The point is that I want to get access to the site which don't allow tor, proxy and VPN
There is no such thing as not allowing VPN/proxy. There's a chance that the VPN/proxy gets blocked due to it being public and too many users using the same one. If that's the case you'll want to use a static/dedicated VPN, which assigns a unique IP for you to use. |
|
|
|
The speakers on that ECB site only mentioned European banks, not the ECB itself. Not sure if they meant to include them or not. Doesn't the ECB more or less just print euros to loan out to banks? |
|
|
|
Hardly relevant to BTC, but an interesting topic IMO. (snip)
How hard were they trying though? I recall reading a paper from one of the Ivy League universities that concluded that perfect pitch could not be learned in adulthood. And the argumentation, as well as the experiment itself, was lackluster to say the least.
Really hard. As in everything that can possibly be done within legal and ethical means. This is study time on google if that's not enough. Perfect pitch appears to be dependent on both a genetic trait and a development window. Nature and nurture. The genetic trait is probably present in something like 20% of the population. The window of opportunity for actually having perfect pitch during adulthood roughly coincides with the window for native language learning. Native speakers of tone languages (Chinese language/dialects, Thai etc) have a higher than average percentage of adults with perfect pitch. This is probably due to children being exposed to more-or-less fixed pitch sillables while that part of the brain is developing. There are several studies that come to similar conclusions. I've read a few (say, at least a couple). I can't be bothered to look them up, but big G can help. Yeah, early development is important for all sorts of things. Thing is, we lived in tribes for millions of years and that's the environment we are evolved for. Modern life is completely different, which makes it likely that we are doing things to our kids that are harmful to them. That's why it's so important to study these things. And not just for kids, but for all of us. I've actually been thinking on and off about what I could do if I ever had kids during their infant periods. I don't buy that there's no development taking place just because they can't recall any memories. They don't know language, so at the very least there's a viable chance that infant memories get triggered by nonverbal cues that become irrelevant as one grows older. I'm quite curious as to whether or not one could instill synesthesia in a child by playing a pitch and associating it with a colour in some way. I'm also not convinced that languages can only be picked up in childhood at a native level, at least not unequivocally. I have a heavy accent whenever I don't speak English for a while, but given enough time I manage to fool natives. And I've also managed to memorize a single pitch that I can recall at will without reference, which is an experiment that I'd like to return to some day to see if I can get that up to a level where I could write down music as I hear it. It's time consuming and tedious as hell, but it seems possible to me. Simply being there is the biggest thing you can do at that stage. Fathers emit pheromones that likely has a positive influence on their development. That and make sure the mother is as relaxed and happy as reasonably possible. A tribe is essentially one big family. It is a place of safety and protection from the outside world. Emulating that in the form of traditional family seems like a good move. That's the plan for me anyways. I don't intend on having children unless I know for sure that I'll have all the time in the world to be around those little fucks. I think if people were financially more stable and emotionally and intellectually mature before having children we wouldn't be observing this social justice shitshow right now, and there certainly wouldn't be a 99% class bitching about a 1% class either. That aside, I do believe that exposing kids to as much information as possible while encouraging them to challenge themselves to go down one or two paths in more depth would make them vastly more capable than they would be otherwise. Especially if you let them go more or less freely about it while guiding them towards challenges without giving the solutions away. I wouldn't send them to school either, since they'd be far more productive by tracing their own interests, which can always be conflated with reading, writing, languages, Mathematics and science in interesting and playful ways. That's one thing that I'm looking forward to the most, but I'm not sure if the conditions will ever be right for me (reasonable wife at a reasonable time). |
|
|
|
Hardly relevant to BTC, but an interesting topic IMO. (snip)
How hard were they trying though? I recall reading a paper from one of the Ivy League universities that concluded that perfect pitch could not be learned in adulthood. And the argumentation, as well as the experiment itself, was lackluster to say the least.
Really hard. As in everything that can possibly be done within legal and ethical means. This is study time on google if that's not enough. Perfect pitch appears to be dependent on both a genetic trait and a development window. Nature and nurture. The genetic trait is probably present in something like 20% of the population. The window of opportunity for actually having perfect pitch during adulthood roughly coincides with the window for native language learning. Native speakers of tone languages (Chinese language/dialects, Thai etc) have a higher than average percentage of adults with perfect pitch. This is probably due to children being exposed to more-or-less fixed pitch sillables while that part of the brain is developing. There are several studies that come to similar conclusions. I've read a few (say, at least a couple). I can't be bothered to look them up, but big G can help. Yeah, early development is important for all sorts of things. Thing is, we lived in tribes for millions of years and that's the environment we are evolved for. Modern life is completely different, which makes it likely that we are doing things to our kids that are harmful to them. That's why it's so important to study these things. And not just for kids, but for all of us. I've actually been thinking on and off about what I could do if I ever had kids during their infant periods. I don't buy that there's no development taking place just because they can't recall any memories. They don't know language, so at the very least there's a viable chance that infant memories get triggered by nonverbal cues that become irrelevant as one grows older. I'm quite curious as to whether or not one could instill synesthesia in a child by playing a pitch and associating it with a colour in some way. I'm also not convinced that languages can only be picked up in childhood at a native level, at least not unequivocally. I have a heavy accent whenever I don't speak English for a while, but given enough time I manage to fool natives. And I've also managed to memorize a single pitch that I can recall at will without reference, which is an experiment that I'd like to return to some day to see if I can get that up to a level where I could write down music as I hear it. It's time consuming and tedious as hell, but it seems possible to me. |
|
|
|
A few decades more will be interesting, but, more time is not possible with the current technology.
Our brain has a limit on the storage of information, over time, decades of life will be forgotten.
Our brain has no limit on storage, at least none that I'm aware of. And even if it did that wouldn't be an argument for not expanding your life span. We tend to forget irrelevant information as early as one day into the future, so nothing would be changing. |
|
|
|
Bring a glass filled with half water, then start to walk around the world, and if the water tilts, then it may explain that the earth is round or sphere not flat.
That's not how gravity works. The water will be "flat" no matter where you are on earth, because it is locally flat. |
|
|
|
It's actually incredible to see a simple notion like this get over 10,000 post replies. Who wudda thought? Amazing...
The OP made the post under false pretences. He wasn't asking a sincere question - he was trolling. He can continue it as long as he wants to lie. :/ I want to kick your teeth down your throat for claiming I'm a liar, or perhaps breaking all your fingers would be more appropriate in this case. Given the age of your account you should be well on your way to crypto-wealth. It's not going to be much longer until space tourism becomes commercially viable either. Are you going to fly up or will that just be a conspiratory deception of the masses by employing high-resolution screens made to look like windows through which earth can be seen? |
|
|
|
What is the difference between this SpaceX launch and what NASA has been doing over the last few decades? Sorry, I;m just lazy to watch the video nor read the TheGuardian article. Falcon Heavy can carry roughly three times the payload of the Space Shuttle and is thus the largest spacecraft in the history of mankind by a large margin. SpaceX is also a private company, while NASA is government funded. |
|
|
|
|
I quite like the Banach Tarski Paradox. Basically states that spheres in euclidean spaces can be de-assembled into parts and then glued back together into two spheres, both of which have the same dimensions as the original sphere. In short, it's a proven theorem that duplicates spheres.
|
|
|
|
Racist is a meaningless buzzword, stating facts is now racist, yes jews control the media, and the banks, that's a fact, get over it.
yes blacks on average score much lower on IQ tests and commit a disproportionately high amount violent crimes? is that ''racist''? don't know, don't care, but it happens to be true.
OMG People of color score lower on Ethnocentric tests. I'm not even going to dignify the rest of your crap. Get a grip, you're a racist. P.S. This thread is about BTC. *sigh* no. IQ tests are simply pattern recognition. There is nothing cultural about it. That tired old excuse is... tiresome. And they do commit more crime. About four or five times as much per capita. Again, easy enough to look up for anyone who actually cares. Socio-economic status is a far more reliable predictor of IQ test performance. Low SES children consistently underperform You got it reversed. Low social status and poverty is a result of low IQ. The strongest predictor of socioeconomic status is the SES of your parents. On that basis only smart babies choose to be born to wealthy parents  IQ is mostly genetic. There is literally nothing we can do about it, as far as we currently know. Blame your parents if you wish. I disagree with that notion. IQ is a statistical measure of rather arbitrary test results of tests that can be practiced for. If you really cared you could increase your IQ to 120~140ish by sheer effort. From that point onward we're so far to the right of the mean that no tests really exist in sufficient volume. There is a difference between IQ and Intelligence. The former being only an attempt to measure the latter. The way I think of it is, there is intelligence and knowledge. IQ is like a processor, and knowledge is the programming. Would you rather have a supercomputer that can only compute prime numbers, or a regular laptop that can do anything? Simply being smart is not enough, it has to be put to practical use. He (rightly) objects to you that IQ is not intelligence, just a (failed) attempt to estimate it. Your metaphor misses the point and proves just one thing: you don't understand what intelligence is. But it's not your fault: your racist brain can't compute such alien concepts, it's intelligent-proof. How does asserting that genetics play a factor in intelligence make him racist? There's bound to be at the very least some correlation. |
|
|
|
The strongest predictor of socioeconomic status is the SES of your parents. On that basis only smart babies choose to be born to wealthy parents IQ is mostly genetic. There is literally nothing we can do about it, as far as we currently know. Blame your parents if you wish. I disagree with that notion. IQ is a statistical measure of rather arbitrary test results of tests that can be practiced for. If you really cared you could increase your IQ to 120~140ish by sheer effort. From that point onward we're so far to the right of the mean that no tests really exist in sufficient volume. I agree that you can practice for IQ tests, which is exactly why I didn't do it when I took one years ago. Felt like cheating. That said, someone with let's say an "unpracticed" IQ of 80 can't train himself up to 120. There are limits to what is possible, and those limits are inherent to the individual. And even then it doesn't carry over to other areas of life. I have never seen anybody train themselves from 80 to 120, so I can't even pretend to know whether this is possible or not. But I tend towards believing that sustained practice, perhaps under proper guidance, would eventually make such an increase possible, given that the individual in question actually put their mind into actively improving. And I'd be quite curious to see whether or not such an increase would pass on to first generation offsprings. And depending on how that "training" took place it might very well carry over to other areas of life, but that'd be up to the individual and the training methods. The moment I started conflating ideas and concepts from completely unrelated subjects was roughly when I started noticing a substantial increase in my own performance when it comes to learning new things. But that could possibly be just an overall change in mentality, as I used to build knowledge from first principles or from ground up. Now I use analogies, fill the gaps and then check for logical errors. The latter method is significantly more efficient, but I doubt it would be possible without solid fundamentals. Point being that there are a numerous potential tweaks to thinking that can be applied to all aspects of life. And again, it has never been shown to be possible to measurably increase IQ. It's been tried. What is possible is to teach people to think in useful ways. But that's not IQ. How hard were they trying though? I recall reading a paper from one of the Ivy League universities that concluded that perfect pitch could not be learned in adulthood. And the argumentation, as well as the experiment itself, was lackluster to say the least. |
|
|
|
To say that our current knowledge of conveniently termed "Laws of Physics" is incomplete would be an understatement by large.
Creation of miniature wormholes is currently an impasse but may not be so in near to mid term future - human colony on Mars would need to communicate with Earth in real-time and if microscopic wormholes connect communication centers on both end we would already have faster-than-light (FTL) communication.
Ambition to populate nearby planets is a precursor to acquiring FTL communication capability and Elon Musk is a man symbolizing that whole idea.
Imagine if there is a sort of galactic inter-planetary Internet and we just need to tune in by becoming FTL capable species.
On the other hand all that we call "matter" can be reduced to information, and if you can stream that information it may be recomposed as "matter" on the other end.
Doors of Knowledge are wide open, we just need to be ambitious and brave enough to step through and further promote our own brand "Made in Earth by Humans".
People tend to get extremely offended if you speak out against their holy religion that is science. So I try to be careful with my wording. But yeah, it's safe to say that we know absolutely fuck all about the universe. |
|
|
|
By that logic, the galaxy should be partly colonized already by civilizations that have been around longer than we have. We're orbiting a second generation star, so every being that evolved under the first generation stars should be billions of years ahead of us in technology, right?
That would require a civilization to actually have existed for a long enough time to be millions/billions of years ahead of us without having gone extinct. They would also have to exist in sufficient proximity of us. Who knows how many galaxies (if any) are already partially or even fully colonized, but simply beyond our reach? We can only see as far as the light allows us to. And if the actual, rather than just the observable, universe is actually expanding faster than light that would make it virtually impossible to even attempt reaching some places. Given the potentially infinite size of the universe it seems potentially infinitely improbable for such a civilization not to exist in some place. But we know for fact that we haven't really seen shit yet. Maybe we got lucky and we're the first to get a shot, or maybe we're unlucky and just happened to be dropped in a place with nobody else close by. The upper speed of light and hence travel for all matter in the forms currently accessible to us means we simply cannot travel to or even observe the expanses of universe. Like Vod said, its sobering and completely disappointing to realize that. But we don't want that right. We want a scenario where these travels and observations are possible. That leaves one possibility. We as a civilization will need to to exist in a different form. A form where the laws of this "present matter" world don't apply. It becomes almost metaphysical and goes into the realm of spirituality but the more i think of it, the more i am convinced that there needs to be higher "planes of existence" where these physical laws that limit us to "speed of light" won't apply. Like Dr. Manhattan from the Watchmen..  Given that there is a possibility to move to such a plane of existence, any civilization would probably need to exist for millions of years before thats possible. Its clear that we cannot exist on planet earth for millions of years. But maybe if we branch out and terraform enough planetary bodies, we can hope to survive long enough and become the super sentient beings that would be capable of Inter-galactic travel. So Elon is the first pioneer of this endeavour and Mars would be our first stop on this long road. This all sounds completely mad but I don't see any other way that its possible.. Ohh and I am glad that a topic i started finally got some traction. Thanks to you Vod and BTCMillionaire..👍..I am writing this on a phone. Hope the formatting doesn't come out all trashy. I'm not sure if we need to go as far as trying to drop into some metaphysical realm (which I don't even really know what it's supposed to encompass). Physics keeps expanding, and if FTL was found to be possible I can almost blindly guarantee you that physicists will just put that into the scope of physics. After all, there's some bodies, or even just information, that is traveling with some assignable speeds, which is basically mechanical in nature. But naming conventions aside, I don't think that there are any rules that are set in stone for all times. And so far all the evidence points towards that notion as well. So for me there's no reason to assume that FTL won't be possible in the future and it seems more of a question of when. Musk does indeed seem to be one of the first few steps towards that kind of research. |
|
|
|
Galaxies, solar systems, faster than light travel, other civilizations? You guys are swimming in shit, it's up to your eyeballs!
Research Flat Earth
I tried, was full of shit and fallacies. Have seen worse sources of entertainment though. |
|
|
|
The strongest predictor of socioeconomic status is the SES of your parents. On that basis only smart babies choose to be born to wealthy parents IQ is mostly genetic. There is literally nothing we can do about it, as far as we currently know. Blame your parents if you wish. I disagree with that notion. IQ is a statistical measure of rather arbitrary test results of tests that can be practiced for. If you really cared you could increase your IQ to 120~140ish by sheer effort. From that point onward we're so far to the right of the mean that no tests really exist in sufficient volume. I agree that you can practice for IQ tests, which is exactly why I didn't do it when I took one years ago. Felt like cheating. That said, someone with let's say an "unpracticed" IQ of 80 can't train himself up to 120. There are limits to what is possible, and those limits are inherent to the individual. And even then it doesn't carry over to other areas of life. I have never seen anybody train themselves from 80 to 120, so I can't even pretend to know whether this is possible or not. But I tend towards believing that sustained practice, perhaps under proper guidance, would eventually make such an increase possible, given that the individual in question actually put their mind into actively improving. And I'd be quite curious to see whether or not such an increase would pass on to first generation offsprings. And depending on how that "training" took place it might very well carry over to other areas of life, but that'd be up to the individual and the training methods. The moment I started conflating ideas and concepts from completely unrelated subjects was roughly when I started noticing a substantial increase in my own performance when it comes to learning new things. But that could possibly be just an overall change in mentality, as I used to build knowledge from first principles or from ground up. Now I use analogies, fill the gaps and then check for logical errors. The latter method is significantly more efficient, but I doubt it would be possible without solid fundamentals. Point being that there are a numerous potential tweaks to thinking that can be applied to all aspects of life. |
|
|
|
IQ is mostly genetic. There is literally nothing we can do about it, as far as we currently know. Blame your parents if you wish.
I disagree with that notion. IQ is a statistical measure of rather arbitrary test results of tests that can be practiced for. If you really cared you could increase your IQ to 120~140ish by sheer effort. From that point onward we're so far to the right of the mean that no tests really exist in sufficient volume. There is a difference between IQ and Intelligence. The frome being only an attempt to measure the latter. That's true, Ibian specifically mentioned IQ though. Which is just a statistical measure that can easily be tampered with. I also don't believe that intelligence is static. Genetic or environmental factors may predispose people to take on fewer to no challenges, which would cause them to stagnate in their development. But if you keep throwing yourself at unfamiliar problems and keep trying to solve them you will eventually start improving exponentially when it comes to picking up skills and assimilating general information. |
|
|
|
Is it only me who has not received payment? because I have registered https://ico.coinlancer.com/users/login to receive the gift but until now I haven't received any. Anyone can help me with this problem? It's a scam and the "devs" have long disappeared even from their Telegram group apparently. I dont think so. If they were scammers, they would scam instant after ICO end. They already got their money for the ICO, that is correct. But they can get even more money by dumping their tokens on gullible people. Sorry, but I do not listen to your opinion. Because you are a direct competitor. I have provided simple and straightforward facts. Facts are not opinions. I'm also pretty sure that nobody cares about 0 activity sockpuppet accounts that randomly keep showing up in these scam threads. There's a special place for people like you. |
|
|
|
Racist is a meaningless buzzword, stating facts is now racist, yes jews control the media, and the banks, that's a fact, get over it.
yes blacks on average score much lower on IQ tests and commit a disproportionately high amount violent crimes? is that ''racist''? don't know, don't care, but it happens to be true.
OMG People of color score lower on Ethnocentric tests. I'm not even going to dignify the rest of your crap. Get a grip, you're a racist. P.S. This thread is about BTC. *sigh* no. IQ tests are simply pattern recognition. There is nothing cultural about it. That tired old excuse is... tiresome. And they do commit more crime. About four or five times as much per capita. Again, easy enough to look up for anyone who actually cares. Socio-economic status is a far more reliable predictor of IQ test performance. Low SES children consistently underperform You got it reversed. Low social status and poverty is a result of low IQ. The strongest predictor of socioeconomic status is the SES of your parents. On that basis only smart babies choose to be born to wealthy parents IQ is mostly genetic. There is literally nothing we can do about it, as far as we currently know. Blame your parents if you wish. I disagree with that notion. IQ is a statistical measure of rather arbitrary test results of tests that can be practiced for. If you really cared you could increase your IQ to 120~140ish by sheer effort. From that point onward we're so far to the right of the mean that no tests really exist in sufficient volume. |
|
|
|
To be really good you just need to be better than the average trader. And for that you don't need to sell the exact top or buy the exact bottom. It's enough to stagger purchases and sales in proportions that depend on the probabilities of price increases/decreases by certain numbers. Finding the probabilities is the trick here, as well as averaging them out in a way that guarantees you a performance band in which your portfolio will fall with a given probability. Doing that requires an understanding of time series as well as the ability to process large amounts of data (beyond just the price charts) though.
Agreed, but why didn't we see the crash coming? If there was a pattern to predict that, not many here did. Did you know after it went up towards 20k that within a month or so it would hit 6K? I didn't. You don't have to know when it'll start crashing, how low it will go, or when it will reverse up to what point. You can use historic data in combination with fundamental analysis to compute a set of prices at which you buy/sell parts of your stash, as well as how large those parts should be to maximize profits while simultaneously minimizing the risk of losing. That doesn't mean you'll make the maximum possible profit, but rather that you'd maximize your profits while making sure that you don't drop below a certain threshold. The threshold is something that you choose according to your risk appetite. Humans don't exist in anything other than groups. The average person is the culture you live in. That's why.
Money will not be eradicated. Not going to happen.
Never said money will disappear. I don't think it will, even if we end up in a period of abundance. It's overall role in society may change (e.g. the 99% won't really see it any longer), but it's not going to go away. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
McAffee's bet seem achievable afterall 
