This is a story that I've always hated because I think it is very very unlikely to be true. If he actually did play blackjack, I'm curious to know how many hands he played, how much he was betting per hand, what casino he was playing at, etc. If he bet it all on one hand, what if he was dealt A-A and didn't have the money to split?
I think somebody who is reckless enough to gamble the remaining funds of the company, is not disciplined enough to walk away from the blackjack table after having won just enough for the fuel payment.
If he actually did play blackjack, it would be more likely that he started out winning, won enough to pay for the fuel, but then continued gambling and gave it all back.
After reading the interview, I have zero interest in reading any book from Eric Schmidt, but I am thoroughly fascinated by what Assange has to say. This interview is probably going to be much more insightful than any book Schmidt will write.
I started out as a computer programmer. After a few years of dealing with the braindead corporate system in America, I decided to make a change. I ended up moving to Australia (just applied for citizenship), and I work as a kitchen hand at an all girls boarding school. I get $20 an hour, penalties on weekends and public holidays, 4 weeks paid holidays a year, and superannuation (a retirement fund). Best decision I ever made.
If I didn't end up leaving, I might have ended up just like him.
yes but why in the world would you compare "software development" to "building bridges"? I think this is a major fundamental problem with the entire field of Computer Science, approaching it like it is similar to civil engineering. Bridges are physical, software is abstract.
Creating software is much more similar to creating a legal system. Lots of legacy, nothing ever seems to work quite right. Vested interests.
SO what's the correct way to create a legal system that just works?
1. why not just finance the way they normally do, by borrowing (selling bonds), or taking money from the taxpayer?
2. currencies today are already essentially digital. the vast majority of transactions are handled electronically. the value of a bank account are just bits on a disk.
3. bitcoin can't become a reserve currency, there is no such thing as bitcoin bonds. the growth of the bitcoin money supply has been predetermined. government wants to be able to control the money supply, because it gives them power.
4. the usd as a reserve currency will probably be replaced by a global currency, SDR's, to the detriment of humanity.
i don't think it is farfetched to cook up bitcoin as an intellectual exercise. i think it is more likely to be 2, or 3 people in collaboration, because design by committee never works.
government is too short-sighted to have created something like bitcoin.
Yes, change the way the game is being played, but don't play the game that Google is playing. Change the way people search for things. Right now everything is based on the keyword search, there has to be a better way. Make the web irrelevant the same way that gopher became irrelevant. I really don't want to be using a web browser 10 years from now.
The way I see it, Google is the new Microsoft, and Microsoft is not dead yet, but becoming more and more irrelevant. Now, what has to happen for Google to become irrelevant?
Cushman, you sound like somebody who believes everything that you were taught in school, and you are unwilling to entertain an idea that has the possibility of destroying the foundation of your world view. Don't try to impose your world view on events as they occur, rather, observe the world and consider all possibilities. Things usually are not what they appear to be. The expert is not always right, even if he thinks he is.
The more you understand, the more you realize that most people aren't very good at what they do. Not that they are bad at what they do, either. It just takes the magic away.
People who label them as "conspiracy nutters" more likely to be conformist and closed minded. They will be more like to believe "the big lie", because everybody else believes the big lie, so you become crazy if you don't also believe the big lie.
The collective mind of society doesn't always get it right. Being "Cassandra" would be a miserable existence.
Intelligence and rational thought are orthogonal. I would say that cats are generally more rational than most humans I have met.
Intelligence is not a prerequisite for having a decent career or not being a social outcast. Society prefers people with high IQ's, as opposed to true geniuses, who are more likely to struggle to fit into society.
Being crazy means that you are completely different from the rest of society. It doesn't mean that you are wrong.
All of recorded history is pretty much a "conspiracy theory". Who really knows if it is true or not?
But the majority of society simply accept it as fact, so it's no longer a conspiracy theory as defined by society.
In fact, it is still a good story about computing dystopia. But it's no longer fiction.