the FAA regulates the National Airspace System in which this RC aircraft was flying.
The FAA only gets to regulate objects within the "airspace" within very narrow limits. It has deliberately tried to blur those limits to include RC devices as "aircraft". This judge slapped them down for overreach.
Actually, it appears the judge ruled on a very technical point. The FAA never formally went through the rule making process but rather relied on policy statements to fine the operator. The judge basically said you can't do that. So until the FAA issues the final rules their enforcement ability is in doubt. I say in doubt because another judge could overrule the first one.
1) The FAA does not understand the difference between a drone (which does not require visual contact with the operator to be flown) and a toy airplane (which cannot be controlled out of sight of its operator).
Actually, visual contact is not needed to control a model plane, it's just hard to determine how it is actually responding.
2) The FAA is trying to consolidate more power to government by conveniently misinterpreting the rules to give them the ability to ensnare model airplane owners in a tangled web of onerous regulation and raise more money.
My vote is on #2.
More like the guy was operating in a manner that was irresponsible and they decided to take action. Quite frankly, it's people who operate model a/c in such a manner that makes life difficult for those who enjoy the hobby safely and responsibly, and I am glad to see the FAA take action against irresponsible operators.
Good. The current regulations are idiotic. Why should buzzing a crowd be okay, but buzzing a crowd FOR PROFIT be illegal? He didn't get in trouble because he was flying recklessly, but because he was trying to earn a living.
No, buzzing a crowd is illegal independent of wether it is for profit or not. My guess is since he was doing it for profit is was easier for the FAA to use that to fine him. No that a judge has said they can't do that they need to decide wether to drop the case, appeal, and or charge him with other violations of the CFR. While some rules may seem, or actually be, idiotic, there needs to controls on how airspace is used to ensure everyone's safety. If he did operate the a/c as described in the article he deserves to be slapped. It's the people who act irresponsibly that result in rules being made that negatively impact all of us who don't.
Typical research at a university involves trying to find out what happens when you do something new. They keep trying until they find something that works or that is interesting. It's fundamental research. Companies typically do more applied research - optimizing things.
At a company, you have to gather 15 signatures before you can start a fundamenal science experiment with unknown outcome. At university, you just go ahead. Companies typically outsource such experiments to universities (or they just pick up on the research after a PhD student put in a few years of good work). It's not the same type of work, so you should not compare the risks. Test pilots also have a higher risk of injury than a commercial pilot.
test pilots also do everything to mitigate the risks. Safety is not about not doing inherently risky things; it's about minimizing those risks. It involves assessing the risks, eliminating them where possible, and taking steps to mitigate those you can't eliminate. It also means ensuring people don't do stupid things like not wear safety gear, work on energized equipment, rather than deenergize it, simply to save time, or take any of the hundreds of other shortcuts on the mistaken belief it can't happen to me. Finally, it means thoroughly investigating and fixing the root causes of minor incidents so bigger ones don't happen.
The difference is that the repo company is using your information commercially, rather similarly to the photographic case, and you're required by law to display your license plate. The body requiring you to do the displaying has a duty of confidentiality toward you, and. for example, may be failing in it by not restricting what commercial entities do with the information.
It's technically a "vexed problem", but not necessarily an insoluble one.
Making it even harder is the question of scale. As Joseph Stalin once said, "quantity has a quality all it's own", a problem the courts have not been very forward in addressing.
--dave
Thinking about mostly legalistic issues, although this is really a public policy question. Our lawgivers haven't been terribly forward in addressing those, you understand!
I agree this is really a public policy debate since the scope and depth of information, as well as the ability to retrieve it, has increased greatly as technology advances. I would however, argue the repo case is a different type of commercial use; since their is no implied endorsement by you; unlike if a photographer uses your likeness in a commercial setting. In addition, there really is no duty of confidentiality by the tag office to the tag holder; in fact many sell that information freely.
Generally, a business, such as a repo company, can retain your information during the period in which you're doing business with them. If I were to consent to being scanned, then they could keep the scan only so long as it takes to see if I'm on the list of cars to be repossessed.
Since I haven't consented to the collection of "personal information" ("personally identifying information" in the US), and that information is a regulated government-issued identifier, then there's a case to be made that the repo company variously
* isn't entitled to the information
* requires a licence to use it under controlled circumstances
* is entitled only to compare it to a list. or
* is entitled to retain it only until it has been compared.
I'm not sure that is true as you have no expectation of privacy, or a very limited one, when you are in public. Anyone can read and write down your license plate and note the location, date and time they saw it. The ability to automate such actions doesn't change the fundamental questions of what expectation of privacy due you have in a public place?
Similar logic applies to facial recognition: the right to photograph is stronger, but the right to retain is weaker.
While a photographer may have to get approval to use a person's image commercially, they generally don't to take and keep a picture if you are in a public area. I say "may" and "generally" because there are a patchwork of laws that apply and how you use the photo impacts what releases you need as well.
Open sources scanner software that works with a cheap USB camera and license plate wiki - that stores every scanned tag with number and state data. How fast do you think it would take legislators to decide it was a bad idea and outlaw scanners? Probably a few seconds after one of their own gets asked some embarrassing questions. The best way to fight such privacy threats is to embrace and extend their use to those in power.
So the easiest way would be to set up a fake access point with graphics stolen from Comcast's real site and then collect the usernames/passwords from people who are trying to connect to it.
Then use those to login to other Comcast sites and do whatever evil you want to.
The best part is that the poor person whom you're framing will have a more difficult time clearing his name because the evil activity happening in his name is happening in his city.
Why stop there? Once you have the fake access point you could us sit to gather all kinds of logons, passwords, etc. Or serve up your own ads, randomly drop user connections, etc. It sound sleek an ideal setup for a man in the middle attack with the added bonus if someone calls Comcast they are told it is a real Comcast site and secure.
I never cease to be amazed how often suckers fall for it, even when you mention the LAST scam in the channel they're advertising in.
Having spoken to number of Bitcoin true believers; their argument basically was "Bitcoin is different. None of the real world rules apply to it. You don't understand." followed by an assertion that they were going to get rich.
Which proves the old maxim that you can never go broke underestimating the stupidity of the public; or as a corollary the gullibility.
Ah, but it's in the terms of service. And those have been upheld by the courts.
Which means people who lost money in this are out of luck, because all they really claim is they'll do their best effort but otherwise make no guarantees about their ability to do anything.
In other words, there's zero basis on which to trust them, it's spelled out in the license, and if you trusted them and lost it's caveat emptor.
You might as well ask the wino on the corner to hold onto your money, because he's about as accountable if your money goes missing.
I am not familiar with Canadian law, but if it is similar to US in that you cannot absolve yourself of responsibility for negligence despite any agreement to do so. You can refer to agreements in hopes the other party doesn't press a negligence claim; but if the do you may still be held liable for the results. The questions would be: did you have a duty of care, what would a reasonable person require in terms of care, could you foresee the act and did it cause a loss. Of course, winning and collecting are two different things.
When I was working near asbestos nobody told me that the masks had to be "professionally fitted" so I doubt the journalist knows more than they googled about the topic.
However they certainly are uncomfortable especially with safety goggles pushing them down on your nose.
While I am not sure what was meant by "professionally fitted," there is a right and wrong way to wear a mask. They are uncomfortable when fitted for a proper tight seal, and I would not be surprised if many people who have never been shown the proper way to put one on and fit it aid up with them too loose to be of any use because it is more comfortable that way. If you didn't have mask face after taking one off it was too loose.
Sounds just like those stock pump-and-dump spam emails I get.
The part you, and most BTC haters don't get? The lack of a "dump" phase. I like BTC more for the philosophy behind it than for the practicality of using it - Much the same as FOSS. If it appreciates in value, hey, I've made a few bucks, not going to complain - Much the same as FOSS saving me from buying Windows/Office/Adobe/etc. And if it loses value because people like you can't stand seeing other people enjoy something new, well, no one can say I didn't do my part to help it along.
FWIW, I've taken my own advice here, so feel free to call me whatever you want - I can console myself with the 25-50% gains over the next three months. I don't use BTC primarily for that reason, but I sure as hell won't pass up the opportunity.
This reminds me of the story of the young son of a farmer running to his dad and saying "Pa. I saw Suzi and the new hand in the hayloft unzipping their pants. They're getting ready to pee in the hay." The dad says " Son, your facts are correct but your conclusion is wrong."
There is no dump phase because the market lacks liquidity. You can't simply sell a million dollars of Bitcoin whenever you want. You are forced to ride the market swings with no assurance you can ever cash out your position. Until the market becomes more liquid your gains are illusionary.
Right now, Bitcoin buyers seem to fall into two camps - small users who find it easy to get in and out for transactions they'd prefer not to have easily tracked and speculators who like to think they will eventually become rich "once they whole thing gets worked out. Many seem convinced that Bitcoin will keep appreciating despite the problems to date; on that the jury is still out.
This is like the 4th or 5th exchange that has gone bust, right?
Actually more like 18, but MtGox counts as the first major exchange to fail. The rest of those amount to you or I throwing up an "exchange" as our CompSci101 project and then vanishing when they lost their shirts.
The loss of MtGox definitely counts as a blow to Bitcoin, but as others will no doubt point out, it had already started "failing" months ago (when you have a good 20% price spread vs the next highest exchange and you don't see arbitrage occurring on a massive scale, you know you have a problem). Any fools with either USD or BTC left in Gox since the beginning of the year (and even before that) pretty much stopped paying attention and deserve what they got.
One of the key problems with MTGox (and perhaps others) is it was not really an exchange like a stock or commodities exchange. An exchange facilitates trades amongst many individual holders of the item being traded, and often has market makers who ensure liquidity, and never hold the actual items themselves. They make money on the spread and other charges, and are insulated from price swings. Bitcoin exchanges that accept deposits are essentially taking a short position in Bitcoin. As a result, they are leaving themselves open to having to cover that position. Unless they have a stack of cash equal to the value of the holdings they will eventually come up short as depositors redeem Bitcoin for cash. A rapid price increase could easily leave them unable to cover the liability they face. Since exchanges limit withdrawals they clearly are trying to manage their cash position to prevent running out of cash. The problem is unless they can keep selling Bitcoin eventually their cash goes to zero and they are insolvent. Had MtGOX simply bought and sold Bitcoin and made money off the spread they would not be in this position. However, they probably had many more people wanting to deposit Bitcoins than they could sell. I'm guessing many Bitcoin holders did not realize the counter party risk they we taking on, much like my CDO holders didn't. Now they are learning a lesson on risk and the financial system.
The arbitrage opportunities point to how poorly the Bitcoin markets work. In a liquid, functioning market the arbitrage opportunities would quickly issappear. That they don't tells me it is a lot easier to buy Bitcoin than sell them.
And the effect on the BTC market since then bears that out - The price initially plummeted, but has already stabilized at 2/3rds its previous stable value. If anything, this counted (and still does, IMO) as a great opportunity to get in during a market correction and load up on deeply discounted BTC.
As with any highly speculative investment it could as easily continue to decrease as return to its previous level. The notion that a price drop is a good buy opportunity is incorrect.
The study doesn't "predict death within 5 years" it doesn't even predict death for those with the biomarkers. All it says is people who had higher levels of the biomarkers exhibited a greater risk of dying within 5 years than those with lower levels; according the TFA the study didn't even claim a causal relationship between the markers and a cause of death. Of course, a headline that reads "Study should some people have a higher risk of dying in 5 years than others..." wouldn't be as catchy.
Doesn't the fact that it survives mtgox's collapse without regulation and without any bail outs show that it is more stable than the dollar?
No. It simply shows that as with any highly speculative investment some people will lose a lot of money and most of the world won't give a damn about what they invested in or their loses
Even if they paid everything back but $4000 of an original bit coin loan, that would now be worth the 400 million they are short. Perhaps they also boofed the maliabile ID too at some point, but they would have easily detected that instantly because their total assets would be different that their total liabilities. Unless of course they already had a deficit in assets that was masking that.
Exactly. Bitcoin exchanges are not really exchanges like a stock market exchange. They have take large short positions in Bitcoins that they cannot cover as Bitcoin prices rose. They could, and did, limit withdrawals to try to control cash flow but ultimately that will not be enough. They could simply refuse to cover their position and return all Bitcoins to their owners and go out of business, which would seriously erode the price of Bitcoins. What most exchange users failed to realize was the amount of counter party risk, instead they simply assumed the exchange would act like a real one despite the obvious liquidity problems. As with any speculative bet they lost even though they may not have realized they were in the game.
What means for Bitcoin is until someone solves the liquidity issue Bitcoin will remain a highly speculative bet. Personally I doubt the liquidity issue can be solved.
how can we be sure that an exchange won't be hacked?
Exactly. We can be sure traditional banks won't be hacked because they are regulated by the government appointed banking regulator.
And if they had loose security that somehow the regulators missed and loose billions in wire-fraud? In most countries the government guarantees your funds to a certain extent. So the question becomes, do you trust your government? (or the government in charge of the foreign currency you are storing).
This is the trouble with bit-coin. All currencies are based on faith. Faith that they will hold value (that the government wont print money), faith that they will be accepted for exchange (again, government mandated for most currencies). With bit-coin, to whom do you place your faith?
Interestingly enough one of the most widely held currencies, the US Dollar, while legal tender in the US there is no legal requirement for anyone to accept it as payment. As you rightly point out it is faith in a currency as a store of value and thus that is widely accepted as payment that makes it a viable medium of exchange.
One of the benefits of money is that it's backed up by a social superstructure (police, judiciary, the army, etc.). Bitcoin has none of that. You are on your own.
Yes, and if you don't use it in the way they prefer, then police, the judiciary, and eventually the army will be used to force you to do so, or to punish you for doing otherwise. It's not all wine and roses.
True, but Bitcoin does offer you much protection if it you use it in a way they don't like either; so you get all the downside of counterpart risk with no upside.
'...locate themselves in existing urban communities. Ideally, in blighted ones,'
You mean you want Google to locate its campuses in urban blighted areas (slums). No modern tech company will do that, no one would work for them. It is all about attracting the best and brightest minds. I have a suggestion, why don't you clean up your cities and get rid of the blighted areas and maybe companies will want to locate there.
Or, when they do move in they meet resistance from existing residents that accuse them of ruining the neighborhood by driving up prices and gentrifying it.
Regulatory capture is about PREVENTING public participation so, yes, you are correct up to the point where you ignore that regulatory capture is more about divesting costs onto the public than it is about increasing control over what remains (though they do that too).l
Regulatory capture is about increasing profits by using the regulator to create conditions favorable to the regulated over other potential entrants into the market. after all, profits are the sole reason a for - profit (and some non-profit) corporations exist. While limiting public participation could be a method to do this it is not the goal of regulatory capture. Perhaps the best way they do this is in acting barriers to entry for new entrants. Ultimately, regulators create a less competitive market that allows incumbents to generate greater profits.
That is not to say all regulatory actions benefit the regulated. As for making.docx public, what practical effect has it had? Sure, some municipalities went over to Linux but for every Munich there is another that tried and went back to MS. MS, by virtue of its locking, already has strong barriers to entry that will not be breached until there is a profound shift in the way people view computing; once we move from a desktop centric model to a cloud model there will be opportunities to weaken MS' hold on the market as the OS and desktop tools become less important for compatibility. That, however is not from less regulatory capture but rather creative destruction. Of course, MS may figure out a way to locking the new model as well, but I think that is less likely given the lesser importance of the OS and desktop tools. Of course, we may simply swap MS for Google...
That is an interesting view of regulatory capture, which basically states companies use regulations to limit competition and maintain higher pricing....If, as you claim, regulatory capture defines a country as third world and corrupt the EU would fit that description quite nicely.
Regulatory capture is not restricting 'cream-skimming' low costs, it is restricting "Gristle abandonment".
The USPS, for example, is a burden only because the cheap interCity routes were gobbled up by Fed-Ex and later UPS.
Now remote mail is entirely borne by USPS without the offset of low cost intracity and intercity delivery.
Regulatory capture is when Nuclear Power Plant owners write Nuclear Waste Disposal rules, for instance and yes, the U.S. is worse at public participation than most of the European states.
Regulatory capture is not about public participation but rather how companies use regulations to their benefit and how regualtory agencies come to work to the benefit of the regulated; generally to limit competition and sustain higher profits. I would argue the Europeans take a backseat to no one in this regard; although the US is good at it as well.
No, proper regulation avoids regulatory capture by enacting laws which forbid it. Other countries don't have a problem enacting and enforcing proper regulation while avoiding regulatory capture. It's just the US (along, probably, with various other corrupt third-world regimes) that has this problem.
That is an interesting view of regulatory capture, which basically states companies use regulations to limit competition and maintain higher pricing. If you look at Europe for example, companies were and no doubt still are quite good at it. Airlines for years enjoyed monopoly pricing and even now are trying to stop low cost carriers from invading lucrative routes via regulations. Laws enforcing minimum selling prices results in consumers paying higher prices since more efficinnt companies cannot charge less than a tiny mom and pop. Telecom providers have been able to charge roaming fees despite the cost of carrying such calls is small. France is looking to stop Amazon by regulating what the must charge for books in order to protect existing bookstores. If, as you claim, regulatory capture defines a country as third world and corrupt the EU would fit that description quite nicely.
At the top tier (VP, Pres, CxO), pay should be capped as some (documented) multiplier of the lowest level salary. Bonuses should be tied to company performance. That's it. If the CIO wants to get paid more, he either needs to raise the rates of those below him or improve the performance of the company in some meaningful way.
Not really. Setup the corporate structure so the the C-Suite are figureheads and have the tier below them run the company. Pay the C-Suite a small amount and pay these below them like they do today. Of course, to prevent that you need to cap all pay at multiples based on where they are in the org structure; which means an engineer couldn't make more than a manager.
Slashdot Mirror
the FAA regulates the National Airspace System in which this RC aircraft was flying.
The FAA only gets to regulate objects within the "airspace" within very narrow limits. It has deliberately tried to blur those limits to include RC devices as "aircraft". This judge slapped them down for overreach.
Actually, it appears the judge ruled on a very technical point. The FAA never formally went through the rule making process but rather relied on policy statements to fine the operator. The judge basically said you can't do that. So until the FAA issues the final rules their enforcement ability is in doubt. I say in doubt because another judge could overrule the first one.
One of two possibilities:
1) The FAA does not understand the difference between a drone (which does not require visual contact with the operator to be flown) and a toy airplane (which cannot be controlled out of sight of its operator).
Actually, visual contact is not needed to control a model plane, it's just hard to determine how it is actually responding.
2) The FAA is trying to consolidate more power to government by conveniently misinterpreting the rules to give them the ability to ensnare model airplane owners in a tangled web of onerous regulation and raise more money.
My vote is on #2.
More like the guy was operating in a manner that was irresponsible and they decided to take action. Quite frankly, it's people who operate model a/c in such a manner that makes life difficult for those who enjoy the hobby safely and responsibly, and I am glad to see the FAA take action against irresponsible operators.
this will expedite regulation.
Good. The current regulations are idiotic. Why should buzzing a crowd be okay, but buzzing a crowd FOR PROFIT be illegal? He didn't get in trouble because he was flying recklessly, but because he was trying to earn a living.
No, buzzing a crowd is illegal independent of wether it is for profit or not. My guess is since he was doing it for profit is was easier for the FAA to use that to fine him. No that a judge has said they can't do that they need to decide wether to drop the case, appeal, and or charge him with other violations of the CFR. While some rules may seem, or actually be, idiotic, there needs to controls on how airspace is used to ensure everyone's safety. If he did operate the a/c as described in the article he deserves to be slapped. It's the people who act irresponsibly that result in rules being made that negatively impact all of us who don't.
Typical research at a university involves trying to find out what happens when you do something new. They keep trying until they find something that works or that is interesting. It's fundamental research. Companies typically do more applied research - optimizing things.
At a company, you have to gather 15 signatures before you can start a fundamenal science experiment with unknown outcome. At university, you just go ahead. Companies typically outsource such experiments to universities (or they just pick up on the research after a PhD student put in a few years of good work). It's not the same type of work, so you should not compare the risks. Test pilots also have a higher risk of injury than a commercial pilot.
test pilots also do everything to mitigate the risks. Safety is not about not doing inherently risky things; it's about minimizing those risks. It involves assessing the risks, eliminating them where possible, and taking steps to mitigate those you can't eliminate. It also means ensuring people don't do stupid things like not wear safety gear, work on energized equipment, rather than deenergize it, simply to save time, or take any of the hundreds of other shortcuts on the mistaken belief it can't happen to me. Finally, it means thoroughly investigating and fixing the root causes of minor incidents so bigger ones don't happen.
The difference is that the repo company is using your information commercially, rather similarly to the photographic case, and you're required by law to display your license plate. The body requiring you to do the displaying has a duty of confidentiality toward you, and. for example, may be failing in it by not restricting what commercial entities do with the information.
It's technically a "vexed problem", but not necessarily an insoluble one.
Making it even harder is the question of scale. As Joseph Stalin once said, "quantity has a quality all it's own", a problem the courts have not been very forward in addressing.
--dave Thinking about mostly legalistic issues, although this is really a public policy question. Our lawgivers haven't been terribly forward in addressing those, you understand!
I agree this is really a public policy debate since the scope and depth of information, as well as the ability to retrieve it, has increased greatly as technology advances. I would however, argue the repo case is a different type of commercial use; since their is no implied endorsement by you; unlike if a photographer uses your likeness in a commercial setting. In addition, there really is no duty of confidentiality by the tag office to the tag holder; in fact many sell that information freely.
Generally, a business, such as a repo company, can retain your information during the period in which you're doing business with them. If I were to consent to being scanned, then they could keep the scan only so long as it takes to see if I'm on the list of cars to be repossessed.
Since I haven't consented to the collection of "personal information" ("personally identifying information" in the US), and that information is a regulated government-issued identifier, then there's a case to be made that the repo company variously
I'm not sure that is true as you have no expectation of privacy, or a very limited one, when you are in public. Anyone can read and write down your license plate and note the location, date and time they saw it. The ability to automate such actions doesn't change the fundamental questions of what expectation of privacy due you have in a public place?
Similar logic applies to facial recognition: the right to photograph is stronger, but the right to retain is weaker.
While a photographer may have to get approval to use a person's image commercially, they generally don't to take and keep a picture if you are in a public area. I say "may" and "generally" because there are a patchwork of laws that apply and how you use the photo impacts what releases you need as well.
Open sources scanner software that works with a cheap USB camera and license plate wiki - that stores every scanned tag with number and state data. How fast do you think it would take legislators to decide it was a bad idea and outlaw scanners? Probably a few seconds after one of their own gets asked some embarrassing questions. The best way to fight such privacy threats is to embrace and extend their use to those in power.
So the easiest way would be to set up a fake access point with graphics stolen from Comcast's real site and then collect the usernames/passwords from people who are trying to connect to it.
Then use those to login to other Comcast sites and do whatever evil you want to.
The best part is that the poor person whom you're framing will have a more difficult time clearing his name because the evil activity happening in his name is happening in his city.
Why stop there? Once you have the fake access point you could us sit to gather all kinds of logons, passwords, etc. Or serve up your own ads, randomly drop user connections, etc. It sound sleek an ideal setup for a man in the middle attack with the added bonus if someone calls Comcast they are told it is a real Comcast site and secure.
I never cease to be amazed how often suckers fall for it, even when you mention the LAST scam in the channel they're advertising in.
Having spoken to number of Bitcoin true believers; their argument basically was "Bitcoin is different. None of the real world rules apply to it. You don't understand." followed by an assertion that they were going to get rich.
Which proves the old maxim that you can never go broke underestimating the stupidity of the public; or as a corollary the gullibility.
Ah, but it's in the terms of service. And those have been upheld by the courts.
Which means people who lost money in this are out of luck, because all they really claim is they'll do their best effort but otherwise make no guarantees about their ability to do anything.
In other words, there's zero basis on which to trust them, it's spelled out in the license, and if you trusted them and lost it's caveat emptor.
You might as well ask the wino on the corner to hold onto your money, because he's about as accountable if your money goes missing.
I am not familiar with Canadian law, but if it is similar to US in that you cannot absolve yourself of responsibility for negligence despite any agreement to do so. You can refer to agreements in hopes the other party doesn't press a negligence claim; but if the do you may still be held liable for the results. The questions would be: did you have a duty of care, what would a reasonable person require in terms of care, could you foresee the act and did it cause a loss. Of course, winning and collecting are two different things.
When I was working near asbestos nobody told me that the masks had to be "professionally fitted" so I doubt the journalist knows more than they googled about the topic. However they certainly are uncomfortable especially with safety goggles pushing them down on your nose.
While I am not sure what was meant by "professionally fitted," there is a right and wrong way to wear a mask. They are uncomfortable when fitted for a proper tight seal, and I would not be surprised if many people who have never been shown the proper way to put one on and fit it aid up with them too loose to be of any use because it is more comfortable that way. If you didn't have mask face after taking one off it was too loose.
Sounds just like those stock pump-and-dump spam emails I get. The part you, and most BTC haters don't get? The lack of a "dump" phase. I like BTC more for the philosophy behind it than for the practicality of using it - Much the same as FOSS. If it appreciates in value, hey, I've made a few bucks, not going to complain - Much the same as FOSS saving me from buying Windows/Office/Adobe/etc. And if it loses value because people like you can't stand seeing other people enjoy something new, well, no one can say I didn't do my part to help it along. FWIW, I've taken my own advice here, so feel free to call me whatever you want - I can console myself with the 25-50% gains over the next three months. I don't use BTC primarily for that reason, but I sure as hell won't pass up the opportunity.
This reminds me of the story of the young son of a farmer running to his dad and saying "Pa. I saw Suzi and the new hand in the hayloft unzipping their pants. They're getting ready to pee in the hay." The dad says " Son, your facts are correct but your conclusion is wrong."
There is no dump phase because the market lacks liquidity. You can't simply sell a million dollars of Bitcoin whenever you want. You are forced to ride the market swings with no assurance you can ever cash out your position. Until the market becomes more liquid your gains are illusionary.
Right now, Bitcoin buyers seem to fall into two camps - small users who find it easy to get in and out for transactions they'd prefer not to have easily tracked and speculators who like to think they will eventually become rich "once they whole thing gets worked out. Many seem convinced that Bitcoin will keep appreciating despite the problems to date; on that the jury is still out.
This is like the 4th or 5th exchange that has gone bust, right? Actually more like 18, but MtGox counts as the first major exchange to fail. The rest of those amount to you or I throwing up an "exchange" as our CompSci101 project and then vanishing when they lost their shirts. The loss of MtGox definitely counts as a blow to Bitcoin, but as others will no doubt point out, it had already started "failing" months ago (when you have a good 20% price spread vs the next highest exchange and you don't see arbitrage occurring on a massive scale, you know you have a problem). Any fools with either USD or BTC left in Gox since the beginning of the year (and even before that) pretty much stopped paying attention and deserve what they got.
One of the key problems with MTGox (and perhaps others) is it was not really an exchange like a stock or commodities exchange. An exchange facilitates trades amongst many individual holders of the item being traded, and often has market makers who ensure liquidity, and never hold the actual items themselves. They make money on the spread and other charges, and are insulated from price swings. Bitcoin exchanges that accept deposits are essentially taking a short position in Bitcoin. As a result, they are leaving themselves open to having to cover that position. Unless they have a stack of cash equal to the value of the holdings they will eventually come up short as depositors redeem Bitcoin for cash. A rapid price increase could easily leave them unable to cover the liability they face. Since exchanges limit withdrawals they clearly are trying to manage their cash position to prevent running out of cash. The problem is unless they can keep selling Bitcoin eventually their cash goes to zero and they are insolvent. Had MtGOX simply bought and sold Bitcoin and made money off the spread they would not be in this position. However, they probably had many more people wanting to deposit Bitcoins than they could sell. I'm guessing many Bitcoin holders did not realize the counter party risk they we taking on, much like my CDO holders didn't. Now they are learning a lesson on risk and the financial system.
The arbitrage opportunities point to how poorly the Bitcoin markets work. In a liquid, functioning market the arbitrage opportunities would quickly issappear. That they don't tells me it is a lot easier to buy Bitcoin than sell them.
And the effect on the BTC market since then bears that out - The price initially plummeted, but has already stabilized at 2/3rds its previous stable value. If anything, this counted (and still does, IMO) as a great opportunity to get in during a market correction and load up on deeply discounted BTC.
As with any highly speculative investment it could as easily continue to decrease as return to its previous level. The notion that a price drop is a good buy opportunity is incorrect.
The study doesn't "predict death within 5 years" it doesn't even predict death for those with the biomarkers. All it says is people who had higher levels of the biomarkers exhibited a greater risk of dying within 5 years than those with lower levels; according the TFA the study didn't even claim a causal relationship between the markers and a cause of death. Of course, a headline that reads "Study should some people have a higher risk of dying in 5 years than others..." wouldn't be as catchy.
to please send the letter in French
Doesn't the fact that it survives mtgox's collapse without regulation and without any bail outs show that it is more stable than the dollar?
No. It simply shows that as with any highly speculative investment some people will lose a lot of money and most of the world won't give a damn about what they invested in or their loses
Even if they paid everything back but $4000 of an original bit coin loan, that would now be worth the 400 million they are short. Perhaps they also boofed the maliabile ID too at some point, but they would have easily detected that instantly because their total assets would be different that their total liabilities. Unless of course they already had a deficit in assets that was masking that.
Exactly. Bitcoin exchanges are not really exchanges like a stock market exchange. They have take large short positions in Bitcoins that they cannot cover as Bitcoin prices rose. They could, and did, limit withdrawals to try to control cash flow but ultimately that will not be enough. They could simply refuse to cover their position and return all Bitcoins to their owners and go out of business, which would seriously erode the price of Bitcoins. What most exchange users failed to realize was the amount of counter party risk, instead they simply assumed the exchange would act like a real one despite the obvious liquidity problems. As with any speculative bet they lost even though they may not have realized they were in the game.
What means for Bitcoin is until someone solves the liquidity issue Bitcoin will remain a highly speculative bet. Personally I doubt the liquidity issue can be solved.
how can we be sure that an exchange won't be hacked?
Exactly. We can be sure traditional banks won't be hacked because they are regulated by the government appointed banking regulator.
And if they had loose security that somehow the regulators missed and loose billions in wire-fraud? In most countries the government guarantees your funds to a certain extent. So the question becomes, do you trust your government? (or the government in charge of the foreign currency you are storing).
This is the trouble with bit-coin. All currencies are based on faith. Faith that they will hold value (that the government wont print money), faith that they will be accepted for exchange (again, government mandated for most currencies). With bit-coin, to whom do you place your faith?
Interestingly enough one of the most widely held currencies, the US Dollar, while legal tender in the US there is no legal requirement for anyone to accept it as payment. As you rightly point out it is faith in a currency as a store of value and thus that is widely accepted as payment that makes it a viable medium of exchange.
One of the benefits of money is that it's backed up by a social superstructure (police, judiciary, the army, etc.). Bitcoin has none of that. You are on your own.
Yes, and if you don't use it in the way they prefer, then police, the judiciary, and eventually the army will be used to force you to do so, or to punish you for doing otherwise. It's not all wine and roses.
True, but Bitcoin does offer you much protection if it you use it in a way they don't like either; so you get all the downside of counterpart risk with no upside.
'...locate themselves in existing urban communities. Ideally, in blighted ones,' You mean you want Google to locate its campuses in urban blighted areas (slums). No modern tech company will do that, no one would work for them. It is all about attracting the best and brightest minds. I have a suggestion, why don't you clean up your cities and get rid of the blighted areas and maybe companies will want to locate there.
Or, when they do move in they meet resistance from existing residents that accuse them of ruining the neighborhood by driving up prices and gentrifying it.
Regulatory capture is about PREVENTING public participation so, yes, you are correct up to the point where you ignore that regulatory capture is more about divesting costs onto the public than it is about increasing control over what remains (though they do that too).l
Regulatory capture is about increasing profits by using the regulator to create conditions favorable to the regulated over other potential entrants into the market. after all, profits are the sole reason a for - profit (and some non-profit) corporations exist. While limiting public participation could be a method to do this it is not the goal of regulatory capture. Perhaps the best way they do this is in acting barriers to entry for new entrants. Ultimately, regulators create a less competitive market that allows incumbents to generate greater profits.
That is not to say all regulatory actions benefit the regulated. As for making .docx public, what practical effect has it had? Sure, some municipalities went over to Linux but for every Munich there is another that tried and went back to MS. MS, by virtue of its locking, already has strong barriers to entry that will not be breached until there is a profound shift in the way people view computing; once we move from a desktop centric model to a cloud model there will be opportunities to weaken MS' hold on the market as the OS and desktop tools become less important for compatibility. That, however is not from less regulatory capture but rather creative destruction. Of course, MS may figure out a way to locking the new model as well, but I think that is less likely given the lesser importance of the OS and desktop tools. Of course, we may simply swap MS for Google...
That is an interesting view of regulatory capture, which basically states companies use regulations to limit competition and maintain higher pricing....If, as you claim, regulatory capture defines a country as third world and corrupt the EU would fit that description quite nicely.
Regulatory capture is not restricting 'cream-skimming' low costs, it is restricting "Gristle abandonment". The USPS, for example, is a burden only because the cheap interCity routes were gobbled up by Fed-Ex and later UPS. Now remote mail is entirely borne by USPS without the offset of low cost intracity and intercity delivery. Regulatory capture is when Nuclear Power Plant owners write Nuclear Waste Disposal rules, for instance and yes, the U.S. is worse at public participation than most of the European states.
Regulatory capture is not about public participation but rather how companies use regulations to their benefit and how regualtory agencies come to work to the benefit of the regulated; generally to limit competition and sustain higher profits. I would argue the Europeans take a backseat to no one in this regard; although the US is good at it as well.
No, proper regulation avoids regulatory capture by enacting laws which forbid it. Other countries don't have a problem enacting and enforcing proper regulation while avoiding regulatory capture. It's just the US (along, probably, with various other corrupt third-world regimes) that has this problem.
That is an interesting view of regulatory capture, which basically states companies use regulations to limit competition and maintain higher pricing. If you look at Europe for example, companies were and no doubt still are quite good at it. Airlines for years enjoyed monopoly pricing and even now are trying to stop low cost carriers from invading lucrative routes via regulations. Laws enforcing minimum selling prices results in consumers paying higher prices since more efficinnt companies cannot charge less than a tiny mom and pop. Telecom providers have been able to charge roaming fees despite the cost of carrying such calls is small. France is looking to stop Amazon by regulating what the must charge for books in order to protect existing bookstores. If, as you claim, regulatory capture defines a country as third world and corrupt the EU would fit that description quite nicely.
At the top tier (VP, Pres, CxO), pay should be capped as some (documented) multiplier of the lowest level salary. Bonuses should be tied to company performance. That's it. If the CIO wants to get paid more, he either needs to raise the rates of those below him or improve the performance of the company in some meaningful way.
Not really. Setup the corporate structure so the the C-Suite are figureheads and have the tier below them run the company. Pay the C-Suite a small amount and pay these below them like they do today. Of course, to prevent that you need to cap all pay at multiples based on where they are in the org structure; which means an engineer couldn't make more than a manager.
named Lugosi...