fact the door was unlocked.
This guy entered thousands and thousands of fraudulent offers, with full intent to reneg on those offers. Fraud isn't okay just because you managed to fool the victim.
It's really quite simple - he committed fraud, on a large scale. There's nothing specific to high-frequency trading here, though it was easier for him to fool computer programs that to fool people - humans would have been more likely to notice his that his orders were fraudulent. He could have run the same fraud in 1940, though - he just would have been more likely to get caught sooner.
He would find a stock selling for $1.20. He would then place thousands and thousands of orders saying "I'd like to sell this stock for $1". Of course, nobody would then be offering to buy for $1.20, since he said he was selling for $1. He drove the price down with his sell orders. Then he'd cancel those thousands of sell orders, essentially saying "nope, I was lying, I won't really sell for $1". In the meantime, while the price was down due to his bogus offers to sell, he'd buy at $1.05 or whatever. As soon as it was found out that his thousands of sell orders were bogus, the price would go back up to about $1.20, where it belonged. He had bought a $1.20 stock for $1.05 buying fraudulently offering to sell at $1, thousands of times, with no intention of actually doing so.
> You need 18-24" between providers, plus 3' to low > voltage (240V+), and another 5' to medium voltage.
That's interesting, where do you work? National Electric Safety Code says half as much between providers. NESC 238A and 239G say 40" working space between electric and communications, or 30" for bonded neutrals. Code is 12" between communications providers.
14' to the lowest communication cable, plus two 12" clearances to two others is 16 feet. Plus 40 inches to electric is 19 feet 4 inches, by code. You've come up with 50% more space than national code requires.
I was surprised to find that's actually explicitly stated in the official regulations. The Code of Federal Regulations actually says "discriminination [against white men] is not discrimination". I thought they just unofficially ignored it, but it's official, written policy.
One might think such discrimination is rare, but it's actually extremely common, just worded in a way that makes it harder to recognize immediately. It looks something like this: Admittance to the school is competitive. Highest scores get admitted.
Being female adds 15 points Being black adds 20 points Being latino adds 10 points Being asian adds 5 points
Nobody is being discriminated AGAINST, right, only discriminated FOR. Except with competive admissions that's *precisely* the same result as this:
Being male subtracts 15 points Being white subtracts 20 points Being latino subtracts 10 points Being asian subtracts 15 points
In a competitive context, discriminating FOR anyone is discriminating AGAINST everyone else.
> Then I will have to do without your game and you will have to do without my money. > It is that simple.
What an unsual comment to see on Slashdot. If you decide you don't want it (won't buy it), you're deciding you don't want it (won't have it). It seems the more common sentiment on Slashdot is "I don't want it (won't pay for it) and I must have it (so I'll rip off the creators and take it ilegally."
Your idea that you won't take something without paying for it, won't rip people off, seems rather old-fashioned for Slashdot. I'm gonna guess that you're old, probably over 30?
Let's see, one set of wires for electric, one for pstn, and three choices of internet is five wires on the pole outside my house. Where you live, are utitlity poles too small to have five wires on them?
> 'State Farm' is not a good example to use, they are as bad as insurance companies get in terms of fucking their customers every chance they get.
That's very interesting. The non-profit cooperative is much worse than all of the companies that have a profit motive to compete on service. Does recognizing that fact completely ruin your entire world view?
> They get the spending right back in the form of tax breaks and subsidies.
That's a fun thing to say, but simply false on the facts. Take a look at the numbers, they've been analyzed quite thoroughly by many people. Only Bruce Kushnick has ever tried to make that claim while citing a single number. Brice also thinks that THE UNITED STATES is a different country from the United States, so....
How do you think Bill Gates BECAME a retired rich guy? Hint - not by waiting around for Obama to give him a cell phone.
> You don't get rich by investing. The real money is in ownership.
How do you think you get ownership of productive assets? That's pretty much the definition of "investing" - exchanging current value (spending time or money) to acquire productive assets.
What you may be trying to get to, but perhaps aren't quite clear on, is that Gates made his money by *owning* Microsoft shares, not by working for them as an *employee*. Right now, about 2 million people are making money owning Microsoft shares. That *IS* the way to make real money long term. It'll cost you $69 to get your first share of Microsoft if you want to be a retired rich guy too. The vast majority of people who will retire somewhat comfortably own shares in companies, most often a variety of companies through a mutual fund.
> If an incumbent provider fails to maintain a broadband system, franchise agreements become invalid or non-exclusive, and open the areas up to competing ISPs.
Why should the politicians be enforcing a monopoly for their favored company in the first place? I would say that with phones it's been good to have Sprint competing with AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and and US Cellular. Yes, that means their infrastructure is duplicative, but I'd say it's worked better than monopolies. In most parts of Texas we have competition, and we have much better service than in monopoly areas.
Further, if the politicians set up certain requirements and choose specific companies, then are supposed to hold the contributors^H^H^H^H^H^H franchisees to those standards, there is a lot of room for error. What should the standards be? What if they barely miss the target? Are the politicians enacting standards really working for us when they're receiving millions of dollars from Comcast? The alternative is for the politicians to do absolutely nothing and simply allow overbuilders like Frontier, Grande, and Google Fiber to come in and offer better service. There's little room for the politicos to mess things up when all they have to do is get out of the way.
Speak for yourself. I've founded and owned several businesses over the last 30 years, and none have existed solely or primarily for the purpose of profit to the business. Maybe that's how YOU do business, but not the rest of us.
My last business was *started* in order to solve a specific pair of problems for customers and the industry as a whole, because existing solutions weren't working and it was a pain in the butt for day job. Actually, it turned my day job into a night job - having to be up in the middle of the night dealing with servers overloaded by attacks. So basically it was started to prevent problems that made my day-to-day work painful. It was then spun off as a separate corporation for the purpose of providing continued employment to existing employees when the main business was sold. That is, to provide employment for a couple of years until another company could be launched around another product. Because it's first purpose as a corporation was to provide a steady paycheck for loyal employees, when one employee got depressed and stopped showing up to work we continued to pay her for six months - making sure people had a steady income was the purpose of that company existing, after all. Later I gave that company to another employee, most of it anyway.
> Are you suggesting it would somehow be in the interests of the business to minimize profits, or operate at a loss and go out of business?
Yes, companies such as State Farm and Nationwide insurance minimize profits. Any profit not required for new investment is refunded to customers. Their purpose is to provide the best possible insurance value to customers. Most, though not all, businesses have a continuing purpose, so indeed they try not to go out of business. Some have a limited-time purpose, but not most. So they try to avoid net long-term losses that would put them out of businesses. That's very different from maximizing profit. A great many strive for profit near zero other than paying off debt and a capital expenditures fund. I've been on the board of directors of such.
Slashdot Mirror
I've executed arrest warrants in the same town this occurred, I think I even arrested Broderick Henderson, the driver in this case. My understanding in the same - a warrant to arrest the person necessarily implies a "search incident to arrest" can be made. Having seen Broderick and Turner's criminal history, you damn sure better search them before you have them riding in the back seat of your car! However, search incident to arrest no longer allows you to search the car they were riding in, generally. Before 1950, police could search the car, then several supreme court decisions limited that quite a bit.
However, in this instance looking in the bag doesn't require "search incident to arrest". The defendant does not dispute the following facts:
The cop asked him "what's in that bag?"
Broderick than *handed the bag to the officer* and said "we bought a bunch of gift cards".
By handing the bag to the officer, he implied consent to look in the bag. So looking in the bag was consensual. After seeing there were over 100 gift cards in there, considering the totality of the circumstances, there was reasonable suspicion. If you add the fact that it was a pair of habitual criminals, there was probable cause.
On a side note, the general culture of the Bryan police department is pretty good - they aren't likely to search without any reason. When they see something suspicious, they will ask questions like "what's in the (suspicious) bag?", and the person who is asked can say "some private stuff" or "I'd rather not say". There was a judge in Bryan, also named Turner, who for many years reminded the cops when they got too close to the line.
Yes, if you hand me a Best Buy gift card, I know the magnetic stripe contains a Best Buy gift card number, placed there by Best Buy, for Best Buy to read back.
An SD card may contain far more information, placed there by anyone (most likely whoever has it), and may well contain personal information. The court in this case pointed out the difference.
My above post covered looking inside the bag (Henderson handed the bag to the officer) and taking possession of the cards (143 gift cards in the possession of a habitual criminal is suspicious). The defendant didn't even argue the first point, because the bad guy did hand the bag to the officer. The defendant questioned the cops reading the stripes on the cards. The court's reasoning is interesting.
In order for a fourth amendment l right of privacy to apply, the person must have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the item. That's two tests - an expectation of privacy must exist, and it must be *reasonable* to expect that the information will remain private. The court pointed out that people often store a lot of personal information on cell phones and computers and are often protect them with a password, so there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. On the other hand, the mag stripe on a Best Buy gift card has a small amount of information put there by Best Buy, so that Best Buy can read it back later. A consumer wouldn't store any personal information, or any information at all, on a Best Buy gift card, and they would fully expect Best Buy to read the mag stripe information. So there's no expectation of privacy - they intended to have the clerk at Best Buy read those cards and for Best Buy to store the info, and there was no personal information, the court ruled. No reasonable expectation of privacy means to fourth amendment violation.
As an abstract matter of law, I would take issue with it if the officer removed and opened the bag without consent. AFTER he saw there were over a hundred gift cards in there, I think that's reasonable suspicion.
In this case,after arresting Turner on the outstanding warrant, the officer asked Henderson "what's in that bag?". Henderson responded by handing the bag to the officer. No Constitutional violation there, IMHO. n fact I'll ask you right now "what's in your pocket, Matful?" I don't think asking violates your rights.
Also, the name Broderick Henderson rings a bell with me, because it just so happens I used to be a private investigator in Bryan, TX. As a factual matter, ANY time you see Broderick Henderson, you are most likely seeing him doing something illegal, if it's the person I'm thinking of. Rap sheet a mile long. When Broderick Henderson and Courtland Turner have 143 gift cards, it's nearly certain they are committing a crime. Any Texas cop who had run their names would know that. That does NOT mean I think that *any* prior arrest is grounds to suspect criminal activity at some point in the future. Clearly that's not true, in general. The suspicious presence of 143 gift cards by a habitual offender - it's pretty obvious he's up to no good, as a practical issue.
> The mobile side of AT&T's business is clearly not
> "common carrier" and is regulated by the FTC.
Of course FCC regulates common carriers. In the last few years, under Wheeler, the FCC has said:
mobile voice, but not data, is common carrier and subject to FCC regulation.
mobile voice AND data are common carrier and subject to FCC regulation.
Neither mobile voice nor data are common carrier and subject to FCC regulation.
It may be clear to YOU which is common carrier and which isn't, but Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC, can't seem to decide.
Yeah I don't know what exactly happened, but I do see that two of the three links in the summary point to "Democracy Now!", an activist group founded by the defendant. That's about as objective as reporting about Trump's past based on what's donaldjtrump.com says about it.
Not only is is linking to one side of the story, but Amy Goodman and her Democracy Now! organization routinely describe their activities as "war". "All's fair in love and war", they say, and since she describes what she does as "war" that suggests to me she probably feel lying about this is perfectly justified in her war against The Man.
It really, really has nothing to do with high frequency traders. Lots of people got screwed. Michael McCarthy is a typical example:
https://www.thestreet.com/stor...
As I've explained in another post, people can run the exact same scam on eBay with iPhones, or "selling" F-150 pickups on Craigslist.
> But ebay would (or at least should) catch you if you did that a bunch of times.
I suspect eBay would catch you after a while UNLESS you were clever. Certainly there are ways to set up a new eBay account under a new identity, I've done that. All you need is a different email address and maybe a new prepaid Visa. I have one eBay account for business-related transactions and one for personal. A clever person could probably find a way to keep setting up new accounts as old ones got locked.
> If they allowed someone to commit that transaction thousands of times then it'd seriously undermine the entire platform.
The guy is TFA DID seriously undermine the US stock market, for a short time, so the markets now have mechanisms to protect against a repeat. Some people, like Michael McCarthy, lost a lot of of money, as in stocks that normally trade for $100 were down to $10. Proctor and Gamble lost over 30% of it's value, then quickly recovered most of it.
https://www.thestreet.com/stor...
It's from Title 34, Subtitle B. I don't have time right now to find the exact subsection, but it's probably in part 100, or maybe 106.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cf...
I came across it when reading the regulations that apply to education, so that's why I say Title 34, Subtitle B - it could have been another similar subtitle. What really struck me was the wording, "discrimination ... is not discrimination".
Yes, people will use one small order for the purpose of gauging the market. One order among many has little to no effect.
This guy placed 19,000 large fake orders for the purpose of defrauding the market.
To understand why some other trader's pricing algorithm doesn't really matter, see this explanation of how you can run the exact same scam on ebay:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Believe what you wish. Do note as soon as you said hundreds of billions I knew you got that from Bruce. So many people have analyzed the numbers, only Bruce claims anything like that. Perhaps he's right and every economist and other analyst is completely wrong. Or maybe he's a kook.
Ps people can run the exact same scam on eBay "selling" popular items like iPhones or hard drives, or in some cities on Craigslist. It really has nothing to do with high frequency trading or even with stocks. The only requirement is a marketplace where you can advertise a very low price and string buyers along long enough for real sellers to get discouraged about lack of buyers and reduce their price a bit.
Suppose each day on eBay 20 new iphones are sold, at just about $600 each. Sellers know that every day many buyers bid, so they don't have to set a reserve price at $590 - they know bidders will get the price to about $600. So each day 20 people sell and 20 people buy, for about $600 (or whateve this month's going price is).
Now suppose I go find a few listings with a low reserve or no reserve. They close at 1PM, 1:20PM, and 1:45PM. I could then post 100 listings offering to sell iphones for $400, closing at 1:50M. With a bunch of sellers offering to sell at $400, how much will bidders bid on iphones from the other sellers? Not more than $400, of course.
So between 1:00PM and 1:50PM buyers won't offer more than $400. I bid $405 on the listings ending during that time period and win. Then I click to cancel all my fake offers to sell for $400, claiming that my box full of iphones got stolen or rained on. Now I've bought three iphones for $405 each.
The next day, my fake listings are gone, so the price is back to normal at $600. I sell for $600 each the phones I bought for $405, a profit of $195 per phone.
Ebay has a button for sellers to cancel a sale, in case an itembdoes get rained on or something after it's posted. Cancelling A sale is okay. If I do this thousands and thousands of times, fraudulently posting offers I have no intent to honor, that's fraud and if I kept it up for six years I might well end up in jail.
> The price of a stock is the price at which the last transaction took place.
Suppose a stock was last traded at $10. Does that mean if I want to sell the stock NOW, it'll necesarily sell for $10? Which then becomes the new "last transaction", so that stock permanently buys and sells for $10?
No, there are two CURRENT prices for a stock right now. There's the price someone is offering to sell it for, and the price someone is offering to buy it. These are called "ask" and "bid".
Suppose there are 1,000 orders offering to sell a stock at $55. You want to buy. What price will you offer to buy? You'll offer about $55, of you actually want to buy it, because you know that people are willing to sell it for $55.
Maybe you'd still want to buy even if the offer to sell was $100, but you're damn sure not going to offer $100 when you know people will sell it to you for $55!
If those thousands of offers to sell at $55 were fake you wouldn't know it immediately. You'd still offer to buy at $55, or more likely offer $54.99875 and see if anybody takes it. Without the fake offers to sell, you'd see the real sell orders at $100 and as a buyer you'd offer $99.99875.
> To me it is pretty clear that he put in the sell order, then realised he had made a mistake (perhaps a computer error) and withdrew the order before it was fulfilled.
He did it for SIX YEARS , thousands of times. He admits what he didb. His defense is essentially "there's no law against commiting fraud extremely quickly." There IS a law against comitting fraud . Doing it quickly doesn't make it legal.
It's probably a bad idea to leave your door unlocked. That doesn't excuse the thief who takes advantage of the fact the door was unlocked.
This guy entered thousands and thousands of fraudulent offers, with full intent to reneg on those offers. Fraud isn't okay just because you managed to fool the victim.
It's really quite simple - he committed fraud, on a large scale. There's nothing specific to high-frequency trading here, though it was easier for him to fool computer programs that to fool people - humans would have been more likely to notice his that his orders were fraudulent. He could have run the same fraud in 1940, though - he just would have been more likely to get caught sooner.
He would find a stock selling for $1.20. He would then place thousands and thousands of orders saying "I'd like to sell this stock for $1". Of course, nobody would then be offering to buy for $1.20, since he said he was selling for $1. He drove the price down with his sell orders. Then he'd cancel those thousands of sell orders, essentially saying "nope, I was lying, I won't really sell for $1". In the meantime, while the price was down due to his bogus offers to sell, he'd buy at $1.05 or whatever. As soon as it was found out that his thousands of sell orders were bogus, the price would go back up to about $1.20, where it belonged. He had bought a $1.20 stock for $1.05 buying fraudulently offering to sell at $1, thousands of times, with no intention of actually doing so.
> You need 18-24" between providers, plus 3' to low
> voltage (240V+), and another 5' to medium voltage.
That's interesting, where do you work? National Electric Safety Code says half as much between providers. NESC 238A and 239G say 40" working space between electric and communications, or 30" for bonded neutrals. Code is 12" between communications providers.
14' to the lowest communication cable, plus two 12" clearances to two others is 16 feet. Plus 40 inches to electric is 19 feet 4 inches, by code. You've come up with 50% more space than national code requires.
I was surprised to find that's actually explicitly stated in the official regulations. The Code of Federal Regulations actually says "discriminination [against white men] is not discrimination". I thought they just unofficially ignored it, but it's official, written policy.
One might think such discrimination is rare, but it's actually extremely common, just worded in a way that makes it harder to recognize immediately. It looks something like this:
Admittance to the school is competitive. Highest scores get admitted.
Being female adds 15 points
Being black adds 20 points
Being latino adds 10 points
Being asian adds 5 points
Nobody is being discriminated AGAINST, right, only discriminated FOR. Except with competive admissions that's *precisely* the same result as this:
Being male subtracts 15 points
Being white subtracts 20 points
Being latino subtracts 10 points
Being asian subtracts 15 points
In a competitive context, discriminating FOR anyone is discriminating AGAINST everyone else.
> Then I will have to do without your game and you will have to do without my money.
> It is that simple.
What an unsual comment to see on Slashdot. If you decide you don't want it (won't buy it), you're deciding you don't want it (won't have it). It seems the more common sentiment on Slashdot is "I don't want it (won't pay for it) and I must have it (so I'll rip off the creators and take it ilegally."
Your idea that you won't take something without paying for it, won't rip people off, seems rather old-fashioned for Slashdot. I'm gonna guess that you're old, probably over 30?
Let's see, one set of wires for electric, one for pstn, and three choices of internet is five wires on the pole outside my house. Where you live, are utitlity poles too small to have five wires on them?
> 'State Farm' is not a good example to use, they are as bad as insurance companies get in terms of fucking their customers every chance they get.
That's very interesting. The non-profit cooperative is much worse than all of the companies that have a profit motive to compete on service. Does recognizing that fact completely ruin your entire world view?
> They get the spending right back in the form of tax breaks and subsidies.
That's a fun thing to say, but simply false on the facts. Take a look at the numbers, they've been analyzed quite thoroughly by many people. Only Bruce Kushnick has ever tried to make that claim while citing a single number. Brice also thinks that THE UNITED STATES is a different country from the United States, so ....
How do you think Bill Gates BECAME a retired rich guy? Hint - not by waiting around for Obama to give him a cell phone.
> You don't get rich by investing. The real money is in ownership.
How do you think you get ownership of productive assets? That's pretty much the definition of "investing" - exchanging current value (spending time or money) to acquire productive assets.
What you may be trying to get to, but perhaps aren't quite clear on, is that Gates made his money by *owning* Microsoft shares, not by working for them as an *employee*. Right now, about 2 million people are making money owning Microsoft shares. That *IS* the way to make real money long term. It'll cost you $69 to get your first share of Microsoft if you want to be a retired rich guy too. The vast majority of people who will retire somewhat comfortably own shares in companies, most often a variety of companies through a mutual fund.
> If an incumbent provider fails to maintain a broadband system, franchise agreements become invalid or non-exclusive, and open the areas up to competing ISPs.
Why should the politicians be enforcing a monopoly for their favored company in the first place? I would say that with phones it's been good to have Sprint competing with AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and and US Cellular. Yes, that means their infrastructure is duplicative, but I'd say it's worked better than monopolies. In most parts of Texas we have competition, and we have much better service than in monopoly areas.
Further, if the politicians set up certain requirements and choose specific companies, then are supposed to hold the contributors^H^H^H^H^H^H franchisees to those standards, there is a lot of room for error. What should the standards be? What if they barely miss the target? Are the politicians enacting standards really working for us when they're receiving millions of dollars from Comcast? The alternative is for the politicians to do absolutely nothing and simply allow overbuilders like Frontier, Grande, and Google Fiber to come in and offer better service. There's little room for the politicos to mess things up when all they have to do is get out of the way.
> It's the reason the business exists.
Speak for yourself. I've founded and owned several businesses over the last 30 years, and none have existed solely or primarily for the purpose of profit to the business. Maybe that's how YOU do business, but not the rest of us.
My last business was *started* in order to solve a specific pair of problems for customers and the industry as a whole, because existing solutions weren't working and it was a pain in the butt for day job. Actually, it turned my day job into a night job - having to be up in the middle of the night dealing with servers overloaded by attacks. So basically it was started to prevent problems that made my day-to-day work painful. It was then spun off as a separate corporation for the purpose of providing continued employment to existing employees when the main business was sold. That is, to provide employment for a couple of years until another company could be launched around another product. Because it's first purpose as a corporation was to provide a steady paycheck for loyal employees, when one employee got depressed and stopped showing up to work we continued to pay her for six months - making sure people had a steady income was the purpose of that company existing, after all. Later I gave that company to another employee, most of it anyway.
> Are you suggesting it would somehow be in the interests of the business to minimize profits, or operate at a loss and go out of business?
Yes, companies such as State Farm and Nationwide insurance minimize profits. Any profit not required for new investment is refunded to customers. Their purpose is to provide the best possible insurance value to customers.
Most, though not all, businesses have a continuing purpose, so indeed they try not to go out of business. Some have a limited-time purpose, but not most. So they try to avoid net long-term losses that would put them out of businesses. That's very different from maximizing profit. A great many strive for profit near zero other than paying off debt and a capital expenditures fund. I've been on the board of directors of such.