Wednesday, November 27, 2013
More on Bitcoin....
Volatility continues - Bitcoin hits $1,000 USD.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25120731
U.S. Senate holds hearings on Bitcoin
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/beyond-silk-road-potential-risks-threats-and-promises-of-virtual-currencies
The Canada government's taxation agency (Canadian Revenue Agency) calls bitcoin bartering.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/fctshts/2013/m11/fs131105-eng.html?rss
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Policy and legislative velocity database
I am working on a adding a velocity database to this blog. Unfortunately blogger does not yet allow different designs layouts to be applied to different pages.
So as soon as I have reconfigured the design and done some coding for the Database page I will make it live.
Having the database as a separate static page will allow for easier updating.
Monday, September 9, 2013
BITCOIN ATM
It seems the Bitcoin phenomena is gathering a bit of speed.
Today, it was announced that entrepreneurs in Vancouver are creating Bitcoin ATMs. Put cash in to get bitcoins.
This it seems is a bit of a game changer. For me the limitation of this technology has always been its diffusion. Tech savvy criminal elements and other techies may have been interested but general diffusion - not likely. However, an ATM does change that trajectory. Who's awake in Ottawa?
Today, it was announced that entrepreneurs in Vancouver are creating Bitcoin ATMs. Put cash in to get bitcoins.
This it seems is a bit of a game changer. For me the limitation of this technology has always been its diffusion. Tech savvy criminal elements and other techies may have been interested but general diffusion - not likely. However, an ATM does change that trajectory. Who's awake in Ottawa?
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Bitcoin regulation
Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency where the creation and transfer of bitcoins is based on an open-source cryptographic protocol that is independent of any central authority. Bitcoins can be transferred through a computer or smartphone without an intermediate financial institution.[9] The concept was introduced in a 2008 paper by a pseudonymous developer known only as "Satoshi Nakamoto", who called it a peer-to-peer, electronic cash system. (From wikipedia).
From a technological point of view the 'currency' emerged in 2008-2009. The earliest mention I can find on The Economist website is from April 2013.
The local Vancouver TV channel has run a couple of articles on Bitcoin lately.
There is this one on 'how to' and there is this one that ran on prime time news.
In August 2013 Germany recognised it as a form of currency in order to regulate it. http://www.dailydot.com/business/germany-bitcoin-official-currency/
Also in August 2013, a Texas court ruled that Bitcoin was a form of currency as apart of bitcoin fraud case.
An article on the decision can be found here, and the court document can be found here:
I thought it was interesting that Germany was the first to regulate it, it will be interesting to watch for changes in the policies of other countries. If I hear anything I will report it here.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Impact measures and scientific fraud
One of the debates held at DRUID this year is a must watch.
It raised, although not quite head the issue of whether metrics are a factor in driving bad behavior.
The debate was of excellent quality, with some truly stunning examples of fraud.
It is a vitally important issue please watch it here http://www.druid.dk/streaming/ds2013/june18/player.html#course=BE101&unit=1&video=3&language=en-US
Friday, June 14, 2013
The Role of Charities in the Research System
I'm just heading off to the DRUID conference in Barcelona.
The surprising and it seems little known fact is that Charities in about a third of OECD countries spend more on research in universities than the business sector. Astonishing but true.
More astonishing is the lack of recognition for the data rather than the rhetoric of the triple helix.
The paper's Abstract
We have become familiar and comfortable with the idea that the science, technology and innovation (STI) system of countries is constructed around the so called ?triple helix? of government, universities and business. Contrary to the academic interest and government policy, the public is increasingly bypassing this club to impact science funding and innovation outcomes through directly creating and donating funds for research that they want. The charities and foundations coordinating this shift are neither ignorant of strategy or dealing in petty cash. In a significant number of OECD countries, private-non-profits as the statistical category is called, fund the higher education research system at a similar or greater level than business. This result has important implications for how we understand the STI system. This paper explores this gap in the literature, ambiguities in analyzing the phenomenon and suggests a framework for further analysis how charities and foundations are reconfiguring STI systems.
You can get a copy of the paper here.
http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/acc_papers/2p2kleih0x11v4r4fqsoj7r1phj6.pdf
The surprising and it seems little known fact is that Charities in about a third of OECD countries spend more on research in universities than the business sector. Astonishing but true.
More astonishing is the lack of recognition for the data rather than the rhetoric of the triple helix.
The paper's Abstract
We have become familiar and comfortable with the idea that the science, technology and innovation (STI) system of countries is constructed around the so called ?triple helix? of government, universities and business. Contrary to the academic interest and government policy, the public is increasingly bypassing this club to impact science funding and innovation outcomes through directly creating and donating funds for research that they want. The charities and foundations coordinating this shift are neither ignorant of strategy or dealing in petty cash. In a significant number of OECD countries, private-non-profits as the statistical category is called, fund the higher education research system at a similar or greater level than business. This result has important implications for how we understand the STI system. This paper explores this gap in the literature, ambiguities in analyzing the phenomenon and suggests a framework for further analysis how charities and foundations are reconfiguring STI systems.
You can get a copy of the paper here.
http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/acc_papers/2p2kleih0x11v4r4fqsoj7r1phj6.pdf
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
'The Australian Miracle' by Thomas Barlow
Yes the title of the book is The Australian Miracle.
This book is a few years old now but it still deserves a big plug. It is a very readable but factual book on the surprising success of Australia particularly during the 1800s. From a penal colony to one of the wealthiest economies in the world in just over a 100 years. That deserves the title 'miracle'. The book is for a popular audience and is rather polemical but as it is trying to act as a counterweight to the current tendencies in science policy worldwide this has a place in a debate which is surprisingly shallow at the moment.
Barlow rightly emphasises that success has been largely but not completely due to technological adoption and then adaption to Australia's particular environmental conditions has been critical to its success.
While he rightly points out that Australian mining and agriculture have relied on science and technological advance for a very long time, my only criticism is that he does not emphasise this enough. Australian agriculture is invented. It should not exist on one of the harshest environments on the planet. What I used to say when I worked for the Australian government was agriculture was a created advantaged in Australia. Certainly the perception from far away (overseas) and even in Australia is to take success for granted. Well of course we would have succeeded - even with the poorest soils and lowest rainfalls.
The other really strong point of the book is that it emphasises that that economies are very heterogeneous, and becoming more so, and thus require a diverse range of science and technology inputs. He points out that want is 'useful' science and technology is often a matter of time and perspective.
This book is a modern take on the traditional perspective that the best people to judge relevance are scientists themselves and the government should stay out of priority setting. I have some sympathy for this perspective.
I have a few disagreements with the book but they were surprisingly minor. It wasn't the purpose of the book to grapple with the political problem of justifying basic research to a public that wants to see more immediate relevance. Nor did the book go into the enormous issue of commercialising university research. I would have liked to have read more on both topics. My biggest criticism is that the book focusses on natural sciences, engineering and medicine and ignores completely the social sciences, humanities and the arts. In the heterogeneous economy that Barlow points to, that is a mistake.
It would also have been nice if there had been a few notes for more sources than the quite limited reference list.
Not all readers will accept the premise of the book that there are 10 myths that Australians hold about their science and innovation efforts but if you accept these as at least valid starting point to have a discussion about policy then it is well worth the read.
The book, although very oriented to the Australian market, should also be read by Canadians.
This book is a few years old now but it still deserves a big plug. It is a very readable but factual book on the surprising success of Australia particularly during the 1800s. From a penal colony to one of the wealthiest economies in the world in just over a 100 years. That deserves the title 'miracle'. The book is for a popular audience and is rather polemical but as it is trying to act as a counterweight to the current tendencies in science policy worldwide this has a place in a debate which is surprisingly shallow at the moment.
Barlow rightly emphasises that success has been largely but not completely due to technological adoption and then adaption to Australia's particular environmental conditions has been critical to its success.
While he rightly points out that Australian mining and agriculture have relied on science and technological advance for a very long time, my only criticism is that he does not emphasise this enough. Australian agriculture is invented. It should not exist on one of the harshest environments on the planet. What I used to say when I worked for the Australian government was agriculture was a created advantaged in Australia. Certainly the perception from far away (overseas) and even in Australia is to take success for granted. Well of course we would have succeeded - even with the poorest soils and lowest rainfalls.
The other really strong point of the book is that it emphasises that that economies are very heterogeneous, and becoming more so, and thus require a diverse range of science and technology inputs. He points out that want is 'useful' science and technology is often a matter of time and perspective.
This book is a modern take on the traditional perspective that the best people to judge relevance are scientists themselves and the government should stay out of priority setting. I have some sympathy for this perspective.
I have a few disagreements with the book but they were surprisingly minor. It wasn't the purpose of the book to grapple with the political problem of justifying basic research to a public that wants to see more immediate relevance. Nor did the book go into the enormous issue of commercialising university research. I would have liked to have read more on both topics. My biggest criticism is that the book focusses on natural sciences, engineering and medicine and ignores completely the social sciences, humanities and the arts. In the heterogeneous economy that Barlow points to, that is a mistake.
It would also have been nice if there had been a few notes for more sources than the quite limited reference list.
Not all readers will accept the premise of the book that there are 10 myths that Australians hold about their science and innovation efforts but if you accept these as at least valid starting point to have a discussion about policy then it is well worth the read.
The book, although very oriented to the Australian market, should also be read by Canadians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)