Great point. I would add that confidence in models comes from a track record of verified predictions.

Bitcoin is obviously threatening to central banks, as it questions their government-granted monopoly on their respective territories.
Funny thing, people tend to have a blind eye towards that monopoly, whereas they realize that monopolies are bad for consumers in other domains (lower quality, higher price, worse overall value). Bitcoin helps people reconsider the notion of alternative currencies.

Personally, I am attracted to bitcoin's feature of having a constrained supply by design. There is no problem with prices falling over time because of increased productivity relative to the money supply. Gold and silver are that way to. Other people may disagree and they are free to choose another currency to use. Just like Android fans can't force Apple or Microsoft users to switch.

May currencies compete for market share and popularity. That is good for the vast majority of people as it leads to innovation towards better service. The only exceptions are the banking cartel and their buddies in finance and politics, which currently benefit from the monopoly. If bitcoin or other currencies show signs of becoming popular, let me assure you they will fight it tooth and nails.

I find ironic that Cringley accuses companies of greed but fails to recognize his own (and the tech workers' which he purports to represent) and he succumbs to protectionist bias. The net effect of immigrants on the country, including that of qualified tech immigrants, is positive but he fails to consider the various effects.

He mixes in various economic fallacies, such as the idea that jobs are owned (and therefore stolen), or that competitive offerings (for products or labor) are harmful to society.
The pool of job is not fixed, and immigrants add to demand, to the brain pool, and to the job pool. Having more brains and human ingenuity in a country is a goof thing.

Also, if companies consistently hire sub-par workers (as he claims a study found), then surely smarter companies stand to gain by hiring more capable locals. Somehow CEOs don't seem to have received his memo, could it be that they evaluate the trade-off of hiring decisions differently than he does?

Immigration restrictions are inhumane and un-economical. If Cringley can prove a negative effect on a certain category of workers (studies disagree on this but any negative effect on wages seems insignificant or small depending on results), then he should recommend a redistribution program (from said immigrants to the specific group affected). Instead he is narrowly and wrongly defending a mistaken law, instead of considering the broader ethical and economic issues. In short, the many benefits of free exchange of goods and services apply to labor too.

See economist Bryan Caplan's excellent talk on immigration restrictions, which addresses the key issues raised against open borders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYk00Ufiqb4.

The greed story does not explain prices differentials.
Are makers of hearing aids more greedy than makers of other products?
Are consumers of hearing aids less greedy or demanding than consumers of other products?
How are those changing over time?

My understanding is that there is plenty of magnets to produce from the US, but it was severely impacted by environmental legislation. If China manages to restrict supplies, I would expect prices to go up and production should be profitable in the US (even with additional environment regulations). If the price goes up, then alternative production will resume.

In addition to investment in mining, other activities will become more valuable: R&D in producing substitutes, recycling methods, improved efficiency (making products work with less of this material as it becomes more expensive).

Health package? Stocks, bonus?
Salary is only one aspect of financial compensation. And then there is non-financial benefits too (culture, hours, career growth, fun, organization, ...)

The right to free speech is simply an application of property rights. Consequently, Google's competitors are free to restrict what videos they host based on their terms of use.
Such moderation procedures are like any other features offered by online services, they are subject to competition. If your moderation rules are bad, the you lose market share to your competitors.

I wish Renault could bring the Twizy to the US. It's electric and has reasonable safety features. (But price could be better and could use some windows...)

Value is not something that you can own. It is something that you feel or perceive.

For instance, when a competing restaurant opens next door to mine, the value of mine may diminish. But I didn't own that value or the customers. The competitor didn't steal from me and therefore I should not use force on him.

I didn't say information is worthless. I said "Information and knowledge cannot be stolen, as the person is left with nothing less than coming in".

Whether something has value has nothing to do with whether it is or can be property.
My reputation has value, but it cannot be property, as that would mean other people's brains are my property (since that is where "my" reputation resides).

I always wonder about the repercussions when government officials abuse their power and the law, such as in this case (or the illegal spying of Kim DotCom). After all, they were recognized to have committed illegal actions.

When civilians commit illegal actions, there is usually damages, reparation, or even jail. Why are government bureaucrats able to get away with it (or with just an apology)?

The reason picking your pocket is a bad analogy is that you lose property when stolen from. Information and knowledge cannot be stolen, as the person is left with nothing less than coming in. That is a categorical difference.

On the other hand, from your comment, it sounds like you agree with my analogy qualitatively. But you think the scope and impact of online tracking is more than a single restaurant owner gossiping (difference of intensity). I agree with you on that point.

But that point is irrelevant to a discussion of morality. A little theft is unethical. A lot of gossiping remains ethical.

Picking someone's pocket is theft, which is different. A better analogy is going to a restaurant and the owner telling everyone what you ate there and who you were with. The owner does this because he loves gossip and the gossip brings him business from curious old ladies. It may not be tasteful, but it is not immoral and certainly does not deserve punishment by force (unlike a restaurant owner that picked your pocket).
The right way to handle such a restaurant owner is to not eat there. Only go to places that have a good reputation or offer clear and explicit terms.

My take on DNT is that Congress/FTC/WhiteHouse should stay mum about it and leave browsers come up with a reputation mechanism. If you visit a website with shady reputation, bad reviews or that includes widgets from "creepy stalking" sites, then block the page or show the user a big warning.

I agree. Sorry if I was unclear.
I was trying to establish that forcing a minimum bar on one feature (privacy) is not a free lunch.

"maybe we should wear helmets when we climb ladders or get into a bath"

Don't worry, legislation to that effect is already in the works ;-)