Sarmas1212, this ain't no scam. I'll prove it to you. Post your TronLink address and I'll send you some UCIF tokens. Stake the tokens and come back 24 later and click on the Withdraw Stake button and accept the smart contract. You'll have 1% of the staked tokens in your TronLink wallet. If you click the Complete Withdrawal button, you'll have the staked tokens as well but you will no longer be staking. Soon, you'll be able to sell the tokens in the TRX Auction House. The auction house will be like Ebay for crypto only with 0 (zero) fees. TRX Auction House preview: https://ucift-auction-house.web.app/I designed this investment so I know it's IMPOSSIBLE for you to get scammed. It is a fully autonomous and automated DApp with it's code on Github: https://github.com/oscarquin27/UCIFT/blob/master/Ucift.solThe only way you will stop receiving dividends would be the dividend pool were to run out of tokens. If that comes close to happening, I'll have my developer set up secondary dividend pool with the 100,000,000 tokens that are being held in reserves. Currently there are 169,264,509.8861448 tokens in the dividend pool. http://prntscr.com/qezh4rHappy Holidays! |
|
|
|
From my developer - Hello Paul sorry for late response, thank you for keeping me updated 👌. By the way the DApp is done, it is deployed on Shasta for testing purposes, the delay is due to the same problems with shasta and its poorly maintenance https://ucift-auction-house.web.appI don't want to deploy on mainnet yet because I want to be sure everything is working fine |
|
|
|
From my developer - Hello Paul sorry for late response, thank you for keeping me updated 👌. By the way the DApp is done, it is deployed on Shasta for testing purposes, the delay is due to the same problems with shasta and its poorly maintenance https://ucift-auction-house.web.appI don't want to deploy on mainnet yet because I want to be sure everything is working fine |
|
|
|
...
That may be so, but how about the crimes or accidents that are committed by stolen guns? Or how about the case where the criminal overpowered the owner and used his gun against him?
Oh right, it don't matter because statistically speaking the numbers are too low to count.
Tell you what. What if there was everywhere, some "smart dust" that would instantly clog the mechanism of a firearm if the dust was ordered to do so. Who would be in control of it? What should they tell it? ROFLMAO! "smart dust!"Good one! lol Don't duck and dodge your own subject. Here are some facts for you, regarding cops and guns. I'm thinking we may need to control their guns and their bullets... In California, officers involved in the search for Christopher Dorner mistakenly fired at least 100 rounds at a truck occupied by three people, none of whom had any connection to the suspect.
A man threatening officers with a rifle was shot 59 times in what was ruled a "suicide-by-cop."
Five officers fired 50 shots at Sean Bell in Queens, New York, including 31 by one detective who reloaded his weapon during the incident.
Police in Lakeland, Florida fired 110 rounds at a suspect, Angilo Freeland, who had killed an officer earlier, hitting him 68 times. Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel, "That's all the bullets we had."
When 44-year-old drug suspect Winston Hayes' SUV lurched forward he hit a police car, deputies
unloaded their weapons, firing 120 shots. Four bullets ended up hitting Hayes who survived, one hit a deputy sheriff, 11 hit patrol cars and 11 hit five homes in the neighborhood (one of them ended up tearing a hole in a homeowner's hat).
As you can see, cops need a lot of ammo (especially since they only hit their target, on average, 20% of the time) and that means lots of double-stack mags on their belts. How about civilians? They calmly go about their day until they might pause in the parking lot and fire off one or two rounds at a mugger standing an arm’s length away.https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2019/3/25/2019-the-year-of-the-single-stack-pistol/Ask PopoJeff for his thoughts on this. He's a cop. No need to. Looks more and more like your thread is just trolling. I've got bigger fish to fry... Message to my Twitter followers - Hi, Thank you for following me. If you want to learn how to make money without gambling, trading, or a job please go to ucif.io, scroll down and click and read the White Paper. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
From the gun control forum that I follow (I didn't write this):
goober - Here's how you reduce gun violence, you make the gun owner responsible for the damage done by the gun.
That means the last registered owner of a firearm is responsible for the damage caused by that gun.
Not criminally liable, but financially responsible.
The manufacturer sells it's product to gun dealers, who must provide proof of insurance to relieve the manufacturer of liability, the purchaser from the dealer must produce proof of insurance to relieve the dealer of liability, if the purchaser sells the gun, they will need proof of insurance from the person they sell it to, to relieve themselves of liability.
This covers the externalities in the cost of a firearm, which just means that we aren't subsidizing gun violence, that gun owners are covering the true cost of gun ownership. It's a market based solution.
|
|
|
|
...
That may be so, but how about the crimes or accidents that are committed by stolen guns? Or how about the case where the criminal overpowered the owner and used his gun against him?
Oh right, it don't matter because statistically speaking the numbers are too low to count.
Tell you what. What if there was everywhere, some "smart dust" that would instantly clog the mechanism of a firearm if the dust was ordered to do so. Who would be in control of it? What should they tell it? ROFLMAO! "smart dust!"Good one! lol Don't duck and dodge your own subject. Here are some facts for you, regarding cops and guns. I'm thinking we may need to control their guns and their bullets... In California, officers involved in the search for Christopher Dorner mistakenly fired at least 100 rounds at a truck occupied by three people, none of whom had any connection to the suspect.
A man threatening officers with a rifle was shot 59 times in what was ruled a "suicide-by-cop."
Five officers fired 50 shots at Sean Bell in Queens, New York, including 31 by one detective who reloaded his weapon during the incident.
Police in Lakeland, Florida fired 110 rounds at a suspect, Angilo Freeland, who had killed an officer earlier, hitting him 68 times. Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel, "That's all the bullets we had."
When 44-year-old drug suspect Winston Hayes' SUV lurched forward he hit a police car, deputies
unloaded their weapons, firing 120 shots. Four bullets ended up hitting Hayes who survived, one hit a deputy sheriff, 11 hit patrol cars and 11 hit five homes in the neighborhood (one of them ended up tearing a hole in a homeowner's hat).
As you can see, cops need a lot of ammo (especially since they only hit their target, on average, 20% of the time) and that means lots of double-stack mags on their belts. How about civilians? They calmly go about their day until they might pause in the parking lot and fire off one or two rounds at a mugger standing an arm’s length away.https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2019/3/25/2019-the-year-of-the-single-stack-pistol/Ask PopoJeff for his thoughts on this. He's a cop. |
|
|
|
You don't have to worry PopoJeff. Ain't a damm thing gonna change. Nobody's got the balls in congress to make these changes.
Correct. No one's got the balls to spend 100billion of taxpayer money on such a failure of an idea, and enact legislation that will start a civil war. Yup, that's why we will continue to have mass shootings and accidentally gun deaths. |
|
|
|
.
Cots: No cost to the owner but subsidized by the the federal government to help the manufacturers with the costs.
Right there is my big NO vote. Subsidized by the Federal Govt means taxes. This "problem" affects 0.0044342507645259936% of the population (327,000,000 population / 14500 homicides by gun) We already tax the ever living crap out of the working folks. Quit taking my money.... remember a few pages back where i said my YTD deduction are already over $35k? Guess we could tweak that number a bit if we're just looking at accidental deaths by firearms. Since we know this wont stop the criminal. Accidental firearms deaths per year = 495. https://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-deaths-statistics/Now we take that 495 accidental firearms deaths per year against the 327,000,000 population.... and here's the percent of US citizens it affects 0.00015137614678899082% Tell that to the victims of Sandy Hook, Pulse Night Club, Las Vegas, and the countless others that it don't mean nothing. There you go thinking with feeling rather than fact. The facts show this "problem" is statistically insignificant. Of course it's significant to the people that are affected. But now, all of the locations you mentioned were the result of acts committed by a criminal. You have still failed to show how this will prevent a criminal from committing a criminal act That may be so, but how about the crimes or accidents that are committed by stolen guns? Or how about the case where the criminal overpowered the owner and used his gun against him? Oh right, it don't matter because statistically speaking the numbers are too low to count. All the numbers are above. 495 accidental, 14500 homicide.... what you describe now is somewhere in between. Still statistically not a big issue. And STILL waiting for you to explain how you will prevent the criminal from being a criminal. I never said the technology will prevent the criminal from being a criminal. A criminal don't care about that. The technology will prevent the gun from firing when the gun ends up in the wrong hands; besides the owner. i.e. A five year old who got a hold of his daddy's gun. Is the five year old a criminal? Why do you act like such a tool? Did I ever call a 5 year old a criminal? Let me spell this out for you, since you are missing the most basic of facts laid out in front of you. I've told you already, if you want to do this for the sake of the 5 year old who gets daddy's gun...cool... go for it. Make the gun, sell it, and let those who think they're not smart enough to own a real gun buy it for the added protection. But to force it upon the entire country, at the cost of of about 100 billion dollars (approx 300mil guns, avg low price $350ea)... AND expect the government (tax payers) to fund it. For something that affects .00015% of the population..... is absolutely ludicrous. (A $30 gun safe/ gun vault offers the child protection your looking for) And thats just the cost of the guns, not even factoring in your cell phone tech with the call centers and employees, and god know what else. I'll stop here, as more than one topic point seems to screw up your OODA loop. You don't have to worry PopoJeff. Ain't a damm thing gonna change. Nobody's got the balls in congress to make these changes. |
|
|
|
.
Cots: No cost to the owner but subsidized by the the federal government to help the manufacturers with the costs.
Right there is my big NO vote. Subsidized by the Federal Govt means taxes. This "problem" affects 0.0044342507645259936% of the population (327,000,000 population / 14500 homicides by gun) We already tax the ever living crap out of the working folks. Quit taking my money.... remember a few pages back where i said my YTD deduction are already over $35k? Guess we could tweak that number a bit if we're just looking at accidental deaths by firearms. Since we know this wont stop the criminal. Accidental firearms deaths per year = 495. https://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-deaths-statistics/Now we take that 495 accidental firearms deaths per year against the 327,000,000 population.... and here's the percent of US citizens it affects 0.00015137614678899082% Tell that to the victims of Sandy Hook, Pulse Night Club, Las Vegas, and the countless others that it don't mean nothing. There you go thinking with feeling rather than fact. The facts show this "problem" is statistically insignificant. Of course it's significant to the people that are affected. But now, all of the locations you mentioned were the result of acts committed by a criminal. You have still failed to show how this will prevent a criminal from committing a criminal act That may be so, but how about the crimes or accidents that are committed by stolen guns? Or how about the case where the criminal overpowered the owner and used his gun against him? Oh right, it don't matter because statistically speaking the numbers are too low to count. All the numbers are above. 495 accidental, 14500 homicide.... what you describe now is somewhere in between. Still statistically not a big issue. And STILL waiting for you to explain how you will prevent the criminal from being a criminal. I never said the technology will prevent the criminal from being a criminal. A criminal don't care about that. The technology will prevent the gun from firing when the gun ends up in the wrong hands; besides the owner. i.e. A five year old who got a hold of his daddy's gun. Is the five year old a criminal? Of course, the criminal will make his guns out of pipes, if necessary.  Maybe he was Macgyver lol |
|
|
|
...
That may be so, but how about the crimes or accidents that are committed by stolen guns? Or how about the case where the criminal overpowered the owner and used his gun against him?
Oh right, it don't matter because statistically speaking the numbers are too low to count.
Tell you what. What if there was everywhere, some "smart dust" that would instantly clog the mechanism of a firearm if the dust was ordered to do so. Who would be in control of it? What should they tell it? ROFLMAO! "smart dust!"Good one! lol |
|
|
|
.
Cots: No cost to the owner but subsidized by the the federal government to help the manufacturers with the costs.
Right there is my big NO vote. Subsidized by the Federal Govt means taxes. This "problem" affects 0.0044342507645259936% of the population (327,000,000 population / 14500 homicides by gun) We already tax the ever living crap out of the working folks. Quit taking my money.... remember a few pages back where i said my YTD deduction are already over $35k? Guess we could tweak that number a bit if we're just looking at accidental deaths by firearms. Since we know this wont stop the criminal. Accidental firearms deaths per year = 495. https://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-deaths-statistics/Now we take that 495 accidental firearms deaths per year against the 327,000,000 population.... and here's the percent of US citizens it affects 0.00015137614678899082% Tell that to the victims of Sandy Hook, Pulse Night Club, Las Vegas, and the countless others that it don't mean nothing. There you go thinking with feeling rather than fact. The facts show this "problem" is statistically insignificant. Of course it's significant to the people that are affected. But now, all of the locations you mentioned were the result of acts committed by a criminal. You have still failed to show how this will prevent a criminal from committing a criminal act That may be so, but how about the crimes or accidents that are committed by stolen guns? Or how about the case where the criminal overpowered the owner and used his gun against him? Oh right, it don't matter because statistically speaking the numbers are too low to count. All the numbers are above. 495 accidental, 14500 homicide.... what you describe now is somewhere in between. Still statistically not a big issue. And STILL waiting for you to explain how you will prevent the criminal from being a criminal. I never said the technology will prevent the criminal from being a criminal. A criminal don't care about that. The technology will prevent the gun from firing when the gun ends up in the wrong hands; besides the owner. i.e. A five year old who got a hold of his daddy's gun. Is the five year old a criminal? |
|
|
|
.
Cots: No cost to the owner but subsidized by the the federal government to help the manufacturers with the costs.
Right there is my big NO vote. Subsidized by the Federal Govt means taxes. This "problem" affects 0.0044342507645259936% of the population (327,000,000 population / 14500 homicides by gun) We already tax the ever living crap out of the working folks. Quit taking my money.... remember a few pages back where i said my YTD deduction are already over $35k? Guess we could tweak that number a bit if we're just looking at accidental deaths by firearms. Since we know this wont stop the criminal. Accidental firearms deaths per year = 495. https://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-deaths-statistics/Now we take that 495 accidental firearms deaths per year against the 327,000,000 population.... and here's the percent of US citizens it affects 0.00015137614678899082% Tell that to the victims of Sandy Hook, Pulse Night Club, Las Vegas, and the countless others that it don't mean nothing. There you go thinking with feeling rather than fact. The facts show this "problem" is statistically insignificant. Of course it's significant to the people that are affected. But now, all of the locations you mentioned were the result of acts committed by a criminal. You have still failed to show how this will prevent a criminal from committing a criminal act That may be so, but how about the crimes or accidents that are committed by stolen guns? Or how about the case where the criminal overpowered the owner and used his gun against him? Oh right, it don't matter because statistically speaking the numbers are too low to count. |
|
|
|
....
I do, however, live in the real world where I don't have to worry about attacks from deer, Russians, or zombies. ...
How about you do what you want, and I'll do what I want? Or what I think is best for my protection and that of my family? Obviously, you've never encountered a hostile wild pig, a rabid dog, been involved in a carjacking, or many other real world things. If you insist on trying to devise a scheme for others, who have other realities that yours, you will look foolish. No, I haven't been involved in any of those things. I just thought of solutions to some problems. I know that these solutions won't work for everyone but at least it's a start. I don't see any other solutions. Do you? Sure. First you have to accurately define the domain in which a proposed "solution" applies. You forgot to do that. So please let us know if we are looking for a solution for "gun control" a long term underwater nuclear submarine, or a island with fourteen people, or perhaps a unwed mother's home. Or some other group/sub-society of your choosing. Let's start with this... Targeted Domain: All hand guns and rifles Purpose: To make the guns safer by equipping them with Smart Gun Technology (SGT.) This technology will make the guns safer by preventing the accidental firing of the gun. A biometric feature built in the handgrip, for example, will allow the gun to fire only by the owner or a designated person(s) The technology would also record the last time the gun was fired, by whom, and how many rounds were fired. Cots: No cost to the owner but subsidized by the the federal government to help the manufacturers with the costs. Why is that not so smart? Oh, I remember... https://thehackernews.com/2017/07/smart-gun-hacking.htmlActually, I meant "domain" in the sense of "geographical domain." I'm glad you brought the article. It just means the technology can be improved. Look at the locking feature on iphone and how far that technology has come. Why can't we have that feature (the thumb lock) on guns? |
|
|
|
.
Cots: No cost to the owner but subsidized by the the federal government to help the manufacturers with the costs.
Right there is my big NO vote. Subsidized by the Federal Govt means taxes. This "problem" affects 0.0044342507645259936% of the population (327,000,000 population / 14500 homicides by gun) We already tax the ever living crap out of the working folks. Quit taking my money.... remember a few pages back where i said my YTD deduction are already over $35k? Guess we could tweak that number a bit if we're just looking at accidental deaths by firearms. Since we know this wont stop the criminal. Accidental firearms deaths per year = 495. https://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-deaths-statistics/Now we take that 495 accidental firearms deaths per year against the 327,000,000 population.... and here's the percent of US citizens it affects 0.00015137614678899082% Tell that to the victims of Sandy Hook, Pulse Night Club, Las Vegas, and the countless others that it don't mean nothing. |
|
|
|
....
I do, however, live in the real world where I don't have to worry about attacks from deer, Russians, or zombies. ...
How about you do what you want, and I'll do what I want? Or what I think is best for my protection and that of my family? Obviously, you've never encountered a hostile wild pig, a rabid dog, been involved in a carjacking, or many other real world things. If you insist on trying to devise a scheme for others, who have other realities that yours, you will look foolish. No, I haven't been involved in any of those things. I just thought of solutions to some problems. I know that these solutions won't work for everyone but at least it's a start. I don't see any other solutions. Do you? Sure. First you have to accurately define the domain in which a proposed "solution" applies. You forgot to do that. So please let us know if we are looking for a solution for "gun control" a long term underwater nuclear submarine, or a island with fourteen people, or perhaps a unwed mother's home. Or some other group/sub-society of your choosing. Let's start with this... Targeted Domain: All hand guns and rifles Purpose: To make the guns safer by equipping them with Smart Gun Technology (SGT.) This technology will make the guns safer by preventing the accidental firing of the gun. A biometric feature built in the handgrip, for example, will allow the gun to fire only by the owner or a designated person(s) The technology would also record the last time the gun was fired, by whom, and how many rounds were fired. Cots: No cost to the owner but subsidized by the the federal government to help the manufacturers with the costs. |
|
|
|
My solution for gun control is a combination of several lubricants to make the gun fire easier, thereby reducing drag on the trigger, and giving the shooter better controle that way. I have many solutions in the medical research arena... depending on the kind of research we are doing. A simple glucose solution will do for calibrating (zeroing out) a standard gas chromatograph. See Medicine man (1992), with Sean Connery and Lorraine Bracco.  Cool. Thanks for sharing. Devil's advocate question: How will your idea save lives? Well, there are two ideas... the gun idea, and the research idea. Common people with the gun solution will have a better chance of hitting the terrorist before he can kill more people. The glucose solution will make it so that the gas chromatograph readings are more accurate, thereby making more accurate medicine the research outcome... saving more lives medically. So, lubricants on several places on guns will save lives? Cause that's what I was referring to. Not the glucose thing. I take it that you are not a gun person? I love guns. I have a 9mm Glock, a S& W .45 revolver, and a Cobray M11. Unfortunately, I came down with ALS 12 years ago so I can no longer enjoy them. |
|
|
|
My solution for gun control is a combination of several lubricants to make the gun fire easier, thereby reducing drag on the trigger, and giving the shooter better controle that way. I have many solutions in the medical research arena... depending on the kind of research we are doing. A simple glucose solution will do for calibrating (zeroing out) a standard gas chromatograph. See Medicine man (1992), with Sean Connery and Lorraine Bracco. Cool. Thanks for sharing. Devil's advocate question: How will your idea save lives? Well, there are two ideas... the gun idea, and the research idea. Common people with the gun solution will have a better chance of hitting the terrorist before he can kill more people. The glucose solution will make it so that the gas chromatograph readings are more accurate, thereby making more accurate medicine the research outcome... saving more lives medically. So, several lubricants on guns will save lives? Cause that's what I was referring to. Not the glucose thing. |
|
|
|
Part two of impossible: Let's say this gun plan had a snow balls chance. How do you implement it? How do you get the 393 million current guns out of the public's hands? Many of these current guns are not on any 'registry' or ownership list. Some states do not require any FFL involvement in transferring of long guns. Some guns have been passed down from family, which also requires no FFL. Some guns have been possessed since prior to any transfer laws. Some guns are manufactured without a serial number (still perfectly legal today), or have been in existence since prior to serial number requirements.
The law could require the gun manufacturers to make replicas of all their models with the Smart Gun Technology. And owners of the guns could simply exchange their guns at no cost. The manufacturers already made their profit when they sold the original. All guns without the Smart Gun Technology, could be made illegal. And then only criminals would own these "dumb" guns that work perfectly fine without authentication. You might as well forbid weapons and end with the same result. Only criminals would also import them, or manufacture them, which gives them the instant advantage. Your "solution" is only making it harder for the honest folk. It reminds me of copy protection, and their authenticated garbage. Enjoy your "Genuine Advantage". There is no middle ground, either you ban it or not. And banning them won't end it, same as amendment 18... Really? No middle ground? Isn't that what everyone wants? |
|
|
|
My solution for gun control is a combination of several lubricants to make the gun fire easier, thereby reducing drag on the trigger, and giving the shooter better controle that way. I have many solutions in the medical research arena... depending on the kind of research we are doing. A simple glucose solution will do for calibrating (zeroing out) a standard gas chromatograph. See Medicine man (1992), with Sean Connery and Lorraine Bracco. Cool. Thanks for sharing. Devil's advocate question: How will your idea save lives? |
|
|
|
What freedom and liberty? The freedom to shoot and kill anybody at will?
Ok, you are just a troll.. By Why are you calling me a troll? What am I doing that's troll-ish? Ive been nothing but honest, respectful and logical with responses to your ideas and theories. The reason this fellow is calling you a troll is your dismissive attitude towards any contrary logic or facts. You've done absolutely nothing to show how this will actually work/succeed, and offer defensive retorts to opposing thoughts. There have been zero replies supporting your ideas working, and a plethora indicating otherwise. Like the statistics I posted above. Your response is "think it doesn't matter to that .0038% ?". Thats simply an assanine response. You are being shown facts that clearly indicate your perceived solutions for a problem dont work, will not work, and really isnt a statistical issue in the grand scheme of things. You want to save a few kids from irresponsible parents, fine. I'm cool with that. Maybe this will help in that department. But we've already shown you it has major flaws, even for that application. That's your opinion. I've asked others to share their ideas, including you, and have gotten no replies. Perhaps others are afraid to voice their ideas in fear of getting flamed. Me, I don't give a shit what other people think of me. So I'll just keep posting until I don't feel like it or I get banned (It wouldn't be the first time.) ^^^^^ exactly what I'm talking about. You shared an idea. It wont work. You've been shown it wont work. Yet you still defend it. And you never requested ideas from others. This is your thread, about your ideas.this is why liberals are laughed at. Your liberal ideas seem wonderful in theory to yourselves. But when you take the first step of implementation, the implosion occurs. If my opinion, and the opinion of literally everyone else who responded, are wrong..... then go ahead and implement your grand solution and prove us wrong. How do know for sure that my ideas won't work if they'd never been tried? Again, WHAT ARE YOUR IDEAS? LET'S HEAR THEM. Please. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
