You poor child. Were you abused by someone of the opposite sex in your life? Besides, I wasn't smiling. That was a Smiley on my post.
Actually... ...but irrelevant. If that's the track you want to take, you're the one taking it, not me. There are many tracks off my train of thought. However, consider. Homosexuality doesn't produce offspring. Only heterosexuality does. All the rest of the stuff (except some of the health advantages that are found in heterosexuality only) can be found in deep friendship, even if it seems to be going in the direction of "sex," but doesn't quite get there. So what if it produces offspring? There's nothing logical about saying that having offspring is automatically good. For the sake of your image, I wouldn't be arrogant while asserting a non-sequitur. Homosexuality is unnatural. Even the few heterosexual animals that partake of homosexuality show that they are flawed psychologically. Now, there isn't anything wrong with having flaws. Flaws are inherent in all of us as things stand. The thing that makes flaws into perversion is when people LIKE their flaws rather than trying to find ways out of them. Which is it? Unnatural or natural? You recognized that animals have displayed homosexual tendencies (*hilarious* that you call them heterosexual and talk about their psychology, as if you interviewed them for Cosmopolitan or something). If that wasn't enough, you then try to equate "unnatural" to "flawed." Um, no, you can't do that. I'll give you another shot to demonstrate that what you said makes sense (hint: it doesn't). Construct a deductive argument in the form of a series of premises that prove your conclusion(s), "Therefore, homosexuality is unnatural and bad." If you can't, then I'll assume you have no idea what you're talking about (I'm being facetious, here; I already know you won't be able to, but I want you to see that you can't for yourself). The comforting friendship between sexual partners of the opposite sex, when a child is not produced, are there to strengthen the relationship. The stronger relationship will beneficially affect future children, present children, adult children whose parents become more strongly bonded. But there isn't ever going to be any child produced by homosexual relations. So, why not simply be good friends, and avoid the perversion of being gay?  This is so full of stupid I am actively hoping bad things happen to you right now. You're a danger to humanity and you should be removed from this society, and if it were in my power to do so, I would. The point is, we can have enjoyment and pleasure in many ways. But the only natural biological way to make children is through sex. And the only way sex works is when the partners are of the opposite sex. That's what sex is designed for - having kids. Want to have pleasure or enjoyment? Do it the many ways that exist outside of perverting the method that has been place there to have children. No problem! That's why they invented the BJ  Nobody would argue that a BJ is not designed for having kids. And in fact they usually feel about 130-190% better. |
|
|
|
You poor child. Were you abused by someone of the opposite sex in your life? Besides, I wasn't smiling. That was a Smiley on my post.
Actually... ...but irrelevant. If that's the track you want to take, you're the one taking it, not me. There are many tracks off my train of thought. However, consider. Homosexuality doesn't produce offspring. Only heterosexuality does. All the rest of the stuff (except some of the health advantages that are found in heterosexuality only) can be found in deep friendship, even if it seems to be going in the direction of "sex," but doesn't quite get there. So what if it produces offspring? There's nothing logical about saying that having offspring is automatically good. For the sake of your image, I wouldn't be arrogant while asserting a non-sequitur. Homosexuality is unnatural. Even the few heterosexual animals that partake of homosexuality show that they are flawed psychologically. Now, there isn't anything wrong with having flaws. Flaws are inherent in all of us as things stand. The thing that makes flaws into perversion is when people LIKE their flaws rather than trying to find ways out of them. Which is it? Unnatural or natural? You recognized that animals have displayed homosexual tendencies (*hilarious* that you call them heterosexual and talk about their psychology, as if you interviewed them for Cosmopolitan or something). If that wasn't enough, you then try to equate "unnatural" to "flawed." Um, no, you can't do that. I'll give you another shot to demonstrate that what you said makes sense (hint: it doesn't). Construct a deductive argument in the form of a series of premises that prove your conclusion(s), "Therefore, homosexuality is unnatural and bad." If you can't, then I'll assume you have no idea what you're talking about (I'm being facetious, here; I already know you won't be able to, but I want you to see that you can't for yourself). The comforting friendship between sexual partners of the opposite sex, when a child is not produced, are there to strengthen the relationship. The stronger relationship will beneficially affect future children, present children, adult children whose parents become more strongly bonded. But there isn't ever going to be any child produced by homosexual relations. So, why not simply be good friends, and avoid the perversion of being gay? This is so full of stupid I am actively hoping bad things happen to you right now. You're a danger to humanity and you should be removed from this society, and if it were in my power to do so, I would. The point is, we can have enjoyment and pleasure in many ways. But the only natural biological way to make children is through sex. And the only way sex works is when the partners are of the opposite sex. That's what sex is designed for - having kids. Want to have pleasure or enjoyment? Do it the many ways that exist outside of perverting the method that has been place there to have children. Phrase it as a deductive argument, smarty-pants. You are asserting premises and conclusion(s), so you have all the ingredients you need to construct a good, deductive argument. So show me! This is your opportunity to organize your points in a way that is Universally recognizable, according to the very same rules of logic and reason that your creator endowed you with. Go ahead. Make my day Edit: Here, I'll get you started. Premise 1: (Insert here) Premise 2: (Insert here) Premises 3, 4, 5, etc., or however many you need: (Insert here) Therefore: Homosexuality is unnatural and bad. All you need to do choose your premises and fill them in! Shouldn't take you long. |
|
|
|
I do too, but it's not worth it if they're not even intelligent enough to comprehend what you're saying.
That's the unknown variable that makes it all the worthwhile. I guess that for a good number of 'his type,' they *are* intelligent enough, but will never let you admit it, and it's only when they put down the keyboard and are left alone to their thoughts do they admit to themselves, even if only tangentially, "Oh wait...what I said was pretty dumb. Better make sure I don't say it that way again!" |
|
|
|
Why are you still arguing with him? lol  it's obvious he's a psychopath. I get a kick out of debating against people I think are (edit: being) stupid. It's the narcissist in me. |
|
|
|
You poor child. Were you abused by someone of the opposite sex in your life? Besides, I wasn't smiling. That was a Smiley on my post.
Actually... ...irrelevant. If that's the track you want to take, you're the one taking it, not me. There are many tracks off my train of thought. However, consider. Homosexuality doesn't produce offspring. Only heterosexuality does. All the rest of the stuff (except some of the health advantages that are found in heterosexuality only) can be found in deep friendship, even if it seems to be going in the direction of "sex," but doesn't quite get there. So what if it produces offspring? There's nothing logical about saying that having offspring is automatically good. For the sake of your image, I wouldn't be arrogant while asserting a non-sequitur. Homosexuality is unnatural. Even the few heterosexual animals that partake of homosexuality show that they are flawed psychologically. Now, there isn't anything wrong with having flaws. Flaws are inherent in all of us as things stand. The thing that makes flaws into perversion is when people LIKE their flaws rather than trying to find ways out of them. Which is it? Unnatural or natural? You recognized that animals have displayed homosexual tendencies (*hilarious* that you call them heterosexual and talk about their psychology, as if you interviewed them for Cosmopolitan or something). If that wasn't enough, you then try to equate "unnatural" to "flawed." Um, no, you can't do that. I'll give you another shot to demonstrate that what you said makes sense (hint: it doesn't). Construct a deductive argument in the form of a series of premises that prove your conclusion(s), "Therefore, homosexuality is unnatural and bad." If you can't, then I'll assume you have no idea what you're talking about (I'm being facetious, here; I already know you won't be able to, but I want you to see that you can't for yourself). The comforting friendship between sexual partners of the opposite sex, when a child is not produced, are there to strengthen the relationship. The stronger relationship will beneficially affect future children, present children, adult children whose parents become more strongly bonded. But there isn't ever going to be any child produced by homosexual relations. So, why not simply be good friends, and avoid the perversion of being gay? This is so full of stupid I am actively hoping bad things happen to you right now. You're a danger to humanity and you should be removed from this society, and if it were in my power to do so, I would. |
|
|
|
Simply speaking, there is no other book than the Bible that combines such a length of history, contains witnesses to real miracles, explains the miraculous forming of a nation that is about 3,500 years old, alive and active today, that covers such a volume of basic, human, life-understanding, that has such fundamental, foundational laws for life, that shows how predictions were made in the past that were fulfilled after the predictions, etc., etc. If present-day people didn't understand, instinctively, by the moving done by the Holy Spirit, how important, miraculous, and "living" the Bible is, this book would have failed within the first couple hundred years of its existence. Yet, it hasn't failed. Rather, it is spreading around the world. The fact that the things talked about in the Bible are coming into being, aren't evidences of gullible people. Rather, it is evidence that people are practical. Yet, it hasn't failed. Rather, it is spreading around the world. Yeah, too bad that has absolutely nothing to do with its accuracy. The Quran has spread around the world, too. Even Humpty Dumpty got around. You're not that stupid. You know you're not, and I know you're not. So don't be. Now, regarding "evidences of gullible people," here's your "practical[ity]" explained: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecyTry again. |
|
|
|
Now that we are on the gay thing, homosexuality has no beneficial function in nature. Homosexuality has nothing to do with good, loving friendships. Multitudes of people of the same sex are best of friends. They often love each other so deeply that they would die for their friends of the same sex. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is a good thing. Sexual activity has ONE reason for existing... propagation of the species. Homosexuality does NOT do this... propagate the species. Everything that is good that is found in homosexuality, can be found in people that are best of friends. Be good friends. Be best of friends. Drop the homosexual part, because it is essentially unnatural. In its bad parts, it can ruin people's lives. No, it doesn't, and you're an awful human being. Your "ONE reason" is an unsound assumption. Following your train of thought, sex of any kind is "unnatural" and "bad," and thus any time any two people have sex, regardless of whether they are hetero- or homosexual, it is always bad and unnatural if it does not result in a child. You must be an incredibly stupid person (I have no qualms about calling you names at this point because you're an embarrassment to me) to not realize that consenting sex between two individuals of any sexual orientation can be a symbolic act of love, and in such a case it deserves our utmost respect. You ought to be ashamed for saying this with a smile on your face and acting as though you shouldn't also be looking down your nose at, for example, your own parents, who undoubtedly didn't *only* have sex as many times as they had children. It's also obvious by this conversation that your birth can ruin people's lives, so I'd argue what your parents did was pretty bad if you are the result. God's children -- Born to Hate. |
|
|
|
Why wreck good stones? Self-preservation. One less rock hurled at them means one more to hurl at you. |
|
|
|
Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein. Keep on playing. I believe that every able-bodied human has the capacity to understand everything that is necessary for him to understand, and that the reason this is true is that the most "true" interpretation of reality is that which is directly experienced and therefore independent of rationale and abstraction. I believe that this is the only sort of information that can be absolutely known (i.e. known through direct and perfect means, which is different than knowing through indirect means such as evidence or 'proof'). I believe that you are close to right, if not right exactly. That still doesn't answer the question of scientific proof. Salvation by believing in Jesus is the only way. That salvation comes through reading or hearing the Word of God, only... no other way. However, since God created the workings of the universe through speaking them into being, there just might be a whole lot of people who will hear God's word even though they don't read the Bible, and are saved anyway. BUT, BUT, BUT, don't depend on this for salvation. After all, hearing the Word of God through nature doesn't present very much clarity. Read and believe the Bible. You're speaking of the Christian god. There are thousands of other gods all promising all manner of things in return for your faith. Who is to say one god is greater than any other? The followers of each all proclaim theirs is the greatest, but they all can't be right. In fact, the rules most religions build up around their god preclude the possibility of everyone being right: 'Allah is the one true god and Mohammad is his prophet.' -Islam 'I am the lord your god, you shall have no other gods before me.' -Christianity These are just two of the most popular religions today, and despite the fact that Islam proclaims to worship the same god as the Christian god, the followers of these religions have a long history of killing each other over 'worshiping the wrong god.' I don't find compelling any religion's case that their god exists, let alone that he is the sole god. The whole 'but only I can bring you salvation' bit each religion throws in sounds desperate, like a used-car salesman who really needs to make his quota this month to keep his job. The proof is in the nature of the god, and what you can find out about him/her/it. For example, if somebody walked up to you and said, "I am God," you might answer, "prove it." If he takes off his hat and pulls a rabbit out of it, you might say, "I've seen that trick before." But if he takes you throughout hospitals that have thousands of sick people in them, and heals everyone of them before your eyes, and is killed and rises from the dead, and floats up into the air and is hidden in the clouds, even out of the sight of radar, you might be on your way towards being convinced slightly. Years later, if your grandson hears the story from you, he might not believe it. But if you show him the book that talks about this, and you show him how the book came into existence in a way impossible for a book like this to come into existence, he might still not believe. He still might think the book is a hoax. This is a little about the Bible, and the God that it portrays. If you examine the history and strong tradition of how the Bible came into being, you will see that it is a book that is impossible to exist. This being the case, the God who caused the impossible-to-exist book to actually exist and be spread across the world like the Bible has been, must be the true God.
Studying the history of the Bible (or any book) might entail a lot of time and work in areas that are not your expertise, and are not something you want to get started in. So, you check out what the Bible scholars have to say. The choice is still yours. You can believe them or not. But if you do the examination yourself, and if you are of a sincere mind, truly wanting to find God, you will have to agree at least, that the God of the Bible is One that is exceedingly more probable to exist than any of the others, even if you don't believe in Him. The choice will always be yours, at least until He comes to you in person, and proves to you Who He is, in the ways that only a God can. The bolded selection above makes no sense. If something said to be impossible exists, then your assumption that it was/is impossible is wrong. That being said, since it does exist and is therefore obviously possible, then it does not in any way constitute proof that there is a god, nor does it constitute proof that God created the book. |
|
|
|
I will quote some math from that page; below are some axioms, both mathematical and philosophical. Please say nice things or ask good questions; otherwise you Let the crucifixion of the messengers cointinue. [K]nowledge that is not your own is dangerous, more dangerous than ignorance, because it is a hidden ignorance, and you will not be able to see that you are deceiving yourself. You are carrying false coins and thinking that you are a rich man. Sooner or later your poverty will be revealed. Then you will be shocked. I never suspect for a single moment their good intentions. Whatever these people are doing, they are doing with good intentions; but the questions is not of good intentions, the question is: What is the result?
"You may murder me with good intentions, but your good intentions cannot justify my murder. They have no awareness of a different dimension of knowing, so whatever they are doing is done in deep sleep." First: knowledge is borrowed, realise this. The very realisation becomes a dropping of it.... Learning means being responsive to whatsoever is around you.... This is a great learning, but not knowledge.
Become the truth
There is no way to find truth — except through finding it. There is simply no way unless you are without any mind within you — because mind is like a breeze, continuously flowing, and the flame goes on wavering. When mind is not there, the breeze stops, and the flame becomes unmoving. When your consciousness is an unmoving flame, you know the truth. You have to learn how not to follow the mind.
Nobody can give you the truth, nobody, not even a Buddha, a Jesus, a Krishna.... It is beautiful that truth is not transferable in any way. Unless you reach it, you cannot reach. Unless you become it, you never have it. "A set is a unity of which its elements are the constituents. It is a fundamental property of the mind to comprehend multitudes into unities. Sets are multitudes which are also unities. A multitude is the opposite of a unity. How can anything be both a multitude and a unity? Yet a set is just that. It is a seemingly contradictory fact that sets exist."
"To arrive at the totality of integers involves a jump. Overviewing it presupposes an infinite intuition. What is given is a psychological analysis. The point is whether it produces objective conviction."
"We do not analyze intuition to see a proof but by intuition we see something without a proof."
"Reason and understanding concern two levels of concept. Dialectics and feelings are involved in reason." noun
plural noun: axioms
A statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. A statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.
When Kurt Gödel tells you what a set is, that is the verbal transmission of an axiom. You really think that the truth value of the following can never be determined? "A set is a unity of which its elements are the constituents." On what grounds do you deny this self-evident nature of sets? "Integer" is an Aristotelian "natural kind" whereof individual "integers" are absolutely partial manifestations. (Indeed, negative zero is the only true "Integer." [Remember, "−0 ÷ x = −0 ⇔ x ≠ −0".]) Zero (0) implies "nothing;" -0 implies "everything," the whole universe and all the dimensions. The opposite of "nothing" is not "everything," but rather "not nothing." |
|
|
|
This was my old contribution from January, 2012. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61343.0I made a little headway and graphed it, though I don't have access to it here  Several years with this thing and I'm still confused as to whether I'm onto something really cool or it's a hunk of garbage. You missed that plain logic of this following: God is all. God is the universe. God is oneness. God is light. God is love. God is consciousness.
God is positivity.
Ego is none. Ego is fear. Ego is death. Ego is doubt. Ego is random.
Ego is negativity.
God believes in everything. Ego believes in nothing.
Everything is everything.
Nothing is nothing.
Everything = ∞
Nothing = 0
Multiply any form of logic times zero, what do you get?
Waiting for the math??? Are words not a form of logic just as numbers? x * 0 = 0 x * ∞ = ∞x So, you hold self awareness, correct? Are you nothing? Or are you everything? The answer is not in the math equation. The answer is in the answer. Do you see? I can only open the door, you must step through yourself. See this following: Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
Premise 1 is false, it presupposes you can divide by zero, this operation is undefined. The division algorithm states a=bq + r, where b|a (b divides a), The set of R/0 is not closed under division, or the multiplication inverse. R/0 is an indeterminate form. It is undefined. A limiting process can be applied to an indeterminate form, but remember the episilon-delta proof, the limit never actually gets to zero, only "as close as we like" The whole process shoudl be restricted to integers anyway to eliminate irrational numbers in the real set. Right! If you divide something by 0, that's the same as dividing it by nothing. If something isn't divided, the thing that is left is the original something, right? Therefore, 2/0=2. Arithmatical division is both the taking and making of groups. An arithmatical quotient is that number of groups made or taken as a result of that division. ∴ That arithmatical quotient of arithmatical division by zero ( id est, that number of groups of, quantitatively, nothing one can take/make from any something) is absolute (indeed, that exact opposite [logical not] of quantitative nothing, "−0"). Oh, play the mathematical BS. This is the exact reason stuff is so confounded. Take 10 Arabs in the desert. Divide their number by 2 and you get 2 groups of 5, right. Since "0" is nothing, divide them by nothing and they are not divide, right? So, there are still 10 Arabs, right? English has its characteristic laws that don't make any sense. Mathematics is a language that has characteristic laws that don't make any sense as well. It's the reason that we have flaws in our thinking. With five Arab individuals, one may "make/take" −0 non-existent (think: null) groups of them (indeed, these would already "exist"). Look, -0 is absence of zero. So, what exactly is the amount of non-zero? See my emboldened text above. Wasn't a question. Was English. Non-zero is the set of whatever we were talking about = 10 Arabs. See this following limakasidian number line: −∞ … −10 −9 −8 −7 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 … ∞
−0
I'm not quite sure how to respond to this. I have no idea how this relates to my post, and if there was sarcasm, I definitely missed it. |
|
|
|
This was my old contribution from January, 2012. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61343.0I made a little headway and graphed it, though I don't have access to it here Several years with this thing and I'm still confused as to whether I'm onto something really cool or it's a hunk of garbage. |
|
|
|
Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein. Keep on playing. Nothing (that is, "no thing") is "experienced" but " perceived." I used to think things like "I know nothing," until I realized how stupid it was. Now, I basically ignore anyone who adamantly states that you can't really know anything. I personally distinguish between two kinds of knowledge: 1) That which can be known directly through experience, and 2) that which can be known indirectly through evidence/proof. To use an example, the former would be like feeling the warmth of the sun on your face and knowing that it is warm out, while the latter is like looking at a thermometer and seeing that it's 85 degrees outside and concluding that it is warm outside. When you directly feel the warmth of the sun on your face, there is no rationale required to know and understand what is there; more specifically, direct experience occurs when a subject unifies with an object such that they are indistinguishable (this is even reflected in our language when we say things like, "I am warm"). In contrast, rationale is an absolute necessity to make sense out of a thermometer reading, and the only way you can assert it is warm is if you know that there are temperatures much lower than 85 degrees by having evidenced them; 'ratio' is the root word of 'rationale.' Inasmuch as logic is a closed system with recognizable boundaries and rules, it's not only possible to know something, but it's possible to know something absolutely and perfectly in an absolutely perfect, logical way. But, no matter how perfectly logical it is, it will always be different than the knowledge gained through direct experience. (That post was recomposed prior your reply.) One does not "[feel] the warmth"; one's body absorbs infrared light. (That you would refer to the later as the former illustrates that you are privy most wholly to that really born of conception within Homo sapien mind and not that therewithout.) Complex response: Absorbing infrared light is an interpretation based upon the amount of evidence we've acquired from the technology we have. Before we knew what infrared light was, it was interpreted differently, The problem, however, is we don't know where the limit of evidence and rational interpretation ends, so it's still an arbitrary interpretation, albeit relatively less arbitrary than if we were limited to the same evidence available to mankind pre-science. Let me also point out that your experience self-evidently comes prior to your explanation of it. Accordingly, there *must* be some information or knowledge that you take away from that experience so that you can fit an abstract model to it. The model is a deconstruction of a thing that you experienced in a more comprehensive way (your model can never be more comprehensive than your experience of an event and the evidence you pull from it; if it were, it'd be a priori unsound as it would imply the existence of unknown assumptions). Simple response: warmth
wôrmTH/Submit
noun
the quality, state, or sensation of being warm; moderate and comfortable heat. Yes, you feel warmth. Warmth is inherently relative, and so you know when you feel warm and not cold. Science routinely oversteps its bounds when it tries to explain subjective feelings solely in terms of what's externally observable. It's bad science. See this following: Since it could not, prior limakasidian entropism, be conclusively demonstrated that anything existed beyond one's own mind, scientific evidence was accepted by faith and, therefore, was not proof. However, as revealed below, one may now proceed beyond solipsism unto a belief in a literal everything without yielding unto faith. These are interesting perspectives; however, it would seem His entropism has not been heard.
Entropism, dervied from solipsism, starts at the belief that nothing exists beyond one's own mind. From their, it then proceeds to assert that the sentience of that mind deomonstrates the existence of that required for it - some tendancy or tendancy to become less orderly, the consciousness occupied another state. From there, it is then postulated that this/these tendencies, begetting entropy, could, in having propagated a state of a mind out of nothing, are sufficient for some form of ex nihilo generation.
From this, entropism proceeds unto an absolute tendancy to become less orderly. In considering this, and the capabilities of those tendancies previously mentioned, it is determined that absolute entropy of this tendancy would prove sufficient for ex nihilo generation of everything, including its own self.
From that, it is determined, within entropism, that, by an absolute tendancy to become less orderly, the sum of existence is absolute entropy.
Where did you get this from? Are these your own words? I'm genuinely curious. |
|
|
|
I'd have a different idea for underserved or completely unserved rural and rural-suburban areas. It could work in urban and urban-suburban areas, but it'd necessarily need to be a new structure built. An old one can't really be retro-fitted cost-effectively. A grocery store could be fully automated, possibly even including stocking if a way could be figured out to have that outsourced to the trucking/logistics company at the time they unload.
A user would place their order online, go to the service window where they sign the public key they used to pay (with some automated solution), and then their order is then bagged inside (would probably need to be paper), coming straight out to the user, almost like how an ATM works, but with conveyor belts and many "non-standard" products. This design may also even allow some type of third-party utility for vehicles (either each user buys their own, or the store could provide a chained or maybe even just keyfobbed version), which'd get around issues where an incapable person requires help to grocery-shop (excluding getting groceries from the car to the house).
The store would look like a warehouse with a little conveyor belt coming out through one or a few services windows with a small BT/RFID communicator for phones or dedicated HW wallets (since payment would be made at home, a phone is probably fine for signing the address). Other payment sources would also be valid. No scanners or individually scanning products - it'd work just like Amazon but without the shipping costs, pantry schemes, drones, or waiting. It also allows stores to get a couple confirmations in to prevent double-spending since it'll take a short while for the user to drive to the service window.
This is an interesting idea, it is somewhat similar to what Ikea does (but they charge for this service). The main issue is that I don't think there are any applications available for smartphones ATM that allow for people to sign a message plus some people who use 'wallets' like coinbase or send directly from an exchange would not be able to sign a message regardless We already have technology and code to handle signing. Mycelium can already do this on Android, but most don't (and none are "automated" -- there isn't a URI protocol for sending pre-grenerated messages for the phone to sign, AFAIK) - but this could change if there's investment in an automated store handling BTC. It's not terribly complicated stuff. Coinbase might be able to come up with a solution for this (BCI can handle this since users control keys), but if not, there are alternative web & Android-native clients which can. (sorry to hijack, OP) Hijack away! I really like the model you propose One question, though: Maybe I'm just really tired, but how does placing the order at home allow time for confirmations if you're signing with your key at the warehouse? Edit: It's the bolded selection I'm confused about. You send the coins at home (you "sign the transaction" at home). You're only signing a message with the same address you sent from at the service window so groceries go to you instead of some other random guy. Ahhhh I see. "...They sign the public key they used to pay" is slightly arbitrary, but yeah, I'm tired Here's my small concern: As a consumer, my ideal scenario is to pay at the store, but extremely quickly. This means not having to wait for a confirmation which would likely be required, and it also means not paying at home with a non-reversible payment method before I've physically seen whatever I just bought. Call me picky. Every time, I see confirmation times being a legitimate issue for many types of brick-and-mortar businesses (though certainly not all). |
|
|
|
Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein. Keep on playing. Nothing (that is, "no thing") is "experienced" but " perceived." I used to think things like "I know nothing," until I realized how stupid it was. Now, I basically ignore anyone who adamantly states that you can't really know anything. I personally distinguish between two kinds of knowledge: 1) That which can be known directly through experience, and 2) that which can be known indirectly through evidence/proof. To use an example, the former would be like feeling the warmth of the sun on your face and knowing that it is warm out, while the latter is like looking at a thermometer and seeing that it's 85 degrees outside and concluding that it is warm outside. When you directly feel the warmth of the sun on your face, there is no rationale required to know and understand what is there; more specifically, direct experience occurs when a subject unifies with an object such that they are indistinguishable (this is even reflected in our language when we say things like, "I am warm"). In contrast, rationale is an absolute necessity to make sense out of a thermometer reading, and the only way you can assert it is warm is if you know that there are temperatures much lower than 85 degrees by having evidenced them; 'ratio' is the root word of 'rationale.' Inasmuch as logic is a closed system with recognizable boundaries and rules, it's not only possible to know something, but it's possible to know something absolutely and perfectly in an absolutely perfect, logical way. But, no matter how perfectly logical it is, it will always be different than the knowledge gained through direct experience. (That post was recomposed prior your reply.) One does not "[feel] the warmth"; one's body absorbs infrared light. (That you would refer to the later as the former illustrates that you are privy most wholly to that really born of conception within Homo sapien mind and not that therewithout.) Complex response: Absorbing infrared light is an interpretation based upon the amount of evidence we've acquired from the technology we have. Before we knew what infrared light was, it was interpreted differently, The problem, however, is we don't know where the limit of evidence and rational interpretation ends, so it's still an arbitrary interpretation, albeit relatively less arbitrary than if we were limited to the same evidence available to mankind pre-science. Let me also point out that your experience self-evidently comes prior to your explanation of it. Accordingly, there *must* be some information or knowledge that you take away from that experience so that you can fit an abstract model to it. The model is a deconstruction of a thing that you experienced in a more comprehensive way (your model can never be more comprehensive than your experience of an event and the evidence you pull from it; if it were, it'd be a priori unsound as it would imply the existence of unknown assumptions). Simple response: warmth
wôrmTH/Submit
noun
the quality, state, or sensation of being warm; moderate and comfortable heat. Yes, you feel warmth. Warmth is inherently relative, and so you know when you feel warm and not cold. Science routinely oversteps its bounds when it tries to explain subjective feelings solely in terms of what's externally observable. It's bad science. |
|
|
|
|
How long have you mined with them?
Additional details on the PSU? Model? How long has it been used and was it running at full load?
|
|
|
|
I'd have a different idea for underserved or completely unserved rural and rural-suburban areas. It could work in urban and urban-suburban areas, but it'd necessarily need to be a new structure built. An old one can't really be retro-fitted cost-effectively. A grocery store could be fully automated, possibly even including stocking if a way could be figured out to have that outsourced to the trucking/logistics company at the time they unload.
A user would place their order online, go to the service window where they sign the public key they used to pay (with some automated solution), and then their order is then bagged inside (would probably need to be paper), coming straight out to the user, almost like how an ATM works, but with conveyor belts and many "non-standard" products. This design may also even allow some type of third-party utility for vehicles (either each user buys their own, or the store could provide a chained or maybe even just keyfobbed version), which'd get around issues where an incapable person requires help to grocery-shop (excluding getting groceries from the car to the house).
The store would look like a warehouse with a little conveyor belt coming out through one or a few services windows with a small BT/RFID communicator for phones or dedicated HW wallets (since payment would be made at home, a phone is probably fine for signing the address). Other payment sources would also be valid. No scanners or individually scanning products - it'd work just like Amazon but without the shipping costs, pantry schemes, drones, or waiting. It also allows stores to get a couple confirmations in to prevent double-spending since it'll take a short while for the user to drive to the service window.
This is an interesting idea, it is somewhat similar to what Ikea does (but they charge for this service). The main issue is that I don't think there are any applications available for smartphones ATM that allow for people to sign a message plus some people who use 'wallets' like coinbase or send directly from an exchange would not be able to sign a message regardless We already have technology and code to handle signing. Mycelium can already do this on Android, but most don't (and none are "automated" -- there isn't a URI protocol for sending pre-grenerated messages for the phone to sign, AFAIK) - but this could change if there's investment in an automated store handling BTC. It's not terribly complicated stuff. Coinbase might be able to come up with a solution for this (BCI can handle this since users control keys), but if not, there are alternative web & Android-native clients which can. (sorry to hijack, OP) Hijack away! I really like the model you propose One question, though: Maybe I'm just really tired, but how does placing the order at home allow time for confirmations if you're signing with your key at the warehouse? Edit: It's the bolded selection I'm confused about. |
|
|
|
Yessss. I love it. This definitely works in favor of a card pre-paid with BTC. |
|
|
|
Despite mass-producing inexpensive change-indicators like the green LED example, don't you think the complete removal of cashiers, checkout lines, and associated in-store technology would easily offset the production costs of the BTC security features?
Probably, but thats a pretty long shot since adoption takes time and we don't know what kind of technology is going to compete with bitcoin in the near future. As far as the technical and coding aspect goes, I'm simply assuming it's not too difficult.
Indeed, and thats the beauty of bitcoin. It wouldn't be that hard getting it to work By way, since this idea as a whole really isn't very complicated, I'll loosely toss out the idea that I'd be (potentially) interested in working with someone on this to bring to fruition a working concept model, though my start up experience is limited.
Are you simply talking about the attached QR codes on the items in shops or about a whole payment/checkout system including the POS terminal and the payment devices? 1) Honestly, it's a little shocking that we don't already see this means of shopping with any other payment system (unless you count something like a Mobil Speedpass at gas stations...that's about the closest I've seen). 2) Word  3) I'm talking about a change indicator (qr-code/LED/whatever) and getting it to respond to a BTC transaction without in any way jeopardizing the security of that transaction. This would be good enough as a proof of concept. The payment device is not what I'm focused on. |
|
|
|
I like your idea, however I think it would probably be more cost efficient to use a QR code at the checkout register. I would think that the cost associated with purchasing enough "green lights" that are connected to a secure wifi (otherwise someone could fake a TX to the devices) to cover the max amount of inventory that a store will ever have. You would still need to employ someone to take the "green light" off of each product as someone is leaving the store and to program the "green light" when it is placed on a product. I think it would be easier to simply ring up items as they are today and a QR code would be displayed at the checkout and the customer would scan it and send the appropriate amount of bitcoin.
Another issue with paying for each item individually is that you would pay a lot more in TX fees and you would have the issue of having a lot of 0/unconfirmed TXs when paying for everything.
Thank you for your comment, but it misses the point of the OP. The OP describes my ideal in-store shopping experience. I don't want a QR-code at the register (though it's a great solution right now for brick-and-mortars). The green LED was an example of one potential change indicator, not necessarily the exact one I need. I'm simply proposing a general model and trying to flesh out the specific details a bit more to something that's viable. I fully believe that you would be able to outfit every product with some type of change indicator for less than 15 cents (ideally, less than 5). How much do those little magnetic strips cost that cashiers take off and toss away so you don't set the alarm off when you walk out the door? It can't be much, and it works just fine. Each of these strips is also "programmed." It's perfectly reasonable to imagine creating a semi-automated process for quickly tagging products with a change indicator that corresponds to a unique public address. The TX fee issue is a legitimate one; good point. I suppose this could be solved by having a device that can hold your selected items in a queue such that you can pay for all of them at once when you are done shopping. This is already currently doable, though the issue here becomes the number of public addresses used and where/how you fund them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
