Well, why don't we just test it for ourselves instead of wondering?
Let's see here: login to a site, open a new private browsing window (Chrome), load the site, am I logged in? Nope. Cookies from your normal browsing are not transmitted in private browsing mode.
Exactly. Square is trying to build up a collection of services to offer local businesses, especially restaurants, of which payments is just one. Google has been playing in the same game, with the main aim of selling ads to local small businesses, but hasn't really moved fast enough in pushing payments.
Do you honestly think that poorer people are poorer because they sit around watching Breaking Bad all day? Have you perhaps ever met someone who works hard at three jobs at minimum wage and can't make ends meet, especially in an incredibly expensive city like NYC? I mean what planet are you living on?
And we don't necessarily have to take every single view seriously. The vast majority of people don't want a massive polluting factory built next to their single-family home. The fact that a few people disagree doesn't mean that every project get bogged down in a discussion of the legitimacy of zoning as a concept.
I can't find the specific Photoshop compatibility issue you're thinking of, but there are numerous similar stories in the archives of The Old New Thing that might be of interest. He's very much still writing.
Publicly traded stocks are subject to a large number of regulations that have the intent to protect investors. The point isn't to make it impossible to lose all your money; the law will gladly let you give it all away if you so choose. But the idea is that people should have the necessary information to know what they are getting into. In exchange for exemption from SEC registration requirements (which are costly for a small company to deal with) and less disclosure, companies can only deal with accredited investors.
Because of literally hundreds of years of investment scams that bilk people out of their life savings. Publicly traded companies are subject to various securities regulations that require disclosure of certain pertinent information and protect investors in various ways. Smaller companies can be exempt from many of these regulations (which is a useful thing, as it costs money to comply), but in exchange, they don't get to ask every random person they encounter on the street for investments. The alternative isn't to lift all the restrictions; rather, it is to impose the same regulations on companies big and small alike, which would be particularly harmful to small businesses.
Call it a nanny state restricting your liberty if you'd like (though realistically, there's little enforcement of the investor accreditation rules), but since it's the same nanny state that is supposed to keep you from being destitute if things don't work out, we're going to impose some restrictions to keep the worst abuses from happening first.
Yet it has solved nothing, because we still have investment scams all over the place. Those investment scams are already illegal, so prosecute them. Why do I need another law to "protect" me? This reminds me of taxi regulations. Local governments are trying to prevent your use of Uber and Lyft because of some regulations on the books that are meant to prevent you from unscrupulous drivers. Yet the actions of those unscrupulous drivers were already illegal, so prosecute them.
This is something the market can easily sort out. We don't need to throw out the good with the bad.
> Those investment scams are already illegal, so prosecute them.
Uber and Lyft are a different case, but here the regulations (as pointed out elsewhere) don't prevent you from investing your money per se; they just require you (well, the company) to register the securities with the SEC and fill out some paperwork detailing the investment.
The reason they do this is specifically so that they can prosecute any illegal actions down the line; it's basically impossible for them to enforce the existing laws without also requiring the filings and registration, because otherwise they don't know the terms of what was offered in the sale (and who offered it, so they can be identified later).
I'm oversimplifying somewhat, but the point is that this isn't "another law to 'protect'" you - it's required to make the exact prosecutions you're referring to.
But what is the cost of registering the securities with the SEC?
And I think that, with a private placement memorandum, and all the info disclosed, ANYONE not just accredited investors can invest. Is that right? How much does such a thing cost to do, and what is involved?
Many "professional investor" level assets would be rightfully considered scams if sold to a less-knowledgeable investor: often times, individual positions within a fund are leveraged dozens of times to where a small move in the underlying asset can wipe out large portions of the capital in a fund.
If you used dozens of stocks as collateral to finance the borrowing of money to purchase other assets, which you then use as collateral to buy more assets, it would be considered a scam -- but not in a hedge fund. This can lead to large swings in volatility and hedge funds should only be used as part of a portfolio investment strategy -- a professional investor will use them to cancel out risk in other areas of their portfolio.
The risk is that a non-professional investor uses these instruments as primary investment vehicles without understanding their purpose. Because many hedge funds do operate very similar to the ways that illegal stock scams run: the difference is that the investors know exactly how and why these funds can implode and are willing to take that risk.
EDIT: That said, the specific qualifications for a "professional investor" definitely need some work.
I'm hoping we'll see some sort of test or exam that ties Investment Acumen with intelligence, not wallet (or estate) size.
Somebody suggested allowing Financial Analysts that have been, in some capacity, verified by FINRA/SEC for their understandings of markets. I would be on board for this.
