Other currencies are stable because they're actively managed by central banks, there's huge liquidity, and the currencies aren't inherently deflationary. Bitcoin has none of these things going for it. It's not a currency, for the most part, it's an instrument for speculators.
In a perfect world, you're right. But it's inconceivable that there would be a BTC futures market with enough liquidity to make this happen, since a) the BTC supply is relatively small and b) no CFTC-regulated exchange is going to touch BTC as long as it exists its current quasi-legal state.
Other commodities are volatile for different reasons. Natural gas is volatile because it's literally volatile, so storing and shipping it is expensive. Grains are volatile because of variable growing seasons. Onions are volatile because US Congress banned futures markets for onions. Even so, none of these are nearly as volatile as BTC has been.
They'd have to transfer the patent to the shell company, which would then be transferred to the winning defendant in any bankruptcy. So at least they'd lose the patent they sued with.
They'd have to have their certs installed on your computer, or be an existing CA. Schools and corps (including the one I work for) can do this because they have admin control over destination machines.
The article's main point is that the founders didn't do anything really noteworthy, technologically speaking, and so Yahoo overpaid for the talent in question.
That's exactly what short selling stock is: you borrow it from someone and sell it, and return it to them later by buying it for (hopefully) cheaper. To sell short without borrowing is called 'naked' short selling, and it's not allowed on US equity exchanges.
It never really worked in the sense that you mean. Economic growth was virtually nil until the industrial revolution. Not coincidentally, it was around the same time that gold-backed currencies came to be seen as a bad idea. If you have the time, 'The Populist Moment' is an excellent read.
When you have a growing economy but a fixed money supply, money will appreciate. When this happens, people will prefer to keep money rather than spend it, and you get deflation-induced recessions/depressions. See the latter part of the 19th century in the US for repeated examples of this.
People will want to have it as an asset, not as a usable currency. Appreciating currencies are disastrous for any economy stuck with them, which is why we're no longer on the gold standard.
Should we stop saying 'telephone call', when 'to call' meant to actually visit somebody? Of course not. Language is defined by usage, not by the dictionary.
Even though it's not as pleasant as print typography, it's still worth it. I totally agree that it can be better, but for me it's already outclassing the physical book experience.
It's especially annoying to me, as I typically hold the book in my left hand. Now I have to either swipe right to left, or reach my thumb across the (invisible) previous-page touch area to hit the next-page area, or hold it with my right hand. Changing pages with my Kindle Keyboard was much more automatic, and I miss it. I wouldn't go back, though, the lighting and everything else makes it worthwhile.
It also makes it much easier to roll back to the previous implementation. If he had created a new configuration file format, he'd have to keep the old and new config files in sync until the new implementation had proven out. Speaking from similar experience, that's no fun.
I'll never stop coding. I may not continue as a professional, but there will always be the creative itch to scratch. Creative in the sense that I feel compelled to create, not that it's necessarily fine art. It's not limited to software, either. I love working on my house, I like to cook, to tinker with hardware projects. That 'click' I get from creating something is just so rewarding, and I hope that will always be true.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. I don't think this is necessarily true for all writing, though. Political writing, press releases, thing of a nature where the point of the writing is to lead a person to a particular conclusion. Manipulation, in other words. I don't think I'd consider that process an empathetic one.