Sunday, June 12, 2011
All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace
All three parts of this recent BBC documentary by Adam Curtis are available for free viewing on YouTube. It's worth a look.
The series deals primarily with questions of technology and freedom and weaves together a wonderfully researched and thought out narrative of our history with machines. The influences of a huge range of ideas and theories are considered, from Charles Darwin to Alan Greenspan. I found the parts dealing with international finance to be the most interesting.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
BitCoin taking some heat
After mainstream news sources recently published a few articles regarding Bitcoin and the TOR project, these little-understood services have been getting a lot of attention.
Most of this began, by my estimation, with a post at Gawker.com. The article focuses most of its attention on the fact that Bitcoins are used as the principal currency of the online drug trade. This sensationalistic tidbit completely overshadowed the real story, here. Rather than consider the implications of an untraceable, digital currency that exists independently of any government or bank, online media outlets kept writing the easy story about "The Amazon.com of illegal drugs," and "Silk Road: the website with every drug imaginable for sale."
As a result of this sensationalism and oversimplification, strong reactions have been seen among individuals with no understanding of BitCoin or Tor. Among them, two U.S. senators.
According to a Reuters Report, Senators Charles Schumer and Joe Manchin are pressing officials within the DEA to take action against Silk Road by attacking BitCoin. As they wrote in their letter:
“The only method of payment for these illegal purchases is an untraceable peer-to-peer currency known as Bitcoins. After purchasing Bitcoins through an exchange, a user can create an account on Silk Road and start purchasing illegal drugs from individuals around the world and have them delivered to their homes within days."
Silk Road is a very small part of a host of issues they're unknowingly tackling here. Our senators don't have a solid understanding of BitCoin or Tor, but I won't fault them for that. Most people aren't even aware they exist. I think that'll change in the coming months, though.
Most of this began, by my estimation, with a post at Gawker.com. The article focuses most of its attention on the fact that Bitcoins are used as the principal currency of the online drug trade. This sensationalistic tidbit completely overshadowed the real story, here. Rather than consider the implications of an untraceable, digital currency that exists independently of any government or bank, online media outlets kept writing the easy story about "The Amazon.com of illegal drugs," and "Silk Road: the website with every drug imaginable for sale."
As a result of this sensationalism and oversimplification, strong reactions have been seen among individuals with no understanding of BitCoin or Tor. Among them, two U.S. senators.
According to a Reuters Report, Senators Charles Schumer and Joe Manchin are pressing officials within the DEA to take action against Silk Road by attacking BitCoin. As they wrote in their letter:
“The only method of payment for these illegal purchases is an untraceable peer-to-peer currency known as Bitcoins. After purchasing Bitcoins through an exchange, a user can create an account on Silk Road and start purchasing illegal drugs from individuals around the world and have them delivered to their homes within days."
Silk Road is a very small part of a host of issues they're unknowingly tackling here. Our senators don't have a solid understanding of BitCoin or Tor, but I won't fault them for that. Most people aren't even aware they exist. I think that'll change in the coming months, though.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
I'm calling it: this is what the death of state-backed currencies and central banks will look like.
BitCoin is an atom bomb poised to explode over the financial sector. It challenges everything we think we know about the way currency works and by the looks of it, it is unstoppable.
Created in 2009 by Japanese cryptographer Satoshi Nakamoto, BitCoins are a new form of digital currency known as a "cryptocurrency." Rather than being printed by a central bank or backed up by something like gold or silver, they are generated by computational power as the result of solving complex hash functions. Anyone running BitCoin "mining" software on their computer can generate BitCoins for themselves, free. Once generated or traded, they are stored on your personal computer in the form of a wallet file, or kept with a third-party wallet service. They can be sent by anyone with a Bitcoin address to anyone with a BitCoin address and the transactions are completely untraceable. They can be traded for dollars at exchanges, such as Mt. Gox. One BitCoin is currently trading for roughly $20.
It sounds completely mad, but here's why it works:
A large amount of computational power is required to generate a single BitCoin. In order to run the functions that "make" BitCoins, your computer must spend a long time doing some very hard decryption. The rate at which BitCoins are generated is also fixed, meaning that as more people decide to run mining software, the calculations required to generate a BitCoin also become more difficult. Because the process is distributed across a peer-to-peer network (similar to BitTorrent), no matter how many people decide to start generating BitCoins or how powerful their computers might come to be, the rate at which new BitCoins enter into circulation is fixed. Also as a result of peer-to-peer distribution, in order for anyone to stop it they'd have to to take down the Internet itself. In short, the rate at which Bitcoins are created is determined by cryptographic and computational principals rather than the misguided judgement of a Federal Reserve Cheif or banker. Currently, there are 6.2 million BitCoins in existence. This number will double by 2012, with the total number topping out at 21 million around 2033.
I first heard about BitCoins around six months ago. I thought it was a brilliant concept, but I was wary of investing any of the little cash I've got into the whole thing. As it turns out, if I'd bought 200 dollars worth of BitCoins back then, they'd be worth about $12,000 today. An $1,800 computer set up for optimized mining would have paid for itself roughly 25 times over in the past six months if it had been left on 22 hours a day.
While replacing the almighty dollar is a lofty goal, lord knows I'd love to see Goldman Sachs squirm.
Bitcoin's creators have said that they are going to revolutionize finance in the same way that the web has already revolutionize publishing. As a journalist, that analogy tickles me.
Created in 2009 by Japanese cryptographer Satoshi Nakamoto, BitCoins are a new form of digital currency known as a "cryptocurrency." Rather than being printed by a central bank or backed up by something like gold or silver, they are generated by computational power as the result of solving complex hash functions. Anyone running BitCoin "mining" software on their computer can generate BitCoins for themselves, free. Once generated or traded, they are stored on your personal computer in the form of a wallet file, or kept with a third-party wallet service. They can be sent by anyone with a Bitcoin address to anyone with a BitCoin address and the transactions are completely untraceable. They can be traded for dollars at exchanges, such as Mt. Gox. One BitCoin is currently trading for roughly $20.
It sounds completely mad, but here's why it works:
A large amount of computational power is required to generate a single BitCoin. In order to run the functions that "make" BitCoins, your computer must spend a long time doing some very hard decryption. The rate at which BitCoins are generated is also fixed, meaning that as more people decide to run mining software, the calculations required to generate a BitCoin also become more difficult. Because the process is distributed across a peer-to-peer network (similar to BitTorrent), no matter how many people decide to start generating BitCoins or how powerful their computers might come to be, the rate at which new BitCoins enter into circulation is fixed. Also as a result of peer-to-peer distribution, in order for anyone to stop it they'd have to to take down the Internet itself. In short, the rate at which Bitcoins are created is determined by cryptographic and computational principals rather than the misguided judgement of a Federal Reserve Cheif or banker. Currently, there are 6.2 million BitCoins in existence. This number will double by 2012, with the total number topping out at 21 million around 2033.
I first heard about BitCoins around six months ago. I thought it was a brilliant concept, but I was wary of investing any of the little cash I've got into the whole thing. As it turns out, if I'd bought 200 dollars worth of BitCoins back then, they'd be worth about $12,000 today. An $1,800 computer set up for optimized mining would have paid for itself roughly 25 times over in the past six months if it had been left on 22 hours a day.
While replacing the almighty dollar is a lofty goal, lord knows I'd love to see Goldman Sachs squirm.
Bitcoin's creators have said that they are going to revolutionize finance in the same way that the web has already revolutionize publishing. As a journalist, that analogy tickles me.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Credo
The existence of karma can be deduced logically. Not in the reincarnation-as-a-cockroach sense, but in that the world will consistently give you back what you put out. Even if most of reality is chaos and mathematics, that which isn't is cause and effect. Acting ethically and considering others benefits you because it benefits the world and you've got to live there.
I think Ayn Rand was a very smart woman but I also think she may have been a sociopath.
I think Ayn Rand was a very smart woman but I also think she may have been a sociopath.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Orwell Rolls in his Grave
A friend recommended this film to during a conversation about the media's responsibility to act as a check to government. It looks at the power of the corporate media and it's influence, reaching the ultimate conclusion that the media holds a more important power over the people of this country than any branch of government, as they have the ability to rewrite history and direct public opinion.
And as the keepers of information, who is the media accountable to?
Some people accuse the news media of having a liberal bias. I've always said that reality has a liberal bias, but I digress. What the makers of this film are saying is that the major players in news and entertainment are the lapdogs of government and big business, and that their modus operandi consists of keeping the public ignorant so that corrupt people can continue to enjoy their money and power.
A prominent example was made out of recent legislation passed during the Bush administration regarding the estate tax. Most of the general public had no idea that they wouldn't be affected by the estate tax, but the media worked in conjunction with the conservative party to depict the whole thing as something terrible, even relabeling it as the "death tax."
While the media could do a much better job at informing our populace, it's main function ends up being to entertain. Bread and circuses. The public is kept complacent and distracted, while those who control the news are in bed with those who control the government to make sure that things stay the way they are.
The increasingly important role of technology is a welcome de-stabilizer, in my opinion. With the internet providing more equal access to information publication, perhaps all of the uncertainty about the future will translate to some real positive change.
The film is available in parts on youtube. Here is the first:
What we want in a media system is ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.
.
--Joseph Goebbels
And as the keepers of information, who is the media accountable to?
Some people accuse the news media of having a liberal bias. I've always said that reality has a liberal bias, but I digress. What the makers of this film are saying is that the major players in news and entertainment are the lapdogs of government and big business, and that their modus operandi consists of keeping the public ignorant so that corrupt people can continue to enjoy their money and power.
A prominent example was made out of recent legislation passed during the Bush administration regarding the estate tax. Most of the general public had no idea that they wouldn't be affected by the estate tax, but the media worked in conjunction with the conservative party to depict the whole thing as something terrible, even relabeling it as the "death tax."
While the media could do a much better job at informing our populace, it's main function ends up being to entertain. Bread and circuses. The public is kept complacent and distracted, while those who control the news are in bed with those who control the government to make sure that things stay the way they are.
The increasingly important role of technology is a welcome de-stabilizer, in my opinion. With the internet providing more equal access to information publication, perhaps all of the uncertainty about the future will translate to some real positive change.
The film is available in parts on youtube. Here is the first:
What we want in a media system is ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.
.
--Joseph Goebbels
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
According to information gathered by the folks at alexa.com, as of may 2011, the top 10 most visited sites on the web are:
1. google.com,
2. facebook.com,
3. youtube.com
4. yahoo.com
5. blogger.com
6. baidu.com
7. Wikipedia.com
8. live.com
9. twitter.com
10. qq.com
These are the heavy hitters on the Internet.. They receive ~90% of the web's pageviews. What does this tell us?
Half of them--Google, Yahoo, Baidu, Live and QQ, are all portals to the rest of the web. They employ search algorithms to help you sift through the vast sea of information on the rest of the internet.
Facebook, youtube, blogger, wikipedia and twitter, however, all work by giving you access to content created by third parties and stored on their servers. The're the best of the web 2.0. They've managed to take your stories/information/ideas along with those of your peers and turned them into a commodity that allows them to sell ad space. For all the democratization and non-hierarchical organizing that the internet has made possible, it has also concentrated power in some quirky ways.
As far as sites that (mostly) create content on their own, we've got:
1. news.yahoo.com
2. bbc.co.uk
3. bbc.co.uk/news/
4. nytimes.com
5. cnn.com
6. huffingtonpost.com
7. weather.com
8. reddit.com
9. my.yahoo.com
10. msnbc.msn.com
These are the top news sites on the internet. None of these sites is in the general top 10+, and most of them occupy their position at the top of this list because of previously established notoriety. These news sources have history and have remained at the top of their game because people trust their reporting and because people are used to getting their news from one source.
Reddit and The Huffington Post are interesting exceptions to this rule. They operate on a model closer to that of the first group of sites, fueled by user-generated content. They're also both relative newcomers, holding their own against giants like CNN. While on one hand this indicates a decreased concentration of power whereby the information sharing process is more democratic and anyone can do journalism, the tendency among sites of this sort is to rely on people to create content for free. As a result, you've got a ton of people, each doing a little bit of work, and a handful of folks getting paid handsomely for the labor of others. Yeah. I'm looking at you, Arianna Huffington.
1. google.com,
2. facebook.com,
3. youtube.com
4. yahoo.com
5. blogger.com
6. baidu.com
7. Wikipedia.com
8. live.com
9. twitter.com
10. qq.com
These are the heavy hitters on the Internet.. They receive ~90% of the web's pageviews. What does this tell us?
Half of them--Google, Yahoo, Baidu, Live and QQ, are all portals to the rest of the web. They employ search algorithms to help you sift through the vast sea of information on the rest of the internet.
Facebook, youtube, blogger, wikipedia and twitter, however, all work by giving you access to content created by third parties and stored on their servers. The're the best of the web 2.0. They've managed to take your stories/information/ideas along with those of your peers and turned them into a commodity that allows them to sell ad space. For all the democratization and non-hierarchical organizing that the internet has made possible, it has also concentrated power in some quirky ways.
As far as sites that (mostly) create content on their own, we've got:
1. news.yahoo.com
2. bbc.co.uk
3. bbc.co.uk/news/
4. nytimes.com
5. cnn.com
6. huffingtonpost.com
7. weather.com
8. reddit.com
9. my.yahoo.com
10. msnbc.msn.com
These are the top news sites on the internet. None of these sites is in the general top 10+, and most of them occupy their position at the top of this list because of previously established notoriety. These news sources have history and have remained at the top of their game because people trust their reporting and because people are used to getting their news from one source.
Reddit and The Huffington Post are interesting exceptions to this rule. They operate on a model closer to that of the first group of sites, fueled by user-generated content. They're also both relative newcomers, holding their own against giants like CNN. While on one hand this indicates a decreased concentration of power whereby the information sharing process is more democratic and anyone can do journalism, the tendency among sites of this sort is to rely on people to create content for free. As a result, you've got a ton of people, each doing a little bit of work, and a handful of folks getting paid handsomely for the labor of others. Yeah. I'm looking at you, Arianna Huffington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)