Potpourri
==> This essay on “involution” (as opposed to revolution) is interesting, but the best thing is the GIF near the top.
==> On Twitter I said John Urschel provides the perfect natural experiment, to resolve an age-old question: did he have trouble getting a prom date? Nobody liked it. I can’t decide if it’s because they reject stereotypes, or because they didn’t get my joke.
==> I was intrigued to hear that the lady spearheading the movement to replace Andy Jackson on the $20 was fully aware of his opposition to paper money.
==> Dad Mode Activated!
==> Shoot I lost the email of the guy who sent me one of these (the other didn’t want me to use his name)… Anyway this cartoon on the villain economist is funny, and this one on the superhero Sam Harris is hilarious (unless you are an atheist, in which case you’ll think it’s dumb).
==> I personally don’t think right now is the time to be gloating, but if Bitcoin is (say) above $500 five years from now, then this website will be pretty awesome. (For the record, I don’t know when they launched the site; I just came across it this week.) Right now I could understand both fans and haters of Bitcoin feeling confident.
David Hume as a mechwarrior is worth the price of admission all by itself.
That comic really pwned Sam Harris.
You serious, Josiah? Anyone who knows anything about Sam Harris (and has found the factual basis of religion in the modern world to be sorely lacking) understands full well that that cartoon is as dumb as heck. I could feel my brain cells dying just by watching its terrible pen-and-ink drawing style. The content was even worse. It’s pathetic, man. Absolutely pathetic. Can’t believe Bob likes this stuff.
I guess I’m an atheist now after you delivered that pure pwnage.
Wait, Josiah, you’re a theist!? I always thought you were irreligious, given your constant penchant for snark.
Because there are no snarky religious people.
Irreligious? That reminds me of when I go the Indian restaurant. On the menu there is vegetarian and non-vegetarian.
No, but a good sense of snark suggests a good ability to criticize ridiculous things subtly, which suggests atheism. It’s not 100%, but it moved my estimate of Josiah’s religiosity towards the probability he was an atheist enough to matter.
Wait, Josiah, you’re a theist!? I always thought you were irreligious, given your constant penchant for snark.
I’m Catholic.
RE the Sam Harris cartoon, is there any intellectual group who has pointed to one of their critics and said, “I think he’s presenting our views accurately and honestly, I just disagree with his criticisms”? Because I’m sure the fans of Sam Harris would say that the cartoon is straw-manning his arguments.
MichaelT asked, “[I]s there any intellectual group who has pointed to one of their critics and said, “I think he’s presenting our views accurately and honestly, I just disagree with his criticisms”?”
Well, in my recent FEE piece I wrote, “In contrast to some writers who erect straw men out of libertarianism, Farrell has every right to view Silk Road as an experiment in stateless order. Farrell shows that Ulbricht himself explicitly cited Murray Rothbard…”
1. Dad Mode is hilarious.
2. Any atheist who thinks that’s dumb is dumb.
Et tu, Kooen?
Dad Mode is cool. It makes me wish I had a video of my Dad Mode moment(s).
Wanting to learn how computers work in detail, I bought the book “Upgrading and Repairing PCs”…
Interesting tidbit in the early pages, that has connections with Intellectual Property:
“It is interesting to note that in the PC business, software enjoys copyright protection, whereas hardware can be protected only by patents, which are much more difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to obtain. And in the case of U.S. patents, they also expire 20 years after filing. According to the U.S. patent office, “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof” can be patented. This definition made it difficult to patent most aspects of the IBM PC because it was designed using previously existing parts that anybody could purchase off the shelf. In fact, most of the important parts for the original PC came from Intel, such as the 8088 processor, 8284 clock generator, 8253/54 timer, 8259 interrupt controller, 8237 DMA (direct memory access) controller, 8255 peripheral interface, and 8288 bus controller. These chips made up the heart and soul of the original PC motherboard. Because the design of the original PC was not wholly patented and virtually all the parts were readily available, almost anybody could duplicate the hardware of the IBM PC. All one had to do was purchase the same chips from the same manufacturers and suppliers IBM used and design a new motherboard with a similar circuit. IBM made it even easier by publishing complete schematic diagrams of its motherboards and adapter cards in detailed and easily available technical reference manuals. These manuals even included fully commented source code listings for the ROM BIOS code.”
Because computer manufacturing was light on intellectual property enforcement, the industry has been able to innovate rapidly with significant competition.
I do believe computers serve as an excellent historical example that again refutes the myth that innovation and advancements require heavy intellectual property enforcement. The truth is of course exactly the opposite.
Wanting to learn how computers work in detail, I bought the book “Upgrading and Repairing PCs”…
Interesting tidbit in the early pages, that has connections with Intellectual Property:
“It is interesting to note that in the PC business, software enjoys copyright protection, whereas hardware can be protected only by patents, which are much more difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to obtain. And in the case of U.S. patents, they also expire 20 years after filing. According to the U.S. patent office, “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof” can be patented. This definition made it difficult to patent most aspects of the IBM PC because it was designed using previously existing parts that anybody could purchase off the shelf. In fact, most of the important parts for the original PC came from Intel, such as the 8088 processor, 8284 clock generator, 8253/54 timer, 8259 interrupt controller, 8237 DMA (direct memory access) controller, 8255 peripheral interface, and 8288 bus controller. These chips made up the heart and soul of the original PC motherboard. Because the design of the original PC was not wholly patented and virtually all the parts were readily available, almost anybody could duplicate the hardware of the IBM PC. All one had to do was purchase the same chips from the same manufacturers and suppliers IBM used and design a new motherboard with a similar circuit. IBM made it even easier by publishing complete schematic diagrams of its motherboards and adapter cards in detailed and easily available technical reference manuals. These manuals even included fully commented source code listings for the ROM BIOS code.”
Because computer manufacturing was light on intellectual property enforcement, the industry has been able to innovate rapidly with significant competition.
I do believe computers serve as an excellent historical example that again refutes the myth that innovation and advancements require heavy intellectual property enforcement. The truth is of course exactly the opposite..