zachlipton

Perhaps to crop and compress it for the web?

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.

Is it reproducible? You (or her) can call 611 for repair service from your phone company.

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.

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.

My gosh. There are so many buzzwords and acronyms it is impossible to tell what you actually do, much less determine why I should care.

There's an EFF fair use test case involving a YouTube takedown of a toddler bouncing around to a 29 second clip of a Prince song playing in the background: Lenz v. Universal. It was filed in 2007 and has yet to be resolved.

The fact is that while section 512(f) of the DMCA provides consequences to misrepresentations by those making takedown requests, it is damned impossible to actually enforce that.

Yeah the FAA isn't going to buy the use of Flytenow as an intermediary. And surely people are going to be offering flights they weren't going to be taking anyway.

Because competition in the browser market is vital to keep the web platform progressing and to prevent a single party from controlling web standards. Do you remember the dark ages when IE ruled the web and things like HTML5, canvas, webgl, etc... couldn't happen?