Ok, we all know what's going on with spying on the Internet by now. Getting the information out was just the first step. The heroic effort made by Edward Snowden won't go too far if we the people do nothing and just forget about it in a week or two. Here is a segment of a weekly Linux Action Show titled "Privacy Under Linux" which offers a few practical advices (conveyed in an easy to understand and entertaining manner) on how to keep your communications secure. Among other tools they mention BitMessage and TorChat which seem to be the easiest and more powerful tools to use even for non-techie people. "Privacy Under Linux | LAS s27e04" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vihXlw6Yw-E(on-topic stuff starts closer to the middle of the video)
You can also check out a few episodes of their new weekly show dedicated solely and completely to Bitcoin, which they ingeniously called "Plan BTC" "90 Days or Bust | Plan B 10" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdd8lCIX3FY"Bitcoin Will Disrupt Big Media | Plan B 9" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKfS2v6P-B8"Then They Fight You | Plan B 8" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDqVqhXHeDU |
|
|
|
Not sure if Press section is the right place to put this in, but here it goes the Jupiter Broadcasting studio (the one behind popular Linux Action Show) has started a weekly 1-hour segment on Bitcoin which they ingeniously called "Plan BTC". Below are a few latest shows, you can find the rest in their channel: "Then They Fight You | Plan B 8" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDqVqhXHeDU"Bitcoin Will Disrupt Big Media | Plan B 9" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKfS2v6P-B8 |
|
|
|
The video below is a 2.5 hour testimony of an ex-Navy Seal member Bill Wood (Brockbrader) who spent 10 years in northern Iraq (1991 - 2001) as part of a secret Seal Team 9 unit responsible for targeting of the Tomahawk missiles on the final stage of their trajectory. In the end of the video he touches on the topic of black projects developed under immense degree of secrecy. The testimony was released by Project Camelot about a year and a half ago and gathered about 300K views on YT and still counting. Bill was later caught by authorities and charged with some sex-related charges (seems like a pattern for whistle-blowers) which only adds to the legitimacy of his story. I believe Bill's disclosure was as important as most recent leaks and it deserves any attention it could possibly get. Make what you want out of it, use your intuition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkIIBnIuXHM |
|
|
|
Given how the NSA is unable to keep top secret powerpoints secret, I'll wait for the leak of a cancer cure.
One thing that comes to mind is MMS (Miracle Mineral Solution) and Jim Humble's story behind it. I know the word "miracle" doesn't instil confidence, but the recipe is not a secret and its mechanizm has to do with getting oxygen to where it's needed the most in the body efficiently. Below are a few videos I found on the topic for those interested: "Jim Humble interviewed by Bill Ryan (Nov 2008) : A Project Camelot video" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0-VBLjdZRY"Jim Humble interviewed by Bill Ryan (Jan 2010) : a Project Avalon video" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPgRrlqsTII"Jim Humble [MMS] Miracle Mineral Supplement a Solution to cure H1N1 flu or cancer" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9lkhk4kguA |
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT6W3ztLBOw#t=37m48sA short audio fragment above hints that conspiracy in Big Pharma industry that keeps people sick for money will be revealed in a movie. I'm not following movies very closely, has anybody seen one where anything relevant is exposed? Maybe it's not out yet, or maybe it's the one below where they mentioned that cures for cancer and other fatal diseases have been suppressed throughout last century, when clinics were shutdown and scientists intimidated. "(Official Movie) THRIVE: What On Earth Will It Take? " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-sYour thoughts are welcome!
|
|
|
|
...
Japanese group comes up with brilliant idea of writing the first computer Financial Virus.
...
I like the vision expressed in the OP, only I would compare Bitcoin to a financial A-bomb. If Satoshi is really Japaneze (and I like the recent hypothesis that he might be Shinichi Mochizuki) then release of Bitcoin was Japan's response to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What goes around comes around, eh?  |
|
|
|
I liked the old name better. And yes I would like to test.
The new name (depending on how you read it) sounds somewhat similar to "immune", which is a wonderful thing to be for any e-currency out there!  |
|
|
|
maybe the consciousness works on a quantum level where and when space and time does not matter much. "Information" is not lost, just "recycled"?
Yes, that seems to be the consensus among many independent sources of information I've come across. What was new and fascinating in this video was the description of particular experiences from people who had their non-human past lives. |
|
|
|
I'm interested in the idea as it reminds me of the consensus mechanism for provable trust-free voting I was drafting a few months ago ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124477.0). This system however looks more complex and elaborate in its attempt to apply voting to money generation and validation. I look forward to see what comes out of it and wish it good luck! PS: I like the new name better than the old one. Yes, it might sound childish, but it's amicable and religion-free. Also count me in for testing (PM on this forum for contact) |
|
|
|
I was about to write a short description of what follows, but thought I would rather not spoil it for you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ucn3Xswv4QI will just say that the video above touches on a wider range of topics than the title may imply. Enjoy! |
|
|
|
Here is a video from Google Tech Talks with Robina Courtin which might be relevant to this discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nasIq4E9nNgAmong other things (like being a Buddhist nun) she is helping people in prisons to find themselves in this life. Might be worthwhile to get in touch with her and see if Bitcoin can help her cause. |
|
|
|
I would like to suggest that they change the name if this will indeed become a successful P2P exchange. Perhaps a more interesting name would be beneficial later on when people wonder what it is.
Thinking about marketing and names I suggest to call it Nipple somewhat similar to GNU Nipple - Nipple is not a [Ri] ppleEDIT: or more simple version Not a [R] ipple |
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure that going completely anonymous is healthy for the society in general.
Would you like govt to use a system like ZeroCoin for their budget?
Bitcoin provides transparency for financial transactions where it is needed and allows for anonymity where it is desirable (with some effort).
Rather than hiding your transactions in a completely anonymous system because they are deemed "illegal", people of society should strive to change the definition of what's "legal" and tend to achieve this in an open and transparent way.
On the other hand, if technological feat is possible - man will do it. So we can imagine how systems like ZeroCoin might become a catalyst for changing our society's governing structure and reshaping its legal framework to prevent systems with complete anonymity from gaining momentum.
|
|
|
|
Let me add a few more challenges to those wandering around this topic. First, now that I mentioned it in my previous post, I got curious about it myself, so here it goes: - Are we thinking our thoughts ourselves (active perspective) or - Are we just observing the thoughts popping up in our heads seemingly out of nowhere (passive perspective)? - Something in between, some thoughts are ours and other are coming from elsewhere and we have to deal with them It seems like that silhouette picture of a woman that you can look at both ways - facing front or facing back and there is no right way of looking at it. Second, what happens when we go to sleep and wake up? - Is it the same sense of awareness that wakes up each morning? Then why the same sense of awareness wakes up in a slightly different body? (atoms and molecules rearrange themselves during the night a bit, so technically the body is different) or - Is it new sense of awareness that wakes up each morning and the perceived continuity is just an illusion (created in memory)? Then can going to sleep and waking up be compared to reincarnation? What if some day you wake up in a completely different body which is very young and cries all day long pissing their pants and you have no idea how you got there? Anyway, I've just finished watching the rest of the workshop series about The Holographic Universe (part 4 and 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BshVgi-KTwIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnrPZhbnpmUThey don't insist that this is how it is, but they came up with a model that seems to match the most recent scientific research and might be workable for some. It seems interesting but I'm sure there are still plenty of white spots in that model to colour. You can find the first three videos in the same channel if you want to watch from the beginning. "Zero worlds" is just another name for solipsism, which philosophers have debated for centuries. Most have concluded it is not a particularly useful model for describing (or predicting) reality; it has all kinds of Ockham's Razor problems.
Can you give some examples of the Occam's Razor type problems this gives? This is a good point! I would pick a model with just one singularity (Consciousness) over any model with two singularities (physical Universe out of Big Bang and then Consciousness in a physical Universe). At least that's what Occam's Razor suggests, and remember that consciousness is an observable fact, compared to the physical Universe that might be just a dream. I've posted this before, but it seems to fit the conversation once again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUENow if consciousness is primary, how does it split to create an illusion of physical reality? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4DkBWC4Bp4It turns out that the most popular and widely taught interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, so called Copenhagen interpretation, which states that the waves of probabilities somehow collapse as a result of measurement is mathematically untenable.
So? Quantum Mechanics is supposed to be a method for finding approximate solutions to Quantum Field Theory equations. Quantum Field Theory is based on unsound mathematics. One attempt to resolve some (not all) of the inconsistencies is String Theory. String Theory is not developed well enough to take it into account. The entire thing is pretty much work in progress. You can accept it, you can reject it, or you can try to improve it. If you accept it, you are insane. If you reject it completely, you cannot reap the benefits of the existing, even though inconsistent, theory. The only reasonable approach is to accept it partially, with all its limitations and inconsistencies, and try to improve on it. which states that there is no underlying objective reality at all and we are all creations of our thoughts.
Almost correct, and mostly obvious. The objective reality may or may not exist, we cannot even know that. Our minds are receiving some inputs, we construct theories based on those inputs, we modify or reject these theories if necessary. Partial and inconsistent theories are fine, if you don't have a better alternative. I don't see how one can make a statement that a theory corresponds to "objective reality" in any way. Objective reality, if it exists, cannot be perceived directly. Theories, and inputs of unknown nature, is all we have. Copenhagen interpretation is one of the theories. Doesn't matter if it is consistent or not. What matters is if it is useful to me, in a particular situation. Yes, it's ok to play with different models and see which one works for you, many people don't even bother doing that and that's ok too! The real question is how far are you willing to go? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiIEyxZFtxwhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KaBPBzlX2Yhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq5KO-uQackAre you willing to face the ultimate question? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyf38s4pjD0PS: I will be away from the Internets for the next few weeks, so I won't be posting too often during that period. |
|
|
|
The other thing I'm yet to wrap my mind around is how one consciousness can split into many and experience itself as multitude of facets of creation (as seemingly separate autonomous beings) and where I (or you) come into this picture. Am I the part of the whole (then who decided which part I should be) or am I already the whole but simply pretending to be a part of it creating an illusion of forgetfulness about the other parts and trying to find my way back to full remembrance? Which way do you think it is and what is mechanizm of the split? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMYZlCzdIMU#t=2m06sThat is a good question to ask someone with (for lack of a better term) multiple personality disorder. This is interesting indeed, we would have to ask each personality independently though and might get a different answer from each There are documented cases where different personalities (sharing the same body), might have different eye color or even have cancerous tumour show up and disappear as soon as they shift between each other. From the model where consciousness exists outside of the physical realm, it can be explained that multiple consciousnesses have access (private key collision?) to the same receiver (human brain) and adjust the body to their way of expressing themselves. There really is no I. There is only the stimuli of brain cells and centers that evolve adaptation behaviors for the organism. If you have a hemispherectomy, you will still be you to you, but not the same you to us. As individuals, perceptions are what drive the organism through the optics of learning behaviors. As a socially communicating species, we develop those optics through the adaptive behavior of others. If you want to experience this for yourself, go back and read things you have written years ago. You may find the thoughts you expressed quite estranged.
I believe consciousness (as a sense of awareness) goes far beyond social behaviour or reacting to stimuli. If you sit quietly not moving a muscle, not reacting to any noise around, you might look like a piece of rock to the "outside world", but you would still be conscious about yourself. It seems that you are not the one who thinks the thoughts, but the "inner being" inside who listens to them, who observes everything that's going on, and even if your reactions, your behaviours, your thought patterns change overtime, the "inner you" itself never does or it wouldn't be able to tell the difference. When you say I'm a different person now than I was 10 years ago, then who is making the comparison? If you subtract from yourself the personality you were 10 years ago and the one you are now and any in between and before that, you will be left with a "pure you", who was just observing all of the experiences you've had to this point. This "pure you" doesn't have any flavour or personality traits attached to it, it's just a singular observer whose only job is to be present. So the consciousness has more to do with being rather than doing. We are "human beings" after all not "human doings" Another challenge that comes from trying to explain consciousness (as a sense of awareness) from materialistic point of view is two fold. Firstly, it seems that matter itself (including the cells constituting your brain) does not exist independently of an observer and QM is very clear about that (no matter the interpretation). Secondly, if this "pure you" consciousness (the one "inside" that witnesses you reading this post right now) comes from complexity of material manifestation, then there must be a map in the Universe that says: if atoms and molecules of certain type coalesce in a certain specifically predefined pattern under the right temperature and other physical conditions, then the resulting consciousness will be "you", otherwise it will be some other consciousness. That sounds strange, isn't it? Who would give the Universe this kind of map, and why "you" and "I" (as a sense of awareness that we are) would need to be there at all? Anyway, I just watched the third part of the Holographic Universe series (I linked the second part in my previous post) and it seems that conversation turns in the right direction (though making a few surprising twists along the way). They attempt to discern various interpretation of the word consciousness and call semantically different things with different words. They also recommend to watch a movie in the end of every part (which I enjoyed watching so far) as a good background for the conversation at hand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3EnFYnX6Wo |
|
|
|
"Zero worlds" is just another name for solipsism, which philosophers have debated for centuries. Most have concluded it is not a particularly useful model for describing (or predicting) reality; it has all kinds of Ockham's Razor problems.
Thanks for reviving the interest to this weeks old thread. I agree that all these interpretations are just different ways to look at the same one thing. Here is a fragment of the video that makes an explanation of the "quantum eraser" experiment mentioned in the OP video a little bit easier to conceive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU6yCD_sEvU#t=67m15sIn short its says that if we perform the measurement for the double slit experiment and record both: 1) which slit an electron went through and put the result in one envelope (but never look at it) 2) the resulting pattern on the screen (either two bands or an interference pattern) and put it in another envelope (but never look at it) then one might think that the picture of the resulting pattern is already determined at this point (wave-function collapsed), but it turns out that if instead of opening up the first envelope and seeing which way an electron went through we erase it (vaporize it into dust) then when we open the second envelope for the first time we will see an interference pattern instead of expected two bands. So the result in the second envelope which has already been recorded (and is in your hands) would actually depend on whether you open up the first envelope and see which way an electron went through or destroy it and never look at the data. In general the video I just linked attempts to bind together various points of view and experimental data from both the mainstream research in neuroscience (BBC documentary) and the alternative research into presentiment (by Dean Radin) into an idea that the reality is first projected out by the brain and only then perceived back by it (which is also somewhat consistent with Rupert Sheldrake research I linked earlier in this thread, when he talks about experience of being watched). I haven't watched the whole series yet (have only gotten to the part 2) so I don't know if the conversation goes beyond talking just about the brain which it should if it purports to be a complete model (we are definitely more than our brains and even our language suggests so), but it already seems interesting. I will post my opinion here once I finish watching all the rest of it. The other thing I'm yet to wrap my mind around is how one consciousness can split into many and experience itself as multitude of facets of creation (as seemingly separate autonomous beings) and where I (or you) come into this picture. Am I the part of the whole (then who decided which part I should be) or am I already the whole but simply pretending to be a part of it creating an illusion of forgetfulness about the other parts and trying to find my way back to full remembrance? Which way do you think it is and what is mechanizm of the split? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMYZlCzdIMU#t=2m06s |
|
|
|
Keeping an eye on the competition: BFL chips have arrived in the packaging facility, scheduled for packaging on Wednesday (subject to change).
In other words, they still have a long way to go before their customers can start hashing. I would guess at least another two weeks...
Replying to myself here with another speculation: BFL is expecting 5000 chips in their first batch, clocked at 350 MHz, with 16 cores each. Multiply them all together, looks like their first batch is only 28 TH/s. That is a lot lower than the estimates I have seen earlier, around 150 TH/s -- but that was probably their total number of preorders. Also no news on their packaging. TLDR; BFL won't be a serious threat for a long time yet. BFL has actually 75000 Chips in preorders. They are expected to bring around 750 TH until june 2013 (BFL-Time) Add to this around 1 Petahash in June from these guys: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=146371.msg1580984#msg1580984And around 40 TH (500 units x 80 GH) from these guys within next week (if they are real): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=148832.msg1597462#msg1597462So the mining landscape is changing drastically. Avalon and BFL don't look all that scary anymore. I hope friedcat has some serious plans for the summer period. I'm not sure anybody can compete with 28nm SOI at the moment (as in the first linked thread), but ASICMINER can work together with them! The 40 TH one is definitely a scam. My crystal ball says they are not, but we will find out soon enough The 1 Petahash one could be real or could be scam - no way to know yet. If some company bites on their offer then that company will find out based on whether they get given a demo or asked for some cash up front for some unforeseen problem that just cropped up.
Those guys look way too serious to be a scam, but I agree that prices and unexpected costs might be a set back for some. They promised to make a joint public announcement with their two approved B2C partners by the end of March. Interesting times ahead! |
|
|
|
Keeping an eye on the competition: BFL chips have arrived in the packaging facility, scheduled for packaging on Wednesday (subject to change).
In other words, they still have a long way to go before their customers can start hashing. I would guess at least another two weeks...
Replying to myself here with another speculation: BFL is expecting 5000 chips in their first batch, clocked at 350 MHz, with 16 cores each. Multiply them all together, looks like their first batch is only 28 TH/s. That is a lot lower than the estimates I have seen earlier, around 150 TH/s -- but that was probably their total number of preorders. Also no news on their packaging. TLDR; BFL won't be a serious threat for a long time yet. BFL has actually 75000 Chips in preorders. They are expected to bring around 750 TH until june 2013 (BFL-Time) Add to this around 1 Petahash in June from these guys: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=146371.msg1580984#msg1580984And around 40 TH (500 units x 80 GH) from these guys within next week (if they are real): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=148832.msg1597462#msg1597462So the mining landscape is changing drastically. Avalon and BFL don't look all that scary anymore. I hope friedcat has some serious plans for the summer period. I'm not sure anybody can compete with 28nm SOI at the moment (as in the first linked thread), but ASICMINER can work together with them! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
