Just an FYI, sellers of houses have offered to accept Bitcoin on at least a couple newsworthy occasions:
A far cry from denominating mortgages, but still, it's something.
Just an FYI, sellers of houses have offered to accept Bitcoin on at least a couple newsworthy occasions:
A far cry from denominating mortgages, but still, it's something.
Let's pick this nonsense apart.
> "Economist Edward Hadas writes in the NYT that developers of bitcoin are trying to show that money can be successfully privatized but money that is not issued by governments is always doomed to failure because money is inevitably a tool of the state.
Money is a tool of trade, valuable because it is sanctioned by its users in society. The success of money is determined only by whether people other than the holder accept it.
Bitcoin seems to be riding a hype, but doing okay just in terms of growing acceptance as a payment scheme for actual products and services.
> 'Bitcoin exemplifies some of the problems of private money,' says Hadas. 'Its value is uncertain, its legal status is unclear, and it could easily become valueless if users lose faith.'
Uncertain value and becomes useless if users lose faith? Sort of like fiat currencies? Except without "quantitative easing" causing inflation to kick the can on fiscal failures from decades of overspending.
The legal status is an open question, and a valid concern. Personally I think it's probably a red herring, but I'd keep an eye on the legal landscape if I was going deep in this.
> Besides, if bitcoin ever really started to take off, governments would either ban it or take over the system says Hadas.
How? What is his criteria for "take off"?
> The authorities might be motivated by a genuine concern about the stability of a shadow monetary system or they might act out of self-preservation because tax evasion would be too easy in a parallel economy.
Didn't this guy just say it would be less stable than official sector currencies? Anyway, tax evasion may be harder with Bitcoin since transactions are public record.
> 'Part of the interest in virtual currencies like bitcoin is that their anonymity can provide a convenient cloak for criminal activity. Part is technological â" this is a cool idea. And part is speculative â" gamblers bet that bitcoin's value will increase,' concludes Hadas.
Part of the interest in legitimate trade is that it provides a convenient cloak for criminal activity.
I think Bitcoin has less anonymity than the author asserts, and protecting privacy on Bitcoin is non-trivial for the average user.
> 'Truly private money is an inferior alternative to the money that comes with the backing of a political authority. After all, no bank or bitcoin-emitter can be as public-minded as a government, and no private power can raise taxes or pass laws to unwind monetary excesses.'"
Gold. It's private, not backed by any authority other than natural scarcity, and was the dominant reserve currency for hundreds of years before modern fiat currencies. We have only had our modern fiat currencies since Bretton Woods in 1971 years and it is already unravelling.
I'm all for valid criticisms of Bitcoin e.g. criticisms of the mathematics behind the artificial scarcity or a murky legal landscape. This guy's comments strike me as vacuous.
or put another way, what'll happen when we have half a trillion dollars less economic activity? Since our entire civilization is based around getting people to trade among themselves. I just don't see all these productivity gains are ever going to make it down to my level...
Not all economic activity benefits society. Perhaps the most well known demonstration is the parable of the broken window:
The parable of the broken window was introduced by Frederic Bastiat in his 1850 essay Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas (That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen) to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is actually not a net-benefit to society. The parable, also known as the broken window fallacy or glazier's fallacy, demonstrates how opportunity costs, as well as the law of unintended consequences, affect economic activity in ways that are "unseen" or ignored.
The productivity gains failing to make it to your level are arguably a problem of inequality of the distribution of wealth, not lack of economic activity.
As a teenager in the 1980's I would talk to my friends on the phone about the NSA, and we would say all the words we thought would trigger surveillance review of our call. "Bomb", "terrorism", "air plane", whatever we could think of. It was a bit of a joke at the time, but on reflection it reveals an interesting vein of thought at the time.
A few things have occurred to me since then. First, I expected them to be listening. The recent "revelations" were hardly new - in the days before the Internet, in town of less than three thousand people in very rural Canada, I knew about and expected to be under surveillance under the right conditions. The NSA has since been regularly published about in popular film, at least as far back as Sneakers (1992) and Mercury Rising (1998) and other films. I think people who care have known about it for a long time.
Second, I did not expect any serious negative ramifications from our phone calls. I suppose I presumed honourable and just people were on the other end of the line, whose interests likely aligned with my own or whose actions were limited by sensible restraints on civil liberties. I think in a sense the fact that people were listening comforted me, expecting that there were good people whose sense of duty would be upheld.
All to say, it is not surprising to me that people are not up in arms. Perhaps it is apathy. Or perhaps along the lines of the reasoning I had as a teenager. Maybe something in between.
In any case, as a matter of interest, the posting for the job of Civil Liberties & Privacy Officer at the NSA seems to have been taken down. I have not heard of anyone being posted to the position, or it being squelched because of e.g. a hiring freeze in the shutdown.
Oddly enough, I was just thinking of the use of gyroscopes in automobiles the other day.
I was wondering if a uni-wheel automobile would be possible with a gyroscope.
The physics is quite beyond me, I am afraid, curious though it is.
Define "poorly." Quote numbers sold and source for your data. You don't know. I don't know. Only Microsoft knows and so far, they aren't talking.
Silence is a statement.
It is easier to be cynical of words because they offer a target. Silence leaves doubt.
Corporate marketing is a typical rational actor. Silence about an event is a statement that words are less preferable.
The event may be inchoate, the words otherwise premature, or there may be no positive spin to the event.
In this case, large consumer purchases or reseller commitments are a clutch marketing figure. Any reasonable sales figures are pro-cyclical positive spin - popularity sells.
If history repeats itself, as marketeers are wont to do, the problem is predictable: sales numbers are unspoken because they are poor.
Just an additional note, since nobody else seems to have mentioned it: the student may have been a minor and the NDA unenforceable against him. It seems the age of majority in Quebec is 18.
Sure sounds public to me.
Me too. However maybe the SEC is trying to make a point? Is it a slippery slope - can we easily and objectively determine when a post to facebook friends not public? 200k people? 20k people? 2k? 200?
While this instance is fairly far out towards "public" on the public-private spectrum, this may be an attempt by the SEC to establish boundaries about what sort of behaviour it considers appropriate for the CEOs of large and publicly traded corporations.
If memory serves, the original post I linked was written by Scott Chacon, and was served on GitHub proper/blog for some time. The link I gave appears to be the last remaining mirror that Google finds.
If the rumours are true, BitBucket was a blatant screen-for-screen imitation of GitHub's design:
I understand that imitation is flattering to some point and copying one or two things is cool, but BitBucket copied our website screen for screen in nearly every major aspect without asking for permission or acknowledging the theft.
If the owners of Bitbucket have no qualms about stealing GitHub's creation
I thought it was worth $7 per month to go with GitHub for this reason.
This is a fascinating post. Thank you for posting it. Not enough is written about the fall of Sony.
Incidentally, from a previous post I wrote:
The history of Sony's management is quite fascinating. I've lost the link, but I recall there being an article about Sony's decision over who to replace their then-CEO around 1999 (Norio Ohga), who had been CEO for ages and brought Sony to new economic heights. The choice of his successor was either the head of Sony Entertainment (i.e. the copyright/media side of Sony) or the head of Sony Computer (i.e. the head of the electronics side). They ended up choosing the head of the copyright/media side of Sony, Nobuyuki Idei.
Anecdotally, since that decision, I've noticed that Sony's technology shine has dropped completely off my radar (i.e. I don't even turn to them to find out what the latest and greatest tech is, whereas at one point they were certainly a contender for something that I'd consider cool), while their foray into rent-seeking for their copyright has also gone off the deep end.
I might be wrong about the details of the history - I'd be interested in finding the article again, or having the background.
If it's true, I believe the change in the "personality" or "culture" of Sony reflects the decision that they made to make the head of their copyright/media division the head of the company. I believe their shareholders have been paying for that decision ever since.
FWIW, most of the binding arbitration clauses I've read lately have specified that the megacorp pays for the arbitration. YMMV.
Thanks. That makes me curious how the arbitrator selection would work i.e. whether arbitrators may be selected by the corporation based on prior favourable results. IMHO, that might expose the award to judicial review based on a systemic bias.
I would be grateful for the opportunity to review an example agreement of this sort, if you happen to be in a position to share.
You've *been* a lawyer? Not a very good one, I imagine. For a lawyer, there seems to be a blanket over your eyes that no lawyer I know has. Let us start:
I doubt you know many lawyers.
First, lawyers do fine with or without arbitration clauses
Really? Every lawyer I know is as broke as the rest of us, still trying to pay for law school 10+ years after graduating
It seems the lawyers you do know are not doing well.
I have done well. I am proud to count among my friends some of the most influential lawyers the world has ever known. I would tell you who they are, but you wouldn't know them.
Arbitration is generally more expensive than litigation, for several reasons including the obligation of the complainant to pay the arbitrator fees, contrary judges who are paid by taxpayers
That is a lie, or gross misrepresentation. Arbitration is almost always paid for by the defendant, who wishes to go through arbitration, because a civil suit is generally devastating.
You seem confused. LMGTFY. You shall find that the links say that arbitrations generally have fees split between the parties because, you know, that's what actually happens.
I can't even begin to imagine what you're talking about by a civil suit being devastating. For no apparent reason, that comment reminds me of the X-Files - sort of a dark, mysterious and sinister quality to it. Anyway, the result of a civil suit concluded by judicial determination is an enforceable award (which we commonly refer to as a "judgment"), which is effectively the same result as an arbitral award. Here, have a look, N.Y. CVP. LAW Â 7510 : NY Code - Article 75, Section 7501:
A written agreement to submit any controversy thereafter arising or any existing controversy to arbitration is enforceable without regard to the justiciable character of the controversy and confers jurisdiction on the courts of the state to enforce it and to enter judgment on an award.
So there you have it. You win at arbitration and what's the prize? The right to get a Court to enforce it or turn it into a judgment. I know. Totally fascinating, right?
As for lawyers receiving most of the damages, that is an entire topic to itself. Class proceedings exist for three purposes:
Jesus, no they aren't. You learn this shit in Legal 101. Civil is not criminal. If I have to explain any further, there is no hope.
See, oh there's so many
>  Where there is a cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues, and a settlement, there is a strong basis for concluding that a class proceeding is the preferable procedure because certification would serve the primary purposes of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992; namely, access to justice, behavioural modification, and judicial economy.
If I may: You seem terribly indifferent to, or painfully unaware of, essential facts on this topic that determine the reality of those that live in it, and you concurrently lack a certain
But it does benefit lawyers. Lawyers hate arbitration because you don't need a lawyer to arbitrate. Lawyers love class action suits because pretty much all the damages go directly to them, with the customers just getting a coupon for half off their next purchase from the company the screwed them.
This is nonsense. I've been a lawyer, arbitrator and class action litigator for nearly a decade now.
Let's break down your post.
First, lawyers do fine with or without arbitration clauses; I honestly don't care what the process is. Arbitration clauses do tend to increase the cost of litigation to individual litigants for several reasons, including:
1. Arbitrations are private; a finding of liability has no impact on subsequent cases, unlike a finding in Court;
2. Arbitration is generally more expensive than litigation, for several reasons including the obligation of the complainant to pay the arbitrator fees, contrary judges who are paid by taxpayers;
3. Arbitrations, except for the rare multi-party arbitrations, do not permit the resolution of common issues for all similarly situated litigants, unlike class actions.
All of the above discourage litigation against big, bad clients because the big bad clients increase the cost and risk of seeking compensation for wrongs. I have noted a trend across jurisdictions that those where the perceived costs of seeking compensation for wrongs is subject to high procedural barriers correlates with the pervasiveness of apathy and helplessness.
Class proceedings reduce (and often eliminate) risk to individual litigants.
As for class arbitration, the rules of arbitration generally do not permit class proceedings. However, there is nothing stopping individuals from agreeing to individual arbitrations heard and determined concurrently by way of contract. A properly crafted agreement would likely be as binding as an award from individual arbitration, and have many of the economies of scale inherent to class proceedings. This is rare because it would require the consent of a defendant, who has every financial (and public relations) incentive to increase the cost of and risk to every claimant.
As for lawyers receiving most of the damages, that is an entire topic to itself. Class proceedings exist for three purposes: (1) decrease the cost of individual litigation; (2) increase efficiency of the court system by determining common issues together; and (3) correct bad behaviour. On point one, it is almost always true, in my experience, that class proceedings are more cost effective than individual litigation --- you are almost certainly going to get more at the end of the day by being a member of a class proceeding than by hiring a lawyer to proceed on your behalf directly. All class proceedings in the world, as far as I know, give you the opportunity to opt out of the class and pursue your litigation on your own, in any case, so if you are quite so against the class proceeding benefitting the lawyers, you can bring pursue the litigation by yourself. It bears mentioning that many class proceedings are also highly speculative, and higher risk merits higher rewards - otherwise the competent lawyers would find something else to do with their time and many valid complaints would pass under the radar.
On the second point, arbitrations are typically significantly more expensive than litigation in court. You have to pay the arbitrator and due to the faster timelines it often proceeds to an actual determination more often, in my experience, than litigation (as litigation is often painfully slow and settlement is encouraged by way of process designed to be challenging and expensive - to encourage settlement).
Finally, correction of bad behaviour is a worthwhile goal in and of itself, and even if the lawyers achieved no financial compensation for the members of the class, it is worthwhile to reward those pursuing and advancing corrective behaviour through the adversarial process.
Which is all to say: Your post is not very well informed, and I would encourage you to bear the above in mind before posting similar nonsense in the future.
I have no doubts that everything you said was true. We live in a litigous society, and the law is sufficiently complex that nobody, yourself included, can possibly anticipate what may or may not be illegal. It's a crap shoot. That said, what you're describing sounds like a civil, not criminal matter, to the best of my understanding. It's not a crime to take those pictures. It's trespass (a crime) if you don't leave after you do it and they ask you to leave.
Sorry if I was unclear. Yes, everything I described was from a civil litigation standpoint. As a civil litigator, I see (and speak about) the universe through that lens. It's warped to most people, but has spectacular clarity on issues like this.
To be fair though, the discussion was about the distinction between copyright versus breach of contract or trespass, and almost all prosecutions of violations of any of these lot are civil.
We were so poor we couldn't afford a watchdog. If we heard a noise at night, we'd bark ourselves. -- Crazy Jimmy