Indeed.  So long as Bitcoin has anything to do with fiat, it, and its markets, can be manipulated all the same.

Yeah I dunno what it is with online dating but it seems to hold a higher chance of being really weird.  I did meet one lovely lady on there whom I still enjoy the company of, but she's asian and her parents didn't want her dating a loser non-doctor like me.  But oh well.

Anyway to answer your question, your best bet is to probably meet chicks at porcfest and other libertarian activism events.  Or you could try studying Jungian typology to identify how a person will be early on and see who you'd like the most.  Libertarians, I presume, will typically be of the INTP/INTJ sort, which are essentially the philosophers and thinkers, or so I figure based on the general personality type of most people on this forum.

I used to use OKC.  You have to message several girls, even ones that you would be very well matched with, before someone possibly responds, but I believe there's an indicator that says how often the person talks back.  A good piece of advice, however, would be not to use OKC, as you're never going to find anyone who's really going to be much of a keeper.  At least, in my own experiences, I've not dated anyone off there who stuck to who they said they were.  There was one sweetheart who I later discovered had this weird serial killer mentality where she'd say shit like if I ever cheated on her she'd cut me up into individual parts and keep them in trash bags, or her friends would break my fingers, and though she said she didn't mean it, she said it a lot.  It was weird, but needless to say, I didn't stick around.  And another lied and said she was 18 but was really 15, only after I'd met her in person.  That was awkward, too.

Here's a little something I've been working on for myself.  It's the cover to a novel.  Not sure what I'll add to it or if it's fine as it is, but I'll probably not be done writing this book for a while so I guess I got time to think on it.

A good way to destroy a processor at that point.

It's absolutely true that tighter gun control laws will decrease the amount of gun violence in a country: there would be no guns to commit gun crimes with.

But that's a red herring, as the real issue is violence, not a specific group of violence.  Of course, you'll see low gun crime rates in places where guns are hard to come by.  But crimes can be committed with or without guns; you can be violent with just your hands, you can be violent even with your head.  You can be violent with just the words you say and how you say them.  So the real question would be, do nations with loose gun-control laws experience a lower or higher overall crime rate?

Why do people trust in computers, which is created out of nothing by some rich nerds you never met

I fit over half of those qualifications   I'm not sure, but...I think I might be a terrorist.

I'm thinking either way about it.  On one hand, if someone goes to your house and says "I'm going to kill you and your family on this exact date at this exact time if you don't give me money", and then walks away, you're better off not taking chances and it would be in your interest to figure out if the guy was actually serious or if he was just some wild hobo making empty threats.

On the other hand, the kid here had said,


In response to:


If this was posted anywhere else, it would've been blown off as bullshit, because that's what it is: bullshit.  Which is funny as it reminds me of this quote (which I keep posting I know but it's a good one):


So, naturally, in the eyes of the state, any empty threat should be taken seriously, as the kid must be plotting to shoot up a school because he is evil and because he said so.  On the Internet.  Where people say so much stupid inane shit that it's hard to take any of it seriously.  It's a clash of cultures, I suppose; perhaps the Internet is raising different children than the state wants, but I suspect this behavior of jailing people on future possible crimes is going to keep happening.

I dare say I'm jaded.  I'd like to be shocked that this happened but it's already happened before.  It used to be criminals slipping up and posting their alleged crimes on Facebook which got people jailed.  Now all you gotta do is make even the slightest reference to an act of terrorism and you can see jail time.

Just imagine if your account is hacked.  Just imagine by whom.  Put two and two together and you could potentially have the key to jailing anybody (who has a Facebook.)

Do you really think it's profitable to make a new account and wait for years before you scam someone?  Especially in light of the new trust system implemented, which further makes one's title less of an indicator as to how trustworthy they are.

Bitcoin's used as a medium of exchange; it is both currency and money.

Unless you're saying Wikipedia is wrong.  So let's try this again:



Damn, that's strike two.  You should really go chase these guys and tell them their definitions are wrong, since, y'know, Bitcoin's not a currency, despite having the qualities which would define it as one.

OP's link is dead.  Shame.

Anyway, onwards to the second link.  The longer one differentiates themselves from another group of human beings, the longer one admits to themselves that they are not human, as they must then define why their existence of being is somehow different from another human's existence, both of which, as far as any one person can perceive, are exactly the same (we eat, we sleep, we think,) and would naturally follow that the one who separates themselves must first assume they are THE humans, or, as we can see from the many existences of various hate groups in the face of one group of sentient being, that being humans, that, in the same way all religion cannot be right, all hate groups cannot be THE humans, for which it assumes that the minority who has chosen to separate themselves from the rest of humanity must be the chosen majority, either through God's fabled word or misinformed/biased reasoning.  This is how the idea of race began: one group of people said "Well our people can't mate with those people because it would never work!  A white and a black cannot mate, just as a cow and a chicken cannot!"  Which made sense, until it happened, and it was shown that a person of race X could mate with a person of race y, and thus, it was proven that there was no such thing as race among humans, for there was only one race: the human race.  The difference is, these people had an excuse: they had no idea what would happen when a white and a black mated, or whoever it was of whichever nations.  We've come a long way since then, and yet racism is still here.  It's incredible.

So relating this to feminism and masculism: the differences between men and women are so negligible when you compare their similarities (we eat, we sleep, we think, we're made of carbon, and a lot of water, we like oxygen, we grow hair and nails and we have most of the same body parts and we like to be entertained and we don't usually like pain and we like to be social, at least a little bit and sometimes a lot, and we also need minor exercise to stay healthy because we like to be healthy ad infinitam) that it's a wonder such self-segregation still exists.  If we've learned anything from Jungian typology, it's that people are going to be people, despite their genders.  If your biggest beef with the opposite gender is "Well, they're all always acting this way or that way", then you're simply hanging around the wrong people, and when you hang around several people who are of the same personalities, then of course you'll adopt a negative attitude against all members of that perceived group of people, whether it's blacks, men, Jews, women, kids, Asians, and grandmas: time and time again we prove that a person cannot be born to hold truths to stereotypes, except for the fact that the tiny person coming out of that woman is probably not a Martian.  But if your biggest beef with the opposite gender is "Well, I don't like that they have a penis/vagina and testicles/ovaries", then tough titty.  Get over yourself: nobody is so important that they should obliterate a made-up sub-category of human kind so they won't be inconvenienced in their own lives.  Feminism is born from a hatred of the idea that men should be the dominant sex, which they are trained to be in many cultures, including America.  But counter-productivity can easily be defined as women considering women and men as two separate groups of humanity, to the extent that each sex is a different race of being (e.g., akin to a dog, or a rabbit, but surely not human), and then wishing to be the dominant sex.  You don't wage war to acquire peace.  You don't pursue equality by drawing a line.

Which leaves the question: "How, then, if this is true, are there still people who believe men are this way, and that women are that way?"  And the answer is simple: we're cultured, from birth onward, to be different, from the way we style our hair to the very clothes we wear.  Boys are expected to be this way, and girls are expected to be that way.  Boys don't cry, girls don't pick their nose: that's what we're told.  But boys cry, and girls pick their noses, so why continue to tell them they're different?  And yet we do it: boys do this and don't do that, and girls are supposed to do this but never that, and they teach their children how boys and girls are supposed to be, on and on and on.  But the point I want to make is as I've said: You don't pursue equality by drawing a line.

To pick up hot gaming industry chicks?  Duly noted and archived.

Phinnaeus Gage, I...

Making new rules won't help a thing, unless the mods are going to hand-hold every single member on this forum to make sure they're obeying those rules which are supposedly for their own good but if a person doesn't know the difference between a neon-red scammer flag and a trusted member, perhaps it is in their interest to be scammed so they'll be the wiser for it.

People aren't stupid.  They learn what's good and what isn't on their own.  Rules just assume people can't figure out what's good and bad on their own so daddy and mommy moderators have to step in to solve inept member's problems (inept because they're being babied, mind you, e.g. the solution you're presenting to this problem only serves to worsen the issue you're attempting to solve.)  Here, on this forum, we are provided with just enough to help us function on our own, and I suggest you, and anyone else who doesn't like being scammed, learn to use these tools.

As for the rest of your suggestions, there's literally nothing stopping you from doing it on your own.  In fact, I believe we already have a wall of shame thread by TomatoCage.  For a system to report suspected scammers, here's how it's done:

OP Post: "Hey guys I need a 100 BTC loan for my dog Skippy"

2nd Post: "SCAM SCAM SCAM SCAM"

3rd Post: "SCCCAAAAAAAAMMMM"

Voila.

Lets say you're chilling in America and there's this brand spankin new law called "The Don't Sell Counterfeit Watches" law.  So you're like "Well all right!  Finally I can walk down the street without being sold a counterfeit watch!"  So you're walking down the street (see: browsing Bitcointalk) and this trenchcoat wearing hobo comes out (see: untrusted newbie), opens his trenchcoat and shows you he has a bunch of really nice Rolexes for sale at a 90% discount.  Well, since there's this brand new law (see: rule) saying that he can't do that, there's obviously no reason for you to act like a reasonable, responsible adult and be cautious with who you're buying watches from, for who needs responsibility when you got big brother making all these wonderful rules, so you buy the watch thinking the hobo doesn't know what a fucking Rolex costs and you can sell it back to some sucker for a huge profit.  Anyway, you buy the obviously legit watch and take it home and about a week later you take it to a pawnshop where they inspect it and tell you, "Yaep, this one's counterfeit."  But thank the lord we had that rule, for who knows just how much worse that situation could've been?  You could've been sold a slice of old cheese for all you know!

Maybe Bitpay is what you're looking for?

Hrmm, very interesting!  I'll have to check that out.

That's usually how I am, but I'm a total introvert so I'm like that with anyone I have or want to meet.  Lucky for me, women usually ask me out first, so I've never had an issue with making the first move.  Only problem is, the same types of women ask me out, whom I assume are extroverts, and considering I'd probably get along much better with another introvert, which I'll likely never meet as neither of us want to make the first move, I'm always stuck with chicks I really don't like being around for too long, which would explain why my relationships never last longer than a few months, tops.

But anyway, those types of girls are usually interested in just sex so I guess I'm supposed to think that's pretty rad, or at least that's what I'm told.

Think his methods will work here?  Maybe...  Civil disobedience works great if you can get enough people to roll along with you but at the rate America's going, we're having trouble just explaining what the actual meaning of freedom is.  If America were occupied by a foreign force, it's easy to decide whose team you're on, which would naturally be home, not away, but when it comes to America, the intruder is the guy whose been living in our house before we were even born.  How we gonna tell him to get out?  We must first make a distinction between American government and American people, which is the most difficult hurdle we'll jump over before anything begins to happen.  Perhaps the recent scandal with the NSA will assist in this process but it may be wishful thinking that the Libertarian movement will gain a sudden rise in followers.  But I guess you never know.


I hope you're right.  I stopped my own brother from joining the military, as he felt he had no other options, for he doesn't really do a whole lot of anything but play video games (Call of Duty, unsurprisingly), and so he has no actual skills in anything but the most basic tasks, which makes soldiering so attractive with all the cash they throw at you just to get recruited.  At some point in time, they have to run out of money, and it seems society is always coming closer to the realization of just how weak the dollar has become.  It's just, when does this realization finally become common knowledge, to the point where alternatives, like Bitcoin, look worth the effort to understand for Joe Schmoe?  But anyway, that's a very good point.  A military is useless without soldiers.  But at the same time, I worry a second draft may be just over the hill.  If so, I wonder how successful it'll be.