Look at the census of the 100 most common American names, they're either traditional American names or Spanish names from those who immigrated here over the last 50 years.
https://www.thoughtco.com/most-common-us-surnames-1422656
Your wrong about their being no traditional American. A traditional United States surname is generally English, Scottish, or Welsh as those were the primary people living in the United States from 1550-1850.
For instance, I remember from History class that there were atleast 3 famous guys from the 1700s named "John Smith"
> I myself have an 11 character surname from the Baltic States.
What exactly is a Baltic surname to you? Russian origin? German? I honestly think you should be ashamed of what you wrote. It's deeply offensive to those of us with roots in other places.
In the United States, to be considered an accredited investor, one must have a net worth of at least $1,000,000, excluding the value of one's primary residence, or have income at least $200,000 each year for the last two years (or $300,000 combined income if married
> If you buy a lottery ticket, you are getting exactly the odds that were promised to you.
Casinos and the state lotteries do everything they can to convince people they will make profit. Do you think a regular Joe can calculate the expected value of a scratch card? Sure, he knows he has a 1/1,000,000 chance of winning the jackpot and a 1/25 chance of winning $20. He is being misled.
Therefore, since gambling companies are legally allowed to mislead regular people, then there is no reason to protect them from investing and maybe actually making a profit.
>> Why dont we regulate everything like that. Why do we allow people to buy unlimited lottery tickets or gamble everything away in the casino?
> They also carry less risk. Few people who "lose their shirt" say "oh well, I didn't do my diligence."
No they don't. Plenty of people lose their entire life savings in casinos, and plenty of poor people spend money on lottery tickets when they should be spending money on food.
You have not sufficiently explained how gambling is less risky than investing.
So it used to be "only white, male landowners are responsible enough to invest" and now its "only the very richest Americans are responsible enough to invest".
The SEC is blatantly discriminating. Why can't I sign a piece of paper and accept responsibility for myself? I'm a grown man with 200k+ in assets, I don't need the government to protect me.
The point of accredited investing is to lock the middle class out of the market.
If the law was really about "protecting people", then gambling and the lottery would also be illegal.
Also, why can't I sign a paper saying I accept the risk of investing? Why can't I become an accredited investor by passing a class? I can pass a series of classes to become an EMT and be trusted with peoples lives, but no classes are sufficient to educate me about investing in startups.
When you look at how the accredited investor laws are structured, its clearly meant lock the middle class out of the market
Not going to prevent aging as well as people think.
As cells age, the risk for mutations occuring when they divide increases. The reason these cells stop dividing and become senescent is because dividing elderly cells poses a high cancer risk.
I think this may buy the trappings of youth (plump skin, clear eyes, etc) at the cost of a higher risk of cancer.
Using government power to forcefully break up a publicly owned company is such a barbaric way of doing things.
Here are some better suggestions:
1. Force government institutions to use alternative search engines
2. Have government institutions nominate a "search engine of the month" and all their employees must use that
3. Subsidize search engine research in the public domain
4. Determine if any search engine patents are blocking innovation, and invalidate those patents
5. Subsidize research into decentralized search engines