Split encrypted paper wallets.
take a plasma torch, and cut the letters and numbers forming the key into a 6+ x 30" piece of 1/4" steel. Triple check that you did it right, and that all the characters are correctly readable. done. then if you want to go further, grind an edge on it, and using big rivets and a hammer, put a handle. |
|
|
|
Is Phinnaeus Gage still alive? Where is he lately? Did the BTC foundation and/ or Brock Pierced have him eliminated?  Yes, Gleb Gamow = Phinn. Phinnaeus Gage...Platinum... -->PGP |
|
|
|
...... With H bombs? Hydrogen is natural and green... So that's good yes?  Nation's Climatologists Exhibiting Strange Behavior (Season 1: Ep 5 on IFC) 1:32 For some reason, climatologists have been running around in an agitated state, waving their little arms and squawking about "global warming." http://www.theonion.com/video/nations-climatologists-exhibiting-strange-behavior,21009/ Scientists say it may be too late to effectively combat climate change deniers and that humanity may simply have to learn to live with their negative effects. WASHINGTON—In a worrying development that could have dire implications for the health of the planet, a report published Wednesday by the Environmental Protection Agency suggests that the number of climate change skeptics could reach catastrophic levels by the year 2020. According to the agency’s findings, the rising quantity and concentration of individuals who willfully deny or downplay the ruinous impact of the ongoing climate crisis will no longer be manageable by the end of the decade, leading to disastrous consequences for global ecosystems that may well prove irreversible. http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-climate-change-skeptics-could-reach-catastr,36521/ |
|
|
|
....
I long ago washed my hands of religious bullshit, and it was the single best decision I ever made. To the OP, Muslims, Christians, whatever, I invite you to look in the mirror and take a LONG talk with yourself. (you might call it praying, for all I care. It's the same thing.) Ask yourself WHY you believe what you do. If, as was the case for me and is the case for the vast majority of the religious, the answer is "this is the religion of my Fathers", then you have to ask yourself if that's good enough. If it is, your world is small, but that's ok. It's your life. But if it's not, there's a whole universe out there just crying out for us to learn it's secrets. Which you can never do if you already "have all the answers".
Which is curiously, why I have emphasized with Dende that he must treat me as Kafir. Not as one of the "people of the book" who may have temporarily gone astray. The arguments must be made from first principles, not cherry picked from some old books. Note. At the same time, I don't have any problem with an old historical book such as the Koran or Bible having verses suitable for any and all conditions people might find themselves in, peace or war, famine or times of plenty. These old books existed in societies where few even could read, and they represented something like a "Google" in those times. A place one could go find any answer (of course you had to go through an Important Person usually to get that answer). We discuss not whether such books were "good" back then, but of what use they may be in the now, and the styles of faith derived there on. Well said. There is a great deal of useful principles embodied in old religous tomes. But without a very well tuned and tightly focused bullshit filter, those principles get warped and distorted into something evil. And the thing I find amusing is that those useful things are pretty nearly universal betwixt the various religions and secular philosophies. As I said earlier, the core of all religions and successful secular philosophies is the same. It's the things added to those that tear down societies and erect barriers to human progress. Were it not for religious influence, it is likely that we would have delved much deeper into genetics, have offworld colonies, and any number of things that a FREE society tends to generate. Instead, we've got arguments against scientific reality on religious grounds clogging up the legislature in the more secular nations, and people that haven't yet found the 20th century in many parts of the world. Religion is not solely to blame for this, but they bear a heavy burden. Agree with the bolded part. I believe Dende pointed out something to that effect, if it was possible to get past his grammatical constructs. But I have to disagree with your suggestion as to the great accomplishments we may have had if NOT for religion. Consider genetics. The progressive Eugenics movement, based on science in the first half of the 20th century, was opposed by conservatives. I guess you could say opposed by "religion", although it's a bit more complicated than that. Religions and conservative thought (often but not always aligned) does good in preventing moving in given directions too fast, without due consideration to consequences. Probably it is correct that any time religion gets intertwined with government - theocracy - the results are bad for scientific and industrial progress. Sharia "law" would certainly come to mind, which means that I would suggest that the concept of such a thing being "good" as viewed in Islam, is simply completely wrong. It would mean there was no way to use clever speech, duplicate meanings of words and sophistry to get around this. It's simply a ridiculous and a medieval concept and needs to go away. Whether various factions debating and casting for votes within a democracy, some religious, some progressive, is counterproductive over say the course of a hundred years is a completely different matter. |
|
|
|
 A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The lesson to be learned is that collectivism is a self-renewing disease for which there is no antidote. Typically, it ends not with the realisation that it is a lie, but with the expiration of the free-market system on which it feeds. As much as collectivists decry the free-market system, it is the host upon which the collectivist parasite lives.
As long as those who create wealth, jobs, and production remain in a country that has caught the collectivist disease, they provide the lifeblood to the collectivist system and ensure that it can continue.
The great fallacy amongst free-marketers is, “Maybe it will turn around. Maybe people will wake up.” Historically, this has not been the case. Full story... http://www.internationalman.com/articles/collectivism-a-self-renewing-conceptThat evil Dagny Taggart! She kept playing the game long after all the other smart people had gone on strike. |
|
|
|
....
I long ago washed my hands of religious bullshit, and it was the single best decision I ever made. To the OP, Muslims, Christians, whatever, I invite you to look in the mirror and take a LONG talk with yourself. (you might call it praying, for all I care. It's the same thing.) Ask yourself WHY you believe what you do. If, as was the case for me and is the case for the vast majority of the religious, the answer is "this is the religion of my Fathers", then you have to ask yourself if that's good enough. If it is, your world is small, but that's ok. It's your life. But if it's not, there's a whole universe out there just crying out for us to learn it's secrets. Which you can never do if you already "have all the answers".
Which is curiously, why I have emphasized with Dende that he must treat me as Kafir. Not as one of the "people of the book" who may have temporarily gone astray. The arguments must be made from first principles, not cherry picked from some old books. Note. At the same time, I don't have any problem with an old historical book such as the Koran or Bible having verses suitable for any and all conditions people might find themselves in, peace or war, famine or times of plenty. These old books existed in societies where few even could read, and they represented something like a "Google" in those times. A place one could go find any answer (of course you had to go through an Important Person usually to get that answer). We discuss not whether such books were "good" back then, but of what use they may be in the now, and the styles of faith derived there on. |
|
|
|
Bah. The war we have with small organisms and/semi alive things like viruses is not subject to the whim and caprice of our wars with other humans.
Are you familiar with the term biological warfare? "Biological warfare (BW)—also known as germ warfare—is the use of biological toxins or infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi with intent to kill or incapacitate humans, animals or plants as an act of war." "Biological weapons may be employed in various ways to gain a strategic or tactical advantage over the enemy, either by threats or by actual deployments." I do not think YOU understand. The essential fact of survival of these organisms is predicated on their not needing "helpful terrorists" to spread them around. They don't care. They do quite well on their own, thank you kindly. It is true that certain weaponized concoctions do require them to be purposefully spread around in target areas to have an effect. It is a ridiculous false flag alarm and an exercise in futility to raise such fears with ebola. When you counter "Yeah but THEY COULD...." ...that's an example of what's called in logic an "irrefutable hypothesis" ..."Yeh, but there COULD be a God.." "...Yeah, but there COULD be a big forest fire..." and so forth. People like arguing. The silly part is that you both are correct, about different things, and arguing against each other anyhow. These are two separate points and effects. 1) Virus don't need wickedness to spread, there exist killer microbes, and one day they'll come. 2) Government expands its power absurdly in response to crises (it doesn't take a false flag, any ol' flag will do, in this case CT for example has already done so preemptively). I agree it's silly. Rather like someone in a crowded theater filled with smoke, with people shouting "FIRE! FIRE!" wanting to lecture the person next to him on how it COULD have been a conspiracy by a government agent.... |
|
|
|
Bah. The war we have with small organisms and/semi alive things like viruses is not subject to the whim and caprice of our wars with other humans.
Are you familiar with the term biological warfare? "Biological warfare (BW)—also known as germ warfare—is the use of biological toxins or infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi with intent to kill or incapacitate humans, animals or plants as an act of war." "Biological weapons may be employed in various ways to gain a strategic or tactical advantage over the enemy, either by threats or by actual deployments." I do not think YOU understand. The essential fact of survival of these organisms is predicated on their not needing "helpful terrorists" to spread them around. They don't care. They do quite well on their own, thank you kindly. It is true that certain weaponized concoctions do require them to be purposefully spread around in target areas to have an effect. It is a ridiculous false flag alarm and an exercise in futility to raise such fears with ebola. When you counter "Yeah but THEY COULD...." ...that's an example of what's called in logic an "irrefutable hypothesis" ..."Yeh, but there COULD be a God.." "...Yeah, but there COULD be a big forest fire..." and so forth. |
|
|
|
Perhaps you don't really have a handle on the mechanism of operation here.
Its not about # of deaths, its about amount of terror (government over-reaction in response to politically motivated violence).
Wars were started over a little over 3000 deaths on 9/11.
Flu virus just doesn't have the effect.
OK, you are right, nobody will be scared because of flu even if it's more effective, however as Ebola isn't very easy to transmit in a well developed country a few terrorists can cause only very limited issues what the government can easily cover up. Certainly if the govt already want to impose martial law for it's own advantage then these guys would be the perfect cause. Bah. The war we have with small organisms and/semi alive things like viruses is not subject to the whim and caprice of our wars with other humans. You are not saying anything that isn't trivial and obvious, and you are not saying anything that is effectively actionable in the physical world. When the gubbermint fumbles the ball on ebola, think....
fucking idiots....not... real smart conspirators...As RodeoX suggests, go back and read about the Spanish flu pandemic. |
|
|
|
ISIS has very unreasonable , If they uphold Al-Quran , they not do like that.. Their actions outside the way in Al-Quran,Killing is an act accursed for Allah. Someone must stop them, Let's pray them stop and gone  +1 |
|
|
|
....Oh, and by the way, neither Christians nor Jews have any comparable evil to your splintered sects which follow Sayd Qutb. "Oh, and by the way, neither Christians nor Jews have any comparable evil to your splintered sects which follow Sayd Qutb." If you want to point to Al-Qaeda, what they did to US during 9/11 attack that caused almost 3000 death of innocents was wrong and is condemned. I dont know what measurement that you use for "evilness", if the number of death of innocents in a single event to be the measurement then what US did to either Hiroshima or Nagasaki was far more evil. 90,000–166,000 and 39,000–80,000 estimated deaths caused by the nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_NagasakiAnd now which religion had influenced on this atrocity? certainly not Islam. I dont think Christianity or Judaism has anything to do with this either. ..... I'm not seeing any parallel between the use of atomics in WWII and followers of Qutd. The US had estimated the loss of a half million soldiers and massive civilian deaths had they attacked the Japanese mainland from the sea. The Japanese had not surrendered, but their air and naval assets were destroyed. Declarations of war existed, and a submarine bound for Japan had been captured with advanced designs of weapons and uranium. Suggesting the actions of terrorists are no worse than those of the US during WWII is certainly an interesting rationalization. However, it is fraught with logical errors and would not stand any reasonable or rational test. Let me rephrase it so that you can see the errors.
If you want to point to Jihad John, what he did was wrong and is condemned. I dont know what measurement that you use for "evilness", if the number of death of innocents in a single event (just one or two mere deaths by beheading) to be the measurement then what US did to either Hiroshima or Nagasaki was far more evil. 90,000–166,000 and 39,000–80,000 estimated deaths caused by the nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively.If you don't see the logical errors, just ask and this kafir will be glad to point them out to you. |
|
|
|
No, not all ideologies are faulty. Some ideologies just deal with a small set of issues and are good doing it, like ecology. The too widen ideologies made to sort out all the evils on Earth however are usually faulty, unless they set by guidelines and principles instead of direct orders.
Here's an example of a definitely faulty ideology. http://www.kcra.com/national/teen-killed-after-goat-falls-on-him-from-roof/29027882 |
|
|
|
Clearly the True Patriots of the Modern Age, such as Giigle, Faecesbook and Dripbox, lead by visionaries with stalwart projections of the American Dream, will speak out loudly in favor of pleasing fakery, and proceed to attempt to destroy this infidel. A voice from the past. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY |
|
|
|
“In 2014, what is the gravest threat to civilization right now?” Scarborough asked NBC foreign correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin.
“I would not say any of those. I would not say that radical Islam is the greatest threat to civilization today,” said Mohyeldin.
Radical Islam a great threat to civilization? Why, of course Ayman would not consider it so. From his reporting with Al Jazeera, to his reporting in Gaza, to his background in Egypt, he's been really cozy with radical Islam. Why should he be worried about radical Islam? He's still got his head. |
|
|
|
The number of reported cases for the last week was significantly lower than the previous week. But at the same time, there are concerns that the cases are getting massively under-reported now.
Something nobody is talking about is that this isn't just going away. After this initial pandemic or lack of, a new world exists, with a new person at the party. Mr. Ebola. |
|
|
|
Was just reading an interesting text about Islam. Deception on Islam, a sort of dictionary. After a terrorist attack you may listen Muslims saying things like "Islam doesn't support the killing of innocents" or "Islam doesn't support terrorism"... well... if you can interpret this as a Muslim they aren't lying, if you interpret this as a rational human being, they are casting big fat lies.
So how come they are lying but telling the truth?
A: They twist the meaning on secondary words.
When they say "Islam doesn't support the killing of innocents", they are talking about their own definition of innocents, not the one you usually give. For innocents they actually mean Muslims, as all non-Muslims are Kaffir and therefore not innocent. And even within Muslims they may mean their own sect of Islam, as they consider other Muslims heretic for some reason.
When they say "Islam doesn't support terrorism", goes around the same. They don't interpret "terrorism" as we do, for them it is "Jihad", "fighting in the ways of Allah".
Yes, I had already noticed the syntactical anomalies and understood their use. Grammar is key, and when used with carefully selected and defined words, creates lofty phrases with purpose, but no meaning, except obedience. RE the medical claims made by Mo, clearly, those who are immersed in a culture and a life which requires reverence would somehow rationalize those claims, and those who were outside that mindset would see them quite clearly. I don't attach any deep significance either way to that. Certainly, the great truths and great lies of human existence are not such as these small wrong assertions. |
|
|
|
.... urine is a known "treatment" to psoriasis and other skin problems in topic application: this means directly in the affected skin. It does absolutely nothing, but nausea and spikes of salt in the system, to drink it.
Camel milk has absolutely no effect on healing anything, is just a plain regular milk, the only thing it "heals" is hunger. Your claims are pure snake oil.
I think I prefer hunger. But it would not be wise to critique ancient medical claims, since in the past, religious knowledge often encapsulated such things. I guess they are maintained to this day as a cultural tradition, more than as a religious law. We eat pork, they don't. But the reasons are no longer the issues of disease transmission through pork which originally caused such rules to be included in religious creeds. The reasons now are simply tradition. |
|
|
|
.....
I agree with the last point, dialogue between Muslim and non-Muslim can broaden up perspective in search of solutions to the problems that we are seeing today and working together is better than by oneself. Moreover it can also relieve tensions and misunderstandings between different people of different religions.
And don't forget those who are of no religion, such as I, those whom do not qualify as "people of the book", those who are utter infidels, kafir, by the tenets of your creeds, and all of what that means, to the various sects and subdivisions of your religion. There is very little misunderstanding on my part on these matters, but I do agree with you that there is in the world much misunderstanding, central to it is your animosity toward your traditional and historical enemies, those evil Jooooeees. Much misunderstanding is fomented and much hate is kept alive by selectively using parts of old religious tracts, often about this or that piece of land being "holy". That is of course total nonsense, there is no piece of land with attributes holier than another, because there is no such thing as "holy". It is a hollow shell, with no meaning whatsoever. Oh, and by the way, neither Christians nor Jews have any comparable evil to your splintered sects which follow Sayd Qutb. |
|
|
|
An easy list to keep in mind each time you come across an ideology, be it political, religious or philosophical. - A faulty ideology always present itself as the solution to everything, it's like the swiss army knife of ideologies.
- It always present ready made "solutions" for everything, never presents guidelines or principles.
- It would be paradise under that ideology, but... there's always an evil counter-part on which they blame for their ideology's poor performance.
- It requires a set of fanaticism, including death threats, violence or coercion to anyone leaving or attempting to leave the ideology
- It states people has to be compelled, often by force, to accept such ideology
This last two points are the brightest red flag on how faulty the ideology actually is. If you have a good and working ideology people will join it on their own will, you won't need to compel anyone. A fair example of a faulty ideology is Communism. Furthermore you get a worsen subset of faulty ideologies, let's call them "Scamlogies". Scamlogies are all of the above but are presented as the an ideology that agrees 100% with you. Obviously nobody agrees 100% even with their own father and mother, leave alone an ideology. Currently we see that a lot in Islam, just browse some interviews of Imams speaking of Islam and thing goes like this: Person: "I don't like slavery" Imam: "Islam is all against slavery" Person: "I want peace" Imam: "Islam is all about peace"... As result if you listen to "converts" you will see they embraced something miles away from Islam, yet call it Islam. Basically in a scamlogy you are lured by big fat lies from someone already in it to accept such ideology. I'm yet to understand why people does support these scams, as their members are also losing, my best guess would be like an investor who bought in some crap investment, he needs people to join his investment portfolio to add some value to it. But in this case nobody will cut the loss... Bottom line: Beware with "one-size fits all" ideologies, they cause more trouble than fix anything! And always READ the actual doctrines and philosophical grounds of the ideology, DON'T EVER think that listen to someone is enough, it may take you a couple of hours to read a book, but save you from a lifetime hooked to bullshit. Certainly an interesting point of view. I suggest a clarification - not that all of these factors must be present to define a "faulty ideology" but that most of them will be present. Similarly with "scamology". Then I offer a historical perspective. Many ideologies that were not sufficiently flexible to cope with a changing world have died a natural death, examples are many of the American Indian and South American religions. However, certain ones with built in principles of adaptation have done well. Example, Navajo. |
|
|
|
That's their way of letting us know no one can do anything about it sadly.
We'll see where this heads if, as pollsters say, the Republicans take the Senate next month. As for what anyone can do about it, it's very simple. Do something to help them take the Senate. This. The reason no one is doing anything serious about this is because the executive branch is run by obama and the senate is controlled by reid. He is essentially able to stop any bills that obama does not like and is able to ram through any nomination that Obama appoints. Yes. The people do have the power to put a stop to this nonsense in the next 30 days. I think it will only slow down the nonsense as Obama will still be president and the legislature can only do so much when the president is not in agreement with them. Also it is unlikely that the GOP will be able to gain a supermajority in the senate nor a large enough majority to override a veto. I think it is important to win the senate in order to prevent presidential nominees from being rammed through the confirmation process, however I think this will make few other changes I think that IN GENERAL, you might be right, but we are talking about the issue with the IRS corruption. Taking the Senate would send a very clear signal to the IRS as to the mood of the country, which would likely result in whistle blowers coming out of the closet. One step at a time. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
