According to the NHTSA, 4,869 children (aggregate of ages 0-20) died in car crashes in 2010, out of a total of 32,885 crash fatalities (all ages).
For slightly more modern stats, according to this data, there were a total of 3,067 gun deaths in 2007 for children age 0-19, and the breakdown is as follows:
"high-functioning autism" is a description of what is more commonly known as Asperger's syndrome. And nobody's claiming he did it "because he has Asperger's." I'm claiming that empirically, the fact that this kid did it is evidence that he had some pretty serious mental illness that was untreated, or treated improperly. I haven't heard any evidence that she was planning to commit him, "because he was high functioning autistic," the implication here is that - if this report is true - "high functioning autistic" is not the only problem he had.
He was being F***ed by his mother AND the system.
And if you look at "getting someone the mental health treatment they need" as "being fucked by the system," then I'd suggest that you should probably go seek counseling yourself. "high functioning autism" is not a criticism - it's a statement of the diagnosis that's been bandied about in news reports. And it's very unlikely that he had no other issues, because autistic kids do not characteristically act out in this manner, even when they're terrifically upset - and he acted out in a spectacularly bloody fashion.
We can't fail to support people at the bottom (or are otherwise different) and then expect this shit not to happen.
I agree fully - period, full stop. I guess I'm curious why you seem to feel that institutionalization where he can be treated for his mental illness is not "supporting the people at the bottom," though? Do you view emergency rooms and hospitals the same way for people who have heart disease, cancer, and other ailments?
This kid was demonstrably mentally ill enough (regardless of the specific diagnosis) to see mass murder as a good response to something that made him angry or upets. That is not the hallmark of a mentally stable, well-adjusted, healthy individual - he was sick, and he needed treatment. His mother (again, if this report is to accurate), was trying to force him to get treatment, which may be what triggered his rampage. So in what way was he being fucked over, and in what way was she failing to support him, by trying to get him into a treatment program?
He may not have *liked* being forced to get treatment, but it's clear that he *needed* the treatment anyway. Proper diagnosis and treatment of his ailments might have prevented this.
Do you call someone with 3 or 4 screwdrivers a hoarder? How about those wrench nuts, with 12 different sizes of wrench?
And don't even get me started on those Personal Care hoarders, with their liquid hand soap, and bar soap, and shampoo, and conditioner, and hand sanitizer, and hand lotion!
Are you unfamiliar with the concept that different things operate best in different circumstances? That you might use a hammer to drive a nail, and a screwdriver to put in a screw? That you might use a rifle for target practice and sport shooting, and a handgun for self defense?
3 or 4 weapons is not exactly the "hoard" you seem to imagine.
Gasoline also facilitates mass murder. Shall we ban gas and matches, too? Maybe fertilizer, since you can make bombs from it. And definitely any sort of toxic chemical - wouldn't want somebody mixing bleach and ammonia in a closed space!
The problem is not as simple as "guns!". Let's imagine the day before this killing, Pres. Obama magically eliminated private ownership of firearms of any kind. Let's further imagine that along with that ban, he magically made every gun in the US disappear. Poof! Vanished!
Now: 1) Does Adam Lanza still exist? (Yes) 2) Does Adam Lanza still have a mental illness that is prompting him to commit mass murder? (Yes) 3) Can Adam Lanza still commit murder on a large scale? (Yes)
So what's different after we ban guns, other than - *perhaps* - the body count? Arson, bombs, and toxic chemicals can kill 27 people in an enclosed space pretty easily and quickly. Hell, a car smashing through a fence onto a playground during recess could kill 27 people pretty easily, and quickly. But okay, let's say that instead of a gun, Lanza went to the school with a couple knives, and killed 3 or 4 kids and a teacher before being shot by police. Are you really prepared to say that a teacher and 3 or 4 kids are "acceptable losses," since it wasn't done with a gun?
Yes, eliminating guns might lower the body count when these events happen. No, it will not solve the underlying problem - namely, that mentally ill people will sometimes snap like this and decide they want to kill a bunch of people.
As a result of this tragedy, I am far more likely to unreservedly support the first statement below than the second:
1) "This tragedy is a great argument in favor of universal healthcare, including mental health screening & treatment, in America." 2) "This tragedy is a great argument in favor of banning all private gun ownership in America."
#1 might address the root of the problem. #2 MIGHT limit the body counts, but won't do anything to stop somebody with the intent to do harm.
It's really only apparent anything at all was "wrong" was after he slaughtered 28 people
Actually, I read a report yesterday - not sure how accurate - they all seem to reference a report from Fox News, which quotes a "friend of the family," Joshua Flashman - that his mother was applying for conservatorship of him, so she could have him committed to a psychiatric facility, and when he found that out, that might have triggered his killing spree.
I'll be very interested to see if that report turns out to be true - if so, there probably was more going on with him than a high-functioning Autism Spectrum disorder. I'd say that the simple evidence of what he did is proof that there was a HELL of a lot more wrong with him than Asperger's.
Which is why I said, "we can certainly dispute [...] how well B&E maps to what this guy did..."
I'm not the one who proposed the "rob someone's house," parallel - I'm simply pointing out that ten years in prison for a conviction (or guilty plea) for robbing 9 different houses is certainly not unusual, extreme, or impossible, under very real laws as they exist today.
And frankly, I don't think there's a huge difference from a daytime, unarmed B&E - those laws specifically talk about "lawful tenants not being put in fear" - and in the case of the computer access, he wasn't armed, he didn't "put anybody in fear," but he certainly accessed property he had no reason or right to access, with malicious intent, and in fact acted on that intent. It's not a perfect parallel, but it's certainly not that big of a stretch, either - it'd be akin to breaking in and stealing their TV while nobody was home during the day.
Hmm... my notation wasn't very good, on second read. Please read "9 x 5-20 years" as "9 concurrent 5-to-20 year sentences."
The point was mostly that you could easily get 9 concurrent 5-20 year sentences that would put you in jail for 10 or more years, to the original question of, "if this guy broke into somebody's house, would he have gotten this severe a punishment?"
For a single incident, the penalty can easily run 5-20 years (depending on circumstance & your past conviction record). Even if you served the sentences concurrently as you point out, it'd be completely within the bounds of legal possibility to see the guy handed 9 concurrent 10-year sentences for breaking into 9 houses. B&E can get you a lot more jail time than many here seem to think, and 10 years for this sort of a crime is really not that out of the ordinary.
We can certainly dispute whether 10 years is warranted for a single count of B&E, and how well B&E maps to what this guy did... but if we're using "doing the same thing at somebody's house" as a guide, 10 years is completely within reason.
In Massachusetts, as an example, A single offense of breaking and entering could easily get you 5-20 years in prison, depending on the time and circumstances. Even if you serve them concurrently, you're still serving 9 x 5-20 years.
And prior convictions will make for a mandatory 5 year minimum; "doing something ten times or one hundred times" will absolutely increase any penalty you can expect to receive, as well.
but would he ever face nearly the jail time for that as he did for this? I doubt it strongly.
You can doubt it all you want, but the laws say otherwise. If he broke into her house, stole the photos, and did this, here's the type of laws (and punishments) he'd be facing:
Whoever breaks and enters a dwelling house in the night time, with the intent mentioned in the preceding section, or, having entered with such intent, breaks such dwelling house in the night time, the offender not being armed, nor arming himself in such house, with a dangerous weapon, nor making an assault upon a person lawfully therein, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years and, if he shall have been previously convicted of any crime named in this or the preceding section, for not less than five years.
That's ONE COUNT of *unarmed* breaking and entering, with *no assault on the occupants,* nor arming himself inside (e.g., picking up a baseball bat to beat the shit out of the occupants. That'll get you up to 20 years. Previous convictions will guarantee you at least 5 years.
Whoever, in the night time, enters a dwelling house without breaking, or breaks and enters in the day time a building, ship or motor vehicle or vessel, with intent to commit a felony, no person lawfully therein being put in fear, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two years. Whoever commits any offense described in this section while armed with a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or assault weapon shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than five years or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years.
Do it *just once* during the daytime, while unarmed, and you'll get "up to 10 years", or a $500 fine + up to 2 years. Do it with a weapon, and you'll get at least 5. Now consider that he attempted, or succeeded at, "breaking and entering" multiple times, and also took (and distributed) stuff which was not his to take (and distribute). This puts his punishment VERY MUCH in line with somebody doing "a nearly identical crime by different means." Most property crimes will get you 2-20 based on the severity, with a past conviction getting you a mandatory minimum of 5 in a lot of cases.
If they didn't want these pictures out there then they shouldn't have had them taken.
"Why would you protest the Patriot Act or warrantless wiretapping? If you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear, citizen!" Or, for that matter... "Why would you protest Facebook & Instagram's use of your photos in any way they deem financially useful? Its your own fault if you don't keep the photos under strict lock and key in an electromagnetically-shielded, hermetically sealed lockbox!"
Say what you really mean:
"But I liked seeing Scarlett Johannson's boobies, and don't think anybody should be punished for having helped me achieve that dream!"
In a world where whistling the wrong tune in public could get you facing a lawyer for public performance of a copyrighted song
This has happened... when?
a site that promises it will never crap on you, your IP, or your privacy
That sure wasn't Instagram - their Terms of Use have ALWAYS granted Instagram a worldwide, royalty free license to use as they see fit. Facebook has made it more explicit, but Instagram never made these promises you seem to think they have.
your IP is now my IP to use as I please, to profit me and only me as I please, and if you don't want to that cute picture of your baby getting a bath used in a brochure by Russian Child Pornographers, then you better get your crappy pictures off my site in about 10 minutes
No, they're saying "if you're not happy with that, you should stop using this free service I'm providing you and cancel your account." Their online help indicates that submitting a request to close your account will result in permanent and unrecoverable deletion of all data you have submitted to the site. If they refuse to do that and you find your IP being sold after you close your account, you can sue them for misuse - their license to use your IP ends when you close your account.
The license is also not exclusive, which means you can sell and license your image to anybody else you wish at any point. And, since the images are to be sold for use in advertising... I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any child pornography rings who are advertising their product on Facebook, as well. But if you have some examples, by all means, let's see them.
You're right, this isn't parasitic, parasites serve a useful purpose in an ecosystem. This is a plague. A blight.
In other words, a parasite. And what you're overlooking in your ridiculously purple prose is that users ARE getting something of value in return for uploading their photos - a service for sharing & publishing their photos - and people who feel they aren't getting enough value in return are welcome to remove their photos from the site. Last I checked, parasites don't ask for your permission, or allow you to "opt out" of the relationship.
If you don't like their policies, remove your photos. But if you find this new update objectionable, and you are a user of the service, then I submit to you that you have never read the terms of use prior to this ridiculous shitstorm. Very little has changed, and they've ALWAYS been licensed to use your IP in any way they see fit. Bottom line is, you're not entitled to a free service - and there are plenty of alternatives you could use, or you can build your own. In fact, you could even open it up to everybody else to use for free if you want, because operating a massive server farm for millions of people out of your own pocket is surely the path to riches - Instagram doesn't NEED money to continue operating - running a server farm at a loss is the road to riches, right?
In what way is you choosing to use someone's servers & service to upload, store, and share your photos, parasitic on the part of the service you've elected to use?
They don't list a "required" time frame for the email, so even if it comes out on January 16, they'd still be satisfying their end of the bargain.
Also, don't ignore the non-bold parts of the current terms of use:
If the alterations constitute a material change to the Terms of Use [...] What constitutes a "material change" will be determined at our sole discretion, in good faith and using common sense and reasonable judgement.
The current terms already grant them a worldwide royalty free license, so it's questionable whether this change represents a "material change" in any way - it makes the intended use more explicit, but they've always had the rights to do this, so... is a wording change that has no practical different effect a "material change" in the first place?
I don't LIKE that they put this stuff in their terms in the first place, but this isn't a substantial change to their terms of use - they've ALWAYS had the right to do whatever they want with the stuff you upload, and they no particular obligation (and never have) to notify you or pay you or tell you what they're doing with it at any point.
1. We reserve the right to modify or terminate the Instagram service for any reason, without notice at any time.
2. We reserve the right to alter these Terms of Use at any time. If the alterations constitute a material change to the Terms of Use, we will notify you via internet mail according to the preference expressed on your account. What constitutes a "material change" will be determined at our sole discretion, in good faith and using common sense and reasonable judgement.
3. We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time.
And at the top of the page, is this notice: "We are updating our Terms of Use: Our updated Terms of Use will be effective on January 16, 2013," with a link to the updated terms of use, which include these new terms. They've held up their end of the terms - they notified you of a material change to the terms according to your preferences.
So you've got about 1 month to delete your photos if you don't agree to the new Terms. And the old terms are fairly clear - you can't claim they buried this at the bottom of a million pages of legalese, it's maybe 2 printed pages worth of terms, most of which are written in pretty plain English. What I don't get is why this is such a shocking change for people, when the current terms of use include these two gems:
Proprietary Rights in Content on Instagram
1. Instagram does NOT claim ANY ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the Instagram Services. By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content not shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services.
2. Some of the Instagram Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions, and you hereby agree that Instagram may place such advertising and promotions on the Instagram Services or on, about, or in conjunction with your Content. The manner, mode and extent of such advertising and promotions are subject to change without specific notice to you.
Emphasis added in both quotes above. I'm not sure that these new terms are substantially different in effect from the old terms, just seems that they've been made more *explicit* as to the effect - that "people may pay us to use your likeness, username, and other content in their ads."
GGP said, "You own them. No corporation has the right to use them without your permission just because they are holding them.
GP said, "Yes they do," as in - "yes, they do have the right to use them," because you are *granting them that permission by using (or continuing to use) the service.*
Nobody said using the service transfers ownership - it simply grants them a royalty-free license to use the images as they wish. And in return, you get to use the service. And frankly, I'm not sure that's an awful deal, given the average quality of most peoples' instagram photos.
Riiiiight. Instagram is going to hire marketing people whose sole job is to scan through the photo streams of literally tens of millions of active users to find the "absolutely killer" photos you took at Applebee's last week, and propose a worldwide marketing campaign featuring YOUR photos, showing how badly-lit, badly-focused, poorly dressed, average-to-downright-ugly people get down with some Jalapeno Poppers, Loaded Fiesta Nachos, and Shrimp Slammers in grainy cell phone images.
Except that would be the worst business idea ever.
What's going to happen is, Applebee's is going to make an ad buy on Facebook - "We're opening a new restaurant in Bohunk, Iowa. We'd like to target people ages 21-50 in the area with the news, and let them know we have a special "$17 dollar SUMMER SHRIMP SLAMMER SPECIAL!" Facebook & Instagram, when targeting you for the ad, will find people in your network who have taken photos at other Applebee's (geo-tagged, or checked-in, or #-tagged, likes, +1's, etc.), and put an ad using a photo of your friend, Mike, (or maybe one he took at Applebee's some unfortunate evening), with ad copy saying, "Your friend Mike loves Applebee's too! Why not get together at our new Bohunk location, and enjoy our new $17 SUMMER SHRIMP SLAMMER SPECIAL?!"
Ford could quite easily sell a car that only ran on some special patented fuel formulation that only they (or a licensed subsidiary) could sell.
And if you bought it, it would be your own fault for buying a vehicle that was locked down in that way - nobody tricked you into it, the information about the fuel the vehicle required was clearly stated in all the brochures.
The fuel argument is bogus, because it assumes that apps are write once, run anywhere - that an app, once written, can run on ANY mobile device, but Apple is somehow preventing these apps from running. It's an imperfect anaolgy at best, and one which really doesn't make sense in this context.
Vertical integration is NOT necessarily a monopoly (it can be, but it doesn't HAVE to be). If Ford decided to manufacture cars that took non-standard gasoline, or non-standard tires, or non-standard oil and coolant - that is their choice, and they would be absolutely free to do so - provided they're not *tricking* you into buying the car. It may be a bad business decision for them, because people won't want to buy cars that they can't fuel at any normal fuel station, but there's not "antitrust" violation in them doing so.
Apple will likely find, eventually, that it has to open things up, because it makes business sense to do so. Right now, they're selling the devices almost as fast as they can make them - there's not a lot of impetus to change when you're making money hand over fist. When and if they find that people are choosing other devices because of these policies, they will change those policies.
Anybody who wants to make a competing product could quite happily target Android, Windows Phone, or Blackberry devices and ignore Apple's iOS ecosystem entirely. It's not the only player in the mobile market - hell, as Android users here seem to LOVE to trumpet, it's not even the dominant player in that market.
"Apple has a monopoly on operating systems for iOS devices" is not a valid monopoly claim any more than Honda complaining that "Ford has a monopoly on Ford-branded cars" is a valid anti-trust concern. There are numerous alternatives, one of which Microsoft themselves own.
I would love to see Apple open up its rules on installation from non-Apple sources... but it's not going to happen by shouting "monopoly" at them when they are a distant 2nd place in the mobile space.
However, in what way does this "solution" actually solve any of the problems you allege HFT causes? In fact, in what way is this any different than the current system, in practice? All you've done is introduce an arbitrary delay into the system. Right now, the "rounds" are very short, and very fast, and standing orders such as you've described exist quite happily. All you're doing is saying, "Basically, we have to make the market work no faster than SLOW computers could have done the trading 20 years ago."
What this will, in practice, do, is drive HFTs out of the market - which will widen bid-ask spreads and lower liquidity, which means you will sometimes save a little more money, and sometimes lose a little more money, when executing trades. The profits made by HFTs comes from their ability to narrow the bid-ask spreads and extract their profits from that arbitrage. They are not "stealing money" from you, there is no "problem" that this introduction of an arbitrary delay would solve. The money the HFT makes is the money that would have been lost to the inefficiency of trading that you're creating by introducing arbitrary trading delays.
No, they extract money from a system that would otherwise be lost to inefficiency in the market. HFT is the equivalent of the regenerative braking systems in a Prius - you can extract something useful with the energy released during the brakes' operation, or you can just let that energy be converted to waste heat (or noise) via friction braking.
Either way, the car needs brakes - the only question is, do you extract something useful from the process, or let the energy dissipate as waste heat?
I am very uncertain why this millisecond trading is so important. What in the market makes this a viable way of doing business?
Arbitrage is what makes it viable. HFTs typically make fractions of a penny on any given trade, and make large profits by making LOTS of trades. This benefits the overall market by increasing the liquidity available. I want to sell a share stock, and decide that I want to sell it at $21.05. I place a sell order for that; An HFT algorithm calculates that shares of that stock will rise in price, so it makes the purchase. I sell my stock at a price I wanted to sell it at, the HFT now has a share of stock to resell. Somebody else comes along, having heard great things about the stock, and says, "Wow, I want in on this company - I'll pay $21.08 for a share of that stock!" The HFT is then able to make a sale, and pocket a cool 3 cents profit. Both the buyer and the seller benefitted by having the increased liquidity of being able to sell when they wanted, and the HFT benefits by making a small profit off the arbitrage.
Personally I think available bids or offers should be secret.
How do you reach a deal then? "Psst. HEY! I have some shares of Google for sale." "Cool, how much do you want?" "Just give me your credit card number, your card company will let you know how much it cost." Anybody agreeing to sign a contract on those terms would be a fool.
You have no idea how the stock market works, and so... your solution sounds elegant and workable. But it's not. Tens of MILLIONS of people would need to each 'get a turn.'
Trivial example: What happens if I'm at lunch when it's my 'turn' to trade? Do we halt all orders until I get to take my turn? Or do I get skipped? Or do I get to trade at the front of the line the moment I get back? And how can you not see potential for abuse in ANY of those solutions?
This analogy sucks. Who loses a thing when a high speed algorithm cancels orders microseconds later without fulfillment? No money and no shares have changed hands, and unless you can advance a coherent argument that this distorts the market value of shares, the only person arguably "losing" anything is the company operating the trading infrastructure.
Your analogy assumes - in a way that does not represent the market at all - 1) That you and I are the ONLY actors in the market; 2) That there is only a SINGLE purchaser for any particular good in the market; 3) That me getting to an opportunity faster than you could is somehow "stealing" an opportunity that you were entitled to; 4) That I'm somehow profiting from buying back the goods I sold you at a price lower than you paid me; 5) That the only way to participate in the market is in the micro- and millisecond time scale; 6) That "regular traders" are in any way competing with algo traders; 7) That acting as a middleman, buying something from one person to sell it to another, is evil when somebody does it faster than you, but not evil at all if YOU can make a profit;
So, with your proposed scenario in mind: 1) Why are you in the middleman game if you know you can't compete with more nimble competitors? Buy and sell your stocks based on the underlying value you believe the companies hold, and hold them for growth (appreciation in share value) or income (dividends & interest) over a longer period, rather than trying to squeeze fractions of a penny via arbitrage - if you don't have the resources to build a faster trading system, trying to be a market maker is a sure way to lose money. You have no one to blame but yourself for trying to compete at a level you don't have resources for. 2) Why would you sell back to me at less than you paid? There are hundreds of millions of people in the market. Maybe you can't sell your goods at the $15m you wanted to to the person you wanted to, but I bet you can find another buyer willing to pay $14.7m, which still nets you a nice profit.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Asperger's was recently folded into the "Autism Spectrum" in the DSM V. It was combined with autism, not removed in its entirety.
According to the NHTSA, 4,869 children (aggregate of ages 0-20) died in car crashes in 2010, out of a total of 32,885 crash fatalities (all ages).
For slightly more modern stats, according to this data, there were a total of 3,067 gun deaths in 2007 for children age 0-19, and the breakdown is as follows:
2,161 - homicide
683 - suicide
138 - unintentional
60 - indeterminate cause
25 - legal intervention
"high-functioning autism" is a description of what is more commonly known as Asperger's syndrome. And nobody's claiming he did it "because he has Asperger's." I'm claiming that empirically, the fact that this kid did it is evidence that he had some pretty serious mental illness that was untreated, or treated improperly. I haven't heard any evidence that she was planning to commit him, "because he was high functioning autistic," the implication here is that - if this report is true - "high functioning autistic" is not the only problem he had.
And if you look at "getting someone the mental health treatment they need" as "being fucked by the system," then I'd suggest that you should probably go seek counseling yourself. "high functioning autism" is not a criticism - it's a statement of the diagnosis that's been bandied about in news reports. And it's very unlikely that he had no other issues, because autistic kids do not characteristically act out in this manner, even when they're terrifically upset - and he acted out in a spectacularly bloody fashion.
I agree fully - period, full stop. I guess I'm curious why you seem to feel that institutionalization where he can be treated for his mental illness is not "supporting the people at the bottom," though? Do you view emergency rooms and hospitals the same way for people who have heart disease, cancer, and other ailments?
This kid was demonstrably mentally ill enough (regardless of the specific diagnosis) to see mass murder as a good response to something that made him angry or upets. That is not the hallmark of a mentally stable, well-adjusted, healthy individual - he was sick, and he needed treatment. His mother (again, if this report is to accurate), was trying to force him to get treatment, which may be what triggered his rampage. So in what way was he being fucked over, and in what way was she failing to support him, by trying to get him into a treatment program?
He may not have *liked* being forced to get treatment, but it's clear that he *needed* the treatment anyway. Proper diagnosis and treatment of his ailments might have prevented this.
3 or 4 guns is a "hoard"?
Do you call someone with 3 or 4 screwdrivers a hoarder? How about those wrench nuts, with 12 different sizes of wrench?
And don't even get me started on those Personal Care hoarders, with their liquid hand soap, and bar soap, and shampoo, and conditioner, and hand sanitizer, and hand lotion!
Are you unfamiliar with the concept that different things operate best in different circumstances? That you might use a hammer to drive a nail, and a screwdriver to put in a screw? That you might use a rifle for target practice and sport shooting, and a handgun for self defense?
3 or 4 weapons is not exactly the "hoard" you seem to imagine.
Gasoline also facilitates mass murder. Shall we ban gas and matches, too? Maybe fertilizer, since you can make bombs from it. And definitely any sort of toxic chemical - wouldn't want somebody mixing bleach and ammonia in a closed space!
The problem is not as simple as "guns!". Let's imagine the day before this killing, Pres. Obama magically eliminated private ownership of firearms of any kind. Let's further imagine that along with that ban, he magically made every gun in the US disappear. Poof! Vanished!
Now:
1) Does Adam Lanza still exist? (Yes)
2) Does Adam Lanza still have a mental illness that is prompting him to commit mass murder? (Yes)
3) Can Adam Lanza still commit murder on a large scale? (Yes)
So what's different after we ban guns, other than - *perhaps* - the body count? Arson, bombs, and toxic chemicals can kill 27 people in an enclosed space pretty easily and quickly. Hell, a car smashing through a fence onto a playground during recess could kill 27 people pretty easily, and quickly. But okay, let's say that instead of a gun, Lanza went to the school with a couple knives, and killed 3 or 4 kids and a teacher before being shot by police. Are you really prepared to say that a teacher and 3 or 4 kids are "acceptable losses," since it wasn't done with a gun?
Yes, eliminating guns might lower the body count when these events happen. No, it will not solve the underlying problem - namely, that mentally ill people will sometimes snap like this and decide they want to kill a bunch of people.
As a result of this tragedy, I am far more likely to unreservedly support the first statement below than the second:
1) "This tragedy is a great argument in favor of universal healthcare, including mental health screening & treatment, in America."
2) "This tragedy is a great argument in favor of banning all private gun ownership in America."
#1 might address the root of the problem. #2 MIGHT limit the body counts, but won't do anything to stop somebody with the intent to do harm.
Actually, I read a report yesterday - not sure how accurate - they all seem to reference a report from Fox News, which quotes a "friend of the family," Joshua Flashman - that his mother was applying for conservatorship of him, so she could have him committed to a psychiatric facility, and when he found that out, that might have triggered his killing spree.
I'll be very interested to see if that report turns out to be true - if so, there probably was more going on with him than a high-functioning Autism Spectrum disorder. I'd say that the simple evidence of what he did is proof that there was a HELL of a lot more wrong with him than Asperger's.
Which is why I said, "we can certainly dispute [...] how well B&E maps to what this guy did..."
I'm not the one who proposed the "rob someone's house," parallel - I'm simply pointing out that ten years in prison for a conviction (or guilty plea) for robbing 9 different houses is certainly not unusual, extreme, or impossible, under very real laws as they exist today.
And frankly, I don't think there's a huge difference from a daytime, unarmed B&E - those laws specifically talk about "lawful tenants not being put in fear" - and in the case of the computer access, he wasn't armed, he didn't "put anybody in fear," but he certainly accessed property he had no reason or right to access, with malicious intent, and in fact acted on that intent. It's not a perfect parallel, but it's certainly not that big of a stretch, either - it'd be akin to breaking in and stealing their TV while nobody was home during the day.
Hmm... my notation wasn't very good, on second read. Please read "9 x 5-20 years" as "9 concurrent 5-to-20 year sentences."
The point was mostly that you could easily get 9 concurrent 5-20 year sentences that would put you in jail for 10 or more years, to the original question of, "if this guy broke into somebody's house, would he have gotten this severe a punishment?"
For a single incident, the penalty can easily run 5-20 years (depending on circumstance & your past conviction record). Even if you served the sentences concurrently as you point out, it'd be completely within the bounds of legal possibility to see the guy handed 9 concurrent 10-year sentences for breaking into 9 houses. B&E can get you a lot more jail time than many here seem to think, and 10 years for this sort of a crime is really not that out of the ordinary.
We can certainly dispute whether 10 years is warranted for a single count of B&E, and how well B&E maps to what this guy did... but if we're using "doing the same thing at somebody's house" as a guide, 10 years is completely within reason.
In Massachusetts, as an example, A single offense of breaking and entering could easily get you 5-20 years in prison, depending on the time and circumstances. Even if you serve them concurrently, you're still serving 9 x 5-20 years.
And prior convictions will make for a mandatory 5 year minimum; "doing something ten times or one hundred times" will absolutely increase any penalty you can expect to receive, as well.
You can doubt it all you want, but the laws say otherwise. If he broke into her house, stole the photos, and did this, here's the type of laws (and punishments) he'd be facing:
Mass General Laws, Chapter 266, Section 15:
That's ONE COUNT of *unarmed* breaking and entering, with *no assault on the occupants,* nor arming himself inside (e.g., picking up a baseball bat to beat the shit out of the occupants. That'll get you up to 20 years. Previous convictions will guarantee you at least 5 years.
Mass General Laws, Chapter 266, Section 18:
Do it *just once* during the daytime, while unarmed, and you'll get "up to 10 years", or a $500 fine + up to 2 years. Do it with a weapon, and you'll get at least 5. Now consider that he attempted, or succeeded at, "breaking and entering" multiple times, and also took (and distributed) stuff which was not his to take (and distribute). This puts his punishment VERY MUCH in line with somebody doing "a nearly identical crime by different means." Most property crimes will get you 2-20 based on the severity, with a past conviction getting you a mandatory minimum of 5 in a lot of cases.
"Why would you protest the Patriot Act or warrantless wiretapping? If you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear, citizen!" Or, for that matter... "Why would you protest Facebook & Instagram's use of your photos in any way they deem financially useful? Its your own fault if you don't keep the photos under strict lock and key in an electromagnetically-shielded, hermetically sealed lockbox!"
Say what you really mean:
"But I liked seeing Scarlett Johannson's boobies, and don't think anybody should be punished for having helped me achieve that dream!"
This has happened... when?
That sure wasn't Instagram - their Terms of Use have ALWAYS granted Instagram a worldwide, royalty free license to use as they see fit. Facebook has made it more explicit, but Instagram never made these promises you seem to think they have.
No, they're saying "if you're not happy with that, you should stop using this free service I'm providing you and cancel your account." Their online help indicates that submitting a request to close your account will result in permanent and unrecoverable deletion of all data you have submitted to the site. If they refuse to do that and you find your IP being sold after you close your account, you can sue them for misuse - their license to use your IP ends when you close your account.
The license is also not exclusive, which means you can sell and license your image to anybody else you wish at any point. And, since the images are to be sold for use in advertising... I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any child pornography rings who are advertising their product on Facebook, as well. But if you have some examples, by all means, let's see them.
In other words, a parasite. And what you're overlooking in your ridiculously purple prose is that users ARE getting something of value in return for uploading their photos - a service for sharing & publishing their photos - and people who feel they aren't getting enough value in return are welcome to remove their photos from the site. Last I checked, parasites don't ask for your permission, or allow you to "opt out" of the relationship.
If you don't like their policies, remove your photos. But if you find this new update objectionable, and you are a user of the service, then I submit to you that you have never read the terms of use prior to this ridiculous shitstorm. Very little has changed, and they've ALWAYS been licensed to use your IP in any way they see fit. Bottom line is, you're not entitled to a free service - and there are plenty of alternatives you could use, or you can build your own. In fact, you could even open it up to everybody else to use for free if you want, because operating a massive server farm for millions of people out of your own pocket is surely the path to riches - Instagram doesn't NEED money to continue operating - running a server farm at a loss is the road to riches, right?
In what way is you choosing to use someone's servers & service to upload, store, and share your photos, parasitic on the part of the service you've elected to use?
They don't list a "required" time frame for the email, so even if it comes out on January 16, they'd still be satisfying their end of the bargain.
Also, don't ignore the non-bold parts of the current terms of use:
The current terms already grant them a worldwide royalty free license, so it's questionable whether this change represents a "material change" in any way - it makes the intended use more explicit, but they've always had the rights to do this, so... is a wording change that has no practical different effect a "material change" in the first place?
I don't LIKE that they put this stuff in their terms in the first place, but this isn't a substantial change to their terms of use - they've ALWAYS had the right to do whatever they want with the stuff you upload, and they no particular obligation (and never have) to notify you or pay you or tell you what they're doing with it at any point.
From their current Terms of Service:
And at the top of the page, is this notice: "We are updating our Terms of Use: Our updated Terms of Use will be effective on January 16, 2013," with a link to the updated terms of use, which include these new terms. They've held up their end of the terms - they notified you of a material change to the terms according to your preferences.
So you've got about 1 month to delete your photos if you don't agree to the new Terms. And the old terms are fairly clear - you can't claim they buried this at the bottom of a million pages of legalese, it's maybe 2 printed pages worth of terms, most of which are written in pretty plain English. What I don't get is why this is such a shocking change for people, when the current terms of use include these two gems:
Emphasis added in both quotes above. I'm not sure that these new terms are substantially different in effect from the old terms, just seems that they've been made more *explicit* as to the effect - that "people may pay us to use your likeness, username, and other content in their ads."
He didn't say "yes, they own them."
GGP said, "You own them. No corporation has the right to use them without your permission just because they are holding them.
GP said, "Yes they do," as in - "yes, they do have the right to use them," because you are *granting them that permission by using (or continuing to use) the service.*
Nobody said using the service transfers ownership - it simply grants them a royalty-free license to use the images as they wish. And in return, you get to use the service. And frankly, I'm not sure that's an awful deal, given the average quality of most peoples' instagram photos.
Riiiiight. Instagram is going to hire marketing people whose sole job is to scan through the photo streams of literally tens of millions of active users to find the "absolutely killer" photos you took at Applebee's last week, and propose a worldwide marketing campaign featuring YOUR photos, showing how badly-lit, badly-focused, poorly dressed, average-to-downright-ugly people get down with some Jalapeno Poppers, Loaded Fiesta Nachos, and Shrimp Slammers in grainy cell phone images.
Except that would be the worst business idea ever.
What's going to happen is, Applebee's is going to make an ad buy on Facebook - "We're opening a new restaurant in Bohunk, Iowa. We'd like to target people ages 21-50 in the area with the news, and let them know we have a special "$17 dollar SUMMER SHRIMP SLAMMER SPECIAL!" Facebook & Instagram, when targeting you for the ad, will find people in your network who have taken photos at other Applebee's (geo-tagged, or checked-in, or #-tagged, likes, +1's, etc.), and put an ad using a photo of your friend, Mike, (or maybe one he took at Applebee's some unfortunate evening), with ad copy saying, "Your friend Mike loves Applebee's too! Why not get together at our new Bohunk location, and enjoy our new $17 SUMMER SHRIMP SLAMMER SPECIAL?!"
Ford could quite easily sell a car that only ran on some special patented fuel formulation that only they (or a licensed subsidiary) could sell.
And if you bought it, it would be your own fault for buying a vehicle that was locked down in that way - nobody tricked you into it, the information about the fuel the vehicle required was clearly stated in all the brochures.
The fuel argument is bogus, because it assumes that apps are write once, run anywhere - that an app, once written, can run on ANY mobile device, but Apple is somehow preventing these apps from running. It's an imperfect anaolgy at best, and one which really doesn't make sense in this context.
Vertical integration is NOT necessarily a monopoly (it can be, but it doesn't HAVE to be). If Ford decided to manufacture cars that took non-standard gasoline, or non-standard tires, or non-standard oil and coolant - that is their choice, and they would be absolutely free to do so - provided they're not *tricking* you into buying the car. It may be a bad business decision for them, because people won't want to buy cars that they can't fuel at any normal fuel station, but there's not "antitrust" violation in them doing so.
Apple will likely find, eventually, that it has to open things up, because it makes business sense to do so. Right now, they're selling the devices almost as fast as they can make them - there's not a lot of impetus to change when you're making money hand over fist. When and if they find that people are choosing other devices because of these policies, they will change those policies.
You can't run an Android app on iOS, either. I fail to see how this makes a convincing antitrust argument.
Anybody who wants to make a competing product could quite happily target Android, Windows Phone, or Blackberry devices and ignore Apple's iOS ecosystem entirely. It's not the only player in the mobile market - hell, as Android users here seem to LOVE to trumpet, it's not even the dominant player in that market.
"Apple has a monopoly on operating systems for iOS devices" is not a valid monopoly claim any more than Honda complaining that "Ford has a monopoly on Ford-branded cars" is a valid anti-trust concern. There are numerous alternatives, one of which Microsoft themselves own.
I would love to see Apple open up its rules on installation from non-Apple sources... but it's not going to happen by shouting "monopoly" at them when they are a distant 2nd place in the mobile space.
I took rounds to mean turns. My mistake.
However, in what way does this "solution" actually solve any of the problems you allege HFT causes? In fact, in what way is this any different than the current system, in practice? All you've done is introduce an arbitrary delay into the system. Right now, the "rounds" are very short, and very fast, and standing orders such as you've described exist quite happily. All you're doing is saying, "Basically, we have to make the market work no faster than SLOW computers could have done the trading 20 years ago."
What this will, in practice, do, is drive HFTs out of the market - which will widen bid-ask spreads and lower liquidity, which means you will sometimes save a little more money, and sometimes lose a little more money, when executing trades. The profits made by HFTs comes from their ability to narrow the bid-ask spreads and extract their profits from that arbitrage. They are not "stealing money" from you, there is no "problem" that this introduction of an arbitrary delay would solve. The money the HFT makes is the money that would have been lost to the inefficiency of trading that you're creating by introducing arbitrary trading delays.
No, they extract money from a system that would otherwise be lost to inefficiency in the market. HFT is the equivalent of the regenerative braking systems in a Prius - you can extract something useful with the energy released during the brakes' operation, or you can just let that energy be converted to waste heat (or noise) via friction braking.
Either way, the car needs brakes - the only question is, do you extract something useful from the process, or let the energy dissipate as waste heat?
Arbitrage is what makes it viable. HFTs typically make fractions of a penny on any given trade, and make large profits by making LOTS of trades. This benefits the overall market by increasing the liquidity available. I want to sell a share stock, and decide that I want to sell it at $21.05. I place a sell order for that; An HFT algorithm calculates that shares of that stock will rise in price, so it makes the purchase. I sell my stock at a price I wanted to sell it at, the HFT now has a share of stock to resell. Somebody else comes along, having heard great things about the stock, and says, "Wow, I want in on this company - I'll pay $21.08 for a share of that stock!" The HFT is then able to make a sale, and pocket a cool 3 cents profit. Both the buyer and the seller benefitted by having the increased liquidity of being able to sell when they wanted, and the HFT benefits by making a small profit off the arbitrage.
How do you reach a deal then? "Psst. HEY! I have some shares of Google for sale." "Cool, how much do you want?" "Just give me your credit card number, your card company will let you know how much it cost." Anybody agreeing to sign a contract on those terms would be a fool.
You have no idea how the stock market works, and so... your solution sounds elegant and workable. But it's not. Tens of MILLIONS of people would need to each 'get a turn.'
Trivial example: What happens if I'm at lunch when it's my 'turn' to trade? Do we halt all orders until I get to take my turn? Or do I get skipped? Or do I get to trade at the front of the line the moment I get back? And how can you not see potential for abuse in ANY of those solutions?
This analogy sucks. Who loses a thing when a high speed algorithm cancels orders microseconds later without fulfillment? No money and no shares have changed hands, and unless you can advance a coherent argument that this distorts the market value of shares, the only person arguably "losing" anything is the company operating the trading infrastructure.
Your analogy assumes - in a way that does not represent the market at all -
1) That you and I are the ONLY actors in the market;
2) That there is only a SINGLE purchaser for any particular good in the market;
3) That me getting to an opportunity faster than you could is somehow "stealing" an opportunity that you were entitled to;
4) That I'm somehow profiting from buying back the goods I sold you at a price lower than you paid me;
5) That the only way to participate in the market is in the micro- and millisecond time scale;
6) That "regular traders" are in any way competing with algo traders;
7) That acting as a middleman, buying something from one person to sell it to another, is evil when somebody does it faster than you, but not evil at all if YOU can make a profit;
So, with your proposed scenario in mind:
1) Why are you in the middleman game if you know you can't compete with more nimble competitors? Buy and sell your stocks based on the underlying value you believe the companies hold, and hold them for growth (appreciation in share value) or income (dividends & interest) over a longer period, rather than trying to squeeze fractions of a penny via arbitrage - if you don't have the resources to build a faster trading system, trying to be a market maker is a sure way to lose money. You have no one to blame but yourself for trying to compete at a level you don't have resources for.
2) Why would you sell back to me at less than you paid? There are hundreds of millions of people in the market. Maybe you can't sell your goods at the $15m you wanted to to the person you wanted to, but I bet you can find another buyer willing to pay $14.7m, which still nets you a nice profit.