go bellyup I can't wait to hear the screaming about bail them out. Part of the deal with putting money in a bank is it is FDIC insured.

The government could create FDIC insurance for a stablecoin. The whole point of a stablecoin is it's supposed to be backed by a specific hard asset or by a mix of hard assets. JMO - The government should be working on setting regulatory standards Stablecoins have to meet Including.

1. Registration similar to stock and bond issuers
2. Declared reserves.
3. Proof of stable reserves.
4. Proof of regulator audits of quarterly and annual audits those reserves by independent unrelated parties who have appropriate licensing and certification. Which include at the minimum a physical inventory of any hard reserves, a forensic book examination, confirmation of all balance sheets and statements for the preceding 6 months, and a complete review of all assets and liabilities.
5. Requirements that a subsequent independent audit cannot be performed by the same accounting firm, person, group, team, or contractor during the same year as a previous independent audit.

Why would the police bother seizing vacation videos when looking for tax records?

Because they would bother. The real problem here is the Plain view doctrine may lead to an unjust result if applied to digital data. Because once you are in somebody's system with a ticket that says to look for accounting files All files may have to be analyzed to a certain degree - and as a result, even the respondent's most sensitive files completely unrelated to the subject matter of the search can be in plain view.

It is possible from the point of view of the officers searching: The person that they believe to be an evil accountant in their mind, they will suspect could have preplanned all of this and concealed incriminating records in a file named "My Vacation 2014.mp4" as a deliberately incorrect filename or Description on the VHS tape in order to misdirect authorities.

Once they have access to a device or an account, they have access to all of it.

That is true, but the same is true when they have access to search a home for X, for example a search for a certain gun. In theory nothing physically stops them searching through everything and looking at items that aren't on the warrant - they got physical access to the whole building.

I'd say it is still a good finding that warrants need to be more specific than to say seize and search all the potential data on a phone, And that they need to specify the type and subject or nature of records they are searching for.

I also would think they should go a step farther and say the warrants for electronic records on an electronic device should only allow extracting the actual records as a copy on site, and not anyone's personal communications device itself . Just like if you got a warrant to search a house -- you don't get to seize the whole house and return what you don't need later.

Due to the unreasonable hardship that seizing someone's telephone causes --- presuming the subjects owning the devices will provide access to take the records, unless obviously the physical state of the device's exterior or components are expected to contain important relevant evidence. The pulling of a copy of records off the device should be something required to be done on site and within a reasonable length of time. Just like the execution of a search warrant does not generally allow cordoning off a home and locking the owner out for an extended period of time.

I wouldn't call the practices "deceptive"

The deceptive part is how people are induced to sign up for service. At the time of advertising or at the time of signup they are presented as this monthly service / service for only $5 a month, for example.

But at the time of the customer calling to cancel the companies want to treat it as a Forever commitment or an Annual commitment with a monthly payment plan.

They create artificial costly barriers to cancelling which amount to an additional fee. The "only" $5 is no longer the truth. As a customer Your time is worth money. Requiring you to spend 20 minutes on hold to cancel a service and then giving you the runaround for half an hour amounts to an additional fee -- that time actually has a cost that is worth more than the $5. Therefore it is a deception that the cancellation has undisclosed costs to the consumer, And it is deceptive they don't mention about you being forced to continue service until you can incur that cost and overcome their bullying call center reps.

Unfair != illegal, unfortunately.

In fact Unfair trade practice == Ilegal per the text of the law passed by congress. It literally states: " Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful. " (US Code Title 15 U.S. Code 45.)

"(2)The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended [7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act [7 U.S.C. 227(b)], from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.

I'm still pissed about Adobe using a kill switch to ruin Flash,

This caused an extremely serious issue back in the day. It is actually one of the rare cases where I had to backup some DLL files on a live production system and use a Hex editor to tamper with the executable (In order to disable the "Kill" logic in the Flash binary).

Just my opinion.. Adobe should be liable for this. In a fair and just society they would be due to pay for all the time necessary to workaround the issue they deliberately caused for all mission critical deployments.

because We had to deal with a bunch of multi-vCenter vSphere 6.0 deployment that also had 5.5 servers -- which don't become Irrelevent just because a vendor that mate it no longer likes a certain technology that's already deployed. In case you weren't aware the Web client required to manage the appliances, authentication configuration for single sign-on, and many VMware configuration features of 6.0 has functioning Adobe Flash player as an absolute requirement.

That version of VMware is new enough that the older Standalone client/App cannot perform many critical operations, But also old enough that the new non-Flash Web Interface was still in a Technical preview status, and only the Flash-based administration interface is fully functional.

It's $20/year not per month. Microsoft isn't do this to cover costs of infrastructure.

No.. not at all. There is no way you can get whole year of service for $20. Even the absolute bare minimum plan is $150 per user license per year. The monthly rate most businesses have to pay is more than $20 a month actually and the lowest end plan is at least $12.

If your "business" is sending out emails as user@business.onmicrosoft.com instead of user@busness.com then you should take your business more seriously.

It's absolutely fine, though. If you're paying that $20 a month for your 1000 employees or whatever... Your money should be as good to Microsoft as anyone else's -- it should not matter whether you opt for a custom domain or their in-place domain.

What I really mean is a 100 message limit sucks for any legitimate user affected by it, And it is NOT a legitimate solution to the problem.
Because even 1 malicious spam or phishing message is still spam or phishing, and useful to the spammers.

If you take out trial and test/dev tenants...

Clearly test/dev tenants should be limited. I mean; switching to a custom domain on a trial tenant should Not get you the freedom to send hundreds or thousands of emails per day. If you are not having to have paid for service -- the spammers will happily sign up for thousands of bogus trials a day in order to circumvent whatever spam limits are imposed. The spammers don't even originate their spam from a single IP address - when an email account gets compromised on a mail server; I've seen it before -- the spammers hit the account from more than 100 IP addresses the second their dumb scanner breaks into a user account. They sweep entire domains, and they're not phased whether the send limit per account is 1000 messages or 100.. the outgoing message limits don't actually stop anything; they make it more insidious.

The word ``tenant'' when spoken by the owner of a service or building/facility such as Microsoft is as a counterpart to their role as landlord, and a euphamism for the words peasant or rent-payer.

I'd disagree. Government should include stocks in their reserves just as anyone would, although government officials should not be involved in making equity deals with companies or making the call to buy a specific company -- it begin to look like some form of favoritism, and the manner is totally improper.

Within the specific context of trust funds I mean - the government's funds retained for future spending should be invested appropriately just like any corporation would invest their cash - which should be administered by a custodian under strict confidentiality requirements for the management. In other words, the government itself and government officials do not get to know what the individual stocks are and cannot make those decisions other than the decision to place some funds in a trust, and the understanding that the fate of their invested funds and the average of performance they can expect is tied to the economy.

They should not be holding a 10% stake or controlling interest in a business.

I'd park my car in the driveway no matter how big the garage is. If for no other reason, then because I'm too impatient to wait for the garage door to open and close every time I come home or want to go somewhere

It seems reasonable. I think what we need here is faster-moving garage door openers then, wouldn't you say? There are different opener speeds.. I think 6 inches/second is standard, but 12in/second openers are also common, and 24in/second openers exist, but it seems like what we really need is a 60 inches per second opener, so the total opening or closing time for 10 feet is 2 seconds. A shorter wait than the red traffic light or stop sign on the way out, that's for sure.

What do I care what some builder's intent is?

I don't mean the builder's intent. I'm refering to the Planning commissioners' intent.
There's a whole army of sadistic individuals in various state, city, and other local governance agencies who have a concept of what the garage is for.

In many places it is mandatory result of zoning laws that there is a garage or carport for construction of a new home. I even mentioned San Francisco as an example they fined a couple $1500 plus 250 a day code enforcement for parking in a "parking pad" on the driveway.

As well 53% owner-occupied housing is within a Homeowner's association. And vehicles can't be parked in the yard/driveway outside the garage overnight is a common requirement.

.

kill-switches should only be created for military systems to self-destruct the device

They are actually commonly used in the software industry for the purpose of disabling systems ifn case the customer forgot to make a payment to renew their license. For example: Backup software license expired, so the next day all the scheduled backup jobs are failing. Also, the buttons to start a manual backup or initiate a restore are greyed out requiring you to contact the vendor and pay for more time on that program's copyright license.

There are places where the local government will issue citations and charge penalty fines for parking not inside a car port/garage. - That's a thing??

Yes. Usually it's a HOA, but for example San Francisco where a couple was famously fined 1500+$250 a day for parking in their driveway also has such strict land-usage codes and draconian enforcements with regards to portions of the front/side yard typically occupied by a driveway carry restrictions. ..no other obstruction shall be constructed, placed or maintained within any such area. No motor vehicle, trailer, boat or other vehicle shall be parked or stored within any such area, except as specified in Section 136.

My garage is for working on projects of various kinds. The only time I park my car in there is:

That is what you use it for, but that is not the reason houses are equipped with garages. The purpose homes are equipped with garages is for parking - cities often require parking plans as part of construction permitting for buildings. There are places where the local government will issue citations and charge penalty fines for parking not inside a car port/garage.

Personally I think building standards should be updated so homes have to include garage space of larger minimum size Times the occupancy of the building to accommodate both vehicles and sufficient storage.

This is not just an EV charging issue that people are stuffing their garages. It is also a Security, Safety issue and Longevity issue that people are stationing their vehicles outside the home. Your cars are Not designed to survive out in the elements for long periods of time. The acid rain and UV sunlight will eventually destroy components of the vehicle and much faster than if they are parked in shelter. Very common issue, for example; the radiators are made out of plastic, and with a couple years of the vehicle out in the sun they will be terribly rotted and cracking.

And of course there is the problem that vehicles parked out in the open overnight are High-value items placed where any random thugs can get to them easily - knowing full well at what times of day they are likely to be unobserved and ripe for stripping or hauling away to the thieves' den.

Finally, the deterrent of the locked garage door is big for safety egress. It essentially means the serial murder/rapist thugs are discouraged from hiding in the bushes outside garages and nabbing people as they leave their home. The locked garage provides a nice shield for the walkway from the huse to the vehicle while leaving the home, so people are not out in the open. By the time the door opens; you're already driving secured inside a motorized machine that makes an effective defense and weapon against any immediately nearby intruders.

I would say espouse the benefits of garages, and houses should simply be equipped with more so you can have BOTH your project space AND your storage space AND vehicle parking space. Because the garage is typically left unfinished; it does not look like the inside of a house with fine painted walls, etc, so it can be the least-expensive part to make and have very little affect on building cost and home values which are mainly measured in finished square footage. Thus it just makes sense.. increase the car portage space requirements And reduce land coverage maximums / reduce minimum requirements or setback requisites on amounts of land left uncovered when building homes.

No.. This is a fascist in the white house throwing a tantrum about some things not going his way, and renewable companies wanting to build solar projects. The "party of small government" is only involved, because he joined that party, and they are cowards who won't resist the president's ire.

What I am unclear about is... when exactly do solar or wind projects require federal approval? Presumably they must be projects that implicate federal land in some way, or dredging/altering navigable waters, etc. If a business were just building a solar farm on their own land and/or state land; the feds wouldn't be involved.