by Tyler Cowen
on April 8, 2010 at 12:30 pm
in Web/Tech |
1. Is Kim Jong-Il now a fashion leader? Buy the stuff here.
2. Very good David Boaz article on mistaken nostalgia.
3. Best-selling books of 2009.
4. Soft paternalism: the bottom line and here.
5. What do we know about mandate compliance?
6. Very good John Gruber iPad review.
Fuck the iPad!
Here is a review of “Nudge” from a libertarian who has actually read the book (slow to load pdf):
Apparently, the book does suggest converting certain hard paternalistic policies to soft paternalistic policies.
Pretty sure Jolly is correct. Welp, cheers.
As long as Kim Jong Il remains dead last on the national leaders hotness index, it will
be kind of hard for him to be much of a fashion leader outside the DPRK.
in response to anon, theres a pretty good article here: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/gizmodo-apple-ipad,9538.html about how the iPod first, now the iPad may be the gadget we didnt’ know we wanted. It seems that exteremely popular technology doesn’t alwasy immediately fill a whole in a consumers life. Rather the devices are versatile and technologically sophisticated enough that more uses evolve for them then could ever be considered.
So history begins at the civil rights era and everything anyone ever did before that is meaningless.
Sounds like a pathetic argument.
Thank you for #2 and #4
The idea that the iPad is some reinvention of computing is stunningly retarded.
This made me lol. FWIW, I agree.
Ironically named internet commenter Number 431: Jolly.
This also made me lol
Do not,for one repulse,give up the nike shoes purpose that you resolved to effect.A light cheap jordans shoes heart lives long.In delay there lies no plenty,Then nike shox for cheap on sale come kiss me,sweet and twenty,
The Segway was an example of what happens when an inventor whose prior primary focus was the health-care-industrial complex attempts to create a mass-consumer item: the mindset is that cost doesn’t matter, so it ends up being an order of magnitude too high. The iPad is not at all like the Segway.
It’s idiotic to say “besides nonwhite people, women, LGBT, and non-large property owners, the United States was totally free!”
But that’s not the point. Here’s an example of the sort of things libertarians have in mind when they say that: the second amendment really did mean that people had the right to bear arms. Over time it was re-interpreted in a way that gave ordinary people less power and government more power. That is a shame.
That sort of thing. That’s not “idiotic”. It’s a perfectly reasonable point about an entirely real decline in an important aspect of freedom that took place. Similar points can be made about other parts of the Constitution, about the changes that took place under Presidents like Woodrow Wilson and FDR, and so on.
Now, sure, you can say, “well, black slaves didn’t have the individual right to bear arms.” Sure. True. But that fact doesn’t really negate the point that the second amendment really was intended a certain way, and was then later on re-interpreted in a way that reduced its effectiveness as a limit on government.
I mean, if some ACLU lawyer one of these days waxes rhetorical about the first amendment and free speech, would it really be a relevant response to say, “the black slaves didn’t have free speech”? Would be a fair response to then imply that the ACLU lawyer, by appealing to a historic American document written in a day when there were slaves who did not enjoy the freedoms described therein, was showing that he wanted to re-introduce slavery?
It would not be relevant or fair. It would be dishonest. And it is dishonest. Really, I don’t know what is going on over at Reason magazine. Supposedly a libertarian publication.
Constant nailed it re: Boaz article.
Trying to come up with the next computer invention is really hard, I can imagine. People expect more cool looking stuff and that is what the iPad is, a really cool looking thing. Mac and any other computer/phone company seem to focus on how the product looks more than what it can do. Also I think that the major profit in the iPad comes from buying apps for it than the actual iPad itself. I think that is the main purpose of the iPad, to get people to buy more apps.
I recently had my computer destroyed by a virus and I would have preferred better developed anti-virus software over a shiny new toy. It seems people are making cool, shiny computers that don’t do anything new over things that make our existing computers run better. iPods, iPhone, iPads, and most other new phones are just fads people get into.
Comments on this entry are closed.
Previous post: Sentences to ponder
Next post: Sentence to ponder
Email Tyler Cowen
Follow Tyler on Twitter
Email Alex Tabarrok
Follow Alex on Twitter
Subscribe in a reader
Follow Us on Twitter
Marginal Revolution on Twitter Counter.com
Get smart with the Thesis WordPress Theme from DIYthemes.