dohko

I disagree with who says that it is no different than linkedin.

It hits a completely different niche with a different goal. Linkedin exists mainly to highlight work experience and academic background, with the goal to connect job seekers to employers (and the opposite). This seeks to connect high schoolers with mentors.

I think it is a pretty good idea and I also really like the design.

The question I have is: Is part of your goal also to connect college admission officers with students? Or students to advertise college admissions their achievements via your website?

Don't worry. Before you know it we'll also have DNA tracking. So you'll be easily distinguishable from your twin brother.

I wish it were that easy. By law you have to be identifiable in public, therefore you can't wear a mask that covers completely your face.

I am actually thinking on doing the opposite move. NYC is great If you earn a lot of money and don't mind spending it. Also everything that is a commodity elsewhere, in NYC is a luxury. (A car, washers and dryer, etc.). It's also unbelievably overcrowded. In the end it can be tons of fun, but if you like good weather, less crowded, cheaper places and more laid back relaxed environments then NYC is not the right place. I would much rather prefer san Francisco or Santa Monica

No, I refuse to take an IQ test as well. Not because I would feel afraid to have an IQ score associated with me. Rather because I think that the concept of an IQ score is rather silly and I question our overall ability to measure it via a standardized test.

First, Intelligence (as probably this article says) is an ever evolving concept and its multidimensional. Accurately measuring it seems probably impossible, the least really hard. The way we attempt to measure it, is via standardized tests - but those don't really prove much because instead of really measuring what they should measure, they usually end up measuring "test-taking" abilities.

Just think about Einstein and Leonardo da Vinci for that matter. Einsten did terrible in school and would have probably done terrible on an IQ tests. Leonardo da Vinci (arguably the greatest genius of all history) was rather slow in problem solving, but increadibly effective. He would have probably done terrible on a timed standardized test.

Exactly right. Did they actually compare students from same school districts but different income families?

I would think that what is most likely is that good income family students (who can afford summer schools) probably go to better school, which is by itself self-reinforcing.

I don't understand. Do you disagree with the author's points of view? Why is it not enlightening?

The way I am reading this article, and it can be wrong, is as a by-and-large synthesis on the author's point of view on why US patent law is antiquated and supposevily bad for the Tech Industry of this country.

I don't see any of his points as incorrect, in fact I agree with his sentiment.

Therefore, do you disagree with he is saying? Or do you just think that he is right, but fails to make any good suggestion on how to change the current flawed system?

You understand how currencies work, right? On one end of the trade there is a person that buys and the other a person that sells.

Even if what you said were true (That bitcoin has mainly being flunctating upwards), then the people selling things in bitcoins are actually losing on the trade.

What do you think the result of that is going to be?

Goods sold in bitcoins are going to be really unstable and sellers are going to be disincetived in selling them (or they'll just charge a premium for them - making them more expensive than if you paid for them in dollars).

The point is, that a currency flunctating a lot, even if mainly upwards, is not a really good thing. From a speculator perspective, volatility is a great thing, but not for everyone else.

So, this paper is not really demonstrating anything against the standard game theory applied to the prisoner's dilemma.

In a single game, the proposition of the dilemma still holds true. The best solution is if both don't talk.

In an iterative game, then things change.. but that's pretty obvious. So not sure what is so revoluationary about this paper.

And then these banks get together to form a banking system, and then this banking system decides it needs a central governing authority to be able to make important collective decisions efficient and implement them effectively and seamlessly.

And then they decide to call it the Federal Reserve Bitcoin Bank

Well.. why not do it half client-side and half in the cloud? For example, why not build an pwd-management application which sits in the cloud.

Have the application store in a secureDB in the cloud your encrypted list of passwords. These would be encrypted with a master pwd stored in the local pwd repository of your (mobile) browser.

The idea would be to have the browser do all the leg work for you and have the pwd management service available form anywhere.

The browser would automatically generate a new complex pwd for each new website you subscribe to, then encrypt it and send it over to the pwd mgmt app in the cloud. When you authenticate to the website, the browser queries the pwd mgmt app for the pwd of the site. The app sends it to the client.

In this whole process the whole encryption/decrpytion happens locally, thus limiting the attack surface. It would be easy to use and overall seamlessly integrated with any device you own that has access to the internet.

I agree. Quite honestly what sane person would pay for the ability to use a social media website? What does facebook offer that is unique and worth paying for, other than a large user base? The moment that facebook starts charging their user-base there is really nothing from stopping them to use it and move on to the next free social-media colossus.