More to the point, frankly W wanted to be a war president like his daddy and he found a poor excuse to make it happen.

What did an adult in 1977 need a spreadsheet for at home? More to the point, what did they need it for badly enough to spend $1300 (in 1977 dollars) on?

I was there. I saw it. I helped them. It was certainly by rote. They understood the computer like they understood an instamatic camera. In the '70s, for the most part if there was a computer at work, it was a vt100 terminal connected to a mainframe or a mini. IT was still called "DP". In the '80s, the PC started to take hold.

Cough and cold tablets are a stimulant, but not amphetamines. Otherwise nobody would bother with the lithium and iodine, they'd just eat a whole pack of cold pills.

Adderall is actually amphetamine (not methamphetamine), so it is safer than meth but not as safe as cold pills. It's actually the stuff bikers were so in to in the '60s.

Nah, what does the employer care if after 5 years they develop an untreatable and disabling neurological disorder? They'll just burn 'em and churn 'em like always.

Meth and coffee are a world apart in strength and effect. Meth and Adderall, not so much.

Sure, but they were slow, expensive, and didn't do anything that the average Joe needed to do, so most people in that era didn't buy one. $1300 was a giant pile of money in '77.

The C64 wasn't until '82. It really brought the price down but still wasn't cheap at nearly $600. Most of the adults who bought one did it for their kids. They became a lot more affordable a couple years later.

But even then, most adults had little reason to have a computer at home and most who used one at work did so by rote. They didn't need to know how the things worked in order to do their job, so they didn't.

The mid to late '90s was when computers in the home became the rule rather than the exception. A 30 something then is a 50 something today.

I'm not an expert, but I know enough about it.

Much like I know how oops insurance works even though I'm not a wise guy.

HST works the same way. They routinely (and algorithmicly) place a bunch of orders they have no intention of actually executing. That's how they manage to jump in between legitimate trades so they can skim a penny or two off the top.

There's your answer. He did exactly what they do, but did it cleverly enough to remove the speed advantage. As a result, the money flowed the 'wrong' way and so Wall Street's pet investigators must put a stop to it.

Sounds like the way practically all institutional high speed traders work. So the crime is apparently that the money flowed the wrong way.

You should be able to cancel whatever part hasn't already been paired with a matching sell order. But once it gets paired up, it's yours.

That would be why we don't accept a bullet entering a person as "probable cause" to believe the shooting is justified.

It's fine to use the dogs to find drugs. It is not fine to consider the dog alerting to be probable cause.

They do have uncanny accuracy for telling drugs from not drugs. They are also a pack animal and want to please their master. So it doesn't take them long to learn when their master will be pleased if they act like there's drugs in a car. It takes quite a while longer to teach them the fine points of the Constitution.

It's easy to just claim there must have been drugs in the car at one time and write it off.

Even if you bought your car brand new, you cannot be sure that nobody on the assembly line had drugs on them nor that a salesman at the dealership never rolled one in the car.

What do you base the claim of consistency on? I haven't seen any analysis showing any consistency at all in the field.