Lubuntu's pretty snappy on older PCs.  There's also JoliOS, but it's more of a watered down Linux if you ask me, and in my tests, it wasn't quite as fast as more popular lightweight Linux distros.  You can try CrunchBang if you want something more minimalist, but I wouldn't recommend it if you don't know your way around Linux yet.

You must have patience, grasshopper.

Exxon's not gonna like this one bit.

Needless to say, I want one.

If you haven't already, you should get the Humble Bundle with Android 6, as they accept Bitcoin now

I would think that the easiest way to cut the thugs from power is to stop using what enables them, which would be the very paper money they create from thin air, and to do this, you would use another currency--but ultimately, this would not solve the problem, as you would have to stop being taxed (and there are ways to tax Bitcoin indirectly, which would force you to use fiat or face jail time etc.)  If ever there is a time where all laws are gone, the last one remaining would be the government's ability to tax, and it can only be removed by force, since it's essentially the life line of the government.  Without taxation, the government would collapse in on itself and disappear, as there would be no incentive for anyone to work in a position where they had absolutely no power.  If money is the ultimate driving force behind the government--the bread and butter, the blood and the heart--then the simplest way to oust the bully is to disallow him to take your lunch money.  Further expanding on this idea, if money is what really drives the government, it would follow that money is what drives everything in a capitalistic system: a vote is not a vote if it is not cast with your wallet, which thoroughly outlines just why democracy is doomed to fail, as there are always those with extreme amounts of money who understand that a ballot means nothing, but a large sum of cash to the guy(s) in charge is everything.  Even with a law that says, "Do not kill others," every man still has his price, and someone somewhere will do anything if it meant cash, for money is the end-all, for it is above law: there is no higher law of capitalism than the market itself, and those who control the market, control the nation.

Back on topic: if there was a movement to "oust the bully", the bully would need to fight back.  Because the bully is armed, it is imperative that citizens remain armed.  As the bully knows its "peaceful" rule is coming to in end, it knows it will soon have to resort to direct violence to stay in command.  Because the bully needs to keep his fellow classmates alive (for you cannot collect lunch money from the dead), he will need to do this with as few casualties as possible.  Therefor, the bully aims to disarm the populace, both allowing him an easy as pie victory, and ensuring his income will remain absolutely peachy, should his classmates decide that they no longer need his protection.

I see no way to conquer the bully through peaceful means, for the bully will always initiate force the moment his rule is questioned, as he is known to do when times are dire.  So this should be expected.  However, that is not to say we cannot hamper the bully's ability to use force, which, as I described above, would involve cutting off the lunch money, the same act which would ensure the bully uses violence to keep his lunch money fund moving.  Considering our all-American bully has the most expensive military in the world:



It's a very sticky situation we've found ourselves in.  Feels pretty shitty knowing that, by simply existing, you are contributing to a force which could destroy the Earth several times over.  But I believe it's vital to understand just how serious this global problem is.  And I'm afraid I've been no help in contributing an answer as to how to stop such a destructive force.  But fucking with the bully's lunch money fund seems like it's the last thing you'd want to do; if possible, the American citizens could attempt to cut its nation's military down by several measures, and ensure they're allowed their weapons, but I don't think any of us wanted this to begin with, nobody wanted to fuck with the constitution except those who claim to represent us, which would only point out just how out of control those who run our government are, and a question is begged to be asked: for what means do they hope to accomplish with a military of such a magnitude?  What drives a nation to destroy itself to create such a bloated military?  But the answer is clear: for the domination of other nations, thus allowing the bully more power yet.

I think Bitcoin has something to do with this whole thing, but as many members have said, it is not the end-all solution to this problem.  But I'll be damned if it's not the lock for which we must find the key.

The wallet.dat stores all the keys to your Bitcoin; you never actually store bitcoins, you only store data that says "you can spend X amount of Bitcoins".  It's more like a ledger.  If you lose your wallet.dat, you lose access to those Bitcoins to spend, effectively the same as sending your gold on a rocket into the depths of space never to be seen again.  There's absolutely no way to recover it, unless you made a back-up, or you're using electrum and copied down the seed to your wallet.  However, if you made a backup, it's safe to delete it.

That's what crossed my mind as well.  Somewhere in the American government is the belief that Bitcoin is a currency.  Who still believes Bitcoin is monopoly money?  Even the government is saying otherwise.

10/10, but I knew what the quiz would be by the second question

It is unusual that so many people stopped at 9/10, but I suppose it makes sense.  Though they acknowledge that theft is immoral, they believe it's necessary for society to function--the "necessary evil".  If you know no alternatives, how could you consider them?  If the world is flat, and we can obviously see just from looking outside that, despite a few hills and mountains, it is indeed flat, who would dare question such an obvious fact of nature?  We can argue that, because there always has been a state, there can always only be a state, just as we can argue that because people have always been violent, they must always be violent, but without acknowledging the existence of the "other side", the grass is always greener where we are, and can be no greener no matter how hard we try.  Of course, there's no such thing as "greener" when you have but one green, but as long as we keep repeating it, it'll surely remain as fact.

If we can assume people never change, libertarianism is doomed to fail: "So it is, so it always must be."  If people believe in government now, as they almost always have in history, then we can assume that people will always continue to believe in government, and to fight against it is a futile practice.

If we can assume government force will always completely outweigh the force of the individual, it would take a monumental amount of time and energy for libertarianism to become a big enough thing for change to ever happen.  If we can assume people fall in and out of beliefs, we could say libertarianism is a passing fad which will shut up once government is improved, and then nothing would ever happen anyway, as we've seen from protesting in the past several decades.

If we can assume society requires government to function, libertarianism only serves to dismantle our modern civilization.  If we can assume people cannot function together without an all-powerful leader behind the wheel to tell us what to do and how to do it, then to remove government from modern society is to regress into the stone ages, where people killed each other without remorse for there was no law or entity to enact on that law to stop them.

If we can, again, assume people never change, even if the government was to be removed, people would form their own rogue governments and force anyone who isn't a part of that government to become a part of it.  Once these gangs amass enough power, they will then charge their "citizens" protection fees, or threaten to ostracise and ultimately, kill.  Thus, libertarianism is pointless, because we would only wind up back at square one, so why fight it?

There's always the classic:  "Who would build the roads?"  If there's no central force to plan the roads, nobody would build the roads, and then we wouldn't have hospitals and firefighters and there would be no police officers so there would be total chaos in the streets and since murder is legal (a funny way to say it but people still say it this way) you can just kill anyone at any time without any repercussion and then a culmination of the reasons mentioned above would occur because, because, well isn't it obvious all of this would happen?

And then there's people who are on government funding who will support the state just 'cos they like free money.  There's a shit load of them cropping up in America nowadays, anyhow.  And then you have the "patriots" who love their government more than their country, or assume a country and government are inseparable and therefore the same thing.

I guess it all boils down to fear of what we don't know.  Some people just can't stand change, even if it could be for the better.  There are always proponents and opponents of any given subject.  What matters is who has the most logical arguments, and when it comes to interpretation of people, there's no logic to be had; all one can do is observe and draw conclusions, and an observation is a very subjective thing.  After all, everyone knows someone who believes whole-heartedly in the existence of God; it's not because they fail to see the logic, but because they do actually perceive Him to be real.  To make an objective observation on the validity of God would mean there would be no religion, but not everyone does that, perhaps unwilling to or unable.  Not everyone can be cold in the face of emotion.

But when it comes to libertarianism, the best approach is to simply look at it objectively.  An objective view of government is essentially this: a mafia which collects protection fees and uses those fees to further and protect their own interests.  If you've ever said, "Well the way government spends on X is so stupid," it's not stupid, it's intentionally that way.  No man with so much power will let it slip so easily through his fingers.  If one can view government in such a way, the pieces fall into place, and one can see why libertarianism is always growing, especially in the light of recent events which make that objective view apparent.  At which point, one must ask themselves, "Then without the government, how would we survive?"  To which the answer is, "Without your parents, how would you survive?"  But many of us know how to survive without our parents; it is just an arm's length away from drawing the conclusion that people do have the ability to change, people do have the ability to think for themselves, people do have the capacity to care for others, and people do have the necessary tools and man power to continue life as it is without an expensive, oppressive overhead, with enough intelligent people who know how to make the roads and build the hospitals and know the best spots to do so, and how often, and know how to conduct business in such a manner which keeps their business profitable, as, if that people need roads and need hospitals and need security, they would be willing to pay for such items, for if this weren't true, then there's no logical reason why we should force them to, besides the belief that we (the government) know what's best for you (the citizen), even when you don't realize it.  But can't we agree that people are not born as stupid as they're trained to be?

In other words, proponents of libertarianism believe society can be comprised of intelligent beings, whereas opponents assume society is stupid and irresponsible and could never take care of themselves.  The proponent believes people can be adults on all matters; the opponent assumes people are children who need constant punishment to keep in line throughout their entire lives.  But whether or not it will or won't work is a question to the libertarian.  To the opponent, it's always a definitive "no, it won't."  I can think of no man who merely assumed his entire life what truths were right who was worth the words he'd regurgitated from another man's mouth.  At some point, you start to think on your own, or you don't, and repeat what you'd heard in school.  Free thought just happens to be the core logic behind libertarianism, which is even in its name:


As the point of libertarianism is achieve a state of liberty, then we can see it can only happen with the absence of the enemy of liberty, being controlled, being "governed", ergo, we must pursue either a stateless society or, as some libertarians like it, a society where the state is very limited in power (a view which I disagree with as we've already attempted this in America, with failed results.)  At which point, it's simply a matter of "how?"  Which is the hang-up; how do we do it?  And at the same time, it's such a liberating feeling, because it is no longer, "Well it's impossible so fuck trying anyway," but it's a measly yet refreshing "how?", for if there is ever a time when the answer is not "how?", then we're just cogs in a machine of something greater, at which point, I may as well not call myself a human being.  But it's hard to explain that to someone who would sooner be controlled than allow himself the freedom of thought.

TL;DR

Ultimately: I don't know if it'll work.  But I'll be damned if putting up with this shit we have today is better off than trying something different.  That's the point of libertarianism: acknowledging that we know nothing.  Which is why I can't take someone who says, "So it is, so it always must be" seriously, in regards to the state, for it assumes absolute knowledge on the matter.  We may as well call such men God.

You did read the little thing when you sign up, right?  Yes, the forum mods and admin can read your PMs.  In fact, beneath each PM reads:


Unless you plan on creating a forum which solves this problem, you're basically as good as a bag of hot air.  Solve problems, stop repeating them.  AFAIC, there's nothing I'm transmitting to and from people that's sensitive information, it's mostly the same shit I'd post publicly.  If I needed to transmit sensitive info, I wouldn't do it on here, especially not with this under every PM:


You do see it, right?

Personally, I think all altcoins need to find their own forums.  This is Bitcointalk, not altcointalk or cryptocurrencytalk etc., it's just Bitcointalk.  Some altcoins do have their own forums but most stick around here and advertise to newbies who have no idea what's up or down in the Bitcoin world, the owners pump and dump and then ditch the coin to whoever's left; after all, the 40th Litecoin clone with slightly altered parameters is probably not being created for the good of man, nor does it even hope to compete with Bitcoin, but merely exists for the creator who prays he'll get rich off it if he advertises enough.  To put it bluntly, they're get-rich-quick schemes, and aren't created to service anyone in any way, and I believe they should be treated for what they are.  If an altcoin has an incredible amount of merit for being so very innovative, becoming the possible Bitcoin killer (so to speak), then it will naturally make news and find its way over here, instead of being shoved down newbie throats and then disappearing after a couple of weeks.

To be frank, I don't care if you prefer capitalism, communism, or socialism; any of these systems beneath the state results in a perversion of the intended outcome.  We don't have capitalism in America, for that would imply "government-regulated free trade".  They're not compatible; you either have capitalism, or you have government, but there's no such thing as free trade that isn't free.  What we have here in America is corporatism, and that is wage slavery; it's very rare for people to own businesses anymore, rather, they work for the same businesses, all controlled by a few heads, and most of the money in the world gets redirected to those people who then hand the money back out (in small doses) to the people they employ.  Statist capitalism is no better than statist communism or statist socialism.  Either way you wanna mask it, you're still beneath the thumb of something which has the bigger guns.  Give me anarchy and the rest doesn't matter that much to me, I'll roll with whatever everyone else around me wants to roll with.

OTOH, defining which system works best under anarchism is something we're not gonna answer until we actually get to that point.  Only thing that really separates capitalism from the others is the idea of storing one's labor in a currency and trading that stored-labor for other people's labor.  Socialism is supposedly a step above that (since socialism is a broad subject I have no idea what anyone's specific idea of socialism is) but I'll be damned when a private life becomes a public matter.  I don't want the public to interfere with my life, nor do I want to interfere with others, which is why I'd rather not participate; when enough people say this, socialism ceases to function, and you're back to either basic capitalism or installing government.  Communism, it can work in small societies, provided you're next to everything you'll ever need to live, that being surplus of food and water and all the other goodies we like to live comfortable lives, but if you're one of the many unlucky ones who live in an area which can't adequately supply these things locally, you either have to move to a place which does, or resort to bartering for your goods--in other words, participate in trade, and it's possible to do this in a communistic way, e.g., trading my good for your good, but it'd just be easier to store our wealth in money and use that as a form of trade.  I've yet to see a way to participate in global communism, or how two people from either ends of the world can get each other's goods without participating in the free market, but if there's a way, I'm all ears.  Communism seems to imply that all people are going to be farmers and bakers etc., for I don't see how specialization can occur, when you have a group of scientists who are fed and clothed and given all the necessities they need to work, for we must then figure out who, exactly, ensures everyone gets their fair share of things; is there an anarchistic approach to it?  I saw anarchistic communism in a Spanish documentary and thought it was neat, but I'm having trouble seeing how it'll function worldwide without any help from money.

This is quite interesting.  Not sure if I completely understand it but, if anyone's seen Zeitgeist, this appears to take the concept of RBE and apply it to capitalism, which would no longer require a communistic approach to a healthy planet.

I still don't see what's so bad about the ignore function   It's like nobody is ever satisfied until they've fucked someone else over.

Sounds like you're all set to get this thing under way then   I don't have any hope of this happening soon in America but you could pull it off.

Nobody said there was.  You're on a public forum which is privately owned.

Hmm, that's a good point.  What you could do is setup checkpoints on a highway which scanned both the speed of vehicles and asked to see if they had one of those things.  If someone passes the checkpoint at a high speed and does not have one, police would know someone is speeding without the license.  Further, if those with speeder licenses didn't mind being tracked, the checkpoints could also count how many times a single rider passed in the day, which could determine the fee to bill the speeder, if that's how revenue would be earned.

Only bit that'll bother people is being watched on the road as to whether or not they're speeding.  But I don't personally care; people get what they asked for, and they keep asking for government, so poo poo.

First thing that comes to mind is, how would an officer know who has the speeding license and who doesn't?  If he has to pull everyone over who speeds to make sure they're doing right, it would defeat the purpose of the license; would the one with the speeding license need a custom license plate?  If so, how might we secure these plates so that people without proper training wouldn't steal them?  Or perhaps steal them and sell them to make a profit.  And even then, it's difficult to read them when you're going fast.

Perhaps a speeding-only lane would be more appropriate, where there is a minimum speed limit; maybe something like the autobahn.  But I don't think that'd ever happen in America, as tickets of any sort are a great source of income for any city.  Just the other day I paid off a ticket of 350$ for expired inspection and failure to produce my DL, and I have no idea how expensive speeding tickets are but I'm certain they're nothing to fuck around with.  When you make money by imposing a set of rules, it's hard to reason against it, even if it's better for people to not have the rule.  When you're in the business of waiting for people to fuck up, you generally like to keep that business going strong, preferably by imposing as many laws as you'll get away with.  Not saying something like this wouldn't be possible, but, unless there's money to be made, it's pointless.

So that would mean, if we figured out how we can get these speed licenses to work, that the classes you'd take and the fees you'd pay to get a speed license add up to, say, a year's worth of speeding tickets.  To ensure this revenue, you would impose a law that stated, "You must renew your speed license yearly" or however long you want, and then charge a premium for renewing, which would be a quick and speedy process, with the added bonus of being much more expensive than is actually required to renew the license.

Yeesh, that second to last girl kinda looks like a corpse.  It seems as though they're all trying to look like children (or cutesy anime characters but roughly the same thing).

But I do agree with your final point, there's beautiful women everywhere and ugly women everywhere, just as there's handsome men everywhere and ugly men everywhere.  To further point out the absurdity of attempting to rank a nation by the number of attractive women naturally born and sitting within its borders, we must assume:

A.  That people do not travel (for starters),
B.  Most men share the same taste, which would imply,
C.  Most women of the nation which produces the sexiest women look alike.

Ignoring the first point, we could go back and forth debating which nations produce the sexiest women, but until we all agree that there's only one type of women we're all attracted to, we'll never get anywhere.  It's a futile argument which essentially boils down to, "Which nation's women are you generally attracted to?"

And I can't say I've ever seen the women of a nation who are, by landslide victory, all of the same height, skin color, facial structure, hair texture, and breast size, or else I could, at least, make an objective statement than "girls of nation X are super hot", let alone try to argue that my supposed objectivity should be shared by all my male peers, where we could, for a fact, claim that all women of nation X are the hottest of all the nations.  And if we can assume that personality has enough of an impact on a woman's attractiveness to affect their physical appearance, we're really better off just discussing what it is we actually like in a woman, because we'll never agree, nor should we.  All we're gonna do here is encourage the idea that people of a specific nation are always going to be one way, whether the stereotype is good or bad.

I dropped from 2.5k to 182 overnight!