That kind of falls under the category of some of the exceptions to the rules regarding buying/selling whatever is legal in your jurisdiction. Someone had asked a while ago about whether sexually explicit content was allowable to be sold between people of their country, where the age barrier was below the common 18 year mark. That one had to be turned down because it could potentially have repercussions. I've seen marijuana seeds for sale here before, but again I believe the actual grown product isn't allowed for similar reasons.

You can buy tasers on Amazon, you are good to go.

*edit*
Baby walkers are illegal in Canada for example, it would be strange to have to ban all items that may or may not be allowed in each country. Don't do anything to get yourself in trouble, and the forum doesn't care (with those few exceptions above).

He can spend his money on what he likes, but colonizing mars is probably just for publicity. Hes trying to make a commercial space program, he can make money in all sorts of ways, its as I said just a way to get attention. Most people don't know that much about Northrup Grumman, Aerotek, Lockheed Martin, etc but if they started claiming they were going to mars like Spacex they'd be a household name. There are an overwhelming number of unsurpassable hurdles to colonizing mars. If you just list them out you come to the realization that theres no way Musk actually plans on colonizing mars. Or I guess if he does, theres no way he expected anyone to survive.

We couldn't colonize the moon let alone mars.

You are talking as if the auction ended without any bids. The auction has 9 days remaining doesn't it?

*edit*

Oh, gotcha. Maybe try setting the auction length shorter if you want to see immediate action? No one likes drawing attention by starting bids 2 weeks ahead of time.

I'm worried about the unionized jobs being offered. I prefer a positive work environment.

I don't know that its an agenda, just a poorly planned unachievable goal if you take the goals and timetables literally. Anyone with any sort of capability to actually get to mars would already know its a pipe dream to inhabit the planet, but its a nice concept to get the general public interested in space.

It absolutely will not be feasible in 2025. I honestly think we are a couple hundred years away from being able to solve some of the major challenges. There is so much that would need to be done to make anywhere else habitable. We simplify the basic needs of humans such that the plethora of supporting factors to those needs aren't accounted for. The life support features that came about on earth happened over hundreds of millions of years. We can accelerate that process with technology, but at major expense and still requiring a massive time frame. Transportation of essentials is a hurdle, radiation exposure is a larger hurdle, temperature is a problem, the magnetic field that provides the earth protection from solar flares and major impact from asteroids is lacking on mars, the list goes on.

With an infinite budget I do not think it would be possible to survive on mars right now or within any nearby time frame.

Going to second that, it doesn't get confiscated, it gets returned. Again, thats if there isn't something legally an issue. If you declared the collectibles as raw textiles or something, that can complicate things.



I just checked one of the packages that I had returned and tried to put together a timeline for you. A package I had shipped was received by Customs on 5/21/19 (it has a sticker on it that says so) It has another sticker that says that the customer failed to pay and the package was being returned on 6/18/19. The tracking number actually shows on the USPS site that it returned back to the US on 8/8/19 and was delivered at my mailbox on 8/13/19

So when a package gets held by customs, the customer is typically delivered a bill that says, pay this much in tariffs or else you won't get your package. I've sent many packages  where the customer decided not to pay the import taxes, so they were marked as "not called for" and returned to me in the US. It typically takes a really long time, but they should end up back to you.

What concerns me is the update to Customs date. When you mailed it on June 29th, did your tracking number have a similar message that said it was being held by customs in July? As far as I know, things that are held for that long are things that are banned or have had secondary checks done on them to reassess value or to confirm that they aren't banned or concealing contraband.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2835521.0

I don't care about Roger Ver all that much, but promoting BCH as BTC using Bitcoin.com is fraud.

Absolute difference is completely useless without some type of scale of the significance of 1 unit. I'm not arguing that 400 ppm - 300 ppm = 100 ppm is incorrect, but you can either represent that as a 100ppm increase or a 33% increase, not a 0.01% difference which would be 1.0001 x the initial amount. That is the proper representation. Representation of scientific data is a big deal, you are trying to make an argument, but your argument is completely invalid until you begin to represent your data correctly.

If you could represent it the way you intend to, it seems like your argument is that 100ppm is a small number and is therefore insignificant. By that logic I could say 300 ppm is an equally insignificant number, so CO2 plays no role in our atmosphere. We know that isn't the case, it plays some measurable affect on earth's temperature. If 300 played X effect on temperature, its fair to expect that 400 will play 1.33X effect on however CO2 contributes.


0.000000070 Kg of botulism is enough to kill you. The difference between 0.000000070 and 0.000000140 is only 0.000000070.

If I tried representing something the way you have, I'd be fired and laughed out of the scientific community, so its not me playing word games or just being petty about, "you know what I'm saying man". (redundant disclaimer: I'm not involved in climate science) Get your statements in order and then state them. You can't claim anything based on incorrect math.

On that note, if it helps, spiders don't really bite humans very often. A lot of what people call spider bites are welts from other critters or just rashes. Spiders aren't really designed to bite mammals, so in most cases they can't or at least can't easily. Their fangs may be creepy but they aren't really the right shape to bite a human. There are a few exceptions, but I don't need to creep you out if you are blissfully ignorant about the goings on in Australia.

You lived with that giant spider for how long and nothing happened   maybe he even helped take care of some disease spreading bugs or those more prone to bite. That said, I'm not phobic of spiders but that guy would unsettle me a bit.

I'm sure you are probably already aware of that and you aren't actively afraid of spiders biting you, but little things like that to help you rationalize their presence may help. Like I said in my first post, I expected people would recommend exposure therapy. If it works for you great, but thats really not something for someone who isn't a professional to recommend to someone with a phobia. Exposure therapy without proper control can have the opposite results, making things worse.

Just going to throw a wrench into both sides and leave. The moon's local gravity is really uneven. It absolutely doesn't have a uniform gravitational pull or a uniform mass distribution. An idea of why that is can be read about here, but feel free to make your own hollow related theory.

http://news.mit.edu/2013/an-answer-to-why-lunar-gravity-is-so-uneven-0530


Heres a PDF of one of my favorite beginners astrophysics books if you are looking for interesting whatnot. Its the least math intensive book on the subject that I've ever seen and an overall enjoyable read. Its from the 1980s though so there are a few consequences of not yet knowing the results from dark matter and dark energy, but overall still relevant.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/lk4wa9nnad4qn54/%28A_Series_of_books_in_astronomy%29_Frank_H._Shu_-_The_physical_universe__an_introduction_to_astronomy-University_Science_Books_%281982%29.pdf

From a collector value point of view, I thought there was an agreement reached long ago that additional funding of coins was acceptable, as otherwise people could fund your coins with a few satoshis to ruin the collector value? I don't see why that would be any different with unfunded coins, its still worth whatever the physical item is + the coins on it, assuming you can find a buyer that is willing to accept holding a somewhat nonliquid form of the BTC.

Its not your private delusion, I'm sure there are plenty of other kids out there right now having trouble with percents.

I know exactly what you are saying, and I'm just saying that you are wrong. You are mathing poorly and making statements that are untrue. % implies as a fraction. Parts per million in our case. Saying there is an increase of 0.01% means that there is an increase of 1 part per 10,000 of whatever the initial condition is. A 0.01% increase of 3 results in 3.0003. A 0.01% increase of 300 parts per million (0.000300) means you'd have 0.00030003 not 0.000400, which is incorrect.


The increase is 33%. You can say that an increase from 300ppm to 400 ppm is 100ppm over the last 200 years, that is correct. What you are saying is misleading for this purpose. Lets say that instead of 300ppm to 400 ppm we have 300 to 400 ppb so 0.000000300 to 0.000000400. The change is still 33% however you'd be stating it as 0.00001% which dilutes all meaning from the statistic. We have percents to help us recognize the significance of change.

I've pointed you towards more than a few resources at this point. I'm just going to assume you are dense and let anyone else that feels like trying to help you pass your upcoming math quiz contribute. I really wanted you to get that shiny gold star, but I don't have time to help you solve your brain problem if you aren't looking for help. I think you may have better luck with your argument here: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751&page=1
they spent 129 pages arguing how many days there are in a week.

4 is 33% of 12, but 0.0004 is also 33% of 0.0012 I guess? Do I need to show my work, or will you believe me? In case you didn't find the math for dummies book solution to your problem, here you go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6-0MwmCpE8


My major point in posting in this thread originally was that the difference in knowing who to believe today versus long ago is that today there are an uncountable number of platforms one can get disinformation from people who think they know what they are talking about. This has been a great example.

It is not, you are doing math wrong. https://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+calculate+percent+change

0.0000000000000000000000000003 to 0.0000000000000000000000000004 is a 33% change, as is the case with 0.03 to 0.04 or 0.0003 to 0.0004

What you are doing is incredibly dishonest, as I refuse to believe that even you believe what you are saying. This isn't a case where we are doing a difficult problem and came to two separate answers, you are being deceptive by using incorrect math that again, its blatantly obvious to everyone with a middle school education.

percent implies a change, an initial and final value and what fraction of the initial value must be added to reach a final value. Again, not hard math. You are arguing that the scale of the initial and final numbers matters. Percentages are not additive like whatever you are trying to do.

Please tell me how its deceptive if we do the math correctly? I would expect that 99.99% of people here absolutely understand what I'm saying when I say there has been a 33% increase in CO2 between the time scale we've been discussing assuming a change from 300ppm to 400ppm.

*Edit*

First, lets keep in mind that we haven't talked about a single controversial topic to this point, we haven't talked about global warming at all, just what is a percent. The reason I'm irritated with you, is that our conversation started when I asked you where you were getting your figure from and presented an example with a 15 year chart and data that I snagged online as to why I was confused by your statement. You accused me of being misleading for some reason, and at that point I assumed you were talking about some other metric besides atmospheric concentration so I asked you to elaborate. Instead, you went on a personal attack when I apologized for misunderstanding you about how it was all some ploy to trick you and others. Then come to find out, I wasn't misunderstanding anything, you were just doing (and are still doing) math incorrectly and making incorrect statements. You've accused me of intentionally misleading others when the sole source of confusion is your own lack of understanding of simple mathematics which you can easily look up online to see that I'm correct. I'm being petty about all of this because of the consideration I showed you only to have it thrown back in my face, and its due to the absolute lowest common denominator of misrepresentation.  

By your own definitions, I would describe Bitcoin as commodity money. It is a highly divisible good that people wish to purchase either with their fiat or in barter for physical goods. I don't disagree with most of what you've said, but consider the role of a Bitcoin miner more carefully. Their job is not to print Bitcoins or bring them into circulation, its to secure the Bitcoin network. The block reward is a subsidy designed to incentive miners until its worth working solely for transaction fees. The miners are performing a service and those that are taking advantage of this service are in turn paying a transaction fee.

Best solution that is still somewhat realistic in my opinion is to make smaller scale farming practices more commonplace. Happy meat is tasty meat, get people hooked on the better tasting meat and at least part of the humane issue cures itself. The scary PETA people will never be satisfied, but regular people can probably agree that commercial chicken practices for example are pretty cruel. Make the practices of raising meat less cruel and as a result more tasty, and then you just have to get over the issue of cost. Theres probably some solution there somewhere for getting meat from farmers markets under $10/lb and into the grocery store meat price range.

I apologize, I didn't account for you not knowing middle school level math. Going from 1 to 2 is a 100% change. Going from 10 to 20 is a 100% change, going from 100 to 200 is a 100% change. The order of magnitude doesn't fundamentally change how percents are calculated, you are missing the step where you divide by the initial value.

[(final - initial)/ initial] x 100

[(4e^-4 - 3e^-4) / 3e^-4 ] x 100.

here you go. https://www.skillsyouneed.com/num/percent-change.html

*edit* Sorry I'm being a jerk at this point but just gonna leave this here

A change of 0.01% would be 300ppm (3x10^-4) * 1.0001  for a total of 300.03ppm or (3.0003x10^-4)
A change of 33.33% would be 300ppm (3x10^-4) * 1.3333 for a total of 399.99ppm or ~ (4x10^-4)

33%, that isn't "scary" it is what it is? If I say we have 3 puppies and now we have 4, thats a 33% increase. If I say we have 300 millionths of a puppy and now we have 400 millionths of a puppy, you might be scared of cloning, but it is what it is. If you are scared of a percent, that means you are scared of a conclusion drawn from that. Its beyond ridiculous to accuse someone a fear mongering because you think they should present the number in a different manner.


The data I found and posted above says theres been an increase of about 8% in the past 15 years, I can keep a straight face and tell you thats about 2% per year on average between the years 2005 and 2019. If thats spooky to you for some reason that sucks I guess? It doesn't mean much to me except that the index of refraction of the atmosphere is changing and the lenses need to be re-angled occasionally to get a proper scan of the earth.