This is absolutely not illegal. Here's how HFT gets one of its profit lines:
Large trades often spread across multiple exchanges. Buy 30,000 shares here, 15,000 there, etc... The regular broker submits one purchase and it gets distributed across exchanges. As soon as it hits the first exchange, say after 30ms, an HFT algo picks up on the trade and assumes that it'll happen as well on the other exchanges. So it races ahead and front-runs in the other exchanges before the regular distributed trade has a chance to arrive there.
There is nothing illegal whatsoever, since the trades are public. It's just that the HFT optimized their routes.

One of the major problem is when an HFT sees your making a trade in exchange A, it assumes you're going to be hitting the other exchanges for similar trades and beats you to them. I don't see how putting a delay in a trade at a single exchange would help.

There's a gripping article over at the NY Times (adapted from a just released book) that explains very well the pitfalls of HFT, where the problems are mostly due to the haves and have-nots, just like in most things. The article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04...

Not having a level playing deck in an exchange is a major problem for the correct functioning of said exchange.

Back in the 80's you had maybe 30% of kids who really knew how to use computers, let alone program. I'm not talking about games, I'm talking about being able to load up the OS, muck around, launch different programs and use them properly. Kids programming were the exception, just like they are now.

Just because a loop is obvious to you doesn't mean it's obvious to others:

"Why do we need these loop things? A counter? What's a counter? How does the computer know to go back and do it again? Where is the counter in the computer? What if I want to do it more times while I'm doing it? etc..."

Bullshit. I know how to code and I know how to speak. It's just a matter of spending the time and energy to LEARN TO SPEAK.
Structuring your speech, engaging the audience, modulating your voice, moving your body. This can be easily learned. Emacs bindings are insanely tougher.

Oh wow, GeoWorks. Brings back memories.

And OpenStep is the one that aged the best. We could go back to NextStep and apart from the 4-grey screen, it is still the most elegant of them all.

They should call them SHIVs and be done with it. That's exactly what the description is about: robots that are part of the squad and act upon orders from the squad leader.

Well if anyone RTFAs (and RTFVs) then it's clear that there is indeed an "unpark" feature. That is pretty obviously necessary.
Second, for #2 it's the chicken or egg: As more cars get the parking assists, this'll happen less and less. Also, in many cases you can get into your car from the passenger side and then switch to the driver's seat if it's that bad.

Commendable, but ultimately wishful thinking unfortunately.
The NSA will just tap the underwater cables or enlist the "help" of technicians at the Brazil data exchanges to split the data feeds. When the adversary has this much money and next to no scruples, the battle is difficult if not impossible.

I think you misunderstand the way columnar databases work. They are not doing a column sort the way you think. The column itself is an index.
Of course the inanities coming out of Ellison's mouth don't help explain things correctly. No Larry, you don't do away with indexes. You mostly store indexes on everything, automatically.

Can't argue there!

I don't think it's in the same ballpark. The SQL Server column store seems to be purely for read-only:

That's nowhere near the complexity of what Oracle is doing, simultaneously providing both a row and column based access to the data. Not that I think this is a good thing, I don't. In most cases you're much better off using a kickass columnar db and handling the batch updates from the upstream app servers. When you plan for building a col-based architecture, you can be much more efficient. Just look at kdb & co.

True

False, if you are talking about scientific theories. Let me quote:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

That's why the "God theory" is not a theory, and why ID is completely incompatible with the scientific method.

Unfortunately that doesn't work in practice, because you end up teaching that any idea can be considered a scientific theory, and that is completely false. Yes, one could say

and see the wrath of ID'ers strike down on you. No religious person would want their "theories" to be associated with the "theory" that a great ball of pasta is what makes the world turn. Or that there is a pink unicorn whose dreams we inhabit.

In the end, it all boils down to this basic issue:

Fear of Death

So people will do everything they can to maximize their chances against it. And if it means believing in something against all odds, and the greater the odds, the greater your belief, the greater your chances, then so be it.
There's nothing more to it.

The trick with #6 is looking at the arrow that points to the square. This gives you a directional anchor. Then you just need to notice that all the cubes have the other square on the right, except for A.

Well I am not so sure that the test linked at in the summary is that effective. I personally am pretty good at spatial stuff, and on my first pass of the test it took me a good 15 minutes, scoring 8/9. I thought I did well. But then about 15mn later I showed it to my father in law and went through it again. It took me all of 3 minutes tops, not because I'd done it before but because I'd gotten much better at it. I didn't even need to visualize the cubes any more, I just looked at the flat patterns. I scored 9/9.
I think it would be very difficult to create such spatial tests unless you get into 3D geometry, where you try to visualize the cross section of a cylinder skewering a cone.