An Anarchist, Imaginary Form Of Money Is A Bad Investment? You Don't Say!

The Bitcoin Crash

It didn't take long for New York magazine's Kevin Roose to change his tune on Bitcoin, the "internet currency," which made headlines this week because... well, because people were writing headlines about it. The value of a Bitcoin rose more than $200 in just a few days, which as we all know, means it will keep going up, forever, cause like, duh man.

Except, you know, then it took a swan dive the next day. Its value is going up and down like a roller coaster, and the systems in place to buy and sell the currency make it difficult to capitalize on the swings. Basically, its a penny stock that's even less regulated and less liquid.

As Roose wrote in his original piece (emphasis, mine), "Several friends warned me about buying a Bitcoin now, since prices are at an all-time high, and most smart people are predicting that the bubble will pop eventually. But many people expect the price of Bitcoins to go higher than $140. Henry Blodget half-jokingly suggested that Bitcoins could reach $400, and there's no logical reason why they can't keep rising beyond that. The more publicity Bitcoins get, the more demand there is. And since supply is limited by design, and no central authority can step in and "print" more Bitcoins, it's theoretically possible that the price could keep rising for a while before a bubble burst happens."

It's also theoretically possible that Kate Upton will sleep with me, and my wife will be cool with it.

My Bitcoins are Up Here....

How long will it take Slate's Farhad Manjoo to backtrack? After all, he also went into Bitcoin with blind enthusiasm:

"Let me begin this column with a lengthy disclosure. One morning last week, I stopped at my bank, filled out a withdrawal slip for $1,027.51, and walked away with an envelope full of cash. The odd amount was deliberate; I had been instructed by LocalTill to be exact in everything I did. What’s LocalTill? Don’t bother Googling it—its shady-looking website offers only murky details, explaining that the firm is a way for “merchants to accept secure transactions when selling goods online."

Sounds super!

"Bitcoin, of course. Bitcoin is a “digital currency” invented in 2009 by a cryptographic expert who went by the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, but whose true identity remains unknown."

Well he sounds like someone I'll trust my money with!!!

"Meanwhile the price just kept going up: Early last week the value of bitcoins soared past $100 each. This week, it went past $200. If you want a bitcoin today, it will cost you about $235, and if you wait till tomorrow, it will be more."

Because the value of imaginary currency just goes up, up, UP!!!

"The world’s supply of bitcoins is essentially fixed, but because people in the media keep talking about it, demand keeps rising. This leads to higher prices—and as prices go up, people who currently hold bitcoins develop greater and greater expectations for the currency. This causes bitcoin holders to hoard their stash, which further reduces supply, which in turn boosts the price and sparks yet more media attention—and the cycle continues until the bubble pops. Thus, by writing about bitcoin, I’m serving, in some small way, to raise its price. And as of last week, that benefits me directly."

Some of the worst economic analysis I've ever read. Buy Bitcoins, then get your friends to buy Bitcoins, and then they get their friends to buy Bitcoins. Every friend you get, the more money you earn! THIS IS A PYRAMID SCHEME, PEOPLE! PYRAMID SCHEMES COLLAPSE TERRIBLY!!!!!

"When the bubble will burst, at what price and for what reason, is completely unpredictable. And until then, while prices are going up, you could make a lot of real money from this digital funny money. My own guess is that the bubble’s popping isn’t imminent, and I think that when prices do fall, they’ll land somewhere higher than the $138 I paid for my bitcoins."

This is based on nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's irresponsible financial reporting. Farhad might as well just take the money from your pocket and throw it into a paper shredder. U.S. currency is no longer backed by gold, but it is backed by the power of the U.S. Government. It has something real to peg it to-- the American economy. Bitcoin's central authority is a guy using a fake name that nobody has ever met. Bitcoin could easily be worth ZERO.

As of this writing, one of the biggest Bitcoin websites, where Manjoo bought his Bitcoins, is down due to technical difficulties. According to a MtGox spokesperson, "Upgrading computer systems means ordering more servers (2 weeks timeframe), setting up (1 day), load testing (2 weeks) and deployment (1 day). It's a process that can take up to one month in total."

Just like the stock exchange!!!!

MtGox is claiming a Denial of Service attack by hackers, but in reality, it's probably closer to a "gold rush" that's overwhelmed their substandard servers. All the media has caused people to flock to these sites, which were unprepared for such a large influx of customers.

A Bitcoin's value now, by the way, is $75 and dropping fast.

Manjoo and Roose should by publicly flogged for touting this speculative nonsense.

Mad Men Premiere: Caring For The Wrong People

Mad Men season 6 begins in an odd moment of confusion: a POV shot of a possibly dying man. We feel an instant pang of fear: what if Don is dying???

It turns out our concern is misplaced. It's just the doorman.

Misplaced concern was a major theme of this premiere episode. Almost every character was guilty of it.

Don's got a gorgeous, tv star wife that everybody ogles over: but he's more interested in sleeping with his new buddy's spouse.

Roger just lost a mother who has loved him unconditionally his entire life: he cries over the shoe shine guy. He seeks a connection with his daughter free his Mom's funeral, but there's no acknowledgement of his child with Joan.

Betty's got a daughter, Sally, to whom she's always been cold and distant: she leaves her child at home (while on winter break) to go find Sally's friend instead, and play the mother role for a bunch of east village squatters. She helps them make dinner, while her doting husband eats chicken salad alone.

A woman has Don give her away at her Hawaiian wedding instead of her own father.

Peggy has long late night phone calls with Stan while practically ignoring her boyfriend, Abe.

About the only person who seems to care about the right thing is Peggy's new boss, Ted, who ignores work to spend time with his wife and urges her to let her coworkers go home for new years.

These characters have people who need them, people who care about them, people who can fill the roles they're looking to fill. But their eyes are elsewhere. It's an interesting theme: people who have it all right there, but who are incapable of recognizing it.

"What's it like to have someones life in your hands?"

It's a privilege, and a responsibility.

It makes you wonder what will happen if those ignored constants, those people they've taken for granted, should disappear. Last season, Layne Pryce took his own life. With all the death symbolism in this episode, it may be time to speculate on who will die next.

Who should we be concerned about?

(and... Who was Roger on the phone with when he was interrupted by the news of his mother's death? Who was Sally talking to when she shut the door in her mother's face? Those moments stuck out to me. My guesses? Rogers is having liaisons with Megan's mom... And Sally is still chatting it up with Glen).

Game of Thrones is back baaaaby!

I've let go of Lost, that brilliant, now deceased television show that every subsequent show starring former Lost actors now tries to mimic. I'm now equally enthralled with Game of Thrones, which opened its 3rd season with its main characters strewn across the globe of Westeros, all seeking to define themselves in this next stage of the Game.

Bastard Jon Snow is as far North as far gets, and that little speech he gives to Mance Rayder, King of the Wildlings, almost convinces me he's legit gone rogue. He's not playing for the Black Cloaks anymore. He's had a taste of some red headed wild child and he's seen some shady crow deals with white walkers. I know who I'd rather hang out with.

Jon's Half-brother, the King of the North, finds his bannermen slain at an abandoned Harrenhall. Suddenly, Katelyn's betrayal really becomes clear to me. She deserves to be put in a cell. Probably worse. She made an incredibly stupid and selfish decision to free Jamie. Lady Katelyn, blinded by grief and fear, traded Jamie for her two daughters. Only one of whom is actually in the Lannisters' grasp. He was a bargaining chip that could have ended the war! Winter is Coming. If everyone doesn't start looking north soon, there won't be a seven kingdoms to fight over.

Sansa wants to play pretend. Indeed, that's what she's been doing ever since coming to Kings Landing. She's playing a part, acting courtly while she fears for her life. She may not be the sharpest tool in the shed (unlike her clever sister Arya, off-screen this week), but she is preparing to sail away from all this with Peter Baelish (who has his own designs, as always, and a redhead that looks just a little bit like Sansa.)

Our dear Khaleesi wants to take back the seven kingdoms of Westeros, but she can't do it without an army. Her seasick horsemen are looking like its Sunday morning after the kegger. But she's no fan of buying Ken-doll slaves forced to kill babies. By the way, why did vaguely Arabic Ben Kingsley feel the need to slice off a nipple? That's just rawwwng, man.

But our dear Khaleesi is not the only woman in Westeros with eyes on the crown. Our dearest Marjorie Tyrell, giver of gifts to the impoverished orphans, (and terrific breasts to Jofferey and me). Her blood runs warm, but unless she knows how to bludgeon a prostitute to death, I doubt King Joffery will really get that into her. One thing's for sure, Incest Mama Cersei is NOT a fan.

Cersei's not a fan of Our Pal Tyrion either. Cersei visits his cell... I mean, room, and basically tells him she still carries a grudge for some incident involving a servant girl when she was 9. Tyrion's dad, Tywin the well groomed, tells Tyrion that his grudge against his vertically-different son goes back to the day of the boy's questionable birth. No Casterly Rock for him. Ouch.

Sir Davos the Onion Knight is not dead, but his son sadly is. He's loyal to Stannis till the end, which of course means the Red Woman has him immediately locked away. No more demon babies as of yet.

Finally, our Dear Khaleesi nearly falls for the old poisonous-Fukajima-neon-green-scorpion-in-the-wooden-ball trick. Sir Barristan, old guy, sworn defender of two murdered kings, shows up to save her life and to pledge his services. The dragon queen's wannabe-Loverboy looks a bit threatened.

There were a lot of characters we didn't see this week... And that leads me back to Lost. Lost had tons of characters too. All with rich back stories. Ditto for Game of Thrones. Both shows have handled the development of a large cast of characters with ease. Revolution, featuring Juliette from Lost, should take some notes.

Is Post-Jobs Apple Out Of Ideas??

About a year ago, I opined that Apple was flirting with old ideas and possibly stunting their culture of innovation. Now we hear more troubling news that Apple is going ahead with products of questionable utility: a bigger iPhone and an iWatch.

The argument for a bigger iPhone boils down to this-- competitors have offered bigger smartphones, so Apple should follow suit to take back lost market share. This makes a very big assumption-- that people buy larger smartphones because of their size. It's an assumption based primarily on the sales of one phone-- Samsung's Galaxy Note II, which runs the Android operating system. But I have yet to see conclusive evidence that a larger screen is the difference that influences most smartphone buyers. I have no doubt that Apple will be able to sell a version of their most popular device with a differently sized screen-- they've done it with the iPad mini. The problem is, the iPad mini cannibalized sales of the full-size iPad, a more profitable product. Whatever market share it grabbed from Amazon's Kindle and Barnes and Noble's Nook, it's been a dubious boost to Apple's fortunes, and a likely reason for that stock slide.

As for the iWatch... I don't believe there is an argument that can be made for it. Even the slickest-looking iWatch will fail because of a watch's inherent limitations. You've got to develop wireless headphones because no one wants a wire running down their arm. You're got to convince people that your design will compliment whatever style they're wearing (something you have to consider whenever something is worn, rather than pocketed). Even overcoming those hurdles, you've still got to deal with the fact that you've just prevented a usable hand from operating the device, and you've got to develop an interface that's useful within such tiny confines. If they're just making the iPod nano with a wrist strap, how is that different from what's already available for a lot cheaper?

Neither of these ideas creates an entirely new revenue stream. What they do is segment an existing revenue stream into smaller, less profitable chunks. I'm not sure how that's a recipe for success. Simply putting a product out there as an alternative to your competitors is not a growth strategy, it's a holding pattern. It's as if Apple is at the gates of El Dorado, and instead of just going inside and grabbing the gold, they're going after the guys selling cheap souvenirs by the side of the road.

Google, on the other hand, seems to have their gaze fixed firmly on the future. Take out the Android operating system, and the online advertising, and you don't have much currently in terms of money-makers. But they've created the most comprehensive map, directory, and database of the world--necessary framework for their future products, such as real-time augmented reality (Google Glasses) and self-driving cars. They've also begun introducing Google Fiber--free, fast internet--to cities around the country, part of an infrastructure that can increase the usefulness and reliability of Google Glasses and Android phones, as well as make in-development ideas like "Smart" homes (and even "Smart" neighborhoods) a real possibility. Apple users found out how far ahead Google's data is after the Apple Maps debacle. While Apple's been sitting on cash it doesn't know what to do with, Google has spent millions on R&D building a support network for the interconnected world we all know we're headed towards.

Maybe Apple can wake up and recognize their (shrinking) lead in online content distribution, and turn Apple TV from a niche set-top accessory into a more comprehensive experience (i.e. an Apple flat-screen TV). But we haven't heard about that good idea for a while. Only the uninspired ones.

Imagine the future, and it's not a bunch of people staring down at their wristwatches. Changing a screen size doesn't change anything else. Google understands this--so they're building the foundations of the future, and they're offering a glimpse of the products that will take advantage of it.

If Tim Cook wants to keep Apple on top, he should take note of that.

Guns Out of Control

Bear with me.

There are many different types of hammers. There's the square, spiked one used for tenderizing meat. There's the flat-head one used for hammering nails. There's the ball-peen hammer used for metalwork. The sledgehammer for breaking down walls.

You can use the wrong hammer for a job and still get it done, but you'll have a harder time, maybe cause some damage you didn't intend.

No one would ban hammers just because someone uses a hammer to kill. This is because, obviously, the hammer is not well-designed for such a thing, and the vast majority of people use hammers safely.

Now, there are many different types of guns. There are guns designed for personal protection. There are guns designed for hunting. Then there are guns designed to kill a maximum number of targets in a minimum amount of time.

Guns of this last type, assault weapons, were originally designed for the U.S. military to fit certain battle specifications. Even though the models sold to the public have been modified to conform to gun laws (mainly, they've been made semi-automatic), the fact remains--they are designed for bloodbaths. That is their designed purpose. Sure, you can use an assault rifle to hunt, or for home protection, or to shoot up targets at the range. But that's not what it was designed for. You're using a hammer that's been specifically forged to kill many people.

So we should not be surprised when a gun designed for massacres is used to carry out its intended purpose. You can argue that "guns don't kill people, people do," but that argument falls apart when the weapon was built with killing lots of people in mind. What you've done is provide the perfect tool for the job.

Like hammer owners, the vast majority of gun owners don't use their guns to kill. They argue that their guns are designed for defense or sport, and that's what they use them for. But assault weapons? They're called "assault" for a reason.

You don't want to ban all guns? Fine. Other weapons may have their place (that's another argument for another day). But saying a weapon that is designed to produce mass casualties won't produce mass casualties when owned by civilians is an argument that doesn't make a lick of sense. We're talking about something with the capacity to end many lives in seconds. Who cares if some people use it to shoot for fun at trees? They're the ones using it WRONG--like using a sledgehammer to build a birdhouse. The school shooters and movie theater shooters? They are the ones using these assault weapons correctly--though they're targeting American civilians, not Taliban.

What I'm saying is, why not ban these things, knowing that they're effectively designed tools for mass murder? It won't stop deaths from gun violence, or even school shootings. But what it will do is save lives. Just like it's harder to drive a nail with a ball-peen hammer, and it's harder to inflict mass casualties without the tool designed for it.Take away the tool, and they'll be forced to find something less deadly to use.

Don't we all win?