Plus one for first legitimate use of 'begging the question' I've seen in a decade.

It seems that most comments posts are either pro bit-coin or anti bit-coin, but both sides seems to make wrong arguments based on a flawed thinking of mining.

A fixed amount of bit coins are mined (on average) per unit time. Thus, how much work it takes to mine a coin depends solely on the number of miners. Econ 101 theory tells us that the aggregate costs of the miners will equal their aggregate rewards. So, the total cost of mining (hardware, electricity, people's time who work on it) will equal the reward.

That's all that's happening with mining. No for either side to complicate it and make it seem like more is there.

Unless pg is right, and this will actually hurt aap's share price. And pg is not always wrong.

I predict it isn't going to do anything to hurt share price.

"Maybe my indirect reading is biased by the most prominent cultural exports of the US, or their the most vocal representatives"...

Most of the cultural exports of the US are driven by economics, i.e. what can sell to worldwide audience.

Having lived in the US and traveled extensively throughout the world, it is my opinion that the average people in most countries are much more similar than different. People are people. The people in power may have slightly different agendas and by pushing slightly different things, but that doesn't fundamentally affect the citizenry.

Your observations are a little depressing for me, because they leaves few hope for fundamental improvement through education and cultural influence.

I find it interesting that SV is normally in favor of capitalism and free markets, yet some seem tolerant of the government forcing content owners to license their content at a fixed price.

There is often more inovation in a space when the market participates are left to decide on their own what to do.

Consider that a lot of us see the extent of current copyright restrictions as a massive overreach.

A totally "free market" in terms of intellectual property would be to totally remove copyright and other artificial IP restrictions, not one where IP owners have free reign.

As such, compulsory licensing is a way of reducing the impact of restrictions that would not have existed in the first place without government interference in the market.

Government is the one granting the licensing rights in the first place, so neither position (fixed or non-fixed price licensing) is in favor of free market capitalism.

Serious question: How to reconcile BI with more liberal immigration laws?

I see a benefit of BI, but I personally see a larger benefit of allowing open immigration (else you have large inequalities based on country of origin).

that faith has been dramatically eroded over the last two decades...

In hindsight Bush. vs. Gore did a lot to erode this faith, and the ruling was probably a mistake.

Although, to it's credit, the court did not overturn Obamacare, probably because deciding such a partian battle would have further eroded this faith.

Liberals are mad about citizens united, but Roberts is doing yeoman's work. In hindsight, do you really want the government deciding what is political speech and what is impermissible electioneering? Or that the corporations targeted by the NSA have no speech rights? Then he threaded the needle with obamacare. Upholding it, but reiterating the narrower commerce power of Lopez.

I'd understand if you wanted to do additional actions that can help.

But signing this petition takes 30 seconds and is useful. I urge you to consider it.

Citation needed that it's even remotely useful because I've only ever seen evidence to the contrary.

Please sign this petition now.

Upvoting and discussion on HN is important, but if 50% of the people who read this take 30 seconds to sign the petition, it could truly help.

We can't -- and shouldn't -- hope to kick every pro-surveillance Congressman out of office

I strongly disagree. We are blessed with the right to vote. It's important to use it on things that actually matter.