curiousquestion

at least until they decide to take it away. I'm still not convinced anyone should spend any of their resources toward the platform when there's no guarantee they'll uphold this deal in the future.

perhaps reframing your question / perspective might shed some light... It's ok buddy, whatever you say...

Sounds like you are having difficulty discerning between criticism and hate. Criticism is a genuine conversation bringing up new, relevant points. Hate comments regurgitate the same crap over and over. No one learns from it, it's just frothing at the mouth intellectuals who think knowing some random fact is more important than succeeding in life.

I guess we should consider your decisions as the "optimal and correct decisions"? Are you a billionaire too?

I finally feel at peace with this issue, in a much more significant way than ever before.

When I talk to those folks anymore I think they'll just remind me of my 3 year old nephew. I'll smile at them (or their post) say 'ok buddy, whatever you say' and just turn around and walk away.

Watch talk by Lawrence Lessig SCALE 12x: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3O1MC1AqvM

After reflecting on this a bit, I think the biggest problem is that the point of the whole talk wasn't brought up until the end. Who knew this was actually about Campaign Finance Reform before they stopped watching?

I was speaking with a friend the other day about the hypothesis of a bubble. He was interested in my take on the matter. I said "Think about the big picture. I'm not talking about macro economics or anything like that. Think about where we are in the history of the world and civilization." The point here is that even if there will be dips in the market due to immediate forces, there is no doubt in my mind, and should be no doubt in anyone's mind that we are headed to a place where technology touches every aspect of our lives. When historians look back in 100-200 years they will laugh at the prospect that folks were worried that we're investing too much money into technology.

I think our world views may differ. For example I believe that corruption / illegal activities don't stop because you're using a traceable monetary system.

And we probably also will disagree that non-traceable monetary systems are difficult or impossible to monitor illegal activities from. Simply the fact that the transactions happen over the web likely makes it easier for law enforcement to get a hold on what types of transactions are happening within something like Silk Road.

Media makes us think Silk Road was not monitored or that it was somehow immune to law enforcement. I disagree whole heartedly.

Even if the cost to mine the coin ended up being slightly more than $1USD, over time as the coin is transferred multiple times to multiple people, the value increases due to the fact that there are no transaction fees.

What about real currency isn't anonymous? If (god forbid) someone took $100 in cash to a pedophile and bought pornography, how is this traceable in the existing system?

I think the trick would be to try to ensure the "mining" of the coin ended up such that the cost to mine the coin cost approximately $1USD. So in the end someone who has this particular coin spent approx $1 in electric / other to produce / mine it.

I'm even thinking (outside the box here) that one could say "This is worth 1 USD, and is to be used only for purposes of transferring value between accounts". Rules-based system where everyone participating in that particular ecosystem is participating based on the rules set forth by the coin. It's obviously not supply / demand, but since technically it's never used for anything but transfer of value, you're simply creating a mechanism by which people can avoid transaction fees (ie. PayPal, and name your current cc processor).

ART+COM should look at the comparison photos in this article. Google Earth blows ART+COM out of the water. And that's besides the fact that they're both trying to represent real things, so of course they'll look similar if both do a relatively good job of representing real things.

That's 15 x $1700, not the other.

people in Boston, or any major metropolitan city are (to be politically correct) mentally handicapped thinking that $1700 per month for 450 sq ft of space is ok.

I have my own consulting business out in the midwest. All my clients are remote, and in January I paid around 33% (utilities included) of that rent figure for my housing, for approx. 4x's the sq ft, and made almost 15x's the above figure last month.

I would say it's probably close to impossible to directly correlate a developer's input to an amount of money his effort is worth in the form of a commission.

Also software planning, architecting, developing is such a nuanced process that it would likely be easy for someone who didn't want to pay someone substantially for their efforts to "sabotage" them.

Also I think in the big picture business folks likely wouldn't want to see the reality, which is that developers, in a technology-driven business are likely worth 90% of revenue while everyone else is likely worth something like 10%.

It will be interesting to see how this goes for you...

My 2 cents, from what I've been able to gather, the best resources in other countries are being paid comparably to US, or they've already migrated or set up a work visa with a US company. Talented developers know they're talented and will seek out other people who can weed them out from the group. It is a rare case that you run into a highly qualified developer in any country who is working for pennies on the dollar.

Is it just me, or did anyone else immediately notice the conference is in Denver? I'm anticipating a potential trend here :)

The rule should be for NPE only. In otherwords, as soon as you can prove that the idea is making you money (even if it's a small amount) the ceiling comes off. This doesn't mean "NPE" no longer exists. For example, a business who has a revenue stream but haven't incorporated their invention into their products yet, but want to claim the invention is worth alot. Why aren't you making money on it yourself if it's worth so much?

7 months in "web years" is pretty old, but as you know PHP has been around a long time, so there's still alot of relevant information for those who depend on the site.

I like the idea that NPE can only make a certain percentage of revenue on "trolling". What if, for example, only 25% of a company's revenue can be made off these "trolling" escapades? I think it would clean things up quite a bit.