A lot of things are legal and still not moral. Not a direct answer, but good enough for my purposes. You've stated that legality does not confer morality, which is all the answer I need. No, I did not state that. You took it out of context and invented your own meaning. You fail logic as well. We've now ruled out legality, voting, costumes, and benefits. Is it perhaps simply the names? If I call myself the government, and call it a tax when I steal from you, does that make it moral?
No, it would be illegal. Please read out loud: Breaking the law is immoral. I have clearly stated that many times now. Property is not immoral and not illegal. When you live on a country's land, you have to obey the laws of that country. Is my opinion so hard to understand for you? If those laws includes one that says you have to pay tax, then you have to pay tax. It is not theft, it is not immoral, it is a matter of property rights. You may think you own a property, but owning a property in the context of the laws in a country will only give you certain rights over that property. The property is still a part of the country, and it's laws still apply. New countries show up all the time, and there are still unclaimed areas on Earth. You are free to start your own country and exercise your exclusive property rights there if you wish. If you own my house, you may demand rent. And because you are a commie, you will probably call that theft. In my opinion it is not. It is moral and legal. |
|
|
|
Maximising profit is an extremely cost effective way to serve the market, because a business only profits from serving it's customers most effectively. Except when the state interferes with force.
In an unregulated health market, if you were about to die and needed immediate treatment, and a doctor saved you, the closest doctor and hospital would own you for the rest of your life. The power of a natural monopoly. You are not in a position to haggle over the price. |
|
|
|
It wasn't rhetoric? Of course it isn't moral. If you think it is moral, and it is important to you, you should move to a property (country) where mugging is allowed.
If I put on a costume, for example, this one, or one like it, does that make it OK for me to steal from people? No, it is still illegal. Breaking the law is not OK and not moral. OK, Which brings us to the next point. We've ruled out voting, costumes, and benefits. You seem hung up on the law. So, if we were to make slavery legal, would that make it moral? This is so hypothetical it hurts. Slavery is forbidden by so many international treaties, it would be impossible to make it legal in a legal way. A lot of things are legal and still not moral. Being unfaithful isn't illegal (i.e. legal), but IMHO it is immoral. If it was legal to hold slaves, I could still choose not to hold slaves. I would obey the law and stay on safe moral ground. Are you the kind of commie who equal tax with oppression and slavery? The State oppresses and the law cheats.
Tax bleeds the unfortunate.
|
|
|
|
It wasn't rhetoric? Of course it isn't moral. If you think it is moral, and it is important to you, you should move to a property (country) where mugging is allowed.
If I put on a costume, for example, this one, or one like it, does that make it OK for me to steal from people? No, it is still illegal. Breaking the law is not OK and not moral. |
|
|
|
If I mug you, and then promise to buy you a stereo with some of the money, is that moral?
Why do you care? You are an anarchist, so I guess you think it is anyone's right to mug you? You don't want any laws against it. That makes three people who have responded to this question, and not one of them have actually answered it. Dear god, that's sad. It wasn't rhetoric? Of course it isn't moral. It is against the law, and just as immoral as e.g. not paying tax. If you think it is moral, and it is important to you, you should move to a property (country) where mugging is allowed. |
|
|
|
Not every market can be an effective free market.
Cool. Let's start with you list absolutely anything you can think of that you feel cannot be a free market and that the government absolutely must be involved in and then let's get the government out of everything else. Then we can talk again. The list would be far to long, and some areas need less regulation than other areas. E.g. power lines. Every house need power, but it would be very inefficient and even dangerous if every house had lines from six different companies. In my country it is solved by having a free market for electric power, an exchange where the power companies buy and sell power. As a private person, I can buy from any power company I want to, and change any time I want to. Currently I pay spot price for power (available any time from the exchange I linked to) + a fixed monthly fee of 35 cents. The company that owns the lines to my house have to deliver that power to me. And the fee they can take to deliver the power I bought is strictly regulated. This is a very effective system, combining free market for what it is possible to make a free market for, and a strictly regulated market where a natural monopoly exists and is the most effective organization. |
|
|
|
The Economic calculation problem only applies where there is a market which can be free. Can you explain then why The USA, which has the most privatised health system of all developed nations of world, pays more per capita for it's health services than any other country? That is only counting public spending, not private insurances. The USA are far from the top quality wise. Number 38 in the world on life expectancy, which is lower than even Cuba. The private sector will organize itself to maximise profit. This is not automatically the most cost effective way. There are several factors, the chief amongst which is that health insurance is heavily regulated, creating high barriers to entry and suppressing competition. Employer provided healthcare also tends to lead to people not examining the actual cost of their healthcare leading to higher prices. Employer provided insurance arose, of course, from government wage control legislation. This may explain why health insurance is more expensive for average people (because the companies can't deny insurance to e.g. obese people or smokers), but it does not explain why the U.S. government pays more per capita than any other government for a health system which is less effective than in most other countries. The insurance comes in addition to what the government spends, just to underline the problems. Private health insurance wouldn't be necessary if the USA copied the standard European like health system, and you would get a more effective system for less tax money. |
|
|
|
If I mug you, and then promise to buy you a stereo with some of the money, is that moral?
Why do you care? You are an anarchist, so I guess you think it is anyone's right to mug you? You don't want any laws against it. |
|
|
|
The Economic calculation problem only applies where there is a market which can be free. Can you explain then why The USA, which has the most privatised health system of all developed nations of world, pays more per capita for it's health services than any other country? That is only counting public spending, not private insurances. The USA are far from the top quality wise. Number 38 in the world on life expectancy, which is lower than even Cuba. The private sector will organize itself to maximise profit. This is not automatically the most cost effective way. Sometimes taking your money elsewhere is not a possibility. If you fall ill in Nowhere, and need immediate treatment there, you don't have the option to take your money to another hospital. Not if you want to live. The closest hospital has a de facto monopoly, and in a truly free market it can take whatever it wants for your treatment. If you are travelling between two small cities, and a highway runs between them, you can't take your money to drive on another highway. It wouldn't make economic sense to build another one. The highway has a monopoly. If you built another highway anyway, the first would quickly put you out of business by offering free rides for the next five years while you struggle to pay back your loans. If your country is attacked, it wouldn't make sense if everyone should pay their own army to defend it in their own way. Using their own nukes. With no coordination. Not every market can be an effective free market. |
|
|
|
I don't even live on the President's land. I live on my land. The idea that I should be paying taxes in order to live on land I own is ridiculous.
What country did you steal your land from? I didn't steal any land. We (my roommates and I) bought it, fair and square. From which country? When did you give up your citicenship of your old country? Do you bring passports and pass border control when you leave your land? |
|
|
|
I don't even live on the President's land. I live on my land. The idea that I should be paying taxes in order to live on land I own is ridiculous.
What country did you steal your land from? |
|
|
|
It all sounds so nice and agreeable and friendly. The reality was that the king was a thug who took what he wanted because he could and your new kings are thugs wearing suits.
Did you copy this from Karl Marx? |
|
|
|
Are you this stupid, or just retarded?
If you don't want to pay taxes, you can move out in international waters. Problem solved. If you choose to live in a country, you have to obey the laws there. No one will force you to live in your country, unless it is North Korea. (On the other hand, there are probably no taxes in North Korea because everything already is owned by the state, so you may be happy there.)
Are you this stupid, or just retarded? I am neither. I believe in the right to own property and in the rule of law. If you choose to live on a country's property, you have to pay the rent. Just as you can decide that other people living on your property should pay rent. If you want to buy the rights for making laws and taxing your property from the country it is in, you are free to try, but most countries' constitutions forbid selling that. It is their property and their choice. Why is this forum suddenly full of commies who argue against the right to property? |
|
|
|
That's like saying that if you choose to remain in the territory of a gang, you choose to be mugged every day.
Let me ask you something: If a bunch of your neighbors got together and agreed, by majority vote, to take half of your money, and even wrote it down to be all official, would that make it alright?
This is not about a bunch of neighbours or mob. This is about private property rights. A long time ago some king either fought for or more likely traded the land you live on. The deal was simple. He secured the land against threats from the outside, and often organized some form of security and justice on the inside, and your forefathers paid tax and had to serve in his army to protect all of the kings land. The king sold the rights to exclusive exploitation of parts of the land to inhabitants, including the right to tax people using it on top of the kings tax. But the king is still king, and everyone living on the king's land have to pay tax. Fast forward through revolutions and reform until today. You still live on the king's land. The laws are more formalized, and the king may be replaced with presidents and democracies and whatnot, but the principle stays the same. You have to respect the king's laws as long as you live on his land. Some commies, like you and Kim Il Jung, don't believe in property. I believe in property. And I can't understand how you can talk about theft if you don't respect property. Living on the king's land without paying the rent (tax) is theft. |
|
|
|
Use whatever word you want, the point is that it's involuntary. Re-read my post and replace tax with involuntary appropriation of funds
No, it isn't. If you don't like the laws of your country or state, you are free to move somewhere else. E.g. to North Korea, where taxes were abandoned in 1974. |
|
|
|
Comparing taxes to theft is just stupid. You know the difference.
Two problems with that: Just because they do something productive with it doesn't mean it's not theft, and You may get to choose who steals from you, but you can't choose not to be stolen from. Are you this stupid, or just retarded? If you don't want to pay taxes, you can move out in international waters. Problem solved. If you choose to live in a country, you have to obey the laws there. No one will force you to live in your country, unless it is North Korea. (On the other hand, there are probably no taxes in North Korea because everything already is owned by the state, so you may be happy there.) |
|
|
|
No matter what the state of the FPGA mining board, your application is going to need to have a PCB that is designed specifically for the signals you are trying to handle.
If it is LVD pairs, then no 'miner' board is going to be physically configured for the signal propagation OR layout/ ground-planes etc.
(look at some of the miners, they require just THREE lowspeed connection to the outside world (CLK_IN,TX,RX).
Even a six year old with a pack of crayola crayons ,could design a PCB layout for that.
You would be far better just buying scrap telecom equipment to recover the FPGA's ,re-ball and get them mounted on the PCB you require.
Plus looking at the costs of some of these mining boards, unless you age going to pick them up for $50-$150 , it will still be close to almost the cost of a new FPGA.
If you are not interested in designing your own PCB, then I'm afraid it's going to require a development board from one of the manufacturers, certainly at the frequencies you are considering.
Thank you! Finally an informed answer! As far as I understand some of the popular mining FPGA boards is basically re-branded general FPGA development boards. E.g. Icarus. This looks like it can be used for fairly high bandwidth purposes. (HDMI is extreme, I don't expect any mining board to be able to handle full speed HDMI.) Other boards are more custom mining specific designs, and may be designed by six year olds with crayons. There must be a huge difference in what applications different popular FPGA mining boards can handle. I guess t would be better to ask my question when the ASIC miners have been shipped and people have idled their FPGAs. :-) |
|
|
|
Services funded by involuntary appropriation of funds are never going to be efficient,
True, but I was defending taxes, not theft. Is there a difference? Yes. Thieves don't steal a fair share of my income and use it to build roads for me to drive on, provide me with free healthcare, give me a free university education, etc. And they don't stand up for an election every four years and ask me to give them verdict on how they did and how I want them to proceed. Comparing taxes to theft is just stupid. You know the difference. |
|
|
|
Services funded by theft are never going to be efficient,
True, but I was defending taxes, not theft. |
|
|
|
I think you're overestimating how finely engineered the bitcoin FPGA's would be. It's quite unlikely that the IO bus has been tuned to the barest minimum before affecting hash rates, I'd think it's much more likely that they were a) the easiest to acquire/use, and b) the cheapest. Odds are the low end FPGA's from the same manufacturer use the same bus as the high end ones, it's just a different processing unit and oscillator.
I'm not worried about the FPGAs. Those are quality components. I am worried about how it is wired on the board. If they chose to do it in the cheapest possible way, as you suggest, the boards will be unfit for almost anything but mining. You aren't decoding video here, you're still manipulating strings. WPA has a key length of 256 bits.
With HDMI decryption you are decrypting live video at higher bitrate than the fastest Ethernet. I haven't mentioned WPA as anything but one of many examples. (And you obviously don't know anything about WPA either.) I want to know the limits of the different mining boards. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
