......
That's what I'm thinking about. Those who own guns, own a huge pride baggage that comes with it. Yoi just cannot let it sit quietly in your locker/holster. You will need to take it out for occasion, to show it to your friends, or clean it a bit too often, just to look at it, or to feel it. And in some countries it is completely ok.
I think that might be true at times. On the internet it's called (slang) "gun porn". Kind of like, here, I'll post pictures of mine and you post pictures of yours. And some people do have some pretty amazing collections. Those are no different than collectors of stamps, antiques, old cars. They are proud of their "stuff". Mine, I have almost zero of the characteristics you describe with a couple of exceptions. The fully functioning replica of the Texas Ranger 1848 six shooter, I certainly will pull it out of the closet, show it to people and talk about it. I also have an exact replica (weight, function, size, operation) of Glock 23 that shoots airsoft 6mm pellets, and that is something I will pull out and show people stuff with, let them handle it or shoot it in the backyard. But normally, with the typical firearm and the typical owner, there is no "huge pride baggage" as you describe. |
|
|
|
...
I'm going to go out on a limb (slightly off topic as well) and say this: if guns were allowed on the planes which crashed into the twin towers, there would have been no 9/11. Even if every hijacker was packing, they would've been completely outnumbered by the passengers who were. In the very least, the job would've been considerably harder, and those who died would not have died in vain.
Maybe. The thing is, at the time of 9/11 pilots and crew were trained to go along with hijackers. Hijackers were not suicide bombers, they were thought to be people who wanted a quick easy ride to somewhere like Cuba. What's interesting to me is that regardless of people on planes having or not having weapons, 9/11 could probably never happen again. The element of surprise would not be there. |
|
|
|
Then I guess guns are inefficient, ineffective, and unnecessary.
They are inefficient and not as effective, but they are a hell of a lot more convenient. You're not going to carry around a bulky bomb to throw, or run to your car and drive it until it's aimed at someone, every time you want to thwart an atacker  Plus with a gun, just pointing it at someone is often effective enough to stop the other person from doing what you don't want them to. Actually, yeah, if your purpose is to do the maximum amount of damage and carnage, cars and bombs are way more efficient and effective. If your purpose is to stop someone else from doing damage and carnage, guns are most efficient and effective. You've made a great point there. Firearms *exist* because of their range and accuracy against common targets for lethal weapons. Otherwise, we'd still be using bows and arrows, spears, and so forth. And in turn because of that known and recognized capability, someone who sees a gun pointed at him is very likely to change his behavior in the direction required to keep the gun from being fired. In turn this implies something of the sort .... Effective violent deadly tool -----> less violence ..... |
|
|
|
I would sell my right to self-defense for all 21 million BTC, and then I would carry a gun anyway, because so do 100% of criminals giving zero fucks about any and all laws short of summary execution for even thinking about having a gun.
I wasn't thinking about the right to self defense. Just the right to firearms. Flamethrowers, rapid fire fire ax catapults, and cannons shooting rabid dogs would still be okay. Drones with spears would of course qualify due to their absence of firearms... |
|
|
|
"Efficiently" Absolute bullshit. What's efficient about paying $6/round plus thousands of USD per rifle to fire it, to have far more than a snowball's chance at actually killing someone (not strapped to a chair at more than point blank range) with a single shot? Hands and feet are free and used in about double the murders in the U.S. than rifles. So if you had any intellectual consistency, you would be calling for the preemptive full amputation of all human beings' limbs.... that would have the additional advantage of putting a stop to this thread. Or at least slowing it down to the rate at which letters get typed by pointing a straw held in the mouth at keys on the keyboard. Unfortunately, the Full Amputation legislation would get bogged down with special interests and exceptions, notably Congress members and their staff would be excluded.... |
|
|
|
....
Anyway, this isn't up for debate, so I don't understand all the debate surrounding it. I will not relinquish my right to self-defense.
Great attitude, but it made me think of something. Would you sell your rights? Say one of these gun-haters would pay you a thousand btc to hand over your gun rights. Maybe gun rights could be rented, when you need them? That way you wouldn't need to carry them around all the time. Of course, there would be the problem of banks banking gun rights. How would we know they weren't issuing paper gun rights, like paper gold? What if they started fractional reserve gun rights? Then there are criminals. Would they steal gun rights from the rights bank? All of this would only work if 3d printers were outlawed, of course. So the printers would become the new hated evil as the progressive liberal controllers spin the latest drivel to an ocean of baboons... |
|
|
|
.....
A first step would be for people to realize that carrying a gun is always something deeply sad and unfortunate that should be avoided AT ALL COSTS, instead of looking at them like they were cool toys with some kind of magical "freedom power" in them.
That's woefully naive and ignorant. For several periods of a couple years each, I had guns nearby or carried them. This is in work I did in the US in various cities. It was always reasonably compliant with local, state and federal laws. It's not something to be avoided "at all costs", as you put it. It is something that is proper in circumstances in which a reasonable person might judge it to be proper. And of course guns are not "cool toys with magical 'freedom power'...". Except in those unfortunate circumstances and moments when that is EXACTLY what they are. Whether those moments arise as the result of criminals, gangs, rapists, Somalian pirates, or governments I don't think really matters. While we dream of a better world (unfortunately for some that means forcing their beliefs and ideas about behavior on others) we must deal with reality, dirty and nasty as it may be in places. |
|
|
|
Here's my deleted posts: Oh boy, here we go with the post deleting. This will surely help Luke's image. I could've sworn Luke was the hardcore catholic fellow... Needless to say, if I cared either way for Luke getting into this social club, I wouldn't be in favor of him And even before that, "I don't like these agendas. I only like my own agenda," isn't a very convincing argument, unless the social club he's trying to get into shares his views, in which case, go for it. But what is Luke-JR's stand on important issues? Is he pro-choice in beer? |
|
|
|
So,basically for BTC you guys suggesting the USB miners in bulk/ like 100 piece instead of the unsure other basic options ?
let's see, for $1000 you could get maybe 30 max, 10 g/hash. At current rates (or last I checked) that would produce one bitcoin every 6 days, so IF THAT STAYED CONSTANT you'd get 15 btc in 90 days. But it isn't going to stay constant, so the return might be half or 7.5 btc... well, we all know it won't stay constant it's going to go up another 20-30% here in a week or less plus you're not including any costs incurred to run the things (or equipment failure), and if it's something you're doing for profit rather than a "hobby", the value you place on your time i have not seen an ASIC w/ a price that is worth buying or even taking a risk on (ala avalon 1 and avalon 2) in a long time Agreed more or less. But I think it's 100% certain that the argument that GPU cards are the 'only way to go' because you can resell them for a large percentage of cost is completely wrong. The hash rates are simply ridiculously low and the hassles and maintenance fairly high. There is no way to approach 1/3 the production of even USB Eruptors and those are poor in production. |
|
|
|
From what I have heard Bitcoin is now an official "currency"/fiat in America, so now it will be taxed and eventually watched and regulated. BUT...
If they are going to get all federal with Bitcoin, a Bitcoin company should get a grant to start an agency that keeps track of how much bitcoin costs, and how many bitcoins have been mined, and has information on mining and how to get started easily accessible online, as well as give them access to the stock market, and allow them to sell their stocks (each stock would represent a certain % of the companies total BTC) on the New York Stock Exchange.
And I'm saying at the very LEAST that's what should be done.
No..... You'd think a peer to peer currency could jump through all the hoops that regular money does? It can't and I'll explain why. Regular money is created from nothing, then goes through the hands of about ten guys in suits before you see it. Then every time you spend or move it, another ten guys in suits handles it. See? They all take a piece of it. They can do this buy making more imaginary money in various ways. Bitcoin can't do that. It might force them to get real jobs, though. And I could use a lawn boy. And a pool girl. |
|
|
|
So,basically for BTC you guys suggesting the USB miners in bulk/ like 100 piece instead of the unsure other basic options ?
let's see, for $1000 you could get maybe 30 max, 10 g/hash. At current rates (or last I checked) that would produce one bitcoin every 6 days, so IF THAT STAYED CONSTANT you'd get 15 btc in 90 days. But it isn't going to stay constant, so the return might be half or 7.5 btc... |
|
|
|
Why he thought that Russia is more free than the US is anyone's guess.
Well, for him Russia is certainly "more free" than the US. No need to guess why, LOL! I guess, but how long will Putin allow a dissident to live in a country where dissidents are killed or imprisoned for speaking out? Seems like he'll either get the same treatment or worse. I doubt it. He is valuable to Putin et al as a bargaining chip. They may not even have a plan for him. Rather, they just wait. They have nothing to lose really in doing that. Maybe at some time they squeeze him for some intel, maybe not. |
|
|
|
We are living in a decade that is eerily similar to the 60s. Everyone is nostalgic for the 50s, 80s & 90s. In the 60s people were just nostalgic for the 50s, maybe 20s too.
Instead of "haight ashbury" we had "occupy" in New York, Oakland and just about every state in America, as well as other countries. So it's an international phenomenon instead of just one street corner. The 60s started at the corner of haight and ashbury in cali.
Instead of acid, marijuana and cocaine slowly becoming nationally illegal drugs, we are slowly working towards finding the correct applications for such things.
Instead of a "mad men" stock rush, there is a bitcoin stock rush.
We have hipsters instead of hippies.
Our guns are being restricted (same as the 60s) we will probably be getting our right to bear arms back though, instead of losing it like we did in the 60s.
History may not repeat itself, but it does tend to rhyme. |
|
|
|
Latest examples of "GOING GALT":
Lavabit and Silent Circle
Right out of the script of ATLAS SHRUGGED.
Hmm. They're hardly providing essential infrastructure though. I expect it's just the start, however. The next big thing is all those non-US companies pulling all their data from the cloud (or US based parts of it). Might want to think that over a bit. Rand used the train to symbolize essential infrastructure, but I have no doubt if she was here today she'd be looking at the virtual Galt's Gulch, not the physical, and she'd be looking at all those internet tubes, not the tubes going through the mountains for the trains. But she's not here, so it is up to others to recognize the fundamental aspects of instantaneous transactions peer to peer through the entire world, and act on them to build business models. |
|
|
|
Corporatism actually I would say Benito Mussolini was being somewhat disingenuous when he said, "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power", because corporate power is state power. Only state power is capable of enforcing a rule that some people are immune from liability while others are not. Lot of varieties of evil out there embedded in government, capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism. The bigger it gets, the nastier it gets. The old paradigm of communism vs capitalism really did crumble with the fall of the Soviet Union and Red China, let's move forward. Or at least stumble forward. |
|
|
|
The revolution won't be televised, but is it going to be orchestrated through internet forums? What are we really doing? I believe in crypto's disruptive nature in regard to present monetary and social systems, but are we the revolution itself? Will it be through this passive non-engagement that we'll overturn the systems of power and exclusive control? In other words, if we just go off and play with our own currencies and pretend that the rest of the world doesn't exist, will it go away? Are we working under the premise that crypto will ultimately overtake the market-share of world currencies, rendering the status-quo obsolete (and in effect overthrown)? I'm an ardent supporter of the Linux operating system. I believe it to be superior to the status-quo (Windows) in almost every way imaginable. However, I don't really have any expectations that Windows is going anywhere anytime soon. It has a stranglehold of most corporate computing, and through many different causal channels, more software and services are written for it than any other OS. I can't change that. I can tell everyone I know about how great Linux is, but I can't buy Linux boxes for them, and I definitely can't influence what major corporations are doing about their choices in computers. The centers of power (the major market players) are caught in vicious cycles, driven partly by their own influence of the very markets they are buying into and also by the market itself. Deviating from the well worn path presents itself with difficulties, despite how much more rewarding/productive/fulfilling the journey might be. I have to accept that fact that Linux is up against a system that has already been bought and sold by software monopolies which cannot afford to allow others to the table. They depend on exclusion, control, and an ultra-proprietary model of operation. What I mean to assert by describing the state of the computer OS ecosystem, is that hierarchically organized power is good at one thing, and that is attaining more power. This is its ultimate goal. Its medium of operation comes second place to its pursuit of power it seems. Monopolies don't have to worry about their products because they have no competition to respond to. In the same way, we could consider that the present banking and monetary systems are monopolies. Through their use of legal, military, corporate, and social engineering, they have crafted a rather comfortable seat for themselves in the global sphere. Do they really feel threatened by crypto? I know some of you will point to recent legal action as signs towards a positive affirmation, but do they really? Will oil reserves be bought in Bitcoin? Will Blackwater (or whatever they call themselves nowadays) be payed in Bitcoin? Will Halliburton be accepting Bitcoin any time soon? How about the bond payments due to China? What about BP? How about the major banks themselves? Will JPMorgan be paying its multi-billion dollar expenditures in Bitcoin any time in the near future? What is my ultimate point, you might be asking... I want to ask you one thing. What are you doing to change any of this? Buying weed off Silk Road? Maybe some video games or graphics cards from here or there? Trolling on the forums, or even worse, on the BTC-e trollbox? Are you day trading alt-coins? Maybe you're telling all your friends about crypto? Are you working on a Bitcoin startup? Maybe you're doing odd-jobs and hoarding crypto in hopes of getting rich? Are you mining? Is this your revolution? Is this what we'll write in the history books? Let me state my point as explicitly as I can. Bitcoin will not change the world. People will change the world. Bitcoin is a symptom of a sick society, not the cure. You've become too comfortable with being a consumer. You consume things. Your food, goods, services, your love, humor, compassion, pitty, and ultimately other human beings. As a consumer, you are fundamentally a spectator to the world around you. You are a feather in the wind, being tossed around in whatever direction the gusts will take you. As a spectator, your attention is fixed on what's immediately in front of you, and right now it's Bitcoin. Take a step back. Look around you. I don't need to tell you that we're in a load of shit. You already know that. But do you know exactly how deep we're entrenched? If you do, then you surely know we'll need a shovel or two. What's more, you'll know that things will have to get quite messy if we're going to dig our way out. Let me tell you first that I am an ardent supporter of capitalism, but not of kepto or narcissic government sponsored capitalism. And I love your archaic 1911 drawing! But in several respects you have it backwards and here is briefly how that might be. In the late 1970s/early 1980s the personal computer arose, there was a strong demand surge through the 1980s and firmly established market segments in the 1990s. This was CAUSED BY CONSUMER BEHAVIOR STRICTLY. So yes, bitcoin can change the world exactly as the result of consumer behavior. I could give many more examples of exactly how consumer behavior changes with technology and how in turn that changes the world. EG, fax machines and the downfall of the Soviet empire? Transformation of the the Chinese economy? Look, the very anti capitalism systems of the Soviets and Chinese collapsed under technological influences, as they could not keep their tight controls necessary to maintain power. These political systems were of course dreamed of initially by idealists and brave men, who fought for them, but only to find later, that the collectivist government was the safest possible haven for thugs, criminals and all other misfits who wanted an easy life at the expense of the masses. |
|
|
|
heading to FedEx to drop off a few packages there
yee ha! |
|
|
|
....So worst case - I lose $5,000. Best case - I make 50 billion dollars and go on a quest to conquer the Earth :O....
What? What if that 50 billion only buy one hamburger? And you want fries? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
