The fastest ever individual stage over 10km on the Tour de France was 33.90 MPH, set by Greg LeMond in 1989 during a 15.3 mile time trail from Versailles to Paris. His bike was a steel-frame Bottecchia with custom handlebars on a single 52x12 gear. LeMond himself was 28, in his top shape, and -- some say -- full of EPO. The roads were closed to normal city traffic. Now, no doubt you can sprint to more than that on a downhill and drafting behind a lorry, but it stands that "[n]obody does 30mph on a bicycle in a city, most certainly not weaving between anything. That would be suicidal and require fantastically exceptional fitness."
I think most people who support Snowden don't think he's guilty as you do. You insist he commited a crime, and you claim that it is a fact. The facts, though, are that he revealed classified documents to the public, and not that he commited treason under the Espionage Act of 1917. Amongst the people who revealed classified documents and then were tried under the act, most (like Manning) were found guilty, but Ellsberg was not. Further, the supreme court has never discussed the constitutionality of prosecuting whistleblowers under this act. Legal precedent is mixed and Snowden's guilt is far from settled. I'm quoting the friggin summary here:
More importantly, the current state of whistleblowing prosecutions under the Espionage Act makes a truly fair trial wholly unavailable to an American who has exposed classified wrongdoing. Legal scholars have strongly argued that the US supreme court – which has never yet addressed the constitutionality of applying the Espionage Act to leaks to the American public – should find the use of it overbroad and unconstitutional in the absence of a public interest defense. The Espionage Act, as applied to whistleblowers, violates the First Amendment, is what they're saying.
For one, it's spelled with a C instead of a K...
Yes, the letters. Also, in Kosovo there were years of attempted diplomatic solutions, a UN resolution, and several NATO warnings to de-escalate before any military intervention.
Batch orders are seemingly a good idea. Several markets operate in an auction style batches, where each participant presents their schedule (a list of possible prices coupled with an amount to buy or sell for each price) and at set intervals a computer determines the price and quantity that clear the market. We have algorithms that do this in a utility-maximising way, but it is definitely more effort on the part of the traders. Electricity exchanges are the only ones I can think that use this method. APX, for example, does this for day-ahead UK power trading.
But you don't actually need auctions for this to work. You can use a similar public-outcry method (just like in the NYSE) but separated by breaks. The London Metal Exchange does this in its trading sessions. They are split up into 5 minute intervals, each of which can only be used to trade one particular metal. It's pretty cool to watch.
Both these markets are very liquid, so I doubt splitting up the trading day of even the busyest exchanges (NYSE, NASDAQ, LSE) would cause any perceivable damage to the market's fluidity.
I'm not trying to be funny. It's very easy to switch mobile operators, and there are a lot of mobile operators, which makes it very unlikely that they can collude on high prices. Most likely there will be an shift in the industry's organizational landscape from country-wide four- or five-firm oligopolies into a more integrated continent-wide model. The largest obstacle for this to happen is that while no roaming charges may apply yet, we still have higher prices for international calls within the EU. These would need to go if we want to see a single market in Europe for mobile telephony, and to be honest, it should have happened years ago. Perhaps with the elimination of roaming charges the largest emerging mobile operators, who now have nothing to lose, will push for a single market.