• We see patterns where none exist.

• We have difficulty conceptualizing long arcs of time.

• We selectively perceive what agrees with our pre-existing expectations, and ignore things that disagree with our beliefs.

• We tend to forget our losers and over-emphasize our winners.

• Our inherent optimism bias turns out to be hard-wired as well — our brains are better at processing good news about the future than bad.

• We actually get a greater thrill from the anticipation of a financial reward than the actual reward itself. (Think what this means in terms of Buy the Rumor, Sell the News)

• We seek stimulus for the dopamine high — regardless of how. Whether you are a Gambler, Alcoholic, Sex Addict, Shopaholic, or Hyper-Active Trader — its all the same buzz.

• Story-telling is how Humans evolved to share information (Pre-writing). Thus, we are vulnerable to anecdotes that mislead or present false conclusions unsupported by data.

Top 10 Investor Errors: Cognitive Deficits | The Big Picture

Although the critics of Citizens United might well be right to condemn it and to call for a constitutional amendment to overrule it, they are misguided in their reliance on the refrain that "money is not speech."

Of course, money is not "speech." Money is money, a car is a car, and a ribbon is a ribbon. These are objects, not speech. But all of these objects, and many more besides, can be used to facilitate free speech. Consider a car. The government can lawfully impose all sorts of restrictions on how, when and where we can drive a car, and no one would argue that those restrictions implicate the First Amendment.

But suppose a city enacts a law prohibiting any person to drive a car in order to get to a political demonstration. Such a law would clearly implicate the First Amendment, not because a car is speech, but because the law restricts the use of a car for speech purposes.

Similarly, a ribbon is a ribbon. A ribbon is not speech. But a law that prohibits anyone to wear a pink ribbon for expressive purposes would clearly implicate the First Amendment, because it restricts the use of a ribbon for speech purposes.

Like a car or a ribbon, money is not speech. But when government regulates the use of money for speech purposes, it implicates the First Amendment.

It would be helpful if advocacy around Citizen's United was a little less radical.

Geoffrey R. Stone: Is Money Speech?

A second case, however, was a bit more problematic. It involved an Iranian student properly in the United States on a student visa who wanted to buy an iPhone. The writer at the Consumerist, naturally being an expert on export law, quickly disposed of this issue.

In the second case, of the man here on a student visa, you might be able to make that argument, though it’s really just the exporting of goods to Iran — and not the sale of items to Iranians in the U.S. — that is embargoed.

Well, we must give the Consumerist guy some points for effort, but the issue is just a little more complicated than that. First, you can’t sell anything to an Iranian in the United States if you have any reason to believe that the item might be exported back to Iran by the purchaser. In the case of an iPhone, which is probably locked to a U.S. carrier, the export of that item seems unlikely.

Second, you can’t forget about the “deemed export” rules which could forbid transfer of certain technology to Iranian citizens in the United States, even on a legitimate visa.

ExportLawBlog » If You Speak Farsi, Well, You Can’t Have an iPhone

This painting of the entire technology industry as an evil conspiracy seems to have it's memetic origin with "Free Ride" by Billboard editor Robert Levine, which appears to have been timed to coincide with the push for SOPA and PIPA.

Creative Commons is pushing Google's agenda. The mother-in-law of Sergey Brin [co-founder of Google], who has no background in law and no background in copyright, is Vice of their board. She is there because Sergey Brin gave a lot of money. This is not serving the best interest for artists this is serving the best interests for Google. People say that Creative Commons is doing important work and what they're trying to do is great, but if you want to have a serious, respected organization it needs to have a serious respected board. What you have now is a joke, so if you want to be taken seriously, put artists on the board.

What are your feelings about the tech companies' opposition to the PROTECT IP Act?

People on the other side don't say, "Hey, we have certain problems with these certain parts of the PROTECT IP Act." They say, "We don't want any legislation at all, things are fine." I think it's time for the other side, if they don't like this act, to come up with another solution to protect our rights.

It is, of course, enormously frustrating to hear PIPA supporters complain that no one raised specific objections. That is utter bullshit. Specific suggestions regarding due process for takedown requests were rejected vocally by PIPA supporters because they weren't "efficient enough."

The recording industry is engaged in a well funded, multifaceted campaign to discredit anyone who objects to the maximization of their power. This is going to get worse before it gets better.

ASCAP - How “Digital Parasites” Have Hurt Songwriters and What Songwriters Can Do To Fight Back

Copyright skeptics commonly try to make the claim that copyright enforcement is prone to abuse.1

These claims were especially prevalent during last winter’s debates over SOPA and PIPA. In an article on Popular Mechanics, for example, Adam Savage of Mythbusters said, “This is exactly what will happen with Protect IP and SOPA. We’ve seen it again and again. Give people a club like this and you can kiss the Internet as you know it goodbye.”2

The Google Report, however, paints quite a different story.

Google notes that, “From time to time, we may receive inaccurate or unjustified copyright removal requests for search results that clearly do not link to infringing content,” adding that it does not comply with such requests. How many of these requests are there? According to Google, “We removed 97% of search results specified in requests that we received between July and December 2011.” That means that out of all the requests Google receives, only 3% were sent by mistake or in bad faith.

Three percent.

Rumors of Copyright Abuse Have Been Greatly Exaggerated | Copyhype

Supporters of stronger online copyright legislation weren’t surprised that the anti-SOPA efforts fell flat at the voting booth. Many never believed that SOPA would be much of an election year issue. And the Texas GOP primary proved that.

Rep. Lamar Smith, SOPA sponsor, sees critics retreat in bid to unseat him - Jennifer Martinez - POLITICO.com

This is a rambling, wide eyed conspiracy theory about the technology industry and Creative Commons, written by a Music Industry Prof at UGA. The person who wrote this teaches undergrads about the music industry.

There was a real deal gulf of misunderstanding around the SOPA/PIPA debate between members of the content industry and Internet users - you could see the media interests talking to themselves, absolutely convinced that they were sitting across the table from a bunch of thieves and liars. This sort of essay is exemplary of how detached from reality the thought leaders in the content industries have become. The thinking here is broken enough to be dangerous.

I think that some good could come from attempting to reach out to these people and help them understand what is really happening in technology and why. Unfortunately, they may not necessarily be receptive. My comment on this blog was not accepted by the moderator, and I see almost no critical commentary in the thread. I find it hard to believe that no one let this stand unchallenged.

I also deeply empathize with your generation. You have grown up in a time when technological and commercial interests are attempting to change our principles and morality. Sadly, I see the effects of this thinking with many of my students.

These technological and commercial interests have largely exerted this pressure through the Free Culture movement, which is funded by a handful of large tech corporations and their foundations in the US, Canada, Europe and other countries.

The words "their foundations" are linked to a tax return statement for Creative Commons. In other words, the fact that technology corporations fund Creative Commons is herein presented as proof that the conspiracy is real and the evil technology corporations are manipulating all the innocent little children into becoming corrupt thieves - Creative Commons being, of course, the epitome of pure evil.

The fundamental shift in principals and morality is about who gets to control and exploit the work of an artist. The accepted norm for hudreds of years of western civilization is the artist exclusively has the right to exploit and control his/her work for a period of time. (Since the works that are are almost invariably the subject of these discussions are popular culture of one type or another, the duration of the copyright term is pretty much irrelevant for an ethical discussion.) By allowing the artist to treat his/her work as actual property, the artist can decide how to monetize his or her work. This system has worked very well for fans and artists. Now we are being asked to undo this not because we think this is a bad or unfair way to compensate artists but simply because it is technologically possible for corporations or individuals to exploit artists work without their permission on a massive scale and globally. We are being asked to continue ... [ Read More (0.5k in body) ]

Letter to Emily White at NPR All Songs Considered. | The Trichordist

Oh god, someone gave Matel's designers enough money to make actual cars - and tracks - and hire drivers.

This is the best bad idea to come along since some wild man jumped a Subaru onto a barge in Long Beach Harbor...

More Hot Wheels Insanity: The Double-Loop Dare At X Games

“At their worst peak, condos were at a 17 month supply. Detached housing was at a 14 month supply,” Hunt said. “Now both are at five months.”

Because of all the foreclosures and because of difficulties related to buying and selling homes, Hunt said that there’s been a “massive shift” from home ownership to renters.

Prices still are far from their peaks. Hung said that of the homes that were sold in the last 12 months, about 25 percent were sold for less than $50,000.

This hasn't had an impact where I live yet.

Metro Atlanta’s housing market is beginning to show improvement | SaportaReport

Thank you XKCD - This might be a regional thing. Where I grew up (in Canada) "a couple" was a vague term meaning "roughly two," but when I moved to the South Eastern US this was a source of confusion frequently - here "a couple" seems to mean "exactly two" not "roughly two." This cartoon is consistent with my understanding, but the author is from Massachusetts. Its possible that the English spoken there is more similar to that spoke in Ontario than that spoken in Georgia.

xkcd: Words for Small Sets