Think universal basic income is a pipe dream? Experiments all over the world are already showing its potential to transform society for the better.
Leader: “Why you should worry about intelligent machines”
The answer may be counter-intuitive: Not only can Bitcoin be widely adopted under a supply cap, its trust and integrity are a direct result of a provably limited supply. As a result, it will flourish because it is capped.
Everyone Can Own and Trade a Limited Commodity, IF…
…if it is both measurable and divisible. Bitcoin has a capped supply just as gold has a capped supply. Although both assets will be mined for some time into the future, there is only so much that will ever be uncovered. Thereafter, the total pie cannot grow.
But the transaction units will continue to grow as needed, because the pie is divisible into very, very tiny units:
Continue reading “Can Bitcoin Flourish with a Capped Supply?” »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qJbdVynGmg
Older than Sumerian script? The Danube Valley civilization is one of the oldest civilizations known in Europe. It existed from between 5,500 and 3,500 BC in the Balkans and covered a vast area, in what is now Northern Greece to Slovakia (South to North), and Croatia to Romania (West to East).
During the height of the Danube Valley civilization, it played an important role in south-eastern Europe through the development of copper tools, a writing system, advanced architecture, including two storey houses, and the construction of furniture, such as chairs and tables, all of which occurred while most of Europe was in the middle of the Stone Age. They developed skills such as spinning, weaving, leather processing, clothes manufacturing, and manipulated wood, clay and stone and they invented the wheel. They had an economic, religious and social structure.
Continue reading “Is the Danube Civilization script the oldest writing in the world?” »
The relationship between the government and the auto industry is about to be transformed. But into what?
Eight years ago, that relationship hardly could have been more awkward. Two of the Detroit 3 were begging Congress for a lifeline. The federal government would later fire General Motors’ CEO, orchestrate a bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler and emerge as a shareholder in both — a highly un-American arrangement that would lead to a successful recovery, yes, but also lingering tensions and shame.
The relationship is different now, but it’s not necessarily better. The Obama administration shed the stake in the car companies but has wrapped its tentacles more tightly around the industry in many ways, including strict consent decrees to monitor safety and tough targets for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions.
Continue reading “DARPA races offer model for government-industry relations” »
Hmmm.
Technological and human rights implications for the world
China adopted the highly controversial cyber security law on 7th November 2016. The legislation which will take effect in June 2017 was passed by its largely rubber – stamp parliament emphasizing the ‘objective need’ of China as a major internet power. The stated objective of the law is to counter the growing threats such as hacking and terrorism. Overseas critics of the law are not amused as it has already triggered concerns among foreign business and rights groups that the law threatens to shut foreign technology companies out of various sectors which China deems as ‘critical’. The legislation also incorporates contentious requirements for security reviews and for data to be stored on servers in China.
There’s really no sector in the United States (or much of the world) that has been untouched by the development of advanced manufacturing technologies – and no one seems to be underestimating the importance of the further development of those technologies in order to keep the country competitive. To that end, in 2014 the government established the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI), more commonly known as Manufacturing USA.
The program brought together the industrial, academic, nonprofit and governmental sectors to establish a network of advanced manufacturing institutes for the purpose of accelerating new manufacturing technologies. President Obama proposed that the network grow to 45 institutes over the course of 10 years, and as of today, 12 have been established. The 12th, which was just announced by the Department of Defense, will be the Advanced Tissue Biofabrication (ATB) Manufacturing USA Institute, and will be led by the Advanced Regenerative Manufacturing Institute (ARMI), based in Manchester, New Hampshire.
Artificial intelligence (AI) technology has the potential to boost productivity but increase wealth inequality and wipe out millions of jobs, a research report by the White House claimed on Tuesday. With an increasing number of industries set to be affected by automation technology in the coming years, jobs could be displaced — a fear that has been voiced by academics and business leaders. Auto companies are developing driverless cars, and factories are seeing an increased use of robotics.
Because AI is not a single technology, but rather a collection of technologies that are applied to specific tasks, the effects of AI will be felt unevenly through the economy. Some tasks will be more easily automated than others, and some jobs will be affected more than others — both negatively and positively.
Researchers around the world have given varying estimates about the size of potential job losses. One recent estimate by Forrester suggests 6 percent of jobs in the next five years could be wiped out thanks to AI. The White House report cites a 2013 study from Oxford University suggesting that 47 percent of U.S. jobs are at risk because of AI. The report suggests that lower-skilled and less-educated workers could feel the heat the most. Overall, the White House report advocates a three-pronged approach to preparing for a future remade by AI that includes investing in AI for its benefits, training Americans for the jobs of the future and helping workers make the transition to new positions.
Continue reading “AI could boost productivity but increase wealth inequality, White House says” »
At Quora, I occasionally play, “Ask the expert”. Today, I was asked if the difference between quotes at various Bitcoin exchanges presents a profit opportunity.
In addition to my answer, one other cryptocurrency enthusiast offered pithy, one-line response: He said “Buy local, sell internationally and pocket the difference!” I tend to believe the opposite is more likely to generate profit: Buy internationally and sell locally. But, I am getting ahead of myself. Here is my answer [co-published at Quora]…
Question:
A Bitcoin exchange in my country quotes a different rate than
international markets. Can I profit from the price difference?
Answer:
Buying and selling a commodity with the intention of profiting from the difference in price in various markets, regions or exchanges is called arbitrage. Typically, the item must be widely traded and fungible. Although it can be a tangible item (one that must be delivered or stored, like gold, oil, frozen orange juice or soy beans), arbitrage is more practical when applied to an ‘item of account’, such as foreign currency, equity shares, stock futures, or Bitcoin.
