I don't think that publishing research as open access will affect book publishing. The reason for the existence of commercial journals was the printing costs and distribution. With the internet this has basically disappeared.
Books, esp. undergraduate college texts will remain extremely profitable for the foreseeable future.
Yeah. The way they used the photos was kinda disrespectful (IMHO). They used it as rotten would use photos (sensationalist). This paragraph irritates me:
"The human brain is surprisingly bloody. I've worked in neuroscience labs, and I'm used to seeing brains that are stored in glass jars filled with formaldehyde, the preserved tissue a lifeless gray. But this brain—removed from a warm body just a few hours ago—looks bruised, its folds stained purple. Blood drips from the severed stem, forming puddles on the stainless steel table."
If they used a photo of the brain for a reasonable purpose (e.g. showing different areas) it would be acceptable. The way they did it was just tasteless.
This is kinda stupid. It is much safer to be cynical about strangers.
Also, asking a stranger to "watch over your stuff" is unfair. You are burdening him with the responsibility of your stuff while their is nothing in return for him.
you don't have to be "smart", you have to fit in. economics is a self-referential discipline. there is no real standard of truth or verity or validity of a theory and hence a lot of bickering even about fundamental questions. and so, there are "schools" of thought. whichever is the current flavor of the month (or rather decade) will carry one of its own to the "highest prize". in terms of hard to get, i'd argue the so-called clark medal is harder. anyway, economists try to act all "science-y" and serious but the fact is, those who arguably understand economics very well (say a soros) and those who win fake nobels are not the same people...
> you don't have to be "smart", you have to fit in. economics is a self-referential discipline. there is no real standard of truth or verity or validity of a theory and hence a lot of bickering even about fundamental questions.
The closer a theory fit to practice (e.g. economic modelling) the better it is.
> those who arguably understand economics very well (say a soros)
There is a difference between understanding macro economics and a person doing dubious and unethical things to get money (e.g. Soros). Soros was involved in many dubious financial transactions and was found guilty of insider trading in France. What he did in Hong Kong may not be entirely illegal but it certainly is completely unethical.
Also - their is a difference between macro-economics and things such as stock trading or currency speculation.
On the other hand - most people have a problem with a lot of economists because of what their results are (i.e. not progressive).
> No, but people's DESIRE for gold can change quite quickly.
Whether or not people's desire for gold and PGMs change or not - they will still desire products that use PGMs (e.g. catalytic converters). Gold has some awesome properties.
Also - the desire for gold is 1000's of years old. Until women will be happy with a plastic engagement ring gold will remain valuable.
> Why did housing prices crash over the last year? Was it because so many houses were created in 12 months? No, it was because people's estimation of the value of houses went down, due to new and better information.
I thought it was because loans were given too easily (i.e. too much money in circulation).
> Gold is certainly not immune to such effects.
The reason why some people prefer gold as a store of value is because the government can't use inflation to rob you of your money. Inflation occurs always when the government prints more money and it serves as a hidden taxation. In the course of history a lot of governments printed money in order to finance its numerous social experiments (Germany, Zimbabwe, etc...)
The problems in Zimbabwe could have been averted if the government was forced to back their currency (partially) by gold.
Whether or not gold should be used as a medium of exchange is up to debate. The bigger question is: What gives you confidence in the value of a dollar?*
* substitute dollar with your local currency of choice (pound, Australian dollar, Euro, Zim dollar, rand, etc...)
He is the kind of guy who might have USED facebook, but he would never be CONSTRAINED by it. He's demonstrated through his actions that he doesn't care about the social consequences of his actions. Although he does appear to have tried to protect his family from legal problems, and it appears to be working: it is unclear to me why there haven't been RICO charges against everyone tangentially involved, which seemed like an obvious next step to me the day after case broke four months ago.
> But now I'm wondering if, from a utilitarian perspective, the world would have been better with him in jail.
No - he corrupted politicians. That is how it works in most African countries - give a lot of money to politicians in exchange for protection from any legal problems.
This regularly happens in the country to its south and in Zimbabwe (e.g. John Bredenkamp).
Do you really believe that he would "make things better"? He probably greased a lot of palms to ensure that he is not extradited to the US.
He will continue greasing palms (with stolen money) and start again with his corruption. There are numerous examples of this being the case.
A good example is Jurgen Harksen. He was on the run from German authorities and decided to hid in South Africa. He quickly started on the corruption bandwagon again and formed close "relationships" with various politicians.
