D G

submitted by fallingshoes [link] [87 comments]

submitted by mon_name [link] [212 comments]

When I see British designer and calligraphist Seb Lester work I picture myself sitting quietly next to him just watching him do his job. I'm sure calligraphy is a very relaxing thing to do, this video—where he skillfully recreates famous logos by hand—proves that it's also a mesmerizing thing to watch.

Read more...

submitted by mikokale [link] [564 comments]

submitted by Snipsthetips [link] [90 comments]

submitted by nite_ [link] [187 comments]

submitted by Shutupsilly
[link] [158 comments]

The post This guy appeared first on Ghetto Red Hot.

submitted by Skooter_McGaven
[link] [523 comments]

submitted by BadgerBollocks
[link] [26 comments]

Microsoft revealed the newest addition to its tablet family, and it brings familiar features to a smaller package.

The Surface 3 –– not to be confused with the larger Surface Pro 3 –– runs full Windows and desktop applications, and can run apps from the Windows Store, Steam and GOG.

At 8.7mm thick, and weighing 1.37 lbs., the Surface 3 is the thinnest and lightest device in the Surface lineup. There's also a mobile-broadband version, the Surface 3 (4G LTE).

The Surface 3 features the same multi-touch and pen-controlled screen as the Pro 3, as well as front and rear-facing cameras that both capture 1080p video. It has a battery life of 10 hours, according to Microsoft, and unlike the Pro 3, uses a Micro USB charger, which makes it compatible with most phone chargers. While the included 13W charger replenishes power faster, phone chargers are now a viable alternative.

Continue reading…

As we recently noted in great detail, while 4KTV isn't quite the hype monster 3DTV was, there's a litany of reasons that users shouldn't upgrade to 4K yet -- ranging from the lack of HDCP 2.2 and true HDMI 2.0 compatible receivers, to the uncemented standards related to technologies like HDR. The biggest impedement of course remains the lack of 4K content, with most broadcasters many years away from offering any meaningful volume of 4K content, and most set top players (like Roku or Apple TV) not even supporting 4K yet.

That's not stopping Netflix from pushing the standard all the same. In addition to recently forming the UHD Alliance to help forge consistency among set makers, Netflix is increasingly filming much of its content in 4K or higher, and is now offering a growing catalog of 4K programs (if you're willing to pay a little extra for it).

In a new piece at Wired, Netflix makes it clear it sees traditional cable's inability to offer 4K anytime soon as a major potential leg up competitively, as well as a way to nudge more companies toward Netflix's Open Connect CDN:

quote:

---

The company may also see 4K as a way to push so much data through ISP pipes that its partners have no choice but to sign on to the Netflix Open Connect Initiative, an effort to deliver its shows and movies from machines as close as possible to the viewer. It s a complicated program, but the bottom line is that Open Connect is a way for Netflix to deliver video without clogging up internet pipes and without being so dependent on big internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.

---

Of course that's not entirely true; Netflix found itself at the heart of a net neutrality firestorm last year after the company claimed incumbent ISPs were intentionally letting peering points congest to force content companies to pay for direct interconnection (the ISPs insist this was just peering disputes as usual). Still, it's pretty clear Netflix sees 4K and HDR (whenever they fully materialize) as a good way to gain an advantage over traditional video players. ISPs in turn will likely see this as a great reason to continue the relentless but slow march toward usage caps here in the States.
read comment(s)

submitted by ethanwc [link] [120 comments]

submitted by Ransal [link] [393 comments]

submitted by SlapHappySpatula
[link] [18 comments]

submitted by eternallauren
[link] [1285 comments]

By now everyone, any by everyone we mean even that pillar of orthodox "economic wisdom" , McKinsey, has realized that the reason the world is blanketed in a period of secular stagnation and soon, contraction, is simple: an unprecedented, record amount of debt:

... debt which the world should have restructured as part of the resolution of the global financial crisis, however neither was the financial crisis resolved, nor was the debt overhang fixed. In fact, in all his brilliance, then Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke decided to "fix" record debt with more debt and so did all his other central bank peers leading to this:

 

In fact McKinsey could not be clearer, even for those central bankers who at first, or second, sight may suffer from congenital comprehension defects:

 “High debt levels, whether in the public or private sector, have historically placed a drag on growth and raised the risk of financial crises that spark deep economic recessions.”

So considering that in his latest blog post "Why are interest rates so low, part 2: Secular stagnation" none other than the abovementioned Ben Bernanke decides to tackle precisely the topic of global growth, or lack thereof, and specifically "secular stagnation", one would think that debt would be the dominant word under discussion in Ben Bernanke's latest Brookings Institute post.

One would be wrong. Here is the number of times Ben Bernanke used the word debt in an article that has 1299 words.

 

1

... or a "hit rate" of 0.08%.

This is the context:

But if we are really in a regime of persistent stagnation, more fiscal spending might not be an entirely satisfactory long-term response either, because the government’s debt is already very large by historical standards and because public investment too will eventually exhibit diminishing returns.

He is, actually, correct in this sentences. It is everything else that he is incorrect about.

For example error #1:

The Fed cannot reduce market (nominal) interest rates below zero, and consequently—assuming it maintains its current 2 percent target for inflation—cannot reduce real interest rates (the market interest rate less inflation) below minus 2 percent.

of course the Fed can reduce rates below zero: just look at all of its foundering central bank peers in Europe. NIRP is coming to the US, and Bernanke knows it. Furthermore he is being utterly disingenous:

I’ll ignore here the possibility that monetary tools like quantitative easing or slightly negative official interest rates might allow the Fed to get the real rate a bit below minus 2 percent.

Oh, ignore QE please. After all it has led only to a tiny $4.5 trillion Fed balance sheet. What's that: like 25% of US GDP? Just ignore it. Not like the Fed can't raise rates and disappear trillions in bank excess reserves in "15 minutes." Of course, the S&P will be trading at 15 as well, but who cares.

The farce continues:

Does the U.S. economy face secular stagnation? I am skeptical, and the sources of my skepticism go beyond the fact that the U.S. economy looks to be well on the way to full employment today.

It sure does:

 

Oh, and please ignore the following too.

 

And this:

Just keep repeating: on way to "full employment." Affter all Ben Bernanke said it.

First, as I pointed out as a participant on the IMF panel at which Larry first raised the secular stagnation argument, at real interest rates persistently as low as minus 2 percent it’s hard to imagine that there would be a permanent dearth of profitable investment projects. As Larry’s uncle Paul Samuelson taught me in graduate school at MIT, if the real interest rate were expected to be negative indefinitely, almost any investment is profitable. For example, at a negative (or even zero) interest rate, it would pay to level the Rocky Mountains to save even the small amount of fuel expended by trains and cars that currently must climb steep grades. It’s therefore questionable that the economy’s equilibrium real rate can really be negative for an extended period.

The days of the Rocky Mountains may well be numbered. And then the bubble master himself says something truly profound.

I generally agree with the recent critique of secular stagnation by Jim Hamilton, Ethan Harris, Jan Hatzius, and Kenneth West. In particular, they take issue with Larry’s claim that we have never seen full employment during the past several decades without the presence of a financial bubble. They note that the bubble in tech stocks came very late in the boom of the 1990s, and they provide estimates to show that the positive effects of the housing bubble of the 2000’s on consumer demand were largely offset by other special factors, including the negative effects of the sharp increase in world oil prices and the drain on demand created by a trade deficit equal to 6 percent of US output. They argue that recent slow growth is likely due less to secular stagnation than to temporary “headwinds” that are already in the process of dissipating. During my time as Fed chairman I frequently cited the economic headwinds arising from the aftermath of the financial crisis on credit conditions; the slow recovery of housing; and restrictive fiscal policies at both the federal and the state and local levels.

Ironic Bernanke should say that, because what the world will most remember him for are the sayings on the linked page: Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke's Greatest Hits. Everyone should read these to recall what the Fed chairman was really saying.

But the punchline, and where Bernanke's true colors once again shine, is in his final paragraph:

My greatest concern about Larry’s formulation, however, is the lack of attention to the international dimension. He focuses on factors affecting domestic capital investment and household spending. All else equal, however, the availability of profitable capital investments anywhere in the world should help defeat secular stagnation at home. The foreign exchange value of the dollar is one channel through which this could work: If US households and firms invest abroad, the resulting outflows of financial capital would be expected to weaken the dollar, which in turn would promote US exports. Increased exports would raise production and employment at home, helping the economy reach full employment. In short, in an open economy, secular stagnation requires that the returns to capital investment be permanently low everywhere, not just in the home economy

Clearly that theory has worked so well for all hyperinflating countries who took Bernanke's advice and crushed their currency only to not reap the numerous benefits of monetary collapse and the resultant economic devastation.

However, where everything clicks, is Bernanke's insistence that it all goes back to crushing the dollar, i.e., printing so much of it that it is devalued. Which in turn brings us to Bernanke's far more seminal and important speech from November 2002, "Deflation: Making Sure "It" Doesn't Happen Here", in which he laid out very clearly how this entire episode of market, financial and economic idiocy will end.

... the effectiveness of anti-deflation policy could be significantly enhanced by cooperation between the monetary and fiscal authorities. A broad-based tax cut, for example, accommodated by a program of open-market purchases to alleviate any tendency for interest rates to increase, would almost certainly be an effective stimulant to consumption and hence to prices. Even if households decided not to increase consumption but instead re-balanced their portfolios by using their extra cash to acquire real and financial assets, the resulting increase in asset values would lower the cost of capital and improve the balance sheet positions of potential borrowers. A money-financed tax cut is essentially equivalent to Milton Friedman's famous "helicopter drop" of money.

And there you have it: when all else fails, the helicopter will come out. A helicopter that will drown the world in crisp $100 (and soon $100,000,000,000,000) bills, which in turn will hyperinflate everything. The debt included.

Is it thus any wonder then why Bernanke used the word "debt" only once in a blog post that was all exclusively about debt?