I'm not saying that there is even a way to change this. But we put democracy up on this high platform as the great and just way to govern, when in reality it can be as tyrannical as any other system of government.
After messing with PAM configs, it struck me that one of the issues was right there in the words "Required" and "Sufficient".
I do agree that some amount of democracy and probably even representative democracy is required to have a truely legitimate system, however, it is not sufficient to say "we have a democracy, therefore it is legitimate"
Democracy is just as tyranical as any other form of government its just a matter of whether you have one tyrant or a majority of people forming a tyrant. I forget who said it and I am too lazy to look it up but "The only kind of liberty that matters is the liberty to do what others disaprove of".
Actually its more likely to mobilize people against islam, and alienate even some of their own foillowers. For the most part, people only like war in theory. People really love hypothetical wars. They like idealized violence. Violence against Emanual Goldstiens is ok, as long as emanual goldstien is not a real man whose eyes they have to look into and whose children they have to hear scream.
I mean, the terrorists probably don't think this way, but most other people do. Exposure of their atrocities will, in the end, not help them. It will drive away all but their most radical supporters.
Seriously. Good. I hope they do more of this. If they keep going it will backfire on them faster than a semtex shockwave through the bodies of apostates in the sears tower (hey there NSA: stop reading, start leaking).
I know these guys, some of them, are scholarly and study terrorism. They read books by IRA members, and all that good stuff. They didn't learn some big lessons.
The single biggest lesson the US military learned in Viet Nam was this: Civilians hate real war. Nothing has so turned people against war and against supporting it like seeing the real true brutality of it all over their TV screens and front page.
The US military learned that, which is why, by the time the gulf war happened, reporters were being shuttled around to get to the scene right after the bodies were moved, and real brutality over.
Also.... one disagreement I have with the article is that this is such a huge change, or will change terrorism. It has ALWAYS been a media stunt. Terror attacks are not serious existential threats, they are media grabs. This is just taking it to its next logical step.
Well here is what gets me... if they break down in sunlight, but then recombine without the light, well.... natural bodies of water tend not to be terribly clear. You don't have to go down far to not find all that much light, especially if the area itself isn't in direct sunlight....
So its likely that in many place, it doesn't even take "night", breakdown is likely only happening within a short distance of the surface.
Actually I would submit the election system is so terribly set up that it barely deserves to be called one. We have a great system, for a world where it takes weeks to get information a few hundred miles, and the number of states and subjects are a fraction of what we have today.
What has happened, with the expansion of territory, increase in population, and indroduction of mass media, is that representation has become an utter joke.
It comes down to issues as basic as the voting system itself. A single non-transferable vote system creates the situation where a two party stranglehold is inevitable. Two parties are barely good enough for a small community. In fact the very structure of the non-ranked vote, gives more power to the parties.
For the most part Democrats are not people who believe in the Democrat platform, shit, most have never read it and few know more than a few of its more basic points. They are, the people afraid of the basic points the republicans make. The republicans, are basically the same, just with some of the issues switched.
In a way, this works, if any party becomes too powerful, they stumble and fall as their member constituencies begin fighting with each other. However it means, nobody actually has an agenda that can be taken seriously because neither party has a real coalition, until they are behind and able to rally their members together out of fear of the other party.
This is a democracy in name only, its really become a sham (it is debatable whether it always was, but, it came about in a context where it made more sense than it does today).
> They're not representing the people and therefore undemocratic. Fire them.
Do you remember a few years back when Isreal invaded Lebanon? Shortly after that their own military put out a SCATHING report which absolutely skewered many people in the government, including elected officials.
There was an interview about this on NPR with a war scholar at west point who was asked why you never see reports like this within the US or from the US military. His answer was simple: We have no mechanism by which to remove the incompetent, if they screw up there is no point in saying anything because you are stuck with them until their term runs out anyway
Really? Because of all those things, the only one that is currently actually being used as a directed energy weapon is...in fact, the laser.
At least so far as "directed energy" doesn't count the acceleration of metal projectiles or explosive shells, which still take the cake for directed energy burst delivery.
Not just a matter of values but of fear of risk. Risk tolerance has become quite low and seems to just be getting worst as the place gets safer and the perception of the world gets smaller.
I worked at my first year for 5 years. 5 years before I started they first announced they were going to kill off the old VMS based email system. I was gone for 2 years before they finally actually killed it....because every time they tried, someone raised a stink.
I don't actually deal with ILOs in my current position (often anyway). However the last environment I was in was utterly pathological. the ILO would generate its own self-signed cert, meaning you would litterally need to install a new cert for every single ILO.
Maybe that is fine in a small environment, I have been working in ones where we are talking about something on the order of 2000 systems.
The noitice is good, and in the general case this is good. I see some serious problems for system admins who have to use systems with older ILOs. Just about every ILO or remote console I have used in the past few years has been java based and used self-signed certs.
It would be nice if you could whitelist trusted networks. I would like this when going to random google pages, this will be a serious pain when it comes to administering systems.
Looking at the map, particularly the second one showing the "coefficient of variation" I can't help but notice that not all of the hot spots are on the boarder, but, they do all seem to be associated with rivers. River crossing on the interior and where rivers move close to borders on the exterior.
Basically wealth is concentrated in unsurprising places along where you would expect to find trade routes. Why connect this with illegal activity aside from being more attention grabbing? I mean I don't doubt some of the wealth there is from illegal activity but, just because legitimate trade routes get used for illicit activity for rather mundane reasons (its where the money is)
I only ask because I have a dell keyboard in the office with several extra controls and.... a calc key. Which I just pressed and, lo and behold, even on RHEL 6 (don't get me started) it brings up... the calculator.
That is a meaningless comparison, so no it doesn't warrant anything. There are a lot of people who drive a lot of miles. There is inherent danger in that activity. I actually think we are long past the point of diminishing returns and have saved a lot more lives with seatbelts, air bags, crumple zones, than traffic enforcement.
The thing is, per capita and per mile driven, these numbers have gone down significantly. One commentator on the radio was trying to say the numbers haven't changed in decades, but they have, because all other indicators like miles driven and number of cars on the road have all gone up. So actually, no change in deaths represents significant progress over the years.
I honestly doubt ANYTHING will significantly reduce deaths from auto accidents short of self driving cars taking over a significant portion of the driving.
I think you meant to reply to GP, as if anything I said was construed as considering psychedelics as particularly dangerous well... I have only done LSD, DMT, 2ct7, DOB, DPT, and DiPT, oh and san pedro cactus and HBWR seeds and mushrooms.... but so far I wouldn't call them particularly dangerous or people on them a threat.
Admittedly its been a while, haven't tripped at all in at least 2 years, I was mostly active on that in my early 20s. In theory I would still drop acid, in practice its getting harder to commit to going through the experience again at 35. I will, of course, but.... I probably will not trip again in my life quite as many times as I did just when I was 22.
> I've never seen anyone causing problems because they are tripping.
Meh I have seen a bit and heard of a bit but, as you say compared to the problems people on alcohol cause, doesn't even come close. Had a couple of friends who went down some bad roads with them but, it was really more hard times for them than for anyone else. (and in some ways had to happen, one of my friends who I believe would have been in jail or dead by now if not for it landing him in a mental ward and totally changing the trajectory of his life.... hes married with kids now... not slinging drugs and stealing cars)
Let us not forget the list or menu key or whatever it is called. Hell, not only do I not use it, I can't think of many times I have even heard people mention it. At least right now in firefox it seems to have the same effect as a right mouse click, but I only know that because I just tried it.
The difference is that this is an extraordinary claim, whereas that 2pm is 2pm everywhere is a fairly mundane claim, which makes perfect sense in the common understanding of most people. As far as the law is concerned, I would really think you have to take into account what models real people use in terms of what you can expect them to take into consideration.
Some have argued that such a trader would or should be expected to understand these concepts, and that may in fact be the case, but its definitely a valid question. I definitely think legally applying a model of physics that is more refined than the average person can reasonably be expected to understand requires some justification,....and its likely just here, but, I don't accept that we can just point to modern physics and say 'that is always the model' because the law has to apply to all people.
However it doesn't necessarily matter if its cracked, if the distribution method is easy enough and the content cheap enough (this cuts out a lot of palms) then its likely enough people will just pay for it to make a decent profit. After that, who cares about the deadbeats who share it for free? Its all gravy after that anyway.
I think one thing many don't realize, and some like the RIAA base their entire job on not realizing, is what LL Bean seems to have realized with their return policy: trying to stamp out every possible abuse alienates customers. Take a little with a smile and you look better and may come out on top at the end. It makes you look better to other customers.
Put it another way, it may be your right to put whatever restrictions you want in place, and you may be able to run a store where nothing is stolen and no merchandise returned unfairly, but if achieving that drives away customers and gives you a reputation as a pain in the ass that nobody wants to deal with, its not really good business practice is it?
In short, they don't have to stop abuse, they just need to make profit. If they can delay the abuse a bit and make it easy enough that people with money opt to pay for it.... then it hardly matters what the crackers do.... they and the people who download their warez were not going to pay up anyway.
wow, what a piece of work. Truth is almost as insane and disgusting as the legend... when challeneged to a shooting match, the implication being over a woman, he wanted to make it a duel? Plus:
Bean did not allow hung juries or appeals,[9] and jurors, who were chosen from his best bar customers, were expected to buy a drink during every court recess.[10] Bean was known for his unusual rulings. In one case, an Irishman named Paddy O'Rourke shot a Chinese laborer. A mob of 200 angry Irishmen surrounded the courtroom and threatened to lynch Bean if O'Rourke was not freed. After looking through his law book, Bean ruled that "homicide was the killing of a human being; however, he could find no law against killing a Chinaman".[9] Bean dismissed the case.[9]
No hung juries or appeals? And jurors were customers of his? Sounds legit. At least that Chinaman comment can be said to have been a statement made under duress with a mob of 200 angry men at his door; I could see that being quite a motivator to get creative.
Oh then he moves his saloon, can't attract business and the claim is that a competitor laced his whisky with kerosene? Seems an odd sort of thing to not prosecute, destruction of property and all.
Then he moves again....
O'Rourke, the Irishman Bean had previously acquitted, told Bean to use the railroad right-of-way, which was not covered by the contract. For the next 20 years, Bean squatted on land he had no legal right to claim
a picture is emerging for me here...
Langtry did not have a jail, so all cases were settled by fines. Bean refused to send the state any part of the fines, but instead kept all of the money. In most cases, the fines were made for the exact amount in the accused's pockets...... He continued to be elected until 1896. Even after that defeat, he "refused to surrender his seal and law book and continued to try all cases north of the tracks".
So the genes for antibiotic resistance don't even have to be evolved by the same organism, nor must they remain there, they can spread separately from the pathogen. The germs you fight may not even be the main resevoir for those genes.
I actually wonder how long it will be before someone engineers a slutty bacterium that is very successful at gene transfer with its own kind and load it up with genes for antibiotic vulnerability. Hell it wouldn't even need to be a traditional antibiotic.... anything you can program it to recognize and trigger cell death should do the trick.
It would be kind of like air dropping syphlitic hookers on the enemy.
I think this wins as the best argument I have seen yet. I actually think its unreasonable to expect a person to take propagation of signals through space-time into account to comply with the law (however narrowly; but the implications of outlawing minimal compliance is a bit too much like debating the amount of flair on the waitresses outfit) but, this.... setting up the trade had to happen before 2 pm to happen then. This seems more reasonable.
Why should public intoxication be illegal? That always seemed stupid to me and is rife with abuse since its seldom enforced so its just held in the back pocket to be used selectively. Fact is there are people intoxicated in public all the time. Hell, I live on the edge of a college. Drunk people walk by my house en mass to and from bars and frats on a nightly basis.... I have precious little to complain about.... aside from the $3 pink flamingos someone stole from my front lawn; and an overturned half barrel rose bush (and that was 15 years ago), and once or twice a year someone pukes out on the sidewalk. Oh noes! Where are the police when you need them!
As for cooking meth, I can't imagine anyone would bother if it were legal, I can't imagine needing any specific law against something that...people are not doing. There are many things that are kind of dangerous to do in residential neighborhoods; its kind of silly to go around singling them out, especially when, there is no real incentive to do most of them. A situation we could easily have with meth.
Though meth could just about be eradicated if not for prohibition making so many alternatives unprofitable. Or that Croc stuff....a drug invented because of change in the heroin supply. You know, ive talked to some opiate people (was never my drugs) and from everything I have heard heroin isn't really the pick of the litter. Makes people itchy and causes severe nausea.
Now if opium were legal, and or morphine available, I would bet you dollars to donuts that heroin would all but be a thing of the past.
So because you can imagine risks involving people making specific choices, anything that can lead up to those choices is fair game? No I don't accept that at all. Just because you can hallucinate a risk doesn't mean anyone else should be restricted by it.
However the law is for all people, not just those who understand physics, and particularly, concepts that have little to no relevance to daily life or experiences. For the vast majority of things anyone does that involve any manner of synchronization, 2pm is 2pm (with zone adjustment) everywhere.
If you are making the argument that they executed the trade based on prior knowledge, then I can't argue with that. The evidence presented makes that case. However, if you are arguing that they understood that they were trading before it was public knowledge, that I am unsure of. Frankly, I would probably make the same mistake if I were in their shoes and trying to time for as close after the announcement as possible. It is a pretty minor detail to miss 99.9999999% of the time
Actually I agree with the implications #1, and #3, but.... I think #2 is a bit debatable. If they understood physics, this would almost be masterful, if unsuccessful, in its attempt to obscure reality while getting maximum gain.
However, if they don't understand physics, isn't executing the trade after the announcement, potentially, a good faith attempt at complying with the insider trading regulation? Getting insider information itself may or may not be illegal depending on how it happens. Using it before it becomes public is.... but... there is at least reason to suspect that the person who did it may have simply acted around a naive concept of physics.
I am not aware of any restriction on being ready to be the first one out of the gate AFTER the announcement is made; I mean he clearly didn't do that but, it still may have been his intent.
Slashdot Mirror
After messing with PAM configs, it struck me that one of the issues was right there in the words "Required" and "Sufficient".
I do agree that some amount of democracy and probably even representative democracy is required to have a truely legitimate system, however, it is not sufficient to say "we have a democracy, therefore it is legitimate"
Democracy is just as tyranical as any other form of government its just a matter of whether you have one tyrant or a majority of people forming a tyrant. I forget who said it and I am too lazy to look it up but "The only kind of liberty that matters is the liberty to do what others disaprove of".
Actually its more likely to mobilize people against islam, and alienate even some of their own foillowers. For the most part, people only like war in theory. People really love hypothetical wars. They like idealized violence. Violence against Emanual Goldstiens is ok, as long as emanual goldstien is not a real man whose eyes they have to look into and whose children they have to hear scream.
I mean, the terrorists probably don't think this way, but most other people do. Exposure of their atrocities will, in the end, not help them. It will drive away all but their most radical supporters.
Seriously. Good. I hope they do more of this. If they keep going it will backfire on them faster than a semtex shockwave through the bodies of apostates in the sears tower (hey there NSA: stop reading, start leaking).
I know these guys, some of them, are scholarly and study terrorism. They read books by IRA members, and all that good stuff. They didn't learn some big lessons.
The single biggest lesson the US military learned in Viet Nam was this: Civilians hate real war. Nothing has so turned people against war and against supporting it like seeing the real true brutality of it all over their TV screens and front page.
The US military learned that, which is why, by the time the gulf war happened, reporters were being shuttled around to get to the scene right after the bodies were moved, and real brutality over.
Also.... one disagreement I have with the article is that this is such a huge change, or will change terrorism. It has ALWAYS been a media stunt. Terror attacks are not serious existential threats, they are media grabs. This is just taking it to its next logical step.
Well here is what gets me... if they break down in sunlight, but then recombine without the light, well.... natural bodies of water tend not to be terribly clear. You don't have to go down far to not find all that much light, especially if the area itself isn't in direct sunlight....
So its likely that in many place, it doesn't even take "night", breakdown is likely only happening within a short distance of the surface.
Actually I would submit the election system is so terribly set up that it barely deserves to be called one. We have a great system, for a world where it takes weeks to get information a few hundred miles, and the number of states and subjects are a fraction of what we have today.
What has happened, with the expansion of territory, increase in population, and indroduction of mass media, is that representation has become an utter joke.
It comes down to issues as basic as the voting system itself. A single non-transferable vote system creates the situation where a two party stranglehold is inevitable. Two parties are barely good enough for a small community. In fact the very structure of the non-ranked vote, gives more power to the parties.
For the most part Democrats are not people who believe in the Democrat platform, shit, most have never read it and few know more than a few of its more basic points. They are, the people afraid of the basic points the republicans make. The republicans, are basically the same, just with some of the issues switched.
In a way, this works, if any party becomes too powerful, they stumble and fall as their member constituencies begin fighting with each other. However it means, nobody actually has an agenda that can be taken seriously because neither party has a real coalition, until they are behind and able to rally their members together out of fear of the other party.
This is a democracy in name only, its really become a sham (it is debatable whether it always was, but, it came about in a context where it made more sense than it does today).
> They're not representing the people and therefore undemocratic. Fire them.
Do you remember a few years back when Isreal invaded Lebanon? Shortly after that their own military put out a SCATHING report which absolutely skewered many people in the government, including elected officials.
There was an interview about this on NPR with a war scholar at west point who was asked why you never see reports like this within the US or from the US military. His answer was simple: We have no mechanism by which to remove the incompetent, if they screw up there is no point in saying anything because you are stuck with them until their term runs out anyway
Really? Because of all those things, the only one that is currently actually being used as a directed energy weapon is...in fact, the laser.
At least so far as "directed energy" doesn't count the acceleration of metal projectiles or explosive shells, which still take the cake for directed energy burst delivery.
Not just a matter of values but of fear of risk. Risk tolerance has become quite low and seems to just be getting worst as the place gets safer and the perception of the world gets smaller.
Well promises are worth what? :)
I worked at my first year for 5 years. 5 years before I started they first announced they were going to kill off the old VMS based email system. I was gone for 2 years before they finally actually killed it....because every time they tried, someone raised a stink.
I don't actually deal with ILOs in my current position (often anyway). However the last environment I was in was utterly pathological. the ILO would generate its own self-signed cert, meaning you would litterally need to install a new cert for every single ILO.
Maybe that is fine in a small environment, I have been working in ones where we are talking about something on the order of 2000 systems.
The noitice is good, and in the general case this is good. I see some serious problems for system admins who have to use systems with older ILOs. Just about every ILO or remote console I have used in the past few years has been java based and used self-signed certs.
It would be nice if you could whitelist trusted networks. I would like this when going to random google pages, this will be a serious pain when it comes to administering systems.
Looking at the map, particularly the second one showing the "coefficient of variation" I can't help but notice that not all of the hot spots are on the boarder, but, they do all seem to be associated with rivers. River crossing on the interior and where rivers move close to borders on the exterior.
Basically wealth is concentrated in unsurprising places along where you would expect to find trade routes. Why connect this with illegal activity aside from being more attention grabbing? I mean I don't doubt some of the wealth there is from illegal activity but, just because legitimate trade routes get used for illicit activity for rather mundane reasons (its where the money is)
Is it, by any chance, a Dell?
I only ask because I have a dell keyboard in the office with several extra controls and.... a calc key. Which I just pressed and, lo and behold, even on RHEL 6 (don't get me started) it brings up... the calculator.
That is a meaningless comparison, so no it doesn't warrant anything. There are a lot of people who drive a lot of miles. There is inherent danger in that activity. I actually think we are long past the point of diminishing returns and have saved a lot more lives with seatbelts, air bags, crumple zones, than traffic enforcement.
The thing is, per capita and per mile driven, these numbers have gone down significantly. One commentator on the radio was trying to say the numbers haven't changed in decades, but they have, because all other indicators like miles driven and number of cars on the road have all gone up. So actually, no change in deaths represents significant progress over the years.
I honestly doubt ANYTHING will significantly reduce deaths from auto accidents short of self driving cars taking over a significant portion of the driving.
I think you meant to reply to GP, as if anything I said was construed as considering psychedelics as particularly dangerous well... I have only done LSD, DMT, 2ct7, DOB, DPT, and DiPT, oh and san pedro cactus and HBWR seeds and mushrooms.... but so far I wouldn't call them particularly dangerous or people on them a threat.
Admittedly its been a while, haven't tripped at all in at least 2 years, I was mostly active on that in my early 20s. In theory I would still drop acid, in practice its getting harder to commit to going through the experience again at 35. I will, of course, but.... I probably will not trip again in my life quite as many times as I did just when I was 22.
> I've never seen anyone causing problems because they are tripping.
Meh I have seen a bit and heard of a bit but, as you say compared to the problems people on alcohol cause, doesn't even come close. Had a couple of friends who went down some bad roads with them but, it was really more hard times for them than for anyone else. (and in some ways had to happen, one of my friends who I believe would have been in jail or dead by now if not for it landing him in a mental ward and totally changing the trajectory of his life.... hes married with kids now... not slinging drugs and stealing cars)
Let us not forget the list or menu key or whatever it is called. Hell, not only do I not use it, I can't think of many times I have even heard people mention it. At least right now in firefox it seems to have the same effect as a right mouse click, but I only know that because I just tried it.
The difference is that this is an extraordinary claim, whereas that 2pm is 2pm everywhere is a fairly mundane claim, which makes perfect sense in the common understanding of most people. As far as the law is concerned, I would really think you have to take into account what models real people use in terms of what you can expect them to take into consideration.
Some have argued that such a trader would or should be expected to understand these concepts, and that may in fact be the case, but its definitely a valid question. I definitely think legally applying a model of physics that is more refined than the average person can reasonably be expected to understand requires some justification,....and its likely just here, but, I don't accept that we can just point to modern physics and say 'that is always the model' because the law has to apply to all people.
However it doesn't necessarily matter if its cracked, if the distribution method is easy enough and the content cheap enough (this cuts out a lot of palms) then its likely enough people will just pay for it to make a decent profit. After that, who cares about the deadbeats who share it for free? Its all gravy after that anyway.
I think one thing many don't realize, and some like the RIAA base their entire job on not realizing, is what LL Bean seems to have realized with their return policy: trying to stamp out every possible abuse alienates customers. Take a little with a smile and you look better and may come out on top at the end. It makes you look better to other customers.
Put it another way, it may be your right to put whatever restrictions you want in place, and you may be able to run a store where nothing is stolen and no merchandise returned unfairly, but if achieving that drives away customers and gives you a reputation as a pain in the ass that nobody wants to deal with, its not really good business practice is it?
In short, they don't have to stop abuse, they just need to make profit. If they can delay the abuse a bit and make it easy enough that people with money opt to pay for it.... then it hardly matters what the crackers do.... they and the people who download their warez were not going to pay up anyway.
wow, what a piece of work. Truth is almost as insane and disgusting as the legend... when challeneged to a shooting match, the implication being over a woman, he wanted to make it a duel? Plus:
No hung juries or appeals? And jurors were customers of his? Sounds legit. At least that Chinaman comment can be said to have been a statement made under duress with a mob of 200 angry men at his door; I could see that being quite a motivator to get creative.
Oh then he moves his saloon, can't attract business and the claim is that a competitor laced his whisky with kerosene? Seems an odd sort of thing to not prosecute, destruction of property and all.
Then he moves again....
a picture is emerging for me here...
Actually it is a bit messier than that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
So the genes for antibiotic resistance don't even have to be evolved by the same organism, nor must they remain there, they can spread separately from the pathogen. The germs you fight may not even be the main resevoir for those genes.
I actually wonder how long it will be before someone engineers a slutty bacterium that is very successful at gene transfer with its own kind and load it up with genes for antibiotic vulnerability. Hell it wouldn't even need to be a traditional antibiotic.... anything you can program it to recognize and trigger cell death should do the trick.
It would be kind of like air dropping syphlitic hookers on the enemy.
I think this wins as the best argument I have seen yet. I actually think its unreasonable to expect a person to take propagation of signals through space-time into account to comply with the law (however narrowly; but the implications of outlawing minimal compliance is a bit too much like debating the amount of flair on the waitresses outfit) but, this.... setting up the trade had to happen before 2 pm to happen then. This seems more reasonable.
Why should public intoxication be illegal? That always seemed stupid to me and is rife with abuse since its seldom enforced so its just held in the back pocket to be used selectively. Fact is there are people intoxicated in public all the time. Hell, I live on the edge of a college. Drunk people walk by my house en mass to and from bars and frats on a nightly basis.... I have precious little to complain about.... aside from the $3 pink flamingos someone stole from my front lawn; and an overturned half barrel rose bush (and that was 15 years ago), and once or twice a year someone pukes out on the sidewalk. Oh noes! Where are the police when you need them!
As for cooking meth, I can't imagine anyone would bother if it were legal, I can't imagine needing any specific law against something that...people are not doing. There are many things that are kind of dangerous to do in residential neighborhoods; its kind of silly to go around singling them out, especially when, there is no real incentive to do most of them. A situation we could easily have with meth.
Though meth could just about be eradicated if not for prohibition making so many alternatives unprofitable. Or that Croc stuff....a drug invented because of change in the heroin supply. You know, ive talked to some opiate people (was never my drugs) and from everything I have heard heroin isn't really the pick of the litter. Makes people itchy and causes severe nausea.
Now if opium were legal, and or morphine available, I would bet you dollars to donuts that heroin would all but be a thing of the past.
So because you can imagine risks involving people making specific choices, anything that can lead up to those choices is fair game? No I don't accept that at all. Just because you can hallucinate a risk doesn't mean anyone else should be restricted by it.
> Not according to physics
However the law is for all people, not just those who understand physics, and particularly, concepts that have little to no relevance to daily life or experiences. For the vast majority of things anyone does that involve any manner of synchronization, 2pm is 2pm (with zone adjustment) everywhere.
If you are making the argument that they executed the trade based on prior knowledge, then I can't argue with that. The evidence presented makes that case. However, if you are arguing that they understood that they were trading before it was public knowledge, that I am unsure of. Frankly, I would probably make the same mistake if I were in their shoes and trying to time for as close after the announcement as possible. It is a pretty minor detail to miss 99.9999999% of the time
Actually I agree with the implications #1, and #3, but.... I think #2 is a bit debatable. If they understood physics, this would almost be masterful, if unsuccessful, in its attempt to obscure reality while getting maximum gain.
However, if they don't understand physics, isn't executing the trade after the announcement, potentially, a good faith attempt at complying with the insider trading regulation? Getting insider information itself may or may not be illegal depending on how it happens. Using it before it becomes public is.... but... there is at least reason to suspect that the person who did it may have simply acted around a naive concept of physics.
I am not aware of any restriction on being ready to be the first one out of the gate AFTER the announcement is made; I mean he clearly didn't do that but, it still may have been his intent.