Maybe some of you have heard of the Mars One project, where basically starting 2024, 4 people will voluntarily embark on a journey to Mars to live there permanently, with 4 more people being sent every 2 years. With this being the case, do you see Mars One leading to anything significant in the future? Maybe the start of a new economic frontier? Will the ability to create cryptographic currencies, seemingly at will, come into play? Let your imaginations run wild ion anything I didn't mention if you wish, because I fall into that temptation at times when reading about it, kinda like with the whole idea of sea steading.  i have no skills (unless you count shotokan karate instructor...not to useful in a closed capsule going to mars) and/or my ablity not to kill people in close sardineline space hmmm...come to think of it perhaps the above is needed to get sent to mars as spam in the can for years on end Searing I will secretly send my robots to Mars first, and there they will covertly create mysteries that make Earth people curious about the Red Planet. These mysteries will astonish the unenlightened and create a meme of The Others. The Earth people will then go, as they always would, seeking answers. But whatever they find they must find within themselves, as there will be no answers out in the endless red desert. |
|
|
|
for? trust and hope in a complete no brainer
Occam's razor told me personally not to trust anything Gox dude says. It does not work out too well to be both a thief and incompetent, so one or the other is most likely. |
|
|
|
I have long studied the mechanisms of Dark. For example, the curious Dark Switches on the wall that when turned in the down position, suck all the light out of the room. These can be noted to be connected to the active mechanism, the Dark Bulb, for for the newly energy conscious, the Dark Noodle. There is a massively huge Dark which orbits the Earth and vacuums up light on a 24 hour basis. It was once believed that all of these minor Dark entities originate from the Dark Side of the Moon. Now we know that verily, it is the Poles of the Moon which shelter the Craters of Eternal Dark, where for billions of years only the light of far away stars has impacted. Then there are Books, which cannot even be read in the Dark, which proves their transient nature and even worse, computer screens the abject enemy of Dark, intruding into every corner with luminiscent glowing horrror. |
|
|
|
Inflation isn't really connected to money. If you buy bread each day, and normally you have to pay 5 apples for a loaf, but gradually over a year you have now to pay 6 apples per loaf. Now the value of the apples compared to loafs have inflated(depreciated) and the value of one loaf compared to the apples has deflated(appreciated).
Inflation, by definition, refers to money. Of course you can generalize the term, but that wouldn't be useful. Yes i know that. I just wanted to make sure that people understand that it is about the change in price, or more specifically the relation of one medium (money) to a product (basket of products). Curiously, none of the posts mentioned the elephant in the room of Inflation: Velocity. And that's what really matters. How fast does the money churn over? If it's all buried under mattresses or in banks it's not out there churning. When it is out on the street, either as cash checks or credit cards, that's when you will see inflation. Less money with more velocity can generate inflation, just as more money with a constant velocity. |
|
|
|
.....Well, there’s a fair amount of privilege built directly into the currency: In order to buy the sometimes wildly expensive currency, Bitcoin users need to be wealthy. .....
Well, that's a ridiculous error or lie. I know many people who have half or a tenth a bitcoin. They are not wealthy, they just have some and trade it for stuff. Then they get on somewhere like coinbase and get another hundred dollars worth of coin. But one think you can take for sure. ThinkProgress is told what to say, and this is what they were told to say. |
|
|
|
A Florida TV station reports that a man has spent 50-60 hours trying to cancel his Obamacare plan, and he still can't get off it:
"We are hearing about a new problem that involves the Affordable Care Act," said the anchor. "People who signed up for coverage are finding it impossible to cancel their plans. Channel 9's Lori Brown spoke with an Orlando man who has been trying unsuccessfully to cancel for more than six weeks now."
....
When you going to start being reasonable? Next you going to be thinking you should be able to check into an Obamacare funded hospital, and check out? |
|
|
|
So is Satoshi the Creator or did bitcoin evolve? After all, once upon a time there were lowly little one digit numbers swimming around. Then they combined. But nobody has ever shown a number simply arise out of the swamp. Every number came from another number. |
|
|
|
... Doesn't give the russians the right to invade/occupy a sovereign country.
Otherwise europe could just aswell start occupying the US, canada, australia and God knows how many more countries. The dutch could occupy most of belgium following thesame reasoning...
... Well, hell. Boys, why're we waiting? Let's get on it. <<just kidding>> |
|
|
|
Well you would hope in theory - but what is going to happen in practice is more likely to be quite drastic.
Nobody wants another thing like Somalia or Lebanon, or the debacle that occurred in Croatia. I for one do not see the insertion of Soviet armed forces as necessarily meaning the Soviets hijacking and taking over the region. By way of comparison is not the US or the UN capable of inserting armed forces then later removing them? I am very alarmed at hearing about snipers shooting into crowds from rooftops. I am not alarmed at seeing soldiers stationed on a corner with rifle pointed down. |
|
|
|
Someone's saying everyone hates environmentalists? Put up your dukes.  lol....I wonder what Teddy would have thought of the current breed of them. |
|
|
|
Where this leads is that attempts to influence or change cultural norms from the top down, as is actually attempted by feminists groups and other "issue groups" is outright attempts at creating totalitarianism as far as that aspect of cultural mores is concerned.
I'm not convinced this is true. Most such groups do not advocate legislation to enforce their idea of a better culture, but rather merely try to convince as many people as possible - the very definition of a "bottom-up" change. Why do you think this will lead to totalitarianism? Because there is a hundred year old development of "Socialist feminism", this is nothing new. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=socialist+feminism |
|
|
|
....the cultural "norms" forced on everyone about how boys should be tough, cold, withdrawn, and unemotional, and girls have to act fragile, hyper, nosy, and overly emotional.....
There is of course no way a "cultural norm" could do anything but influence peoples' behavior as the vast majority of people are abject sheeple followers. Throughout history unusual individuals, example very creative individuals, have lived without paying attention to such cultural norms. Arguments exist and I lean somewhat in their direction that strong cultural norms general strong oppositional norms; hence greater diversity, rather than less. Clearly this occurs in some types of societies but not others, but it's a good way to look at the matter. Where this leads is that attempts to influence or change cultural norms from the top down, as is actually attempted by feminists groups and other "issue groups" is outright attempts at creating totalitarianism as far as that aspect of cultural mores is concerned. Therefore, per the OP. There are many reasons to "Hate" or ridicule or disregard groups such as feminist groups. The worst type of "feminist" (not the BEST, but the WORST) is of course one who sincerely believes in the principles, heads over to the "Feminist group" stays in it even after she/he realizes it's been hijacked by political operatives for political ends. |
|
|
|
What you really want, I think....is something different. You want public statements about free, unfettered Btc from such as Rand Paul. There will always be some statists and control freaks in our elected representatives, and there will always be some of the public who stay quiet while they try to achieve their ends. That's what one should always be on guard against and always be prepared to fight against. I thought the Dem were all about small business and job creation for the middle and working class. Where in the world did you get that idea? |
|
|
|
I really don't care if the NSA is spying on me. I should, but I don't do anything illegal.....
Why should I not use gmail? ....
TLDR: In the end, I'd be more worried about random joe criminal stealing your identity than the NSA, since you can do quite a bit with a social security number and naive phone reps, but for all I know, some of you reading this are the ones doing the identity stealing...
Or it could be you doing the identity stealing, since you are the one advocating people ignore Computer Security 101.... |
|
|
|
I don't understand why conservatives are mad about the liberals; they both support the republic and each contributed to the growth of the state today. Now that the gun in the room is being used against them, only then do they have a problem? This is their Frankenstein's monster, and waggling the finger at each other, as though one or the other is to blame for their tactics, only hides the fact that the monster is indeed a monster.
I think that conservatives are the new liberals, and the old liberals are the fascist totalitarians. It does not seem plausible that one can blame the direction and the specific actions of the current administration on the prior ones at this point. Not saying the Patriot Act was "good", and I'm not saying that the NSA was angelic prior to Obama. Only that it's useful to look directly at what IS today, and assign responsibility for it to people that ARE. |
|
|
|
 Global warming isn’t just going to melt the Arctic and flood our cities—it’s also going to make Americans more likely to kill each other. That’s the conclusion of a controversial new study that uses historic crime and temperature data to show that hotter weather leads to more murders, more rapes, more robberies, more assaults, and more property crimes. “Looking at the past, we see a strong relationship between temperature and crime,” says study author Matthew Ranson, an economist with policy consulting firm Abt Associates. “We think that is likely to continue in the future.” Just how much more crime can we expect? Using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s warming projections, Ranson calculated that from 2010 to 2099, climate change will “cause” an additional “22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny, and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft” in the US. Ranson acknowledges that those results represent a relatively small jump in the overall level of crime—a 2.2 percent increase in murder and a 3.1 percent increase in rape, for instance. Still, says John Roman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, those numbers add up to “a lot of victims” over the course of the century. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/climate-change-murder-rapeClearly all heat in public housing should be turned off. For the public guuuud. |
|
|
|
There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday. Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing. “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.” http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-evidence-of-man-made-global-warming/he may be right on that but I don't see it as being a useful avenue of thought. Arguing in terms such as "most" or "fair amounts" or "the majority" of a quantity is fundamentally unscientific. The correct question here is the numerical quantity which corresponds to climate sensitivity(as a function of man's industrialization) and that does not exist. Commonly used and discussed is the number relating to climate sensitivity as a function of CO2 (with all other atmospheric components being included therein as some multiplier of the co2 sensitivity, example methane). "Warming is beneficial" is a set of concepts I've always liked. I can not recall seeing serious rebuttals that held up under examination to the idea that 0.5-1C or so warmer was "bad". Of course, this is the most dangerous of all Denier notions, that "warming was good". Incidentally, the Warmie argue that "extreme weather events will become more prevalent" has never been a mainstream concept that most scientists agreed with, neither should it be. It would be something that meteorologists would be qualified to talk about. I see boatloads of issues with this generalization and consider it more of an irrefutable hypothesis than any sort of scientific theory. Clearly it is best to just banish the Deniers to Planet Denier. |
|
|
|
I think bitcoin will be an indelible part of people's lives in perhaps 8 to 10 years
It is reasonable to think the ecurrency would follow an adoption curve such as etransactions...if not that of facebook, twitter or tumbler. Reminds me of something in the early days of the internet, when lawyers fretted about valid on line transactions because of their concerns about valid esignatures. Now they've pretty much forgotten about that, primarily because they got swept aside with the tide. |
|
|
|
That's actually right but it's much worse than that, current feminists are people I consider to be nothing more than gold diggers without the sex, they want men to cater to them in every part of their life and just reverse the typical role of men/women and establish a matriarchy instead of patriarchy, you can see it in the way they protest for things, particularly with how they say "We want equal rights for women" women? What about everybody else? Why just women? Any other protest group or pressure group falls into this trap as well, they'll fight for their corner, but not for anyone else, this is also another reason why our democracies are pretty screwy right now because none of theses groups will ever work together and just want dominance.
The old feminists were definitely feminists compared to the ones you see today, they genuinely fought for equal rights, current feminists fight for special treatment.
I don't even given current feminists the stature that you have, as far as I can make out they are simply shills for the latest Democratic political operation. Otherwise we'd see them other than silent or other than negative on the many conservative women and their issues. But you never do. Never. And I am not in making these comments attempting to politicize the debate; rather to point out that they politicized the debate, and that feminists who are basically shills for one political party are basically very boring, trivial and uninteresting. Back to nerdy women now? That was fun. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
