It's a cleaning tool, to allow you to capture once used cleaning solvent.

Ah, yeah.  That's one of those 'invalid' conditions I was talking about.  What were you doing, coding the transaction by hand?

That depends upon how paranoid you are.  How paranoid you should be depends upon what you might plan on doing with these funds.  If you have the skills and inclination to use Tor for your bitcoin activities, you're instincts are probably right.

If it was a valid transaction, then it will be relayed regardless of how much of a transaction fee you provided for it.  If it's invalid, you would have had to use some low level command tools to create it, because your client wouldn't do it.

Even if you sent it without any fee whatever, it will eventually make it into a block.

Time-locked (and thus retractable) transactions are part of the scripted transaction set, but are not presently honored by the network.  Those will come someday.

It's an encrypted text message, encrypted by the Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) algorithim.

Are you asking us to decrypt this for you, or do you not understand what you are looking at?

Distorting my words in order to fit your preconception of what I do doesn't alter the reality.


I'm fairly certain that last statement is correct, but irrelvent.


Best of luck with that theory.  I give you about even odds that your dauthers will hate you and your wife for reasons that you will never comprehend.

I have yes, but not in the manner proscribed by that link.  I've put vinegar onto my elder son's fingertips while he is asleep, to discourge him from bitting his nails.  Nothing that would cause pain, like hot sauce, just taste bad.


A timeout is always preferable to a spanking.  Again, pain as behavior conditioning should be the last resort for any behavior problem.  I've never had a child spend more than 10 minutes standing in a corner or more than 20 in a time out chair; and only that long because I got distracted while making lunch.  My rule of thumb is two minutes corner time per year of age, per infraction.  This gives them time to think about why it is that s/he is in trouble, and always ends with a quiz of why the child believes they are in timeout.  Unlike my own parents, I'm hyper-vigilant about leaving them in time-out for long periods, and I never go to bed, myself, without checking that each of my children is in bed and comfortable, so it would be practially impossible to do to my kids what my mother did to me.  I'd never be upset that my kid left time out if I forgot them anyway.  I'd feel really guilty about that.


If I use pain reinforcment for behavior modification, it's only after repeated events that strongly imply that my child in inclined towards that particular behavior, and other corrective measure have proven ineffective.  Children as at least as likely to gravitate towards self-destructive behaviors as adults are.  Even though you have girls, you are going to encounter this yourself.  Be strong, young man; for you will be put to the test.


I'm fine.  My accusation was correct, I stated it so that you would re-examine your core motives and convict yourself.  I'm fairly sure that I was successful.  The meme has been planted, it will take time to grow.

I have no doubts that his IQ is at least 80.  IQ isn't a measure of intelectual capacity, it's a (poor) metric intended to measure average learning comprehension rates.  For the developmentally delayed.  Any IQ number over 120 or so has no practical meaning.  From what I can see of SudoGhost he is more than capable of quickly learning to rationalize away his critics.

I would if you tried to restate them independently and coherently.  As they are up above they are confused and comingled.  Which is why I suspect that you're upset, that's a common effect on prose.

Myrkul, you should really take some time and examine yourself and your logic.  As well as your goals in this conversation.  Do you really desire to argue the semantics of my use of the term "defense"?  Is that conducive to your true goals?  I suspect that it is, but that your true goal is not to convince me of the error of my ways, but to convince yourself of the veracity of your position.

I'm not upset, and never have been while we are on this topic.  If you are getting upset by some words written by some guy on the Interent you have never met, perhaps you should examine why this makes yo so emotional.

Now who is cherry picking definitions to suit their argument?  Very well, I have used the term "corporal punishment" when I should have stuck with "behavior conditioning".  I used the term only because that is the common term, but I should have expected that, once cornered, you would use that poor use of precision against me.  I don't regard the judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain to be punishment, I consider to be behavior modification.  Try again.

And yes, it's in defense.  Defense against my own child's hazardous behavior in the future.  It's planning in the same way you plan to defend yourself by buying a weapon, it's concious pre-planning.

I though he was doing quite well, myself, considering English is a second language for him.  His understanding of the term "inititation" is apparently better tuned than your own.

I'm not the one blurring anything.  Force is required.  The only
difference between you grabbing your child's hand and the cop grabbing
your hand is intent. I find it depressing to see you continue to deny that
which you already know.

Nonsense, violence is simply the qualifier.  An escalation of the force
used, along a continueum.  Again it's the degree of force that you
are arguing is criminal; not it's employment.


You initiated the force you used when you grabbed her hand.  You can not
claim defensive use of force against your child, because your child was
not threatening yourself, nor did you use force against the traffic that
threatened your daughter.  You might be able to claim defensive use
of force on the idea that your daughter was threatening herself, but then
so can I, so that point is moot.


Of course not. Are you saying that the cop's use of a taser against you
for 'resisting' is acceptable?  You still don't seem to understand that we
are not really arguing whether or not the use of force is justifyable, but
simply how much force is prudent.  Therefore every strawman argument you
present applies to your position as well.  That's cognative dissonance.


There it is, your intellectual admission that "limited" force is justifiable.  The distinction between our perspectives is just a question of intent.  You claim that attempting to condition my child to associate negative events to running into traffic must be retribution due to the delayed timing involved.  This is not a rational mindset.  You certaily know that you cannot, as a third party observer, determine my motives via one encounter.  You're projecting, and that is what is upsetting you.  You are afraid that, if you agreed with me and ever decided to utilise corporel punishment that you might take it too far.

Wait.  The receiving addresses may have changed.

And two-factor authentication.

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2012/11/sv-hogfish-is-for-sale.html

This boat is no mere plaything.  It's designed & equip as a sailing survivalist cabin.  I think it would be awesome if someone offered him bitcoins, but I don't need a boat that only sleeps 2 and don't have enough bitcoins to make such an offer.

Edit: Dimitry has weathered 4 hurricanes on this boat, according to his blogpost about Sandy.

Then you have already qualified some use of force, even initiation of force, against your own child for her own good.  This is exactly the same as the classic story of the professor asking a female student if she'd sleep with him for $1 million, then half a milllion, then $200K, and when she says, "what kind of girl do you think that I am?!"  "Miss, we have already established that, now we are just haggling on a price."

We have already established that you are willing to accept the initiation of some degree of force against your own child, in the interests of protecting her from harm.  Now we are just haggling just how much force you would consider justifiable before we cross your threshhold of acceptability.  And that is the point; your's is not only different than mine, it's different than everyone else's as well.  There are certainly people in this world that could justify to themselves that forcing their children to go outside and choose their own switch is acceptable, while I would not; the difference between us is that I recognize that I'm not the one who gets to decide for them, no matter how uncomfortable I might be with it.

Because his intervention doesn't imply a polite conversation, but him grabbing my child in public.  That makes him the aggressor, from my perspectives.  Hence, my potential response.  He knows why and so do you, this bs argument is a distraction.

I thought your concession was more than a little creepy as well, but I didn't desire to drag it out longer than necessary since it was still a concession.  Great going, there.


If your daughter should try to run into traffic, would you attempt to reason with her, or grab her hand to stop her and reason with her later?  Obviously you would grab her hand and forcibly prevent her from harming herself, but you have just initiated force against her in order to do so.  By your logic, you would then be an abuser yourself.  The idea that I may be more proactive, and employ behavior conditioning (instead of attempting to reason with a two year old) in order to prevent a future repeat of this scene does not make me any more of a initiator of force than yourself.  Your going to have to recognize that, no matter how opposed to the use of force against your own children you stand philosophically; you will employ force against your children at times.  Now, your self-justifiable limit of acceptable force may be much lower than my own, but that certainly does not excuse your own use of force.  The reality is that you will rationalize your level of force in exactly the same manner that I rationalize mine; that you don't agree that your level of force constitutes violence (as you define it) and that other adults who have another opinion have no say in your situation.  

The slave comment was your's, and I do have the right to defend my child with deadly force whether or not you perceive my actions as abuse or not.  Your perspectives could justify your actions against me, but my perspectives would also justify my actions against you.  If you are honestly starting to feel disgust, that's progress, because that's projection.