Some of your argument is interesting, but the idea that something's value is equal to the effort that it takes to obtain/create the thing is certainly not the case. There are lots of things that are very difficult to create and/or duplicate that have no value. If I have my computer hash random strings until I get a hash that includes my name in it, even though it might take 10 hours to do (and would take another 10 hours to duplicate), it doesn't make that random string valuable.
Value is the benefit I get from having a good or service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics)). While often times it is correlated with the difficulty in obtaining something, they are not equivalent.
That being said, your argument could still (sort of) work like this: there SHOULD be a cap on the value of a bitcoin.... the $ cost in computing power to mine a new coin. Whenever the price rises much above that, there should be an economic incentive to spend the money mining a new coin instead of buying the coin on the market. Of course, this price isn't a HARD cap, since there is still a capital expense in buying the hardware to mine the coin (or the opportunity cost of not using that hardware to do something MORE valuable), but it shouldn't get too high above that cost.
Of course, the fact that the cost to mine a bitcoin increases with each previously mined coin makes this even more complicated..
Just go get a job. I was a self-taught programmer as well, and got my BA in Philosophy, too.
When I decided to try making my hobby a career, it was RIDICULOUSLY easy to get a job. All I did was use some personal projects as my resume. Showed them my code, showed them what I could do, and was hired.
No one has ever cared that I didn't have a degree in a computer-related field. In fact, my boss never even went to college. You just need some way to show you can do the work. If you don't think you are good enough yet, practice! Create some side projects. Work on open-source projects. Add these projects to git, and suddenly you will be getting a TON of emails about work. Trust me.
You describe Pascal's Wager (That you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by believing in God, while you have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not believing in God). This can be a compelling argument to someone who already believes in God, or is in a culture where there is only really one choice of religion.
However, the argument is a poor one. An unmentioned premise of the argument is that there is only one possible God to choose to believe in or not; of course, we know this is not true. There are countless different Gods that people choose to believe in. There are the major religions, and all of the thousands of offshoots. Many of those beliefs include the idea that God HATES it if you worship the wrong God (think the First Commandment).
Because of this, you have to include in your calculation that you choose the WRONG God to believe in, and in doing so you actually piss him off more than if you had not believed at all. Maybe God exists, but his REAL desire is for no one to worship him, and worshipping him is what pisses him off.
There are infinite possible Gods, so the argument that you should just choose to believe in one of them because you have nothing to lose doesn't hold water.
It is quite rational, really... even if you know something is a bubble and will eventually burst, you might also think that you can make a bunch of money riding the bubble, and still get out with your profits before it bursts. Some people DO win; you just never know if you are going to be the one caught holding the bag.
Apple could have the same infrastructure cost if they use bittorrent to distribute their content. The Pirate Bay still has to pay for it's servers.
We could argue about the cost of producing music for ages. I will bet dollars to donuts, however, that a negligible fraction of your download price from apple goes to actual production costs.
As the article points out, an 'app' is very different from an 'application'. I have never heard someone refer to an iPhone program as an 'application' and I have never heard someone use the term 'app' to refer to a stand-alone desktop software. This would seem to imply that they are distinct terms, and one is not merely shorthand for the other.
This is not the misappropriation of one term, but the creation of a new one. Sure, the word app has its root in the word application, but there are lots of words that come from old words (in fact, most words have their roots in other words that mean different, but related, things).
I think the only time that anyone should complain about the misuse of terms is when it is unclear which version of the word someone is using. An example from the article is the misuse of 'download' for 'upload'. If someone says download when they mean upload, it can be confusing. If someone calls something an 'app', no one will think they are talking about a desktop application.
Also another complaint with the article: applications have always referred to more than just 'a self-contained piece of software installed on a PC or Mac'. All other operating systems have applications as well.
Facebook won't even let you view their site with javascript off (you can try for yourself if you like). They will tell you to enable javascript, or you can use their mobile site (which does not have the same functionality).
You aren't going to get Facebook users to turn off javascript.
In this case, what the actual problem is is that the users weren't using SSL. The ISP was injecting javascript directly into the HTTP response.... this can't happen if you are using SSL (properly).
Facebook doesn't default to https; you have to explicitly decide to use SSL. Most users don't know enough to know to use SSL, so a better campaign than trying to get people to turn off javascript (which will hinder the user experience) is to get them to only use sites that are https (which will have no negative effect for the user).
In fact, your solution to only allow javascript for certain sites would NOT fix this problem.... users would naturally turn on javascript for facebook, and since the ISPs were directly injecting the javascript into the HTTP response, the javascript was running under the facebook domain.
You are assuming this is to solve a technical issue, that they are trying to efficiently use resources.
However, if you consider that they are trying to solve an issue with how phone carriers charge for data usage, you will see where this might provide value.
You are correct about text messages on modern networks being just data; however, providers do not charge the same for this data usage.
In some places, they charge much more for text messages than data usage (here in the U.S. is an example of one of those places); in those places, you try to find ways to use your data plan to send text messages. This might be in the form of instant messengers or the like.
In places where text messages are cheap but the data plan is expensive, the opposite desire comes into play; you start trying to get data sent through text messages.
When you think about this as a way to get around the arbitrary price differences between the same data, you can see how this would be valuable.
This study asked people to 'rate their levels of alertness' after being given either caffeine or a placebo. The people who normally consumed caffeine rated their alertness levels the same after receiving caffeine as the non-caffeine users rated their alertness levels after receiving a placebo.
Now this could mean a couple of things. One meaning could be what the study authors said; that caffeine addicts need their caffeine to be at the same level of alertness that non-caffeine users need. OR it could mean that the non-caffeine users aren't used to the higher levels of alertness that caffeine gives you, and therefore don't use the same scale to rate their alertness that caffeine users do. A caffeine user may think that the 'normal' (non-caffeinated) level of alertness is actually low (because they are used to being more alert from caffeine) even though they have the same 'actual' level of alertness. In other words, non-caffeinated people might not realize how un-alert they are.
A much better test would be to actually TEST their alertness, instead of relying on a subjective self-assessment. Make them do tasks that require alertness, and measure the differences. You might get different results.
The problem is that pork IS flesh... distinguishing wood and flesh is easy, distinguishing pig flesh and human flesh fast enough to stop a blade... a little harder.
This sort of thinking (that if the accuracy rate is improved enough it will become a valid way of determining someones guilt) shows a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics. It is the same reason blanket drug testing doesn't work and medical screening can sometimes be a bad thing.
Let's imagine for a moment that this lie detector technology has been perfected to a 99.99% accuracy rate. Since the test is so accurate, we decide that whenever a crime is committed, we will just have everyone in the area take the lie-detector test, asking them the question "Did you commit the crime?". Clearly, when someone fails the test, they are 99.99% likely to be the criminal. Right?
Except no. In cases like this (where the average person is much much much more likely to NOT be the criminal, the error rate will overwhelm the actual guilty-rate. If we are testing everybody in an area, then we can suppose that each person we check has an average chance of being the criminal of about 1 in however many we are checking. If this number we are checking is very large, then we are CERTAINLY going to have quite a few people who are found to be guilty on the test but are actually innocent. It will pick out more innocent people than guilty people.
While this sort of statistical phenomena will not take place if we don't giving blanket tests to everyone and limit the test to people who we already believe are very likely to have committed the crime, we as a society have a very bad tendency to not understand the statistics and think we should just give everyone the test and let the results tell us who is guilty. If you doubt this, just look at how many people think we should have a DNA database that everyone needs to join (so we can just run any DNA found at a crime scene against it). This combines the birthday paradox with the statistics I described above to create a situation where we have a very real fear of false convictions, exacerbated by the fact that people who are relying on this evidence (juries) do not realize that even a test with 99.999% accuracy can have a very high false positive rate in these sorts of circumstances.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of your argument is interesting, but the idea that something's value is equal to the effort that it takes to obtain/create the thing is certainly not the case. There are lots of things that are very difficult to create and/or duplicate that have no value. If I have my computer hash random strings until I get a hash that includes my name in it, even though it might take 10 hours to do (and would take another 10 hours to duplicate), it doesn't make that random string valuable.
Value is the benefit I get from having a good or service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics)). While often times it is correlated with the difficulty in obtaining something, they are not equivalent.
That being said, your argument could still (sort of) work like this: there SHOULD be a cap on the value of a bitcoin.... the $ cost in computing power to mine a new coin. Whenever the price rises much above that, there should be an economic incentive to spend the money mining a new coin instead of buying the coin on the market. Of course, this price isn't a HARD cap, since there is still a capital expense in buying the hardware to mine the coin (or the opportunity cost of not using that hardware to do something MORE valuable), but it shouldn't get too high above that cost.
Of course, the fact that the cost to mine a bitcoin increases with each previously mined coin makes this even more complicated..
Just go get a job. I was a self-taught programmer as well, and got my BA in Philosophy, too.
When I decided to try making my hobby a career, it was RIDICULOUSLY easy to get a job. All I did was use some personal projects as my resume. Showed them my code, showed them what I could do, and was hired.
No one has ever cared that I didn't have a degree in a computer-related field. In fact, my boss never even went to college. You just need some way to show you can do the work. If you don't think you are good enough yet, practice! Create some side projects. Work on open-source projects. Add these projects to git, and suddenly you will be getting a TON of emails about work. Trust me.
You describe Pascal's Wager (That you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by believing in God, while you have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not believing in God). This can be a compelling argument to someone who already believes in God, or is in a culture where there is only really one choice of religion.
However, the argument is a poor one. An unmentioned premise of the argument is that there is only one possible God to choose to believe in or not; of course, we know this is not true. There are countless different Gods that people choose to believe in. There are the major religions, and all of the thousands of offshoots. Many of those beliefs include the idea that God HATES it if you worship the wrong God (think the First Commandment).
Because of this, you have to include in your calculation that you choose the WRONG God to believe in, and in doing so you actually piss him off more than if you had not believed at all. Maybe God exists, but his REAL desire is for no one to worship him, and worshipping him is what pisses him off.
There are infinite possible Gods, so the argument that you should just choose to believe in one of them because you have nothing to lose doesn't hold water.
It is quite rational, really... even if you know something is a bubble and will eventually burst, you might also think that you can make a bunch of money riding the bubble, and still get out with your profits before it bursts. Some people DO win; you just never know if you are going to be the one caught holding the bag.
The Earth wasn't supposed to be able to support half the current global population.
Then Norman Borlaug came along, and turns out we could support more. Who knows this time around?
Amazon gives you a unique address for each instance you spin up.
How is this different than stealing your car, taking it for a spin, and then putting it back in your driveway?
Would you respond "Learn to install a better alarm and not allow your car to be hot-wired so easy"?
You don't have to install an unbreakable lock to be protected from theft in the eyes of the law.
Apple could have the same infrastructure cost if they use bittorrent to distribute their content. The Pirate Bay still has to pay for it's servers.
We could argue about the cost of producing music for ages. I will bet dollars to donuts, however, that a negligible fraction of your download price from apple goes to actual production costs.
You know who lets you download your songs as many times as you want?
The Pirate Bay
As the article points out, an 'app' is very different from an 'application'. I have never heard someone refer to an iPhone program as an 'application' and I have never heard someone use the term 'app' to refer to a stand-alone desktop software. This would seem to imply that they are distinct terms, and one is not merely shorthand for the other.
This is not the misappropriation of one term, but the creation of a new one. Sure, the word app has its root in the word application, but there are lots of words that come from old words (in fact, most words have their roots in other words that mean different, but related, things).
I think the only time that anyone should complain about the misuse of terms is when it is unclear which version of the word someone is using. An example from the article is the misuse of 'download' for 'upload'. If someone says download when they mean upload, it can be confusing. If someone calls something an 'app', no one will think they are talking about a desktop application.
Also another complaint with the article: applications have always referred to more than just 'a self-contained piece of software installed on a PC or Mac'. All other operating systems have applications as well.
Facebook won't even let you view their site with javascript off (you can try for yourself if you like). They will tell you to enable javascript, or you can use their mobile site (which does not have the same functionality).
You aren't going to get Facebook users to turn off javascript.
In this case, what the actual problem is is that the users weren't using SSL. The ISP was injecting javascript directly into the HTTP response.... this can't happen if you are using SSL (properly).
Facebook doesn't default to https; you have to explicitly decide to use SSL. Most users don't know enough to know to use SSL, so a better campaign than trying to get people to turn off javascript (which will hinder the user experience) is to get them to only use sites that are https (which will have no negative effect for the user).
In fact, your solution to only allow javascript for certain sites would NOT fix this problem.... users would naturally turn on javascript for facebook, and since the ISPs were directly injecting the javascript into the HTTP response, the javascript was running under the facebook domain.
It also shows that Google has lazy programmers... they can't regular expression out a comma?
Yeah, because they put CRACK in their chicken nuggets. Have you had them? There is certainly SOMETHING highly addicting they add.
Yeah.... it is like these guys never played Sim Earth as a kid or something.
Although if you have a problem upgrading your kernel, there is a good chance you will end up having to reboot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepRap_Project
Cool. I want a self replicating replicator!
Someone is writing a book about Britney Spears?
Good idea, until you want to play any new Blu-Ray movies you get.
Yep, it is know as the Tragedy of the commons
You are assuming this is to solve a technical issue, that they are trying to efficiently use resources.
However, if you consider that they are trying to solve an issue with how phone carriers charge for data usage, you will see where this might provide value.
You are correct about text messages on modern networks being just data; however, providers do not charge the same for this data usage.
In some places, they charge much more for text messages than data usage (here in the U.S. is an example of one of those places); in those places, you try to find ways to use your data plan to send text messages. This might be in the form of instant messengers or the like.
In places where text messages are cheap but the data plan is expensive, the opposite desire comes into play; you start trying to get data sent through text messages.
When you think about this as a way to get around the arbitrary price differences between the same data, you can see how this would be valuable.
This study asked people to 'rate their levels of alertness' after being given either caffeine or a placebo. The people who normally consumed caffeine rated their alertness levels the same after receiving caffeine as the non-caffeine users rated their alertness levels after receiving a placebo.
Now this could mean a couple of things. One meaning could be what the study authors said; that caffeine addicts need their caffeine to be at the same level of alertness that non-caffeine users need. OR it could mean that the non-caffeine users aren't used to the higher levels of alertness that caffeine gives you, and therefore don't use the same scale to rate their alertness that caffeine users do. A caffeine user may think that the 'normal' (non-caffeinated) level of alertness is actually low (because they are used to being more alert from caffeine) even though they have the same 'actual' level of alertness. In other words, non-caffeinated people might not realize how un-alert they are.
A much better test would be to actually TEST their alertness, instead of relying on a subjective self-assessment. Make them do tasks that require alertness, and measure the differences. You might get different results.
If you expect each facebook user to generate their own Public/Private key then you're diluted
May I ask what I have been diluted by? I tried to stay away from the water........
Umm well their name IS a portmanteau of 'screw' and 'google'..... so are you really surprised they are trying to leech off google?
The problem is that pork IS flesh... distinguishing wood and flesh is easy, distinguishing pig flesh and human flesh fast enough to stop a blade... a little harder.
This sort of thinking (that if the accuracy rate is improved enough it will become a valid way of determining someones guilt) shows a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics. It is the same reason blanket drug testing doesn't work and medical screening can sometimes be a bad thing.
Let's imagine for a moment that this lie detector technology has been perfected to a 99.99% accuracy rate. Since the test is so accurate, we decide that whenever a crime is committed, we will just have everyone in the area take the lie-detector test, asking them the question "Did you commit the crime?". Clearly, when someone fails the test, they are 99.99% likely to be the criminal. Right?
Except no. In cases like this (where the average person is much much much more likely to NOT be the criminal, the error rate will overwhelm the actual guilty-rate. If we are testing everybody in an area, then we can suppose that each person we check has an average chance of being the criminal of about 1 in however many we are checking. If this number we are checking is very large, then we are CERTAINLY going to have quite a few people who are found to be guilty on the test but are actually innocent. It will pick out more innocent people than guilty people.
While this sort of statistical phenomena will not take place if we don't giving blanket tests to everyone and limit the test to people who we already believe are very likely to have committed the crime, we as a society have a very bad tendency to not understand the statistics and think we should just give everyone the test and let the results tell us who is guilty. If you doubt this, just look at how many people think we should have a DNA database that everyone needs to join (so we can just run any DNA found at a crime scene against it). This combines the birthday paradox with the statistics I described above to create a situation where we have a very real fear of false convictions, exacerbated by the fact that people who are relying on this evidence (juries) do not realize that even a test with 99.999% accuracy can have a very high false positive rate in these sorts of circumstances.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem#Example_1:_Drug_testing for more info on the math behind this.