The last paragraph:
"Yes, of course everyone deserves access to the Internet. But they deserve access to an open Internet where they can own their Digital Selves..."
Does everyone actually deserve internet access? Is that an inalienable human right?
If people want something of value, they have to provide value in return. If Google and Facebook see value in the people's data, then they are willing to give them "free" internet. It is a choice to give those corporations your data in exchange for their services.
Saying that people deserve something can be dangerous. Who provides these things that we all deserve? If there's no economic incentive, why would someone spend the money to provide goods and services for other people?
I completely agree with this, especially for us living now, since we have access to virtually any information on the internet.
However, I can see why Edison would ask seemingly pointless questions. First, while that information is readily available in books, going to a library to find the book with the information needed was much more time consuming than pulling up Google, so there is the convenience factor of memorizing random tidbits of information. Second, and perhaps more important, is the fact that Edison was an inventor, hiring people to help invent things. As an inventor, one needs to have a vast array of knowledge in many fields, and then to be able to make connections between seemingly unrelated items/topics. In our case (hacker news readers), we seek to combine separate entities in ways that no one has done before, creating a new product (read: app/website). Making connections no one else sees is at the heart of entrepreneurship, and invention as well, so having that wide array of knowledge could be see as invaluable.
Sure, I'm sure he thought of that, and I'm sure prices would change since there would be less money earned and therefore less money in circulation. This would also require a change in standard of living though. My point is simply that people cannot maintain the same standard of living and work less, even if the entire world cut back hours at the same time. Less goods would be produced, so with the same demand then prices for everything would rise, or standards of living would fall.
>>For job like programming or CEO, I kind of think that 70 year olds can do better than say 20 year olds.
Maybe in 50 years, but currently I'd say a 20-30 years old is the prime programmer age. Young people tend to learn new tech quicker, and be faster/more efficient at typing and using computers.
Great idea in theory, but there's a reason young people work such long hours: money. If a 22 year old graduates from college and works 25 hours a week, they won't have enough money to pay off their (almost certain) debt and live comfortably, much less have excess money to spend traveling and doing fun things. Young people work so hard so they can have the money to buy and do the things they want. Most just never stop working that hard in order to enjoy those things.
Working 25 hours/week would basically push "life" back a few years, meaning maybe you rent a small apartment and drive a old car until you're 35-40.
As they saying goes, young people have lots of time and no money, but older people have lots of money and no time.
I'm sitting in a intro web development class at my university. We're learning C# and basic HTML/CSS. I didn't know when our exam was, and I showed up one day and got a 100%. Intro programming classes are a waste of time for someone who knows how to code.
Part of the reason not to let users pay is it could decrease the value of the ads they do show. The 8% or so of people who would pay for twitter are probably also the more influential, heavy twitter users. Thus, the 92% of people getting ads might be the lower-value users. That means their current ad revenue might drop drastically. But they could still make a few hundred million dollars from that 8%...
You are exactly right that bitcoins are exactly like fiat money, and have no intrinsic value.
You actually unintentionally explained what you don't understand.
Fiat currency is a problem because it can be so easily manipulated by the governments behind it. Just like the dollar, bitcoins have value only because people believe they have value. Your statement that at least the dollar has a government with big military behind it is exactly what the problem is that bitcoin solves. Bitcoin does NOT have a big government or organization controlling it, so unlike the dollar, no single party can inflate the currency. Central banks are able to create money out of nothing, therefore creating something with perceived value without offering anything of value in exchange (i.e. inflation). That leads to all kinds of problems, as we're seeing with the global economic crisis right now.
While Bitcoin does not have any intrinsic value, it also does not have a way to be inflated. The system by design creates DEFLATION instead, so the currency becomes more valuable(infinite divisibility handles issues with deflation).
Since there is a finite number of bitcoins that can ever be mined, it acts much more like gold than like the dollar. Gold cannot be inflated by any government. If bitcoins gain mass adoption, then they will begin to look very similar to gold. The main difference being that they are purely digital and have no intrinsic value(thus making gold still a better currency).
I think the most common are probably Ad-supported, Subscription, and Freemium(especially for games).
As we're seeing with all the issues being brought up about Facebook, Twitter, and Zynga, these current models do not always work. And even when they do, there are still issues.
There is huge potential right now for new revenue models, so I would recommend getting creative with how your idea could potentially make money.
If app.net succeeds, then there will be more of a transition to subscription services versus free, ad-based services. Currently though, the majority of users prefer free. The challenge is figuring out how to make money from them, which is why ad-supported services are so prevalent.
So try something new. And don't be afraid to ask for money.
For learning to code:
-You develop analytical and problem solving skills. Similar to math, but more practical (how many people really use Calculus on a daily basis?)
-You understand how computers work. No explanation necessary.
-All the other good arguments people have made.
Against learning to code:
-More bad programmers.
-Even worse, more non-programmers who think they can code. Example: Someone does CodeYear and suddenly thinks they are a expert coder. Starts web design business. Sells poorly built wordpress themes to unsuspecting small businesses. If they have low prices, it makes potential customers think that all coding should be cheap("if they can do it for practically free, why should I pay you more?"). Thus, the entire industry suffers.
That isn't to say CodeYear is bad. I like it. It's great for people who actually want to learn to code and don't know where to start. It's bad for people who think they can sell websites after a few hours.
Skills:
- Full-stack web development | Java, Node.js, React.js
- Data | SQL, Cassandra, Neo4j, MongoDB, Kafka
Experience:
~7 years, building systems for both early-stage startups and Fortune 100 enterprises.
[email protected]