Show Posts
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
1
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists
|
on: December 05, 2012, 09:06:39 PM
|
Except it's so wrong. It has been shown that the government will fund things that corporations won't. Corporations typically will only engage in R & D that has a payoff within a certain amount of time, typically much less than government funded research might yield. This is known, and examples abound.
Here's an example for your edification: Samuel Pierpoint Langley (government funding) vs. the Wright brothers (private funding). Langley attempted flight on October 7th, 1903. His huge 54-foot-long flying machine had two 48-foot wings -- one in front and one in back. It was launched from a catapult on the Potomac River, and it fell like a sack of cement into the water. On December 8th he tried again. This time the rear wing caved in before it got off its catapult.
Just nine days later, the Wright brothers flew a trim little biplane, with almost no fanfare, at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. Their advantage was that they'd mastered the problem of controlling the movement of their plane, and they'd preceded their work with four years of careful experimentation with kites and gliders.
Source: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi32.htmAnother article explains why private funding worked *better* than government funding: If lavish Federal subsidies had been unable to buy Dr. Langley success, what chance would the Wright brothers' unfunded venture expect to have? Surprisingly, their chances were a lot better than might be imagined. Freed from the subsidy-induced waste and indolence that plagues government funded operations, the Wright brothers' limited financial resources actually contributed to their success. Because they could not afford the costs associated with repeated flight tests of their airplane, they developed a wind tunnel to test aerodynamic designs. This saved them a great deal of time. The Wright brothers were the first men to compile data from which an airplane could be designed. With limited finances, it was far easier to correct errors on paper than to continually rebuild a test model that was improperly designed.
Source: http://www.economicthinking.org/technology/noballoonattached.html
|
|
|
2
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists
|
on: November 20, 2012, 09:34:25 PM
|
Well, if the idea of "ad-hominem" is be played out, let's try a new term, "Occam's razor".
Assuming that the claims of support by some businesses for libertarianism are correct, does it follow that "Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists" in the United States in the 1950's?
It appears that the historical use of the term dates back to the 19th century, so that's quite unlikely.
It's much more plausible that organizations, such as the real-estate lobby found a common objective with the libertarians: reduction in government regulation, particularly rent controls. From the point of view of landlords, big-government Democrats (e.g. FDR) would be an enemy and big-government Republicans (e.g. Hoover) would also be an enemy. An organization which proposed that government interference was often counterproductive would be seen as an ally. From the PoV of libertarian evangelists, being paid to promote their own viewpoint would be win-win.
Also, as has been pointed out above, there are limits to the alliance between libertarians and big business. First, many big businesses (e.g. General Electric, Lockheed, Boeing), while wishing for reduced government regulation in their businesses, are very happy to have a customer who can print up a virtually infinite supply of money to pay his bills. Second, properly formulated regulations can help erect barriers to entry for competitors. The revolving door between business and government helps to ensure that regulations are "properly formulated" for best effect. As an example, look at the requirements for setting up a bank or stock exchange.
|
|
|
4
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Common misconception
|
on: November 14, 2012, 10:22:52 PM
|
"rise in the currency value (aka deflation) triggers hoarding" There's a small particle of truth in that: Some people value the projected appreciation of the asset more than the immediate liquidation thereof. When there's a spike in the value of an asset, whether it's Bitcoin or Google stock, the projected rate of return (relative to other assets) goes up, making "hoarding" more attractive. However, on cannot get any tangible benefit from the appreciation of some Bitcoin without eventually spending it. In some ways, Bitcoin is demonstrating Gresham's law, as users who prefer it to fiat currencies keep the BTC somewhat out of circulation.
|
|
|
6
|
Economy / Micro Earnings / Re: [Project Development] CoinWorker.com - earn bitcoin in your browser in minutes
|
on: October 10, 2012, 07:07:35 PM
|
Small fortune from 17:43-20:09?
I guess you couldn't see my tongue in my cheek!  There are complains in the CrowdFlower forum about those low payments.
Perhaps, although it's the "free market" setting those prices. If no one would work for those wages, then it's likely the going rate would rise. Of course, that kind of work (e.g. determine if this address is a business or a residence) has some, but limited value to the requester. Also, since CrowdFlower asks each question of multiple workers, the individual payment is a fraction of what the requester paid for the question. Warge should look for alternatives.
Looks like using CrowdFlower provides a stream of questions to be answered, so it has some value. It may be that CrowdFlower evaluates which "labor partners" are best suited for different tasks, and allocates jobs accordingly. If that's the case, then if/as better workers join CoinWorker, better, higher paying jobs will be assigned.
|
|
|
9
|
Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Selling Bitcoin on Amazon
|
on: October 09, 2012, 07:00:43 PM
|
Questions for OP: - Where are you getting your exchange rate (USD to BTC)?
- Do you have different rates for the $10, $20, and $50 increments?
Comments: - I was hoping I could pay with credit card points, but it appears not.
- Looks like I can pay with Amazon gift cards, though.
- The $50 denomination shows $0.00 for shipping/handling. I think that goes with Amazon's free shipping on orders > $25.
|
|
|
10
|
Bitcoin / Meetups / Re: Austin, TX
|
on: October 09, 2012, 06:02:12 PM
|
I like things to be a gradual process. We discuss Bitcoin, events and just hang out at first. Then if our interests meet in a few places, we can possibly start something or help Bitcoin in some way.
Standard networking, if you will.
Likewise. Can we get a tally of folks interested in a 1-hour (or so) coffee-shop meetup in Austin?
|
|
|
11
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin the enabler - Truly Autonomous Software Agents roaming the net
|
on: August 28, 2012, 08:38:47 PM
|
Seems like most people are using the analogy of agent as an animal, able to migrate from computer to computer and "roam the net". It may be some time before a significantly useful agent is capable of doing that.
A more realistic short-term goal is to make one more like a plant, and maybe not such a fantastic one.
It may need human assistance to be installed in some vendor's hosting arrangement.
Once there, hopefully it can survive, and become autonomous. Reproduction, like seed broadcasting in plants, would require help from an outside agent, possibly human, who would propagate a copy of the agent to a new environment.
|
|
|
12
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Multi-signature transaction interface suggestions
|
on: November 20, 2011, 04:52:45 AM
|
A couple of questions which I think were touched on a little:
First, would the recommended approach be to add calls to the API? For example, a call that allows low-level crafting of the transaction or at least the script could be used by multiple UI's so that the presentation is separated from the inner workings.
Second, the case of buyer-seller-mediator can be handled with a 2-of-3 signature transaction. My question is: does the mediator get paid in a separate transaction? What if the mediator expects a small fee if the transaction goes properly, and a larger one if he has to intervene?
|
|
|
|