ph0rcyas

Bubble or no, from a personal perspective I will not use bitcoin as a currency to exchange goods - things like purchasing items or paying salaries. Bitcoin's value is just too volatile, why would I pay someone a certain amount in bitcoins, when it'll probably rise up to 10 times the current value in a few weeks? But as a medium for investment, like buying stocks, bitcoin does provide a novel and alluring option.

This is just great. Enjoyed it - posted it on fb and ready to watch it again - then the server is apparently overloading. Wonder what the traffic is like.

A 3d scanner and 3d printer, both controlled by a phone. I should be able to send whatever I scanned to my friends and have him/her to print it off rightaway(3d fax?).

This spoke the hearts of many souls, myself included. Thank you for writing this.

How is this different from codemirror? Codemirror's preview utility easily handles this (and much more versatile in other ways):

  http://codemirror.net/
  http://codemirror.net/demo/preview.html

I beg to differ. What you are describing is scientific dogma, simply another kind of symbolism. Totally natural though: when confronted with too complex a situation, we seek abstractions so we are not overwhelmed with the enormity of the information.

The kind of abstraction that works is greatly influenced by its surrounding context. In more complex issues (say in law), appeal to common sense is sometimes more preferable than using the most fashionable 'scientific theory'. You don't like your spouse? How about teaching her evolutionary biology/psychology?

Dogmatism breeds the act of taking these out of context. Some parts of math works in their internal framework(i.e. math), but taking it out of context is at best, dumb, and at worst, harmful. Having theorems giving infinite-length messages yield certain events of probability one makes all 'realistic' outcomes probability zero. Same for theorems too sensitive to perturbation in axioms that removing a single point turns things upside down.

We don't need 'institutional science', or dogma, or 'mathematics strictly contained in universities', all we need is science, is mathematics, is reason, and understanding their application context.

Such debate often occurs with confusing science with 'opinions of the majority of scientists in academia of what's right'. No, science is not the latter.

[TL;DR] Science and math are useful in a very specified context, and as such is a framework of thinking. Those who take some of their context-dependent results universally and urge everyone to accept it is dogmatic, not scientific.

Here is something that's easily overlooked: bringing design and manufacturing together promotes innovation. Having a more rapid iteration cycle is important, but why? Here's a principal reason: it allows design flaws to become visible in the manufacturing, and leads to a redesign if necessary.

Having both these modules in close (spatial and temporal) proximity helps minimizing efforts spent in irrelevant problems. The general rule holds for most softwares with 'manufacturing' replaced by user appreciation.

The hidden cost of taking manufacturing offshore is that a GREAT deal of industrial knowledge is lost. How do you know a problem needs to be taken into consideration if... you don't even know what the problem is?

The glorious days of Bell Labs seems like heaven for tinkerers. Designing, implementing and manufacturing camps don't alienate but simply part of one living organism.