ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521752/Children-incest-cult-living-deformed-mute-Australian-valley.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25458009

Charles Stross želi bitcoinu smrt u ognju:
Why I want Bitcoin to die in a fire

Quote
  Bitcoin just crashed 50% today, on news that the Chinese government has banned local exchanges from accepting deposits in Yuan. BtC was trading over $1000 yesterday; now it's down to $500 and still falling.
Good.
I want Bitcoin to die in a fire: this is a start, but it's not sufficient. Let me give you a round-up below the cut.
   Like all currency systems, Bitcoin comes with an implicit political agenda attached. Decisions we take about how to manage money, taxation, and the economy have consequences: by its consequences you may judge a finance system. Our current global system is pretty crap, but I submit that Bitcoin is worst.
For starters, BtC is inherently deflationary. There is an upper limit on the number of bitcoins that can ever be created ('mined', in the jargon: new bitcoins are created by carrying out mathematical operations which become progressively harder as the bitcoin space is explored—like calculating ever-larger prime numbers, they get further apart). This means the the cost of generating new Bitcoins rises over time, so that the value of Bitcoins rise relative to the available goods and services in the market. Less money chasing stuff; less cash for everybody to spend (as the supply of stuff out-grows the supply of money). Hint: Deflation and Inflation are two very different things; in particular, deflation is not the opposite of inflation (although you can't have both deflation and inflation simultaneously—you get one disease or the other).
Bitcoin is designed to be verifiable (forgery-resistant) but pretty much untraceable, and very easy to hide. Easier than a bunch of gold coins, anyway. And easier to ship to the opposite side of the planet at the push of a button.
Libertarians love it because it pushes the same buttons as their gold fetish and it doesn't look like a "Fiat currency". You can visualize it as some kind of scarce precious data resource, sort of a digital equivalent of gold. Nation-states don't control the supply of it, so it promises to bypass central banks.
But there are a number of huge down-sides. Here's a link-farm to the high points:
Mining BtC has a carbon footprint from hell (as they get more computationally expensive to generate, electricity consumption soars). This essay has some questionable numbers, but the underlying principle is sound.
Bitcoin mining software is now being distributed as malware because using someone else's computer to mine BitCoins is easier than buying a farm of your own mining hardware.
Bitcoin violates Gresham's law: Stolen electricity will drive out honest mining. (So the greatest benefits accrue to the most ruthless criminals.)
Bitcoin's utter lack of regulation permits really hideous markets to emerge, in commodities like assassination (and drugs and child pornography).
It's also inherently damaging to the fabric of civil society. You think our wonderful investment bankers aren't paying their fair share of taxes? Bitcoin is pretty much designed for tax evasion. Moreover, The Gini coefficient of the Bitcoin economy is ghastly, and getting worse, to an extent that makes a sub-Saharan African kleptocracy look like a socialist utopia, and the "if this goes on" linear extrapolations imply that BtC will badly damage stable governance, not to mention redistributive taxation systems and social security/pension nets if its value continues to soar (as it seems designed to do due to its deflationary properties).
To editorialize briefly, BitCoin looks like it was designed as a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks, with a Libertarian political agenda in mind—to damage states ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens financial transactions. Which is fine if you're a Libertarian, but I tend to take the stance that Libertarianism is like Leninism: a fascinating, internally consistent political theory with some good underlying points that, regrettably, makes prescriptions about how to run human society that can only work if we replace real messy human beings with frictionless spherical humanoids of uniform density (because it relies on simplifying assumptions about human behaviour which are unfortunately wrong).
TL:DR; the current banking industry and late-period capitalism may suck, but replacing it with Bitcoin would be like swapping out a hangnail for Fournier's gangrene. ([size=-1]NSFL danger: do not click that link[/size])
   

Ne rayumem se u bitkoin, ali mi je razumljivo ovo:



Our current global system is pretty crap,

elem, ne znam gde bi ovo bilo najprikladnije, ali računam da je dovoljno razumno da fituje na razne topike:






Bertrand Russell's Ten Commandments for Living in a Healthy Democracy







Bertrand Russell saw the history of civilization as being shaped by an unfortunate oscillation between two opposing evils: tyranny and anarchy, each of which contain the seed of the other. The best course for steering clear of either one, Russell maintained, is liberalism.

"The doctrine of liberalism is an attempt to escape from this endless oscillation," writes Russell in A History of Western Philosophy. "The essence of liberalism is an attempt to secure a social order not based on irrational dogma [a feature of tyranny], and insuring stability [which anarchy undermines] without involving more restraints than are necessary for the preservation of the community."

In 1951 Russell published an article in The New York Times Magazine, "The Best Answer to Fanaticism–Liberalism," with the subtitle: "Its calm search for truth, viewed as dangerous in many places, remains the hope of humanity." In the article, Russell writes that "Liberalism is not so much a creed as a disposition. It is, indeed, opposed to creeds." He continues:



But the liberal attitude does not say that you should oppose authority. It says only that you should be free to oppose authority, which is quite a different thing. The essence of the liberal outlook in the intellectual sphere is a belief that unbiased discussion is a useful thing and that men should be free to question anything if they can support their questioning by solid arguments. The opposite view, which is maintained by those who cannot be called liberals, is that the truth is already known, and that to question it is necessarily subversive.
Russell criticizes the radical who would advocate change at any cost. Echoing the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke, who had a profound influence on the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, Russell writes:



The teacher who urges doctrines subversive to existing authority does not, if he is a liberal, advocate the establishment of a new authority even more tyrannical than the old. He advocates certain limits to the exercise of authority, and he wishes these limits to be observed not only when the authority would support a creed with which he disagrees but also when it would support one with which he is in complete agreement. I am, for my part, a believer in democracy, but I do not like a regime which makes belief in democracy compulsory.

Russell concludes the New York Times piece by offering a "new decalogue" with advice on how to live one's life in the spirit of liberalism. "The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows," he says:

1: Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.

2: Do not think it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.

3: Never try to discourage thinking, for you are sure to succeed.

4: When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.


5: Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.


6: Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.


7: Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.


8: Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.


9: Be scrupulously truthful, even when truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.


10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.

http://www.openculture.com/2013/03/bertrand_russells_ten_commandments_for_living_in_a_healthy_democracy.html

Danas je zaista lako sebi napakovati otkaz.... To je valjda taj osetljivi istorijski trenutak: visokorangirani službenici korporacija i drugih organizacija praktično moraju da imaju tviter naloge jer se očekuje da sa svetom komuniciraju u poluneformalnom maniru, kako bi mu se pokazalo to neko ljucko lice itd., međutim kad svet vidi da uistinu ispoljavate ljucke karakteristike (među kojima je i ona da se zatrčite pa napišete nešto što možda niste baš najbolje promislili), korporacija to ne prašta... Kejs in point: direktorka InterActive Corp. je pred put u Afriku napisala na tviteru da ide u Afriku i da se nada da neće dobiti AIDS, pa dodala da se zeza, jer je belkinja. I sad, ovo je nešto što nije ni preterasno pametno ni preterano duhovito ali bi svako od nas mogao sebe da zamisli kako u nekom momentu kaže nešto slično u kafani. No, kad se to pojavi na tviteru... slede otkazi i javna izvinjavanja. Plus, zaista se pitam šta se dešava kad osoba koja je bila predmet te vrste internet-kontroverze krene da traži novi posao. Čak i da ne znaju ko je ona, jedna gugl pretraga će na vrh izbaciti pre svega ovo a ne njene poslovne uspehe....


Justine Sacco, Fired After Tweet on AIDS in Africa, Issues Apology

QuoteThe communications director fired over a tweet evoking AIDS and race that was sent as she was headed to Africa apologized today, saying she is "ashamed" for her insensitivity to the millions of people living with the virus.
Justine Sacco, formerly a PR executive for the Internet giant InterActive Corp., which owns popular websites like Match.com, Dictionary.com, and Vimeo, was fired over a tweet that came from her account on Friday that read: "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!"
Controversy erupted while Sacco was reportedly mid-flight with no Internet access. Today Sacco spoke to ABC News, saying, "My greatest concern was this statement reach South Africa first." After sending her statement to South African newspaper The Star, Sacco shared the following apology:
"Words cannot express how sorry I am, and how necessary it is for me to apologize to the people of South Africa, who I have offended due to a needless and careless tweet," Sacco said. "There is an AIDS crisis taking place in this country, that we read about in America, but do not live with or face on a continuous basis. Unfortunately, it is terribly easy to be cavalier about an epidemic that one has never witnessed firsthand.
"For being insensitive to this crisis -- which does not discriminate by race, gender or sexual orientation, but which terrifies us all uniformly -- and to the millions of people living with the virus, I am ashamed.
"This is my father's country, and I was born here. I cherish my ties to South Africa and my frequent visits, but I am in anguish knowing that my remarks have caused pain to so many people here; my family, friends and fellow South Africans. I am very sorry for the pain I caused."
Woman Fired After Tweet on AIDS in Africa Sparks Internet Outrage. Read more.
A trending hashtag #HasJustineLandedYet and parody account @LOLJustineSacco quickly appeared on Twitter after Sacco sent the tweet. A fake Facebook account under her name was also created, where a post links to www.justinesacco.com, which brings up a donation page for Aid for Africa.
InterActive Corp issued a statement to ABC News Saturday distancing itself from the tweet and saying the employee was fired.
"There is no excuse for the hateful statements that have been made and we condemn them unequivocally," the InterActive Corp statement said. "We hope, however, that time and action, and the forgiving human spirit, will not result in the wholesale condemnation of an individual who we have otherwise known to be a decent person at core."
Also Read

Postavlja se pitanje kako takvi kreteni dospeju na takva radna mesta?

uverljivo lazu? niko ih ne pita?

Pa, zapravo, rekao bih da je više stvar u tome da savremena korporacijska kultura - pored toga što ima nezdravu naklonost ljudima koji od kvaliteta imaju MBA diplome i sposobnost da pričaju u buzzwordsima - ljude uteruje u kretensko ponašanje time što ih gura u vode socijalnih mreža (jer tu se nalazi narod, pa mu se mora iskazati bliskost) ali ih onda intenzivno kaštiguje za stvari koje naprosto nisu strašne ali su neizbrisive jer živimo u vremenu instantne i ireverzibilne komunikacije... Kraće rečeno, svako ima momenat kad ispadne kreten, ali sad taj momenat više nikada neće proći.

Javne ličnosti su stalno kukale zbog paparaca i kamera, i jadikovale što ne mogu ni da se počešu po dupetu, a da to neko ne snimi. Sad je samo povećana populacija javnih ličnosti, a to po meni znači da će samo prag nedopustivosti gafova biti povišen. Ostali gafovi će se utopiti u moru ostalih nepotrebnih informacija preko kojih preletimo u roku od sekunde.

stara priča

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon

Ah, ali ovo je prefinjeniji koncept od panoptikona jer je iznađen način da ljudi voljno sami sebe potkazuju.

samo je masovniji fenomen

prije 200 godina samo Kazanova se ispovjedao pred svima, dok drugi nisu objavljivali svoje dnevnike, ali princip javnosti već je postojao - ponašaš se kao da te stalno posmatraju i da svi (trebaju da) znaju šta radiš

sada svi mogu da objelodane sve, čekamo još kakenje i piškenje starleta i fudbalera

u tom smislu nije se ništa promijenilo, ali je intenzivnije nego ranije

Britanci najavljuju da će oduzimati državljanstvo svojim građanima koji su otišli da se bore na strani "džihadista" u Siriji.

Pitam se da li naše zakonodavstvo daje mogućnost da izvršna vlast učini nešto slično sa našim građanima koji se na sličan način angažuju u istom kontekstu... Verovatno ne. Mada, znajući da bi oduzimanje državljanstva izvesnom Živoradu Jovanoviću zbog borbe na strani anarho-komunističkih bandi sprečilo podizanje komunističke revolucije u Srbiji a time i Jugoslaviji a time i odmazde naših nemačkih prijatelja i nesrećnih streljanja sto za jednoga itd., ne bi bilo glupo da smo napravili takav mehanizam 

Htedoh samo da pitam Mehu: zar ovakve stvari nisu zabranjene nekim međunarodnim konvencijama, kojih se jelte V. Britanija pridržava?

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/PressPolicy/News/vw/1/ItemID/201

For the first time this Christmas, people in prison will not be able to receive parcels from their loved ones under petty and mean new rules introduced by the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling.

The new rules, which forbid prisoners from receiving any items in the post unless there are exceptional circumstances, were introduced in November as part of the government's changes to the Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme.

Under the rules, families are prevented from sending in basic items of stationery such as cards, paper or pens to help people in prison keep in touch with their friends and families and wish them a happy Christmas. They are also prevented from sending books and magazines or additional warm clothes and underwear to the prison. Instead people in prison are now forced to pay for these items out of their meagre prison wages to private companies who make a profit from selling goods to prisoners.

The new rules will add to the loneliness and isolation felt by many of the 84,500 people held behind bars in England and Wales. Christmas can be a difficult time for people in prison, held far away from their children, families and friends, often in bleak and overcrowded conditions. The rules will also add to the distress of the 200,000 children in England and Wales who are estimated to have a parent in prison.

While concerns about security are understandable and it is important to have consistent policies across the prison estate, it is also vital that prison policies do not undermine the importance of family contact and rehabilitation or the safe and decent treatment of people in prison.

Since the introduction of the scheme in November the Prison Reform Trust's advice and information service has responded to over 100 prisoners concerned about its impact on them and their families.

The Prison Reform Trust has been contacted by women prisoners who cannot get hold of enough clean underwear to keep them hygienic during their period. The Ministry of Justice has introduced a fixed limit to the number of items of underwear which men and women may have in their cells, as well as placing restrictions on other items of clothing.

The advice team has also been contacted by many elderly and disabled prisoners who are unable to work and cannot earn enough money to pay for items such as stationery or things to keep them occupied during the long periods of time they are locked in their cells. Previously the families of these prisoners could have sent them a pack of cards, board games, books or magazines to give them something to do. Prisoners are now forced to pay for these items or obtain them from under-resourced prison libraries.

Rates of pay for those working average around £10 a week and can be as little as £2.50 a week for a prisoner who is unable to work - out of which they must pay for phone calls, TV rental, stationery, reading material and any additional food, clothes and toiletries they may need. It costs 20p a minute to call a mobile from a prison phone during the week; and 9p a minute to phone a landline.

The advice team has also heard from prisoners working outside in the community on release on temporary licence, but who are not able to get hold of enough clothes to keep them warm during the cold winter weather. One woman prisoner said:

"I ... have a thick padded jacket which is brown and I am being told this will no longer be allowed. I cannot afford to buy a new coat as I only earn £12 a week as it is. This is not just me but other women who go out to work. Some work in London and will have the same clothes day in and out. Surely if we are working towards and maintaining all our goals we are entitled to a bit of leeway?"

Under the new rules the prison governor's discretion is limited but it is up to individual governors to decide what counts as exceptional. Items allowed could include disability or health aids, items needed for religious observance, stamped addressed envelopes or replacement clothes where there is limited or restricted access to the laundry. The impact of these new rules is being monitored by Ministry of Justice officials responsible for safer custody and ongoing work to reduce self-harm and suicide in prison.

Commenting, Juliet Lyon, Director of the Prison Reform Trust, said:

"These new mean and petty prison rules just add stress and strain while doing nothing to promote rehabilitation and personal responsibility."




EDIT: Ovo naročito priziva "16 tons": [size=78%]Instead people in prison are now forced to pay for these items out of their meagre prison wages to private companies who make a profit from selling goods to prisoners.[/size]

Ja ne znam da postoji ikakva međunarodna konvencija koja se tiče civilnih zatvorenika. Ženevske konvencije se tiču ratnih zarobljenika i to je to.

Eventualno ovde igra univerzalna deklaracija o ljuckim pravima, ona se bavi između ostalog i pitanjima slobode i tretmana zatvorenika ali u širokim, načelnim potezima pa mislim da se restrikcija u domenu poklona koji se daju zatvorenicima ne može podvesti pod torturu ili nehumano postupanje.

Quote from: scallop on 23-12-2013, 14:22:12
Postavlja se pitanje kako takvi kreteni dospeju na takva radna mesta?

Заправо је питање какве везе професионални квалитети и учинак на раду имају везе с јавним изношењем своје верзије хумора, неке данашње "зломисли" или било чега што се коси с тоталитарном идеологијом политичке коректности.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 23-12-2013, 13:23:05
Danas je zaista lako sebi napakovati otkaz.... To je valjda taj osetljivi istorijski trenutak: visokorangirani službenici korporacija i drugih organizacija praktično moraju da imaju tviter naloge jer se očekuje da sa svetom komuniciraju u poluneformalnom maniru, kako bi mu se pokazalo to neko ljucko lice itd., međutim kad svet vidi da uistinu ispoljavate ljucke karakteristike (među kojima je i ona da se zatrčite pa napišete nešto što možda niste baš najbolje promislili), korporacija to ne prašta... Kejs in point: direktorka InterActive Corp. je pred put u Afriku napisala na tviteru da ide u Afriku i da se nada da neće dobiti AIDS, pa dodala da se zeza, jer je belkinja. I sad, ovo je nešto što nije ni preterasno pametno ni preterano duhovito ali bi svako od nas mogao sebe da zamisli kako u nekom momentu kaže nešto slično u kafani. No, kad se to pojavi na tviteru... slede otkazi i javna izvinjavanja. Plus, zaista se pitam šta se dešava kad osoba koja je bila predmet te vrste internet-kontroverze krene da traži novi posao. Čak i da ne znaju ko je ona, jedna gugl pretraga će na vrh izbaciti pre svega ovo a ne njene poslovne uspehe....


Justine Sacco, Fired After Tweet on AIDS in Africa, Issues Apology

QuoteThe communications director fired over a tweet evoking AIDS and race that was sent as she was headed to Africa apologized today, saying she is "ashamed" for her insensitivity to the millions of people living with the virus.
Justine Sacco, formerly a PR executive for the Internet giant InterActive Corp., which owns popular websites like Match.com, Dictionary.com, and Vimeo, was fired over a tweet that came from her account on Friday that read: "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!"
Controversy erupted while Sacco was reportedly mid-flight with no Internet access. Today Sacco spoke to ABC News, saying, "My greatest concern was this statement reach South Africa first." After sending her statement to South African newspaper The Star, Sacco shared the following apology:
"Words cannot express how sorry I am, and how necessary it is for me to apologize to the people of South Africa, who I have offended due to a needless and careless tweet," Sacco said. "There is an AIDS crisis taking place in this country, that we read about in America, but do not live with or face on a continuous basis. Unfortunately, it is terribly easy to be cavalier about an epidemic that one has never witnessed firsthand.
"For being insensitive to this crisis -- which does not discriminate by race, gender or sexual orientation, but which terrifies us all uniformly -- and to the millions of people living with the virus, I am ashamed.
"This is my father's country, and I was born here. I cherish my ties to South Africa and my frequent visits, but I am in anguish knowing that my remarks have caused pain to so many people here; my family, friends and fellow South Africans. I am very sorry for the pain I caused."
Woman Fired After Tweet on AIDS in Africa Sparks Internet Outrage. Read more.
A trending hashtag #HasJustineLandedYet and parody account @LOLJustineSacco quickly appeared on Twitter after Sacco sent the tweet. A fake Facebook account under her name was also created, where a post links to www.justinesacco.com, which brings up a donation page for Aid for Africa.
InterActive Corp issued a statement to ABC News Saturday distancing itself from the tweet and saying the employee was fired.
"There is no excuse for the hateful statements that have been made and we condemn them unequivocally," the InterActive Corp statement said. "We hope, however, that time and action, and the forgiving human spirit, will not result in the wholesale condemnation of an individual who we have otherwise known to be a decent person at core."
Also Read

Evo šta Forbsov autor misli o celom slučaju. To da ljude neizmerno zabavlja kada drugi ljudi naprave pogrešnu procenu i onda im se ceo svet popne na grbaču.


Justine Sacco, Internet Justice, And The Dangers Of A Righteous Mob

Quote

At no point in history has it been this easy to destroy your entire life so quickly in such few words. As the saga of InterActiveCorp PR Executive Justine Sacco on Friday showed, if you end up on the wrong side of public opinion on the internet, your reputation will be thoroughly destroyed... and you may not even have a chance to respond until its already over. A type of justice has been served, yet we should not rejoice in what has happened here – we've set a dangerous precedent for how people can be treated when we find their predicament to be amusing.
For the rest of the world that wasn't paying attention, what happened is quite simple: a PR executive at a large technology company tweeted something incredibly racist and awful before boarding a long flight.  Her comment went ignored until it was posted on Valleywag.  From there, it was picked up by all the major tech blogs, and within a few hours, there were detailed pieces on The New York Times and CNN websites explaining her behavior and her employer's shocked response.  However, it didn't end there — because she was mid-air and unable to respond the entire time, the story drew hordes of people who marveled at the circumstances, stupidity, and irony of her situation.
When she finally did land and turn on her phone, she was informed of her new reality: she was a trending target.


She received tens of thousands of angry tweets while being condemned by major media outlets, and there was even a brand that tried to cash in on her downfall. And of course, she was fired from her job. It's easy not to feel sorry for her, she went out of her way to create this scandal. She's apologized now, but nobody seems to care much. We were outraged, then we laughed; everyone watched joyfully as her life fall apart in a few hours. But in reality, she was just a passing thought to us. We won't remember her name in a few weeks even though her undoing will be cataloged on Google forever.
So what exactly was the injustice that everyone was fighting against here?
There were no pro-Sacco factions, nobody thought her comment was funny, and it became clear early on that her employers were not going to put up with this. It was quite easy for groups to unite against her precisely because it was such an obviously idiotic comment to make. By the time Valleywag had posted her tweet, the damage to her career was already done; there wasn't any "need" for further action by anyone. The answer is a bit darker — this wasn't really about fairness, it was about entertainment.
It was unsettling for me to watch my Twitter feed full of professionals I admire and respect join in on the fun.  Their actions were largely harmless, but we are all setting the standard for how people will be treated when we don't like something they've said online.  In this case, it doesn't appear that Sacco was hacked, but if she had been, the reputational damage from viral outrage could have been too much to overcome.  Shaming and criticism on the internet is nothing new; but the intensity of internet "mobs" and the severity of collective punishment is taking a disturbing direction.  We can look at the examples of "human-flesh search engines" in China to see what can go wrong when masses on the internet decide to administer justice based on their moral beliefs.
In a way, is this not just a lighter, more controlled, safer version of the ugliness that led to crowdsourced investigations following the Boston bombing? Is the fact that other Twitter users made threats to harm and kill her now just an expected part of "internet justice" that we should ignore? And are we not just legitimizing types of behavior that in other contexts we would consider to be "trolling"?
Sacco's comment was terrible and indefensible, but there is no shortage of offensive things said frequently in public across the internet. Just as we've enjoyed watching the lives of celebrities and politicians rise and fall, we now extend the same courtesy to internet micro-celebrities, whether they want the attention or not. We've "democratized" witch-hunts; a paparazzi is nothing compared to the digitally-empowered righteous mob. The next Sacco might not be such a clear case and instead of pointing and laughing now, we'd be better served by analyzing how best to react to similar cases in the future.

Uzgred, evo, neko se potrudio da pročešlja njenu celu tviter istoriju i izdvojio najsočnije tvitove. I sad, ako četiri godine pišete ovakve stvari i ništa ružno vam se ne dogodi jer se valjda sve podvodi pod crni humor i sarkazam itd., onda stvarno ne očekujete da će još jedan sličan tvit da vam poruši karijeru i život...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jenvesp/16-tweets-justine-sacco-regrets-hxg7

A Alan Turing konačno rehabilitovan/ pomilovan posle šezdeset godina...

http://cryptome.org/2013/12/turing-pardon.pdf

Goldi Abrahamson možda u zadnjem džepu ima švedski pasoš, ali u grudima ponosito kuca balkansko srce:

Ibrahimovic: Men deserve more respect than women

Quote
The Sweden captain spoke out after his country's FA was slammed for presenting midfielder Anders Svensson with a new Volvo for breaking Thomas Ravelli's record of 143 international caps.
However, when women's midfielder Therese Sjogran failed to get similar recognition at the same football gala despite earning a record 187 caps, the move was widely criticised.
"With all respect for what the ladies have done, and they've done it fantastically well, you can't compare men's and women's football. Give it up, it's not even funny," the Paris Saint Germain striker said in an interview with the Expressen newspaper published on Wednesday.
"When I come out in Europe they compare me to (Lionel) Messi and (Cristiano) Ronaldo. When I come home they compare me to a female player.
"With all respect for the ladies, they should be rewarded in relation to what they generate (financially).
"I was asked (by Swedish media) in the summer who was the better player, me or (Sweden striker) Lotta Schelin.
"You're joking with me, right? When I've broken all these records, this goal record, the goals in the national team, who shall I compare it to? Shall I compare it to whoever has the record, or the ladies?"
Sweden prides itself on gender equality but, while the women's national team is more successful than the male equivalent, men's football gets bigger crowds and support.

Човјек је потпуно у праву. Мада очекујем салву идиотских напада суманутих либерала који немају појма са спортом.

Meni je ovo bio zanimljiv clanak, pa da ga podelim,
iako neke teorije (vezane za ratove) ne predstavljaju iznenadjenje,
a ni utehu nastradalima.

QuoteOvo su teorije zavere koje su se pokazale istinitim

1. Američko ministarstvo finansija otrovalo je alkohol tokom prohibicije – zbog čega su ljudi umrli.
2. Američka služba za javno zdravstvo lagala je o lečenju crnaca zaraženih sifilisom više od 40 godina.
3. Više od 100 miliona Amerikanaca primilo je vakcinu protiv dečje paralize koja je bila kontaminirana potencijalno kancerogenim virusom.
4. Neki događaji vezani za incident u zalivu Tonkin, koji je doveo do američke intervencije u Vijetnamu, nikada se nisu dogodili, piše Business Insider.
5. Američki vojne vođe planirale su teroristički napad u SAD kako bi dobili podršku za napad na Kubu.
6. Američka vlada testirala je učinak LSD-a na američkim i kanadskim državljanima.
7. Godine 1974, CIA je potajno s dna Tihog okeana na površinu izvukla potonulu sovjetsku podmornicu naoružanu sa tri nuklearna projektila.
8. Američka vlada prodavala je oružje Iranu kršeći embargo, i tim je novcem finansirala militante u Nikaragvi.
9. Kompanija za odnose s javnošću organizovala je svedočenje pred Kongresom kako bi se ubrzala američka umešanost u Zalivski rat.

B92: Ovo su teorije zavere koje su se pokazale istinitim

a #5 miriše na Osamu

Ne znam baš da li se broj tri da nazvati teorijom zavere s obzirom da je virus SV40 identifikovan 1960. godine a vakcine su davane od 1951. Nakon testiranja i ponovljenih testiranja, od 1963. Amerikanci dobijaju čiste vakcine.

Međutim, ono što se ne pominje u ovom tekstu je avaj: 2004. godine je predstavljeno istraživanje koje pokazuje da su i posle 1963. u SSSR, Africi i Japanu stotine miliona ljudi dobile istu kontaminiranu vakcinu... i dobijale je na nekim mestima sve do 1980. godine. Tu već može da se priča o nekakvoj zaveri.

Ovo ostalo se avaj uglavnom zna i sramotno je. Pogotovo Tuskagee eksperiment sa proučavanjem sifilisa kod Afroamerikanaca kojima je govoreno da dobijaju besplatnu zdravstvenu negu a zapravo su bili samo posmatrani... Da ne pominjemo da je ovo trajalo do 1972. godine...

Јадни смо, ово само код нас може да се д...

Blic: Građane 68 zemalja su pitali koja država je najveća pretnja miru. Odgovor će mnoge iznenaditi

Cuj, iznenaditi! 

Tako mali procenat? Pogledaj kako se kotiraju kod nas.

Vala ja sam ocekivao mnogo manji procenat na globalnom nivou,
verovatno zato sto sam jednom prilikom naisao na informaciju - zastava koje drzave je najvise puta javno zapaljena!?

Iako sam tad ocekivao da je americka, ipak nije (zaboravih cija bese).

Verovatno izraelska.

Edit: ne, nego Azerbejdžan. Ne znam samo zašto. Mislim da su ovi brojevi pomalo sumanuti.

QuoteNekih 50 žena, koje su zaposlene u klubu, su izletele iz striptiz kluba, dok su ih građani jurili sa bičevima.

Na sminku se takođe vidi kako građani teraju zaposlene da rade sklekove. Oni su najavili da će biti još ovakvih akcija.

Blic: Besni građani upali u striptiz klub, šibali i tukli na desetine prostitutki (Video)

Vlasnik kluba je izgleda postedjen...

A i klijentela. Nego uvek najebe proleterska sirotinja 

Kolko se secam, kad je hodo po zemlji, Dziz'z je uzo motku i jedino polupo trgovce ispred i u hramu...
Ove 'moralne' impotentne debilcine uzeli da tuku jadne devojke umesto da udrve alatke na politicare i popove koji voze mecke i kite se kajlama.

Da ste na vreme uzeli norveško državljanstvo, danas biste i vi bili milijunaš. Doduše u krunama, ali šta bi vam falilo?

All Norwegians become crown millionaires, in oil saving landmark

Quote
OSLO (Reuters) - Everyone in Norway became a theoretical crown millionaire on Wednesday in a milestone for the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund that has ballooned thanks to high oil and gas prices.
Set up in 1990, the fund owns around 1 percent of the world's stocks, as well as bonds and real estate from London to Boston, making the Nordic nation an exception when others are struggling under a mountain of debts.
A preliminary counter on the website of the central bank, which manages the fund, rose to 5.11 trillion crowns ($828.66 billion), fractionally more than a million times Norway's most recent official population estimate of 5,096,300.
It was the first time it reached the equivalent of a million crowns each, central bank spokesman Thomas Sevang said.
Not that Norwegians will be able to access or spend the money, squirreled away for a rainy day for them and future generations. Norway has resisted the temptation to splurge all the windfall since striking oil in the North Sea in 1969.
Finance Minister Siv Jensen told Reuters the fund, called the Government Pension Fund Global, had helped iron out big, unpredictable swings in oil and gas prices. Norway is the world's number seven oil exporter.
"Many countries have found that temporary large revenues from natural resource exploitation produce relatively short-lived booms that are followed by difficult adjustments," she said in an email.
The fund, equivalent to 183 percent of 2013 gross domestic product, is expected to peak at 220 percent around 2030.
"The fund is a success in the sense that parliament has managed to put aside money for the future. There are many examples of countries that have mot managed that," said Oeystein Doerum, chief economist at DNB Markets.
Norway has sought to avoid the boom and bust cycle by investing the cash abroad, rather than at home. Governments can spend 4 percent of the fund in Norway each year, slightly more than the annual return on investment.
Still, in Norway, oil wealth may have made the state reluctant to make reforms or cut subsidies unthinkable elsewhere. Farm subsidies allow farmers, for instance, to keep dairy cows in heated barns in the Arctic.
It may also have made some Norwegians reluctant to work. "One in five people of working age receives some kind of social insurance instead of working," Doerum said, despite an official unemployment rate of 3.3 percent.
(Reporting by Alister Doyle; Editing by Alison Williams)

Ovo je moglo i na neku od tema u delu foruma koji se bavi tehnologijama i naukom, ali kako smo pre neki dan mali opširnu raspravu o neoliberalnoj doktrini, maksimizaciji profita i odnosnim socijalnm efektima na drugoj temi u ovom potforumu, onda mi je nekako ovde primereno mesto za tekst koji pita koliko je povećanje efikasnosti rada - nekada doživljavao kao vrednost po sebi - zapravo donelo socijalno korisnih efekata, odnosno da li moderni ludistički strah ima osnova jer automatizacija zatvara mnoga radna mesta a ne otvara dovoljno novih, dok srednjoj klasi pada kupovna moć a vlasnicima kapitala uvećava bogactvo, dok digitalizacija briše mnoge dosadašnje socijalne norme a centri moći ne uspostavljaju nove, pravične. Njujork Tajmz:



Will Digital Networks Ruin Us?

Quote

The most important book I read in 2013 was Jaron Lanier's "Who Owns the Future?" Though it was published in May, I came to it late in the year. But this turned out to be fortuitous timing. With unemployment seemingly stalled out at around 7 percent in the aftermath of the Great Recession, with the leak of thousands of National Security Agency documents making news almost daily, with the continuing stories about the erosion of privacy in the digital economy, "Who Owns the Future?" puts forth a kind of universal theory that ties all these things together. It also puts forth some provocative, unconventional ideas for ensuring that the inevitable dominance of software in every corner of society will be healthy instead of harmful.
Lanier has an unusual authority to criticize the digital economy: He was there, more or less, at the creation. Among (many) other things, he founded the first company to sell virtual reality products. Another of his start-ups was sold to Google. As a consultant, he has had assignments with "Wal-Mart, Fannie Mae, major banks and hedge funds," as he notes in "Who Owns the Future?" But unlike most of his fellow technologists, he eventually came to feel that the rise of digital networks was no panacea.
On the contrary: "What I came away with from having access to these varied worlds was a realization that they were all remarkably similar," he writes. "The big players often gained benefits from digital networks to an amazing degree, but they were also constrained, even imprisoned, by the same dynamics."
Over time, the same network efficiencies that had given them their great advantages would become the instrument of their failures. In the financial services industry, it led to the financial crisis. In the case of Wal-Mart, its adoption of technology to manage its supply chain at first reaped great benefits, but over time it cost competitors and suppliers hundreds of thousands of jobs, thus "gradually impoverishing its own customer base," as Lanier put it to me.



The N.S.A.? It developed computer technology that could monitor the entire world — and, in the process, lost control of the contractors it employed. As for Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon et al., well, in Lanier's view, it's only a matter of time before their advantages, too, disintegrate.
There are two additional components to Lanier's thesis. The first is that the digital economy has done as much as any single thing to hollow out the middle class. (When I asked him about the effect of globalization, he said that globalization was "just one form of network efficiency." See what I mean about a universal theory?) His great example here is Kodak and Instagram. At its height, writes Lanier "Kodak employed more than 140,000 people." Yes, Kodak made plenty of mistakes, but look at what is replacing it: "When Instagram was sold to Facebook for a billion dollars in 2012, it employed only 13 people."
Which leads nicely to Lanier's final big point: that the value of these new companies comes from us. "Instagram isn't worth a billion dollars just because those 13 employees are extraordinary," he writes. "Instead, its value comes from the millions of users who contribute to the network without being paid for it." He adds, "Networks need a great number of people to participate in them to generate significant value. But when they have them, only a small number of people get paid. This has the net effect of centralizing wealth and limiting overall economic growth." Thus, in Lanier's view, is income inequality also partly a consequence of the digital economy.


It is Lanier's radical idea that people should get paid whenever their information is used. He envisions a different kind of digital economy, in which creators of content — whether a blog post or a Facebook photograph — would receive micropayments whenever that content was used. A digital economy that appears to give things away for free — in return for being able to invade the privacy of its customers for commercial gain — isn't free at all, he argues.





Lanier's ideas raise as many questions as they answer, and he makes no pretense to having it all figured out. "I know some of this will turn out to be wrong," he told me. "But I just don't know which part."
Still his ideas about reformulating the economy — creating what he calls a "humanistic economy" — offer much food for thought. Lanier wants to create a dynamic where digital networks expand the pie rather than shrink it, and rebuild the middle class instead of destroying it.
"If Google and Facebook were smart," he said, "they would want to enrich their own customers." So far, he adds, Silicon Valley has made "the stupid choice" — to grow their businesses at the expense of their own customers.
Lanier's message is that it can't last. And it won't.

Word

ko bi reko čuda da se ne dese

najjače kad im je jedan tip još osamdesetih rekao da će se ovo desiti

eo sad iskopah Beniger - Control Revolution, izdat 1986!

ima još jedan dobar pored Laniera - Tim Wu

Zanimljiv deo Lanierove teze (koju, hitam da dodam, shvatam samo iz ovog teksta, nisam čitao knjigu) je taj da je rešenje u redistribuciji vrednosti koja bi bila pravičnija utoliko što umesto da favorizuje vlasnika kapitala (Marka Cakerberga, vlasnika platforme na kojoj ste objavili tu smešnu sliku mace kako grli plišanog medu), pravično deli dobit sa autorima sadržaja u nekoj razumnoj proporciji. Drugim rečima, Fejsbuk dobija deo novca generisanog korišćenjem vaše fotografije (metrika valjda ide otprilike tako što je vašu fotku videlo ili lajkovalo toliko i toliko ljudi koji su onda prezjumabli videli toliko i toliko reklama uz nju, pa su je šerovali, pa se i tu broje viđene reklame itd.) ali i vi dobijate deo novca jer ste je kreirali.

Meni to na nekom principijelnom nivou ima smisla utoliko što su socijalne mreže upravo isplivale kao najvirilniji deo aktuelne industrije zabave time što ne ulažu u kreaciju sadržaja već samo u infrastrukturu dok sadržaj stvaraju sami korisnici, pa mom marksističkom umu to odmah šalje signale da je red da se stvorena vrednost drugačije redistribuira jer se u postojećem modelu nagrađuje samo rad "tvrdog" kapitala (novca, visoke ekspertize) a ne i "mekog" - vreme i veštine običnih ljudi a bez kojih bi cela građevina potonula. No, nisam dovoljno učen (a ni inteligentan) da zamislim do kakvih bi to novih modela ponašanja i privređivanja na nivou ljudi dovelo. JuTjub nam daje dobar primer jer kod njih ova redistribucija već postoji - kanali koji imaju visok broj pregleda a koje drži običan svet zarađuju nezanemarljive sume od reklama od kojih deo prihoda ide i guglu - i poslednjih mesec dana svedoci smo izuzetno oštre reakcije brojnih cenjenih jutjubera koji su izgubili prihod od svojih najgledanijih videa kada je gugl promenio način tretiranja materijala koji (potencijalno!!!!) krši autorska prava. Hoću reći, kada insentivizujete proizvodnju materijala na strani običnog čoveka i time od svakoga napravite autora, ulazite u zajebano minsko polje obezbeđivanja poštovanja autorskih prava. No, hajde, treba i to rešavati.

Bobane, daj pare...

Ili odosmo, pa ti vidi ko će da ti donosi profit...

To, Mićo, ispravno si shvatio!!!!!!!!!!!


Mada se naš potencijal da ucenjujemo Bobana malo urušava time što on nema nikakve reklame na sajtu, ali hajde, možda i prestiž nešto vredi 


Nego, druga tema, tj. povratak staroj temi od pre neki dan:

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 21-12-2013, 10:11:08
Charles Stross želi bitcoinu smrt u ognju:
Why I want Bitcoin to die in a fire

Izvinjavam se što sad upadam u raspravu koju sam sam pokrenuo, menjajući temu, ali, eto... Takođe se izvinjavam što citiram sopstveni post, ali, eto... radi jasnoće..

Dakle, Charles Stross je plastično objasnio svoju sumnjičavost i mržnju spram kriptovaluta. Pol Krugman ga je onda citirao u svom blogu na sajtu Njujork Tajmza, koristeći prilično nedvosmislen naslov, ali mu je sam tekst ipak oprezniji i zapitaniji:


Bitcoin Is Evil

Quote
It's always important, and always hard, to distinguish positive economics — how things work — from normative economics — how things should be. Indeed, on many of the macro issues I've written about it has been obvious that large numbers of economists can't bring themselves to make that distinction; they dislike activist government on political grounds, and this leads them to make really bad arguments about why fiscal stimulus can't work and monetary stimulus will be disastrous. I don't, by the way, think that this effect is symmetric: although people like Robert Lucas were quick to accuse people like Christy Romer of fabricating macro arguments to support a big-government agenda, this didn't actually happen.
But I come now to talk not about macro but about money — specifically, about Bitcoin and all that.
So far almost all of the Bitcoin discussion has been positive economics — can this actually work? And I have to say that I'm still deeply unconvinced. To be successful, money must be both a medium of exchange and a reasonably stable store of value. And it remains completely unclear why BitCoin should be a stable store of value. Brad DeLong puts it clearly:

Underpinning the value of gold is that if all else fails you can use it to make pretty things. Underpinning the value of the dollar is a combination of (a) the fact that you can use them to pay your taxes to the U.S. government, and (b) that the Federal Reserve is a potential dollar sink and has promised to buy them back and extinguish them if their real value starts to sink at (much) more than 2%/year (yes, I know).
Placing a ceiling on the value of gold is mining technology, and the prospect that if its price gets out of whack for long on the upside a great deal more of it will be created. Placing a ceiling on the value of the dollar is the Federal Reserve's role as actual dollar source, and its commitment not to allow deflation to happen.
Placing a ceiling on the value of bitcoins is computer technology and the form of the hash function... until the limit of 21 million bitcoins is reached. Placing a floor on the value of bitcoins is... what, exactly?

I have had and am continuing to have a dialogue with smart technologists who are very high on BitCoin — but when I try to get them to explain to me why BitCoin is a reliable store of value, they always seem to come back with explanations about how it's a terrific medium of exchange. Even if I buy this (which I don't, entirely), it doesn't solve my problem. And I haven't been able to get my correspondents to recognize that these are different questions.
But as I said, this is a positive discussion. What about the normative economics? Well, you should read Charlie Stross:

BitCoin looks like it was designed as a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks, with a Libertarian political agenda in mind—to damage states ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens financial transactions.

Go read the whole thing.
Stross doesn't like that agenda, and neither do I; but I am trying not to let that tilt my positive analysis of BitCoin one way or the other. One suspects, however, that many BitCoin enthusiasts are, in fact, enthusiastic because, as Stross says, "it pushes the same buttons as their gold fetish."
So let's talk both about whether BitCoin is a bubble and whether it's a good thing — in part to make sure that we don't confuse these questions with each other.
   

Pošto valja čuti i treću stranu, da ne kažem prvu, evo sada članak iz Bitcoin Magazina koji veli:



Why Charles Stross Doesn't Know a Thing about Bitcoin

Quote
Science fiction writers excel at predicting the future. Jules Verne imagined rocket ships long before rockets were blasting into space. William Gibson foresaw the rise of the internet in Neuromancer. Arthur C Clark wrote about satellites decades before one ever shuttled a call to a cell phone.
At its core, sci-fi writing is about imagination, about openness to new ideas and change.  To do that, sci-fi authors must transcend internal biases and limitations. If you can only see what's right in front of you, you can't see what's coming. Sci-fi authors not only predict the future, they help create it. Their ideas act as catalysts that spur later innovation. As a young author I read the greats, and they inspired my own fiction. Old sci-fi inspires new.
One of the speculative authors who influenced me was Charles Stross. Accelerando and Glasshouse are two of the best sci-fi books of all time. His mind-bending worlds push the limits of what's possible in fiction. Unfortunately, when it comes to Bitcoin he seems to have very little imagination. He wrote an article called "Why I want Bitcoin to Die in a Fire" that got picked up by Slashdot and Reddit and other news outlets. Even Paul Krugman got in on it, quoting the article directly for a post in the NY Times blog. The only problem is that the article is poorly researched and based on an incredibly shaky foundation. Like many others Stross is completely missing the point on why Bitcoin is a revolutionary concept and system of commerce, all while repeating wild nonsense as if it is fact. It's hard to believe that an author who wrote about algorithmically run 2.0 economies and trading exchanges for personal reputations can fail to see the precursors of that tech in the real world.
Stross makes some typical arguments against Bitcoin: it wastes electricity; bad money will push out good because it will be more profitable for botnets than legitimate miners; it's deflationary; it is semi-anonymous so it enables crime; it's a conspiracy by Libertarians to take over the world. But do any of them stand up to scrutiny?
The first point he makes is that it has a "carbon footprint from hell." In other words, it wastes electricity. This is the only argument I partially agree with. Stross' actual calculations are based on fantasy numbers from blockchain.info, but there is no denying that Bitcoin and other currencies have a large electricity footprint. Yet so do Visa and Amex and all of the big payment processing companies that we rely on to process transactions today. If we are going to do business online then we will use electricity.  Unless we go back to using the Pony Express, that's a fact of life. Bitcoin simply shifts the electricity used to a distributed cluster of people working together as opposed to a data center at a big company.
It's also arguable we can't calculate the impact of miners based simply on electrical usage alone. They serve a dual purpose in the economy. They process transactions and act as a distributed web of trust. They power an entire economic system by preventing people from cheating the system. When you consider how much time and how many resources payment processors currently use to make a complete mess of the same thing, that starts to look like a lot of money saved indeed. Total ROI for their efforts can't be understood just by counting the amount of kilowatts burned.
In another point Stross argues that Bitcoin violates Gresham's Law meaning that it would be more profitable to steal electricity with a giant botnet rather than mine legitimately. He cites this paper, that says botnets will come to dominate Bitcoin mining. The math in it is good. There's just one problem. The paper was written in 2011, before the rise of ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits), chips specially created for mining that are 100s of times more energy efficient and powerful. You can't mine much with the CPUs or even the GPU's in people's computers these days. It's not profitable with one CPU or a million CPUs. The botnets will fail and sleazy cybercriminals will just go back to trying to get old ladies to cash fake checks.
Actually, the opposite of what the paper theorizes seems to be happening. The competition among miners is already working to reduce that carbon footprint, unlike our current economy where the big payment processors have little to no incentive to get much more efficient. There are only a few of them and they own the market. A little more energy efficiency saves them a chunk on their bottom line, but not by much. By contrast, the Bitcoin economy has already seen a number of incredible increases in efficiency. We went from CPUs to GPUs to ASICs in the five years that the Bitcoin economy has been churning. ASICs are much more energy efficient than giant banks of GPUs running at 99% constantly. ASICs represents real businesses accreting around the crypto economy and delivering more processing power to handle additional load, while reducing energy consumption on a per unit basis. This is an open market driving new efficiencies. When big firms are putting real money into the Bitcoin economy every day, this will only drive more and more efficiencies and reduce the overall carbon footprint, even as the economy grows.
Stross also attacks the currency on the basis of it being "deflationary," because it mimics a limited money supply that increases in value over time while reducing prices of goods and services. He also notes that the Bitcoin system seems to come with a Libertarian agenda. Algorithmically defined economic systems mirror the real economic systems they model. Bitcoin picked one that is largely deflationary. Nobody has the final say on what economic system is the best. Economists can't even agree on basic assumptions, which is why they argue endlessly. Economic systems work if they work for the people who use them. Whether Bitcoin works in the long run will be up to the people buying and selling goods and services in that system. There are a huge number of cryptocurrencies already, each with different designs and monetary policies. Nearly every economic system that we have ever come up with is now modeled by one cryptocurrency or another. They are currently battling it out for mind share and utility. Some can verify transactions faster. Some increase the monetary supply quicker or have a larger output of coins. These alternative coins share one thing in common: almost all of them are based on the original Bitcoin open source code. Some of them, like Worldcoin, are built right on top of Bitcoin protocol. In other words, Bitcoin is already enabling different economic systems with different rules. May the best economic system win.
Bitcoin is more of a hybrid system than a true deflationary system. The gold standard is considered deflationary and Bitcoin is often seen as the digital equivalent of gold. Gold has a limited supply, so it is scarce, just like a digital currency. But real gold can only be subdivided so far. It can only be chopped up so far before it's nothing but dust. Bitcoin has no such limitations. Theoretically, it can be subdivided into fractions of a coin almost indefinitely, growing as needed with people's demands. Its current limitation is eight decimal places. Even with only 21 million Bitcoins, that's still 2000 trillion of the smallest unit. The protocol is designed to be upgradeable, so if we ever need to divide it further we can.
It's shouldn't be hard to see that cryptocurrencies can actually lead to better economic understanding and better transparency. Imagine a money map that shows all the world's transactions in real time, similar to Google's gorgeous wind map. Think of big data analytics running nonstop, studying the impact of money on people's lives with real data, not estimations and surveys and guesswork. You can easily visualize all of the world's money as it moves by studying the Bitcoin blockchain, a central transaction ledger of all the transactions in Bitcoin history. Imagine if economists could study the flow of all global commerce in real time?  What would they learn from it?  What would we?
Stross also argues that Bitcoin is only good for criminals and scumbags buying drugs and illegal weapons. This is perhaps the lamest of all arguments against Bitcoin. Can Bitcoin be used to buy illegal drugs?  Of course.  But so can dollars, pounds, or yuan.  These currencies can be and are used for that every single day. Yet nobody talks as if this invalidates the usefulness of these currencies, only Bitcoin. Everything that exists in this world can be used for both good and ill. A humble kitchen knife can still be used to stab someone but few people would argue we should ditch kitchen knives. Just because something can be used for ill purposes doesn't make it evil. Nothing really changes here. People have been using money to do bad things since the dawn of money.
The second half of the "Bitcoin is only for criminals" argument is that its pseudo-anonymous nature will make it harder for criminals to be hunted down and put in jail. That didn't work out well for the Silk Road. If the Silk Road saga taught us anything, it's that if you openly set up a big, in-your-face, stick-it-to-the-man illegal enterprise you will get caught. You'll get caught the way all criminals get caught: through good old-fashioned police work. The police didn't need any special tools to get the folks from Silk Road. They needed some digital forensics people – par for the course these days – as well as some detectives willing to follow all the leads. They got their man. People will always try to beat the law, and there will always be police and investigators to track them down, Bitcoin or not.
Lastly, Stross points to a random blog post by a cloud engineer from the UK about how Bitcoin is a nuclear weapon designed to take out the global banking system. This is something that Krugman picks up on in his "Bitcoin is Evil" post. Of course, as good as sci-fi authors are at predicting things, the truth is that none of us can see all the permutations of what's to come. While sci-fi authors are good at predicting individual technologies, they can't always see how a future society will really function. Like that blogger, we often imagine a total dystopia or utopia. Life usually ends up somewhere in between. Big banks will adapt and change as cryptocurrencies and the systems that support them evolve. Chris Dixon, one of the venture capitalists behind Coinbase, reminds us that "almost every significant computing movement had early proponents who were ideologically motivated. The developers of the first personal computers were closely aligned with the 60s counterculture movement. Open source software was originally created by people who believed that all software should be available for free...This isn't coincidental: broad-based technology movements have depended on non-economic participants early on since it often took years for commercial participants to get involved." If Bitcoin only worked for Libertarians it wouldn't be much of an economic system at all. Economic systems work because lots of people of differing backgrounds and opinions find them useful. People will vote with their wallets on Bitcoin, and that's the way it should work.
I don't know what Bitcoin will become, but whatever it is it looks like a profound technological innovation. It doesn't "sound" impressive, Mr. Krugman, it is impressive.  Bitcoin challenges some basic assumptions about what's possible. While Bitcoin specifically might not achieve the gestalt needed to support a mature economy, it seems almost certain that another cryptocurrency will. What exactly that will look like we can't predict, but you don't have to wait for the future. Economics 2.0 is online now and you can play with the beta version. For a sci-fi author like Stross that potential should prove intoxicating.
Being a sci-fi author is about being open to possibilities. When a writer loses that ability to see what might be, maybe it's time for him to step aside and make way for a new generation of authors who still can.

Mića nije dobro informisan. Boban deli sa nama sve što zaradi od foruma. Pravično. Svima isto.

Nemojmo ovo pretvarati u ustanak protiv Bobana koji nam ipak omogućava da svoje dokoličarsko prdenje izvodimo u velikom stilu pred očima svecke javnosti 

svima arapska cifra nekada nepostojeća u Jevropi!

Eh, da... U Kanadi su uzeli da prave reda u... arhivama naučne dokumentacije. Kao, nagomilalo se papirčina, jebi ti to, pa su preko praznika krenuli da bacaju sve to na đubre kamionima, tvrdeći da je sve to već digitalizovano, mada se istraživači koji koriste tu dokumentaciju (od koje je neka stara po sto godina) oštro bune i vele da oni nisu imali nikakvog uticaja na to kako se dokumentacija pripremala za vječnost.

That's no way to treat a library, scientists say

Quote
One day last summer, federal scientists using the fisheries and oceans library on Quebec's Gaspé Peninsula saw a dumpster on the grounds filled with hundreds of research books and periodicals to be destroyed. "A lot of employees were really shocked," says Sylvain Guimont, who witnessed the scene and is an official with one of the unions representing federal environment workers. "There's a concern that research will be lost forever." Guimont was seeing the winding down of the Fisheries and Oceans Canada library in Mont-Joli, one of seven such branches the federal government has moved quickly to close. Their internationally renowned collections have been transferred to the two federal aquatic libraries that remain, in Sidney, B.C., and in Dartmouth, N.S. Federal scientists complain that the decision to close the libraries was made without consultation. "The people who use this research don't have any say in what is being saved or tossed aside," says Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, which represents federal scientists.

Tales of a shambolic "weeding" process, where books and documents deemed unnecessary were given away or trashed, have heightened fears that crucial environmental data will no longer be available to scientists. "It's a travesty," says Alain Sinclair, a federal fisheries scientist who retired four years ago and a former member of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, the body mandated by federal law to advise the government on species at risk. "It's a real blow to the ability of people to do research," he added in a phone interview from B.C. RELATED: Archives reject historical letters Scientists see the closings as the latest hit to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in charge of protecting Canada's water and fish. Almost $80 million is to be taken out of its budget in 2014-2015. Staff and research programs have been cut by a Conservative government focused on eliminating budget deficits and widely accused of placing resource development ahead of environmental protection. "This is a government's attempt ... to do away with any of the evidence that might counter its political ideology," Daviau charges. In a recent poll of her members, many scientists complained of being "muzzled" by Ottawa and of political interference in scientific work. Gail Shea, minister of fisheries and oceans, accuses critics of spreading "serious misinformation." Her department insists there will be "no changes to the size or scope of the collection." In a statement emailed to the Star by her spokesperson, Shea said no more than a dozen nonemployees visited each library annually. And more than 95 per cent of documents provided to users were done so over the Internet. "It's not fair to taxpayers to make them pay for libraries that so few people actually used," Shea says, explaining the government's main reason for consolidating the collections. The closings will save $443,000 in 2014-2015, according to government estimates. But Kelly Whelan-Enns, lead researcher with Manitoba Wildlands, an environment protection group based in Winnipeg, sees the closings as a government bid to limit criticism of controversial plans, including pipelines to expand oilsands production in Alberta. "If you restrict public access to information on fresh water by closing libraries, then you limit people's ability to understand the environmental impact that kind of industrial development will have," he says. The libraries targeted were in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and B.C. The shutdowns are all but complete. In a preliminary report last October, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages asked the government to reconsider its decision to close the Mont-Joli library, the only French-language one in the country. Sophie Doucet, Shea's spokesperson, says the government has not changed its mind. In the final stages of the closing processes, DFO gave away material it says existed in more than one library. It was offered first to outside libraries, then DFO staff and lastly to the general public. Whatever remained was thrown out for recycling. But scientists are not reassured. "Because of the lack of transparency, we just don't know how much is being saved," says John Reynolds, professor of aquatic ecology at Simon Fraser University. "It certainly suggests a lack of respect for scientific information. "Emails have been flying around among DFO staff saying, 'Hey, all this stuff is about to go, come and grab it," he adds. "I've seen photographs of classic books out of print for a long time, which have been salvaged by people because they were about to go." Days before Christmas, the public was invited to grab whatever was being left behind at the Eric Marshall Aquatic Research Library in Winnipeg. Whelan-Enns got there a few days after the free-for-all began. ""The materials were in complete disarray and just strewn about," he says. Up for grabs, he says, was research and materials that cost millions in taxpayer dollars to produce, including atlases, environmental assessments, studies on toxins in fish and decades-old "baseline" environmental data crucial for present-day comparisons. Whelan-Enns and his colleagues carted away 30 boxes full of books and documents. He says library staff told him a consulting company drove away with a truckload of material. Sinclair received several of the pictures dismayed fisheries scientists have been sharing. They include important works one DFO scientist grabbed from the library closed in St. John's, N.L. Among them is a 10-volume set, funded by the federal government, called Fish Physiology. Sinclair described it as "seminal" research on the structure of fish conducted over decades in B.C. "Anyone who works in fish diseases or on how they function in the wild — how they breathe, how they metabolize food — would be reading information from those texts," Sinclair said, adding scientists have no idea if DFO has a copy. Shea's office said the minister was not available for an interview. In late December, as outrage over the library closings grew, her department posted answers to 19 questions online. It gave the total size of the print collection as 660,000 items. Some 30,000 departmental publications are available online and more documents are being digitized. But many books can't be digitized due to copyright laws. "The department may remove only content that is duplicated at one or more libraries and, in rare instances, materials which fall outside the subject disciplines pertinent to the department's mandate," says the DFO website, describing the material discarded from its collection. In emails obtained by the Star, the DFO official in charge of closing the Mont-Joli library, Christine Lemay, describes the discarding process as "weeding." The material in the dumpster, she writes, were periodicals the department has available online. The department also promises to preserve and make available unpublished background material known as "grey literature." That includes preliminary, statistical or technical reports, conference proceedings, notes from scientists, bibliographies and theses. "This is something DFO paid a lot of attention to — to make sure that this kind of informal knowledge would be kept," says Doucet, Shea's spokesperson. Scientists say there is no way of verifying such claims because, as one DFO researcher put it, "We've been kept pretty much in the dark." Who decides what material isn't pertinent to the department's mandate, they ask. Who verifies that only duplicates are being trashed or that "grey literature" — some of it a century old — is being preserved? The biggest concern is the fate of unique, decades-old "baseline" research, Reynolds says. It includes everything from the temperature of oceans dating back decades, to surveys of plankton in the aquatic food chain, to the state of streams targeted for development. A credible environmental assessment of the impact of the proposed pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to Kitimat in B.C., for example, would require historical information about the health of streams along its route, Reynolds notes. Is that information still available? The sensible approach, he adds, would have been to give scientists a full inventory of the collection, have them decide what's important, and then launch a massive digitizing effort — all before the libraries were closed. A DFO scientist told the Star of recently trying to access several documents that were previously available in one of the closed libraries. They could not be found. "They may be in the dump or in boxes waiting to be digitized, but they are not available to researchers," says the scientist, who did not want to be identified. Jennifer Hubbard, a science historian at Ryerson University, had a similar experience. She's editing a book on research conducted at DFO's Biological Station in St. Andrews, N.B., where a library was closed. She used DFO's online service to try to find "a couple of hundred" grey literature sources that were archived at that library. About 20 per cent of the material can't be found online, and Hubbard has no idea if it still exists. If it's sitting in boxes in one of the consolidated libraries, who would know to ask for it unless they previously knew it existed? "Why would you destroy a library?" Hubbard asks. Burton Ayles, a former director of science at DFO for the region covering the Great Lakes, the Prairies and the Arctic, says at the very least the government is making it harder for scientists to consult research. No longer can scientists in Winnipeg, for instance, determine what books and material are appropriate for their research just by walking into the library and browsing. They now have to travel long distances or depend on time-consuming interlibrary loans. The research, Ayles argues, "is effectively lost because it's no longer accessible. It's like stuff in your grandfather's basement."

Biće zanimljivo kad ustanovimo da je digitalizacija kerov vršak po trajnosti. Faliće nam Homer da nam dopevava.

Ma, ja čak mislim da ovde neće ni biti problem u trajnosti - mada, da, formati će izlaziti iz mode a sa njima će nestajati hardver i softver potreban za njihovo dekriptovanje - već više to da digitalizacija ovakve građe skoro sigurno nije bila kvalitetna, da je to skenirano ofrlje, da nije OCRvovano, da je samim tim nepretraživo itd. Komentari na ovu vest su svi uglavnom u tom duhu.

Uvek je problem u trajnosti. Ko se nije upisao u kamen nije bio ni pismen zaključićemo danas. Drugim rečima, ko se zapišao njegova i teritorija.

Odavno smo prestali da pišemo u kamen tako da iz te perspektive, ni papir nije dovoljno trajan. Dobra stvar sa digitalizacijom je što ima potencijal za lako i beskonačno kopiranje pa se teško izgubi infomacija. Naravno, suprotno - to je kasnije čini težom za nalaženje u moru drugih informacija, zato velim da mislim da će ovde problem prevashodno biti u nepretražljivosti digitalizovane baze, ali, da, i u tome da možda za dvadeset godina nećemo na tržištu imati softver koji čita formate u koje je ovo prebačeno.

"It's not fair to taxpayers to make them pay for libraries that so few people actually used,"

WOW