Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (32349)	12/23/2009 3:10:43 PM
From: axial	Respond to of 46821

"Over the past decades, many economists have sought to define the differences between the physical goods economy and the modern protocol economy. In 2000, Larry Summers, then the Treasury secretary, gave a speech called “The New Wealth of Nations,” laying out some principles." --- "Six principles for regulatory order"" Op-Ed, Financial Times By Lawrence Summers, Charles W. Eliot University Professor (on leave) Lawrence Summers argues that missing from the U.S. financial debate is discussion of "principles describing the properties of any desirable regulatory regime, against which proposals can be evaluated." Among his six principles: ensure that regulators "cannot compete to supervise particular institutions;" and do not allow institutions to determine capital levels "based on risk models of their own design." --- "“You can be very big and very rich and very smart and still get things wrong,” Shapiro said." Harvard Swaps Are So Toxic Even Summers Won’t Explain (Update3) bloomberg.com --- "A software program is a protocol for organizing information." A program is also a mechanism for execution. Example: trillions of dollars moved instantly by algorithmic trading. --- Economics is a pseudoscience, no more representative of reality than psychology. We should never forget that - about the practice or the practitioners. "If, then, else...": the conditional assessment is fundamental to good programming, but programming success cannot exceed the conceptual framework in which it is created, and for which it acts. Common sense is held in little regard compared to pseudointellectual claptrap. Expertise is overrated. We live in dangerous times. Jim

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (32349)	12/23/2009 5:42:34 PM
From: pltodms	Respond to of 46821

Intersting post Frank, The follow-up search I did after reading it yesterday includes the two books referenced by Brooks in his NYT Op-Ed: The Protocol Society. Book Review: From Poverty to Prosperity seekingalpha.com;“ Snippet: One consensus that emerges among both the Nobel laureates and the others interviewed for this book is that Friedrich Hayek was a giant. And not only because they are concerned, as Richard Ebeling warned the other day, that recent expansion of government means that we are on a ‘new road to serfdom.’ “ [Note that Friedrich Hayek is one of the most influential members of the Austrian School of economics.] --- Smart World Excepts From the Introduction to Smart World How does the mind work? For the past seventy years philosophers, cognitive and evolutionary psychologists, linguists, neuroscientists, and researchers in artificial intelligence have intensively studied this question. Their efforts have made the logical and biological structure and functioning of the mind visible as never before. We now possess a good understanding of how we acquire language; how the visual system works; how we learn, extending knowledge through rational thought processes; and how our emotions affect our beliefs and actions. Nevertheless, our knowledge of the mind remains frustratingly incomplete. One of the biggest gaps in our understanding is breakthrough creativity, which stands among the human mind's greatest yet most enigmatic forms of achievement. Relativity theory, DNA, cubism, printing with movable type, the personal computer, the Internet, and the iPod may be comprehensible enough in themselves, but the mental processes that led to them have remained largely beyond our grasp. Where do truly innovative ideas come from, and how does the mind make the leap to embrace them? What role do existing cultural and social factors play? Above all, what are the primary mental faculties involved in creativity, and how do they work? These are genuinely important questions, but until recently, the answers have been distinctly unsatisfactory. Creative leaps? Ah, we say, that's genius. Which is just another way of saying we don't have the foggiest idea how to talk about them. Cont: richardogle.typepad.com