No, miners still make the same in total.  And because the combined daily volume at the exchanges is several orders of magnitude higher than the daily volume of mined coins, I doubt mining has any noticeable effect on the price right now.  Half of the coins which will ever exist have been mined already, and many miners choose to keep their coins.

Writing analysis is remarkably easy to cheat.  The easiest way is to impersonate someone else's writing style.  E.g. some author or journalist.

May?  Don't forget that most people who are interested in Bitcoin at this time probably knows a little bit about economics as well. 

When you get real hard irreversible cash like Bitcoin, you should take a lower price.

I hope you are a bit flexible on this point.  I don't have time to post something people would want to read on the forum every day by the clock.  Other days I'm quite active.  I would start getting ignores if I posted crap every day just to participate.  Last round I missed one day.  Most other days I had 3-5 postings.

Does posting in thsi thread count, btw? 

You can stop joining now everyone!  I'm going to win this week. 

When price is high compared to difficulty, miners invest in more equipment and difficulty goes up.  When price is low and difficulty high, mining becomes unprofitable for many miners.  They stop mining to save electricity, and difficulty goes down.

Water block!  That's great!  Perhaps I should buy one after all for my central heating system!

Anyone know what water temperature it will tolerate while still working full speed?  Or chip temperature?

It's a pointless point to make.  A few blocks more or less in one day doesn't matter.  The protocol still adjusts difficulty automatically to make sure one block is generated every 10 minutes by average.  Can you explain why you make that point?

No, but I certainly don't expect to wait for a whole week.  IMHO a long series of made up 9s expresses the same as the same number of exclamation marks.  Your argument doesn't get better by yelling it, but people would take it more seriously if you wrote it like this instead:
Or you could make it look even better, and make people notice your point, like this:
If you read this thread closely, I answered that.  It's a feature.  People who don't have money can't pretend to pay.  That is very important if you sell things, and the main reason why many stores are reluctant to take credit cards.

I tried to buy stuff in the U.S. and have it mailed to a friend there to avoid VAT.  (Sending it via my home address would mean 25% VAT and much higher shipping costs.)  It turned out to be impossible, because no store would send to another address than the one registered with my cards.  I wish I could pay with bitcoins then.  It takes maximum one business day to buy coins if you don't have any, unless you live in some third world country.

Ja, eg kjøper gjerne!  Kan du kontakte meg på IRC for å avtale detaljar?  sturles på Freenode.  Om du ikkje har ein IRC-klient (Opera har ein innebygd), kan du prøve web-klienten til freenode.net og taste /query sturles for å opne ei samtale med meg.

False.  I hold bitcoins, and I am more than 0.00000001% of the world population.

Edit: I just realized I have sold or given away bitcoins to 0.005% of the population of my own country, and that is probably just a small part of the coin holding population of my country.

While paying with a credit card is easy, even if you don't own money or the credit card.  And that sums up the main problems with credit cards.  Paying with Bitcoin is impossible if you don't own any bitcoins, or can buy them from someone willing to take the risk off the merchant, and that is exactly how it should be.  It is a feature.  If you don't understand that, you have missed something very important.

In Germany you are not allowed to have software for cracking WPA keys.  I don't know of any other countries where it is forbidden, but IANAL.  Pyrit (WPA gracking software for GPUs) is hosted on Google code.

På OTC er det tillit som gjeld, ja.  Det er mogeleg å bruke eskorte dersom ein ikkje lit på motparten, eller dele risiko ved at ein gjer overføringane i fleire omgangar.

Nei, dei har ikkje svart.  Det går ikkje spesielt fort i det norske byråkratiet.  Dei treng tid til å absorbere alle dei nye spesialrådgjevarne som har komme til dei siste åra, utvide lokala sine, osv.  Kan ikkje vente at dei skal arbeide i tillegg!

For you, not for the merchant who don't get his money because you took the product and filed a dispute with VISA.  Actually it is not good for you either, because VISA's merchant fees of 3% or more is added to the price tag, and the losses due to fraud.  PayPal is even worse.
If the item is offered for sale in bitcoins, and you own bitcoins, it is the simplest way to pay.  It is like paying with cash on the net.  The police and other agencies are already investigating a number of Bitcoin related crimes.  I agree we need to work out a legal status for Bitcoin, so they can aid more and the tax status is clarified.

There are plenty of legal things you may not want on your credit card bill, btw.  I'm sure you can think of a few for yourself.
Say 1992 then.  Before the WWW.  The number of internet users then is probably comparable to the number of Bitcoin users now.  Basic services like E-mail, Usenet, IRC, games (MUD), gopher and FTP were in place.  Typical transfer rates were rather low.  Or internet banking in 1995.

The average joe don't buy drugs on SR either.  The number of computer geeks in the world outnumber the number of SR users many times, and how many computer illiterates know about SR at all?

No, they have to pay for that themselves.  (Alcohol is a good candidate for extra taxation, and drugs which are bad for them should be illegal, but that is another story.)  And that is the point.  If they are able to pay for that stuff, the whole economy benefits.  If only the rich are able to buy chocolate, you don't need many chocolate factories.  The rich people aren't going to eat more chocolate when they become richer.  The solution is to enable the poor to consume more.  This makes the economy grow and everyone's wealth increases.

Taxes are useful instruments to foster economic growth.

If the poor have no security net they will save as much as possible of their income for a rainy day.  By taxing the rich and establishing a security for the poor, the poor will spend more of their money on luxuries like chocolate, TVs and cars.  This is positive for the producers of chocolate, TVs cars.  Those are usually rich, but who cares.  Their market grows, and they can expand, employ more people, etc.  Everyone benefits.

If you take away the taxes, and the security net for the lowest workers and unemployed, they will spend less money on everything.  They may need to pay for insurances and similar instead, can not afford to develop their talents, and the economy as a whole will suffer.

Taxes can be overdone, of course, but some taxation is necessary for a sound economy.

Woha!  Lucky I saw this, I didn't know I had to register every week.