No system is ultimately sustainable. To speak otherwise ignores thermodynamics. To usefully use the term "bubble" requires discriminating bubbles from other forms of growth. The usual definition is retrospective: If growth of some fuzzy scale is followed by decline of some fuzzy scale, it was a bubble. The fuzziness of the scale is implicit in use of terms such as "frothy".
Pricing commercial assets is not the same as pricing art works. There are simple rational models for the former. Those models can be wrong because they can't predict specific future events, but they are relatively reliable.
Given that one is not building a professional reputation, there is little reason to publish unless one finds something truly useful/interesting. I'd rather enjoy myself pursuing the remote possibility of a massive win, and will be entirely content if it never occurs and my hobby work remains forever unknown to any but my close friends. In the ideal case, I do something of lasting universal benefit, but regardless I will have fodder for many pleasant hours of conversation, and the makings of many stimulating new friendships.
Very simple: Apply penalties for crimes. Apply the death penalty liberally, where death is understood to mean a revokation of the corporate charter, and the return of funds to shareholders after outstanding liabilities are acquitted.
The problem with corporations is not so much that they are treated as persons, but that they are treated as persons who are above the law. As a society, we fear the creative destruction which is actually beneficial to all.
That's how evolution works. Organizations which survive are organizations which are good at surviving, in the current environment. Eventually all of the biggest and longest-lived organizations are primarily concerned with their own growth and survival. That is the end-game for those organizations, and they will probably die soon, but they are large enough to create a lot of collateral damage in the meanwhile. Governments are much the same.
Market forces dictate software bloat, not some centralized cabal of scheming plotters designing an optimal return on investment. As long as people buy more and more bloated crap-ahem-itunes-ahem-ware, as long as managers get rewarded for their bloat factors, as long as developers get specs incorporating bloat, the trend will continue.
Bad software managers are rewarded for producing a lot of software. The more software, the more reward. As a result, you get increasingly useless or downright harmful crap rammed down your throat whenever you buy a commercial software product or a piece of hardware with bundled software. The latter is the worst, because in the case of commercial software there is at least a reality check which comes from the need to prevent the product from becoming so odious that no one will buy it.
Methinks if we breach society's moral compass, the diamagnetic fluid of ethical hegemony will get on the pants of legal respectability, leading to a collective trip to the dry cleaners of public opinion.
It' completely incorrect to say that anything done by government will not work. Governments live in an ecosystem, and fitness determines survival. The problem here is that your notion of fitness for purpose and the ecosystem's implied fitness function are divergent.
Slashdot Mirror
While investors are certainly stupid, they are at least much more clever than non-investors.
No system is ultimately sustainable. To speak otherwise ignores thermodynamics. To usefully use the term "bubble" requires discriminating bubbles from other forms of growth. The usual definition is retrospective: If growth of some fuzzy scale is followed by decline of some fuzzy scale, it was a bubble. The fuzziness of the scale is implicit in use of terms such as "frothy".
Pricing commercial assets is not the same as pricing art works. There are simple rational models for the former. Those models can be wrong because they can't predict specific future events, but they are relatively reliable.
Given that one is not building a professional reputation, there is little reason to publish unless one finds something truly useful/interesting. I'd rather enjoy myself pursuing the remote possibility of a massive win, and will be entirely content if it never occurs and my hobby work remains forever unknown to any but my close friends. In the ideal case, I do something of lasting universal benefit, but regardless I will have fodder for many pleasant hours of conversation, and the makings of many stimulating new friendships.
> ejaculate them every place i can
interesting lifestyle
Very simple: Apply penalties for crimes. Apply the death penalty liberally, where death is understood to mean a revokation of the corporate charter, and the return of funds to shareholders after outstanding liabilities are acquitted.
The problem with corporations is not so much that they are treated as persons, but that they are treated as persons who are above the law. As a society, we fear the creative destruction which is actually beneficial to all.
Opposites are much more similar than are things which are on orthogonal axes, so, yeah.
Most rich embezzlers are probably quite popular.
That's how evolution works. Organizations which survive are organizations which are good at surviving, in the current environment. Eventually all of the biggest and longest-lived organizations are primarily concerned with their own growth and survival. That is the end-game for those organizations, and they will probably die soon, but they are large enough to create a lot of collateral damage in the meanwhile. Governments are much the same.
Market forces dictate software bloat, not some centralized cabal of scheming plotters designing an optimal return on investment. As long as people buy more and more bloated crap-ahem-itunes-ahem-ware, as long as managers get rewarded for their bloat factors, as long as developers get specs incorporating bloat, the trend will continue.
Bad software managers are rewarded for producing a lot of software. The more software, the more reward. As a result, you get increasingly useless or downright harmful crap rammed down your throat whenever you buy a commercial software product or a piece of hardware with bundled software. The latter is the worst, because in the case of commercial software there is at least a reality check which comes from the need to prevent the product from becoming so odious that no one will buy it.
Vioxx was approved by the FDA. To use it as an example of how wonderfully the FDA process serves the public is... strange.
I get pretty tired of paying for research I can't read. I say stop funding it.
There's a difference? I think all U.S. currency is counterfeit.
Open seating arrangements are death to development. It takes 20 to 30 minutes to get into a productive flow, and 1 second to break it.
> 90-hour weeks
Looks like some Apple execs need to go to prison.
It's 4000 AUSTRALIAN dollars, not human dollars.
Methinks if we breach society's moral compass, the diamagnetic fluid of ethical hegemony will get on the pants of legal respectability, leading to a collective trip to the dry cleaners of public opinion.
Those Australians are getting rather breachy.
that's no brown dwarf!
Wrong kind of phone dude. Shoulda got a droid. There's an app for that.
Who needs another device? There's a free Android app for that.
Nah, it's a 4 pound iPod touch. It will be all the rage, as soon as they start making pants with a pocket big enough to carry it.
> pretty much an iPod touch with a bigger screen.
And we all know how the world has been screaming for a 4-lb. iPod. Hopefully they'll make an 8-lb. iPhone next. And pants that can hold one.
Not if you have to cover Manhattan living expenses.
> I can not deliver that for a mere $200k/year
It' completely incorrect to say that anything done by government will not work. Governments live in an ecosystem, and fitness determines survival. The problem here is that your notion of fitness for purpose and the ecosystem's implied fitness function are divergent.