If you have to quit your job in order to match a high school education for a single child, then you're not qualified to teach or hold the damned job in the first place.

School is a fucking joke. Any competent individual can teach a single child an entire day's worth of California public school "education" in an hour or less.

You don't have a right to not catch diseases from infected people.
People do have a right to not submit themselves to injections they don't agree with.

What about the rights of the children? Is it okay for patents to force their views on their children and vaccinate them? Parents can't deny their children an education, so why should they be able to deny them this protection?

Your "argument" is "think of the children" but without the "think".
You are fucking arguing that children shouldn't have views (against vaccination) pushed on them, so you should push your views (for vaccination) on them.

"caselaw" is not law. Law is law. And the Constitution (including its amendments) is the highest law in the land.

When you compare it to my old desktop that hooks up to the TV via HDMI and has it's own keyboard and mouse and does whatever the fuck I want, it's $150 vs $0.

Unless I lived in a shoebox or really wanted more energy efficiency because I get off on it, I would never consider any of these sticks. I already have an actual computer connected.

We're talking about something involving NASA and a program which costs money.
Tell me again about how there will be no slaughtering involved.

1: "By allegedly placing multiple, simultaneous, large-volume sell orders at different price points—a technique known as 'layering'—Sarao created the appearance of substantial supply in the market."

Is the allegation that he placed multiple, simultaneous large-volume sell orders at different price points?
There's a record of that, and there's no need for allegations.
If the allegation is that he did this to create the appearance of substantial supply in the market, the word "allegedly" needs to be moved either to the from ("Allegedly, by placing...") or to the actual allegation ("Sarao allegedly created...").

2: "As part of the scheme, Sarao allegedly modified these orders frequently so that they remained close to the market price, and typically canceled the orders without executing them."

Again, what is the allegation? The frequency of the modification, or the the effect of them remaining close to market price, or that they there were typically canceled before executing? There are records of all of this. There are no need for allegations for this unless Sarao is claiming it wasn't him placing, modifying, and canceling the orders, or is claiming that their records of the orders, their modifications, and their cancellations are incorrect.

3: "When prices fell as a result of this activity, Sarao allegedly sold futures contracts only to buy them back at a lower price."

Again, why is this alleged? It happened or it didn't, and it's trivial to check. Allegations come into play only when the facts are in question (if Sarao says "NUH-UH! Wasn't me!!").

4: "Conversely, when the market moved back upward as the market activity ceased, Sarao allegedly bought contracts only to sell them at a higher price."

Did this happen or didn't it? Is the allegation that this happened? Or is the allegation that he did something wrong? Isn't the normal practice to buy at x and sell at y, hoping to minimize x and maximize y?

Cut the shit. There's exactly 1 allegation here. He placed many large, frequent orders he never intended to execute (or sell to others) in an attempt to manipulate the price in order to profit.

There are 3 things wrong about this scenario:

1 - The market reacts with such volatility based on his orders (not his fault, but it's a problem with the market).
2 - He defrauded the market by placing significant orders in bad faith.
3 - He used insider knowledge (his own knowledge of how he was manipulating the market) to profit.

3 is a crime people go to jail for.

I doubt 2 is a specific crime, but I'm sure they'll try to nail him for it, or at least use it as justification for hitting him hard with 3. If you hit him with 2 then you need to hit every major fucking player on the market. This isn't going to happen, but it should.

1 is the core problem that allows this bullshit. The only thing that fixes it is the same thing that fixes 90% of the problems with the stock markets. Kill high frequency trading. The market (not just the major players and their algorithms on the floor) needs time to read news, analyze earning reports, and look at existing orders before taking action. Microsecond trading is a joke. 10 minutes would be sane, and I'd tack on a temporary lock on trades for an individual security whenever there's some sort of earnings report or similar info dump about to occur.
Further, I'd have all traded placed within the window (10 minutes, 1 hour, whatever) execute evenly, in random order, so someone dumping 10000 shares and someone dumping 100 shares will end up with 9090 and 90 if someone buys 20. To prevent abuse (someone dumping 10 orders of 1000 each getting 10 times the action of someone dumping 1 order of 10000), you'd tie up all orders within a window by the seller's ID and strictly regulate the IDs of the major players so that "Fund Manager X" at "Firm A" and "Fund Manager Y" and "Firm A" have the same ID, but "Joe Blow" sitting at home and placing personal trades through "Firm B" has his own ID separate from "Dick Lickus" who also uses "Firm B".

What's the best way to wash sand out of your hair?
Where'd you get those wraparound granny sunglasses?
Do you prefer Icy Hot or Bengay for severe stiffness and cramps?
Etc.

Maybe you had your head in the sand, were stuck in a cave, or were living under a rock for the past eon, so I'll just point out that the "trusted" certificate "authorities" have repeatedly proven themselves to be untrustworthy and unauthoritative.

You've been able to do exactly this for ages via group policy.
I believe there's even a mechanism to whitelist via certificate (so you don't have to whitelist each time there's an update), though I've never used it.

I'm not sure what's "new" about this feature. Perhaps moving this piece to a separate virtualized ring and relying on hardware virtualization features?

Horsehist. It was trivial to embed a stream and use NetShow (later renamed to Windows Media Server) to serve it up, a decade before fucking Youtube.
I remember watching entire episodes of ZDTV shows this way because they loaded the entire episode but merely changed the cut in and cut out times to serve up clips.

The requisite "standard" was nothing more than having an installed media player capable of reading ASF files and fetching the stream. If you wanted it in the web page, your browser just needed to handle the embed tag. The only thing modern "standards" do is require the browser to do the work yet they still leave the critical piece - codecs - up in the air.

Really? They're going to "cull the collective expertise from each of NASA's science communities"? Seems a bit harsh.

My complaint is about the use of the words (4 times, with some of them being incorrect).

Allegedly allegedly allegedly allegedly.

As pointed out, you're wrong about how they're connected.
As for security, you're forgetting that the USA is not Japan.

There's also the problem with "The case, Rodriguez v. United States, 13-9972,".
It should be changed to a parenthetical to become "The case (Rodriguez v. United States, 13-9972)", or have some additional language added to make it an actual fucking sentence and not an odd trailing of items with ambiguous comma separations.