GPS is good to about 30 feet (10 meters), but the cops don't know that either. A few years ago, a friend was run over and killed while riding his bike home from his night-shift job. Part of the "evidence" used to claim that he somehow deserved to die, was that the GPS data from the app he was using to record his bicycling activity put him in the street instead of on the sidewalk, 3 feet away (and BTW, map-aware programs will often 'snap' your reported GPS location to roads.)
Maybe. But, as a previous commenter mentioned, CA had a couple of high-profile incidents where schools closed overnight and run off with the tuition. A big part of BPPE is guaranteeing tuition re-reimbursement. Cost * customers is typically a LOT higher when it comes to schools than with your run-of-the-mill deceptive advertising claim.
1. There sort of are (the miners that verify the blockchain.) 2. True. (But as always, they can arrest you and demand the keys.) 3. True-for-now. But when miners stop being paid in new coins (see 1) the only reward will be transaction fees. 4. I would call the complete inability of the bitcoin money supply to react to demand a downside, not an upside. (But I'm aware that opinions differ.) 5. I would call every bank's unwillingness to denominate loans in bitcoin a sign of the lack of trust in it, not an upside. This is, at best, neutral. 6. Mmm hmm. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115807/bitcoin-thief-steals-100-million-sheepshead-marketplace 7. Modern goldbuggery. (The same "differing opinion" as in 4.) 8. ...yet. And if you use that freedom to violate enough other laws, they'll still find you. 9. I think when the age of mining for more coins ends and the supply is fixed (and probably earlier, when it slows down) that the lack of being able to respond to changes in any way will prove to be a downside. 10. Again, probably only true because the miners find the payments in new coins sufficient... for now. (See 1.)
tl;dr: If you think gold is as good as money, then you'll think bitcoin is as good as gold.
Yes, placement rate. Bootcamps already advertise their placement rates, EXTENSIVELY. Their whole existence is based around "We will get you a job, or the skills to get a job," and they're often primarily funded by businesses hoping to hire people straight out of the programs. Maybe you think most people-who-code aren't doing in professionally (I'd disagree on that being currently true, but that's beside the point) but these organizations are certainly advertising that you will be doing so after you complete their program.
Your piano teacher? Your free adult literacy meetings at the public library? Completely different. Not covered by the statute. A completely irrelevant comparison.
The regulations, apparently, come down to "pay $3,500 +0.75% of revenue (max $25,000) in fees per year, provide proof that your finances are in order, provide proof that you accurately report your placement rate, don't pay your recruiters per-recruit, have a refund policy, get students to sign a thing saying this is all clear to them."
That does seem to slightly favor larger institutions, but it also doesn't seem unreasonable. If I were considering going to one of these academies, I would like to be confident that those requirements were in place, and think those costs are quite fair to pay for enforcement.
"The target machines first are compromised by way of a USB stick or tiny circuit board that broadcasts the information. ... The geniuses at the NSA with the remote radio access technology have extended the range to a staggering 8 miles."
"...and sales of James Bond books hit new heights after 1964, which was a decade after the original release of the first Bond book."
Oh, a whole DECADE. Yeah. Wow. Well, since that's such an exceptional case, we'll take that as a base and, oh, let's multiply it by FIVE or SIX--no, how about 5.6. Yeah, that should more than enough for any artists (or their corporate owner) to recoup the overwhelming majority of the spoils. Sounds fair.