Re deposit addresses:
No. it will change every time you use it.
What happens with sending to old addresses? i.e. if I send BTC to a previously-used address, will it still reach my btcjam account? Or do I *have* to use the latest address? Just wondering if I can set up a single "deposit" address in my wallet for quick sending. |
|
|
|
What's wrong with just saying "consciousness" is a fractal along one axis, "reincarnation" is a fractal along another, and having done with it? Bosh. Job complete...
Feel free to explain. Well. I just quite like fractals really. But there's a certain poetry in nature replicating itself. The golden ratio repeats itself at all manner of levels. Consciousness is a "mirror" of reality, to possibly borrow from Shinto. Ergo, could consciousness be a fractal mirroring of the body which is, in turn a fractal mirroring of the environmental systems, which is in turn... etc. etc. etc. Hence one axis = layers of reality which shift in tune with each other. As the global ecosystem alters, the human consciousnesseseses tied to it alter. And if time is a dimension, wherein patterns repeat themselves with subtle variation (fractals are not *identical* at all levels, just reminiscent) - e.g. evolution and mutation, innovation cycles, plus ca change, etc., why couldn't reincarnation on a physical/mental/cultural/historical axis not also be a constant looping of fractal reflections? The golden ratio dispersed along event horizons. But I'm still working on it. There may be holes in my argument. |
|
|
|
|
The trend is certainly towards a global middle class. But to balance it, the trend is also towards a global working class. Which box you end up depends on how dependent you are on things being "cheap".
|
|
|
|
Most people who claim to be "atheist" are actually "antitheismist", basing their view not on any particular argument for or against anything "spiritual", but on the balances of power and social forces that act upon them (and vice versa) in their daily lives. Most "atheists" who prefer to raise "science" as their herald would actually make pretty lousy scientists. (Sidenote: This is also why Einstein is a paradox to most: the idea of a "religious scientist" doesn't fit into a truncated world view.)
If a religion existed that was non-vocal, or non-aggressive, e.g. let's say a hypothetical religion which only exists if you're willing to look for it, would that make that religion "acceptable" (because it does not force itself), or "dangerous" (in that you have to choose to accept it)?
In other words, does a religion come from a function, or does a function come from a religion? And is it better or worse to criticise the function, or the religion?
If you are claiming that Einstein was a "religious scientist," I believe you are mistaken. Mistaken in what way? Also, the word is "antitheist."
No, I chose my word very deliberately. There's a big difference between the two. I would probably class myself as antitheismist. But also antismist generally*. I would not class myself as antitheist or atheist. "Post-spiritual" perhaps. Do words even mean anything when it comes to this stuff? * Intentional paradox. |
|
|
|
If a religion existed that was non-vocal, or non-aggressive, e.g. let's say a hypothetical religion which only exists if you're willing to look for it, would that make that religion "acceptable" (because it does not force itself), or "dangerous" (in that you have to choose to accept it)? Wiccans do not proselytize, advertise their religious services (at least, not outside their social circles), or even, usually, make a big deal of being Wiccan. Most other nature religions (collectively known as "Neo-paganism") are similar. Perhaps that is why you thought such a religion was hypothetical. It was mainly hypothetical to avoid arguments relating to the specifics of any given religion. Personally, I'm not religious, agnostic or atheist - I merely borrow from everywhere, as it were. Some things inspire me or explain things more than others, but for me labelling that process also restricts it. I think we're agreeing, as you go on to say: Religion itself is neutral, and most have positive messages at their cores. It's what the followers do with (and to) that message that defines whether a religion is acceptable or dangerous.
This is precisely what I was getting at - "religion" is everything and nothing. There are "messages", "cores", "followers", and "actions", plus a whole range of other things going on under the banner of "religion". A concise critique of "religion" needs to untie all of these if it wants to make "progress" - but in the process, one will probably find that each element exists ubiquitously in society under many other banners. (Each) "Religion" is just a certain configuration with a particular set of symbols and brandnames. |
|
|
|
|
Most people who claim to be "atheist" are actually "antitheismist", basing their view not on any particular argument for or against anything "spiritual", but on the balances of power and social forces that act upon them (and vice versa) in their daily lives. Most "atheists" who prefer to raise "science" as their herald would actually make pretty lousy scientists. (Sidenote: This is also why Einstein is a paradox to most: the idea of a "religious scientist" doesn't fit into a truncated world view.)
If a religion existed that was non-vocal, or non-aggressive, e.g. let's say a hypothetical religion which only exists if you're willing to look for it, would that make that religion "acceptable" (because it does not force itself), or "dangerous" (in that you have to choose to accept it)?
In other words, does a religion come from a function, or does a function come from a religion? And is it better or worse to criticise the function, or the religion?
|
|
|
|
|
What's wrong with just saying "consciousness" is a fractal along one axis, "reincarnation" is a fractal along another, and having done with it? Bosh. Job complete...
|
|
|
|
Ok so ive received my funds from pingit and have them in my wallet and have now sent them to a bitcoin address. This was about 4 hrs ago and ive not received them yet at said address.
When i go to my transactions page it shows my incoming transaction from pingit and says (47 confirmations) highlighted in green and the outgoing transaction to the bitcoin address(43 confirmations) highlighted in red. Can someone explain in laymans terms what this all means please?
Is there something i must click or do i just wait, total noob sorry.
Many thanks
Was the address you sent to an address set up by the bitcoin.org client? If so, and you installed it recently, you'll need to download the blockchain database up to the point where your transaction occurred in order to see it in the client. (There should be a progress indicator bottom right telling you how far behind you are.) If the address you sent to was pasted OK, and blockchain.info is saying it's confirmed a lot (see below), then you should be OK. Confirmations are basically new blocks being added to the (most recent) end of the blockchain, the big bitcoin record-keeping database in the cloud. When you send some Bitcoins, the record of your transaction is recorded in (probably) the next block to get mined (which happens roughly every 10-15 minutes). That's 1 confirmation. Each block after that adds on top of it, and adds 1 more confirmation. The more confirmations a transaction has, the more blocks have been added on afterwards. Each block confirms the previous one like a big snake, and each block takes a whole bunch of computing power to add, so after about 6 new blocks following your transaction, it's basically computationally impossible to "undo" your transaction (i.e. find a block that can be used instead of the one with your transaction in). I think that's right. It may or may not make sense. *Very* happy to be corrected and/or help more on this, as I've started trying to explain it more, and would love to know if I'm being accurate or not... |
|
|
|
Great stuff - very interested, have started to have a play, and blogged about it here. I'll post in the feedback forum too, but there are some minor formatting issues when viewing on an Android phone. Hooked up to Barclays PingIt and blockchain.info, micro-lending on the go has never been more fun... |
|
|
|
How long did you wait? I've tried twice - the first time arrived in a few minutes, the second was within maybe half an hour. I don't know if it depends on blocks coming out, or on any manual intervention at all from the blockchain.info guy. Did you get a confirmation SMS from Barclays saying it had gone through? And did the phone number map to "QKOS Services Limited" as in the screenshots at https://blockchain.info/wallet/deposit-pingit ? |
|
|
|
In the UK, if they laugh at you then you're definitely on to a good thing. Hey look, David Cameron finally worked out people were talking about him on Twitter. More likely, (here at least) we'll see an attack along the usual line of "anonymity is bad because we can't know you're not morally suspicious" while forgetting that most people are morally suspicious because being morally unsuspicious just means doing what the government want you to do. Hence a Treasury Minister attacking cash. I guess it's actually in the interests of the state to declare Bitcoin as legal tender. Then they can regulate anyone accepting Bitcoins as formal entities - selling something for Bitcoins would require you to register as a company and file tax returns. Accepting donations might require you to register as a charity, etc. That's probably a good thing in terms of getting Bitcoin "accepted" rather than clamped down on. |
|
|
|
Which reminds me, I need to watch Inland Empire again. That was a real whatthefucker for me.
The first time I saw Inland Empire I was expecting something similar to Lynch's previous stuff, in that it could be discussed, inspected, and ultimately made sense of. I'm a big fan of the rest of is stuff, especially Mulholland Drive and Lost Highway. But the whole feel of Inland Empire is something different. After reading a few articles on it, I realised it has to be watched "without thought". It definitely helps to watch Mulholland Drive first as it ties into some of the same underlying themes, but really Inland Empire is about how you feel what's going on, rather than how you understand it. There are a couple of points which have me unable to do anything but watch, and yet I have little idea why (plot-wise). Also, following on from the discussion of 2001, I'd definitely recommend both A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon by Kubrick. Many people seem to assume the former is an unwatchable monstrosity of terror, based on the notion that it was banned, but realise just how subtly clever it is when they watch it. The latter is long and epic, but has some amazing cinematography. Kubrick used a NASA 50mm lens with a f/0.7 aperture to shoot some scenes lit just by candlelight. (Oh, also Dr. Strangelove is possibly my favourite film ever.) |
|
|
|
Blockchain.info just launched a way to buy BitCoins with £ GBP using the new Barclay app PingIt which links to your bank account. You simply tell the website how much £ you will transfer and it says the current BTC price. It gives you the phone number, and a reference number which you need to put in the message. It then appears as BitCoins like an hour later. Best way ever in UK, it's what I have been waiting for, just launched and fantastic! https://blockchain.info/wallet/deposit-pingitYup, loving this - demo'd it live yesterday to a bunch of people who had never seen Bitcoins before, really adds a wow factor. Limits: You have to transfer at least 10 GBP per go, and you can only buy a maximum of 250 GBP per week. |
|
|
|
Oh damn, great news for UK users. Looking forward to testing. Update: Tested. Works. Blown away. This is massive. |
|
|
|
This box arrived for me today - playing with it now, feels good to be delving into linux again  Thanks, Distribution. Will give it a proper test this weekend. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
