But I do get an occasional one for something which isn't an especially good fit. Maybe every six months or so, fortunately.

One outfit -- Craps or Job Roulette or Dice or something like that -- once sent me one based off an ancient resume that was completely off. I hadn't been even a part-time Oracle DBA in literally decades, or anything like it. (It might have been unrealistic in its geographic positioning, too.)

And yet, in the late 19th Century US, people did invest. And quite often profited.

I guess they weren't smart. Otherwise, they would have made reality match theory. ("Stupid reality.")

Usually, bi-partisan agreement means something is worse than usual. Not this time.

I'm beginning to doubt my position, now. (A little.)

Sounds like Argentinians and those in similar or worse situations will be the early adopters.

If (perhaps a big "if") they start using it for a significant fraction of their dealings, their transactions (and their holding) will work to decrease the percentage of the transactions (and the holding) of the speculators.

A long-term contract expressed and paid in bitcoin is probably a bad idea in Argentina at the moment. (I'm guessing.) But that may not be true, or it may change.

A currency that fluctuates at most 20% in the course of a year might be preferable to one that drops in value 15% a year in a good year, and a lot in a bad year. (I've not been following BTC much lately, but the price seems to be stabilizing of late.)

And if the Greek drachma comes back (definitely a big "if"), it may be in the same league as the Argentine peso. Another opportunity for bitcoin.

"Challenge accepted".

Replacing Social Security with personal accounts, either for everyone or for those who choose to opt out.

Ending drug prohibition.

Recognizing WW2 is over, and ending personal income tax withholding.

Recognizing WW2 is over, and bringing the troops home from Europe.

Recognizing the Korean War is over (all but the inevitable collapse of North Korea), and bringing the troops home from Korea.

Officially declaring war every time our military personnel are put in harm's way in a distant place.

Requiring all laws go through the Congress in the manner described by the Constitution, even the ones written in regulatory agencies that aren't called "laws".

Recognizing that treating something as interstate commerce when there is no commerce or there is no transaction between parties in different states is dishonest, and a violation of their oaths of office.

Recognizing that propping up the governments of other countries because they are "allies" (Allies? In peacetime?) is a terrible idea.

Recognizing that attempting to topple the governments of other countries because they are enemies of our "allies" (Allies? In peacetime?) is a terrible idea.

Realizing that training and arming insurgents in support of our "allies" now may create new enemies for the US in the future. (Alex, "Who is Osama bin Laden?")

Did I miss any?

Also, sometimes there are problems. Taum Sauk in Missouri, for instance.

A lot of water, up high, has a lot of potential energy. (That is the idea, after all.) If it bypasses the turbines due to an accident, there can be a lot of, um, "erosion".

Challenge accepted!

Who wants to go in halvers on a backhoe?

Gee. When the price of something changed, people changed how much of it they bought. They bought less of it when it was more expensive.

I wonder if any Californians have heard of this sort of thing?

Wrong reason? Pissing off people you grew to hate because they used government to keep you from using your property in a peaceful honest manner?

Sounds like a pretty good reason to me. They had a lot of years to quit being assholes, and they didn't take advantage of the opportunity

I may even forgive you for Jar-Jar Binks..

High Frequency Traders are self-correcting, if the exchanges will not let them walk away from "oopsie!" trades, no matter how disastrous.

One fine day, each of them will have a day where a badly-tested software change goes into production, or the wrong software change, or some other error, and it will lose money at a ferocious pace before some human pulls the plug on it. If the error is bad enough, they will go out of business. If it's a lesser disaster, they may only lose a boatload of money, but be able to continue on -- if they're brave or foolish enough to stay with that business model.

If the exchanges let them make money when the algorithms are good, and reverse trades so they break even when they're broken, the exchanges are performing a disservice to their traders who want to actually trade, by subsidizing those churners.

A response to those who complained (or bragged) that events of 50 years ago aren't "history", for whatever sincere or insincere reasons you gave, a reminder: history keeps happening. They will be history someday, if they aren't now.

When you are 100 years in your grave, those pull-tabs and their cans could still be helping historians and archaeologists figure things out, perhaps in ways that we can't begin to imagine.

Who would have thought fifty years ago that isotope ratios in human remains could tell us about diet? Or that unexpected things could be learned from textual or statistical analysis of digitized old public records? (Or that there would *be* massive amounts of digitized old public records?)

A little perspective might be helpful about now. And perhaps some humility.

The problem is that California's water policy is badly flawed.

Charging below-market prices is a very bad idea. Charging below-cost prices is a very very bad idea.

After listening to this podcast, I've concluded it's worse than I had thought. http://www.econtalk.org/archiv...