isho's comments

Shahid is awesome, I would vote for him if I lived in SF.

$29 per user doesn't seem that out of line from other companies I've worked for. Of course it totally depends on the business but it comes down to the expected revenue each of those users will generate.

Bitcoin's security model is fundamentally different from more traditional money transfer system. Security is distributed pushing responsibility to the edges. Individual users must secure their own keys but only those funds are at risk if those keys are compromised.

By forcing Bitcoin into a central clearing house model like most of these exchanges are doing you arguably have the worst security properties of both models.

What is extremist about voting in favor of the status quo?

But more importantly, what's wrong with a justice being the lone decenter? Don't we want justices who vote on the merits of the case alone? What's the value in having nine justices who all think a like and vote the same way? I think our supreme court should reflect the values and priorities of all americans.

Seems to me like you just don't like Sotomayor. Which is fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but why don't you come up with criticisms more constructive than calling her "extremist," because you are basically just encouraging group think.

Recognizing BS from truth has always been difficult. The only way I know of is to take the time to think for your self and come up with your own opinions, get information from different sources and contemplate the arguments from both sides before forming your own opinions.

Personally the article seems like a bunch of BS to me. The author is basically saying that climate scientists are wrong because they have been corrupted by the multi-billion dollar green industry. With out providing any evidence of corruption or any new scientific evidence against global warming. The author then adds a whole bunch of other distracting bits of information that don't really support his core thesis. For example specific climate change research that turned out to be flawed doesn't really make a difference since there's already a huge body of evidence stretching back over half a century. It's basically just a straw man argument.

+1, I totally agree. Easier said than done though.