In short, every time a police gun is fired, a civilian investigation unit takes over. I think we have the right approach, as I've seen it lead to charges against police officers many times.
We have this requirement of corporations where they must keep records of all electronic communications.
Not sure where you get this from, but it's completely false. SOx only requires controls be demonstrated around access and approval of financial data. Other regulations might require other documentation to be kept (e.g. we are required to keep testing proof of our operational equipment), but never, ever have I seen a regulation that stipulates any type of communication must be kept (unless specifically related to the financial controls). We've been through many SOx audits and never have they been supplied an email, text, or any other type of communication.
Many people feared that the market and demand for Bitcoin could not satisfy 30,000 or ~18 million dollars worth of coins being liquidated within a single day. Instead this auction proved both liquidity, fungibility and that their are many institutional investors sitting on the sidelines waiting to invest in Bitcoin but are looking for opportunities like these in order to invest in large sums of bitcoins.
So? The same was true of stock certificates of worthless companies during the dot com boom. The same huge "institutional" investors were lining up paying exorbitant sums for pieces of paper with no intrinsic value.
I'm not saying bitcoin is worthless, but temper your enthusiasm based on where investor money is going. Remember, there aren't many bitcoins, less than 13 million total as of today. News media has brought a lot of speculation from the class of slightly more educated investors, typically upper middle class folks. Even if a tiny fraction of the world wanted just one bitcoin, it would be enough demand to drive up prices very high.
No, I think the big problem is that the only people buying them are holding them, expecting them to be worth more in the future. There is no driver for higher demand other than more profit seekers willing to pay a higher price.. it's not that good as a currency. Investments like this, by and large (we don't know what will happen), do not turn out good.
my credit is sooooo bad I destroyed it when I was 18 and got sued by banks which I never showed up or paid and since I own no assets they wasted money suing... Now I'm in my 40s
This doesn't make any sense, but I suppose it goes to show the state of financial education folks have in general.
Didn't you know nothing stays on your credit report longer than 7 years, including bankruptcies and delinquent loans? Only if you've paid part of them can it stretch longer and from the sounds of it, you did not.
You have bad credit now because you have no credit now.
Why does an open-source project need to spend thirty million dollars promoting a "brand" most people are already fully aware of?
Why does Coke spend far more than that on all sorts of TV commercials when everyone obviously is fully aware of their brand? Advertising works, and gets more people familiar with and using your products. If this is a goal of Mozilla, this is not an outrageous expenditure depending on how they calculate return.
And why does it cost $150M/year to work on a browser, email client, and some dev tools? They have 650 or so employees - assuming every single one was a developer, they're spending $230,000 on each one
Is this somehow shocking for onshore/local resources? The IT shop I managed at, I always estimated each full-time senior as costing about $250,000 a year. They didn't make nearly all of that, but once you factor in office space cost, training, pension, benefits, savings plan, bonus, etc., etc., the cost escalates over $200k very> easily, and this is nowhere near silicon valley.
You whine and moan about them trying new things, but why not? Don't they have employees that want to try new things, learn new stuff? Who says they have to remain doing the same old thing forever? That's how you become irrelevant in your market, and like it or not they are fighting for marketshare. Your arguments make no sense.
a bill to ban rental cars
I'd just like to point out I incredulously followed this link to find out more, and it turns out the bill is actually banning rental of recalled vehicles that were illegal to sell in the first place. The article states "..current law prohibits car dealerships from selling recalled vehicles to consumers, no law bans rental companies from doing the same or renting them to unsuspecting consumers".
Bad law or not, I'm just sayin'... the actual bill was far different from the words you cherry-picked for an inflammatory response. Leave that to big media.
Adapt. Enjoy. Survive.