Last
June, Reason TV interviewed the Mercatus Center's
Jerry Brito about the then-new phenomena that is Bitcoin, a virtual
currency that is distributed via the internet.
With Bitcoin now going for over $100 per unit and amassing a
value of over $1 billion worldwide,
everyone has an opinion on the curious currency - whose creator
is still unknown. The short interview above is a great place to get
some basic facts. Go
here for more details and links.
Markets opened deep in the red with the Dow down by as much as 120 points. But stocks slowly ground higher.
First the scoreboard:
Dow: 14,526, -33.5 pts, -0.2 percent
S&P 500: 1,562, -0.9 pts, -0.0 percent
NASDAQ: 3,256, +4.0 pts, +0.1 percent
And now the top stories:
Please follow Money Game on Twitter and Facebook.
Join the conversation about this story »
Today's advice comes from Kay Krill, president and CEO of Ann Taylor, via Bloomberg Business Week:
"I graduated from college, and I did not know what I wanted to do. Macy’s came to campus to interview for their training program, and I thought, 'Let me give it a try.' I got the job and fell in love with the industry. The president of Macy’s at the time said, 'If you don’t wake up every morning dying to go to work, then retailing is not for you; it has to be in your blood.' It was in my blood."
Krill says you need to be passionate about what you do. The more you put off pursuing your dreams, the more unhappy you'll be in the long run. The secret is to know what you want and fight for it. Although this is easier said than done, once you embark on the long journey of saying 'no' to those things in life that don't matter, you will find yourself a lot happier. It's a long term investment that is worth the effort and the sooner you realize it, the better.
"One of my favorite mentors said to me that you have to learn to jettison the people and things out of your life that just don’t matter and put 100 percent of your energy into things that do have meaning to you. That was very liberating for me. I used to go to all these places because I couldn’t say no. Now I pick and choose, and I say no very easily, because I know what’s important to me. I only wish that I learned how to do that earlier in my life."
Want your business advice featured in Instant MBA? Submit your tips to tipoftheday@businessinsider.com. Be sure to include your name, your job title, and a photo of yourself in your email.
Please follow Careers on Twitter and Facebook.
Join the conversation about this story »
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza gave his most recent "Worst
Week in Washington Award" to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., whose
assault weapons ban got stripped from a Democratic gun control
package last Tuesday for lack of support. Fair enough, but if
nonhumanoids can be eligible for the award (and why discriminate?),
I'd say that drones had the "worst week in Washington" last
week.
Judiciary Committee hearing, members from both sides of the aisle
seemed genuinely disturbed by the idea of "government drones
buzzing overhead monitoring the activities of law-abiding
citizens," as Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, put it. When one of the
witnesses, an industry lobbyist, complained that the very term
"drone" had unfairly "hostile connotations," he ran into a buzzsaw
courtesy of Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who snapped, "We'll decide
what we'll call them."
On Friday, it was more bad news for friends of our robot
friends. In ACLU v. CIA, the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit forcefully rebuked the Obama administration for
stonewalling on an ACLU request, under the Freedom of Information
Act, for records related to targeted killing with unmanned aerial
vehicles. Given administration officials' repeated public comments
on the CIA's drone program, the agency's refusal even to confirm or
deny the existence of responsive documents was "neither logical nor
plausible," the court said.
In the wake of the 13-hour filibuster of March 6 by Sen. Rand
Paul, R-Ky. -- in which he used the word "drone" some 245 times --
we're starting to see pushback from the courts and Congress on the
use of flying, spying robot weapons at home and abroad.
In an influential 2011 article, "The Drone as Privacy Catalyst,"
law professor Ryan Calo predicted that the dystopian images that
drones evoke could spur much-needed reforms to American privacy
law. Their association with military spying and targeted killing,
the way they "represent the cold, technological embodiment of
observation," would provide the "visceral jolt" that reformers need
to make their case.
That's certainly happening on the home front. CNET's Declan
McCullagh reports that a bipartisan "anti-drone revolt" has
prompted the introduction of new federal and state legislation
restricting "law enforcement plans to fly more drones equipped with
high-tech gear that can be used to conduct surveillance of
Americans." Professor Calo, who testified at Wednesday's hearing,
warned that "American privacy law places few limits on aerial
surveillance" and urged Congress to "instruct the FAA to take
privacy into account as part of its mandate to integrate drones
into domestic airspace."
The "visceral jolt" that Sen. Paul's filibuster provided seems
to be shifting the debate on the drone wars abroad, as well.
As Slate's Dave Weigel observed yesterday, public opinion polls
show "A 50-Point Swing Against Targeted Drone Killings of U.S.
Citizens" abroad since Sen. Paul's anti-drone marathon. Even
erstwhile Obama allies are speaking out: Gen. James E. Cartwright,
former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently warned
about "blowback" from perpetual remote-controlled war. And on March
13, John Podesta, the former head of the Center for American
Progress, took to the pages of the Washington Post to praise Sen.
Paul's filibuster and warn that with his secretive approach to
drone warfare, "President Obama is ignoring the system of checks
and balances that has governed our country from its earliest
days."
Some say the filibuster is an obstructive anachronism. Sen.
Paul's marathon session earlier this month argues otherwise. With
it, he started a national conversation about the use of drones at
home and abroad that promises to go on much longer than 13
hours.
