user0398

This has definitely been the single worst HN thread of all time.

Bitcoin has already served it's purpose anyway. It already is a currency that people exchange for goods and other government issued currencies. It doesn't really metter what anyone thinks. Bitcoin has already succeeded. The only question that you need to ask is; Is it something you should invest in?

My personal answer? No. But who cares what I think. It's simply non productive, and frankly non-scientific, to stand up and say "Here's why bitcion is going to fail..." because it doesn't matter, it has already served its purpose.

The CPU cycles are contributing to global warming, and are a means for controlling the rate at which new coins are mined. Unless you have a large dedication to hardware tuning and a decent amount of real money, attempting to mine is of no use unless of course your heater is broken and you need your computer to keep you warm.

How can something be merely anecdotal and empirically evidenced at the same time?

A good reason why lustig spends much of his talk discussing the chemistry of sugar metabolism.

I find it utterly frustrating that a scientific seeming article would end with this conclusion:

"A single algorithm can trigger false-positive or false-negative results... if something is really real, then it should pass everything."

How you going to be so thorough about detecting a crappy photoshop job and then trip over your own words in the conclusion?

Mostly true 'cept for pythons built in pasta makers:

http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0318/