> The whole price of Bitcoin is an illusion that they use to get people to keep buying. It's the result of a bidding war.
The price of everything is an illusion according to the Subjective Theory of Value [1].
127 karma · joined June 10, 2010
The price of everything is an illusion according to the Subjective Theory of Value [1].
It's going through a major transition at the moment (http://shapesmith.net/2013/03/06/ProgressUpdate.html), and not necessarily kid-friendly, but it's open source so someone could create a kid-friendly interface
I get & agree with some of the arguments in favour of surrounding yourself with other innovators. In the same way that the Pixar building is designed to foster these interactions.
But if you surround yourself with hackers all the time, there is the risk of losing track of the problems outside your circle. You need to talk to your customers. In the same way that people who work at Pixar go home to their kids and discover what their customers want.
Except for the experimentation part, that could describe a lawyer. Which begs the question,
Where does it go wrong?
Why do people from an evidence-based career become embroiled in the kind of back[stabbing/scratching] politics that seems to be the norm today? And how can it be fixed?
Their twitter account is a disaster zone: https://twitter.com/#!/o2
This would skew the government even more towards rewarding the rich - increasing the size of the government-as-a-service market is a step in the wrong direction.
Just because you might not doesn't mean everybody won't.
It supports LinkedIn, Gmail and Facebook. I find it really useful to catch up on things I miss out on in the streams...
The calculation of the author, with state debt costing $6billion a year, assumes a constant cost of borrowing into the future! Investors have been selling municipal debt in the past two weeks, which will result in higher borrowing costs [1]. The same thing happened and is happening with the PIIGS, where those in power have been complacent about their ability to service debt because of the assumption of constant debt servicing costs.
[1] http://search.ft.com/search?queryText=muni&ftsearchType=...
November 25, 2010 US muni bond funds lose another $2.3bn November 18, 2010 US muni bond funds see record outflows November 16, 2010 US muni bonds see biggest drop since 2008
http://visualwebsiteoptimizer.com/split-testing-blog/signup-...
There's a difference between propping up a failing bank (which I believe Friedman would be against) and providing liquidity to the banking system when a bank run occurs on a well-capitalised bank (which I believe he would support).
If you watch the Volume 3 "Anatomy of Crisis" about the depression, when a run on the Bank of the United States occurred despite it's being a sounds entity (when it was liquidated it paid back 92.5 cents on the dollar). It's failure created a domino effect according to Friedman. So he supported providing liquidity in that scenario.
I don't believe Friedman would support QE[2] when the banks are well capitalised. My interpretation of his ideas is that he supported a stable money supply, and Friedman was definitely against printing money in general.
That being said, the ideas I'm referencing were expressed in a time when inflation was a big problem.
I wish he were alive today, I would be very interested in his opinion.
You can interpret his comments on the BOJ in the article that he would support buying government bonds only as a way to provide liquidity to banks. In the current US scenario, the banks and corporations have enough capital, so I cannot see that Friedman would support QE2.
P.S. "Friedman believed in the power of money". Nonsense. He believed in the power of individual freedom.
BS.
Some people prefer simplicity, some prefer complexity. I'm not sure where the median is, it might be on either side. Preference can be a function of many things, including culture.
You can make money from either. Just know your customer.
Yes, you're right. There's a lot underneath the surface that most people are unaware of, only having been exposed to the Google Wave client. It never got to the point of showcasing the distributed collaboration.
Emergent complexity is not "random", although it can be based on elements of randomness.
Nature is an example of a massively complex system that has evolved on elements of randomness, but the system itself is by no means random. And there's no way that it could have been designed with a "well thought out procedure".
I completely agree with roc that once you start thinking about it, there are just too many holes in the argument for prioritising on type. "Type" can just be a synonym for "provider". There will be nothing to prevent carriers to push new protocols to a non-priority "type", if they don't pay up.
If voip calls get priority, what prevents me from writing a torrent protocol over voip? That would just be a waste of bandwidth. Prioritising will set off a never-ending arms race.
Are you suggesting that rail companies should again be forced to offer unprofitable passenger services until again a "fifth of rail mileage was owned by bankrupt firms."? Why should passengers be a priority? The most economical use of the railways should be the priority.
Or go even more basic...