IMHO moving virtual money around is more useful than most government funded research. I see increasing public spending on science (especially the "basic" science which explicitly is about doing things without any sort of measurable return on investment) as a means of keeping scientists from doing useful work.

And all that technology developed can be used for other extreme fast and noisy decision/control system problems.

Why bother? There aren't any significant problems associated with HFT, "idle" speculation, or hedging, even if you're the Royal Bank of Canada. And there's no way finance market will pay off the national debt. They aren't dumb.

Yes, that makes them different orders as a result. Just because it looks like one order on the trader's computer screen doesn't mean it was or could be implemented as one order behind the scenes. The article made it clear that these were different orders sent simultaneously to different exchanges. I otherwise agree with your characterization of the trade and its thwarting by HFT tactics.

I've never once seen such an argument. But then, it's not very important to me. I'm just dismayed by the incivility.

The argument that "perhaps new ways of living / family structures will cause society to crumble, as the traditional way is what's proven" seems quite reasonable to me. Perhaps they will. What are the odds? They seem low to me, not 0. Seems like an interesting question.

No, that's how you label someone as an "unperson": incapable of moral decision, and thus not a moral entity, much like you can't reason with a panther, or a volcano.

That's a non sequitur not a giggle test. There can be more than one global conspiracy.

Uh huh.

As an aside, the majority cannot have "privilege". That's not what the word means (the word "oppressed" would serve you better than "privileged" in making the same point). The majority cannot have "private law", as when it's the majority it's just "law".

You believe society is best served by "equal treatment" as you define it. Your opponent believes that society is best served by giving special social accord to those who live a certain, traditional way. IMO, proposition 8 should satisfy you both, granting civil union but not the specific word "marriage". But I don't really have a dog in this fight, I'm just dismayed by the incivility.

I see one side refusing to work with people from the other side. Would you prefer the other side unable to work at all, or do you support "separate but equal" companies?

Fair enough, but many people on the left these days state outright that those who disagree with them are simply too stupid to hold an opinion and just ignored (or in one recent prominent opinion piece, argued that those who disagree with global warming should be jailed as a danger to society). Sorry if I unfairly lumped you in with that crowd, but I see so much of that sort of talk.

Unless the intent is to do harm, then it's a legitimate debate over which sides views, if adopted, would do the least harm / most good. Shouting down the other side means rejecting the legitimacy of the debate, which really implies rejecting the right of the person on the other side to speak and similar basic freedoms. Can you see how "unperson" is implied by shouting down?

Like the right to free speech? Without a heckler's veto?

Sure, but it's not the only goal, or even the highest. And calling your opponents names is the worst possible way to convince them of anything. I'm quite skeptical in fact that the current approach is likely to make this change happen faster.

Only if it's by passage of law by US Congress or via actions of government actors at either the federal or state levels. Private individuals can "smear" without violating the US Constitution though they risk running afoul of slander/libel laws.

Try presenting an argument for your point of view. "I'm right because SHUT UP!" is not an argument, except in a Monty Python sketch sort of way.

You have only your opinion here, and the strength of your belief. Your opponent also believes strongly, and, guess what, is also an intelligent, rational human being deserving of basic respect. When you can both express your views in public, and attempt to convince others, without fear of retaliation, then we have a functional society. OTOH, the Civil War killed more Americans than all other wars combined, and created hardships that lasted years. Perhaps it was the only way, but any other way that would have worked would have been a better way.

That's just BS. Accept that those who disagree with you are people too, just trying to find their own path to happiness. Very few people are just hurting others for the joy of doing so (though sadly they do exist, and sometimes come to power). You don't have to accept the views of your opponents, but you should tolerate them, and accept the people holding those views as people, just like you.

Do you really think they see their own views as intolerant? Do you really think they're trying to harm others, instead of trying to shape society the way they see as best for all (again, there are always a few assholes on both sides of every issue, but not the mainstream).

See, this is what I'm going on about: instead of presenting an argument for your point of view, you simply define those who oppose you as unpeople, unintelligent and unworthy of consideration. This will not end well.

It's the same logic, both ways.

Well, up to this story it was hard to tell. This one is so obviously true is breaks the pattern. How sad is that?

Is it a scam that you have to pay for your groceries? You sure can't live without food. We all have basic needs we should expect to pay for ourselves. That's why we get jobs and work and so on.

Some of us need charity to meet our needs. Charity is great - perhaps the most praiseworthy human act. But people who need charity to cover medical costs aren't any different that people who need charity to cover the cost of food, or shelter. We don't need a special system for each.

Yes, I agree 100%. Criticism is exactly the correct response. Escalation to economic retaliation or violence crosses the line. Trying to get a guy fired because you disagree with him crosses the line. Breaking the shop windows of "unpeople" is as clear and obvious a sign of evil as you can possibly get.

Those who "oppose the destruction of society by making marriage meaningless" feel just as strongly. Society only functions by people who disagree on strongly-held views being willing to live and work together for. When you start thinking of those with opposing views as "unpeople," you have become the problem.

He donated in support of Proposition 8, which was supported by the majority of Cali voters, including the majority of Latino voters and 7 out of 10 Black voters. Why are you such a racist?