But, again, that's only one wrong. What is the second wrong you were talking about that supposedly is OK with NAP?

Yeah. Picked the cheapest offer, he went to court for me, the ticket was changed to "equipment malfunction" probably by default, and I just had a $45 ticket plus the few $100 (either $200 or $300, don't remember) lawyer fee.

Not exactly. It just meant that the supporters of the candidate I supported, and I, spent most of our time posting and discussing the election here, trying to drum up support, while Elizabeth pretty much spent all her time posting there, where people are actually able to vote for her. We spent time on people who couldn't vote, while she spent time only on people who can. It's simple as that.

I was pulled over, doing 82 in a 75, in the middle of the day, down a completely empty 2 lane highway in southern VA, middle of nowhere. Yeah, you're right, I got the ticket right away, but since it was reckless driving, it as the court summons that they mailed. For that charge you have to appear in court. Which was 5 hours south of my house. The lawyers jumped on me because all traffic tickets and such appear on VA's public website.

At least this was actually legit speeding and, with posted speed limit signs around, you'd be at least somewhat aware of the consequences. Worst I had was in VA, where the speed limit for I95 is 75mph is some places, and the unposted law is that 80mph+ is automatically considered reckless driving. So, doing just 5mph over the speed limit, which is fairly common, instantly sets you up with threat of suspended license and jail time, or a $300 lawyer bill and reduced ticket. I got about 20 letters from lawyers even before I received the ticket itself in the mail. F'in racket.

“In school, if we copy a friend’s answers on a test or homework assignment, what happens?”

We learn from someone who knows the subject better than us, and are better off than if we did not bother learning the subject at all?

Only because that simple quip suggests something seriously wrong, either in your understanding of nap, or your view of defending yourself when attacked.

Gene therapy. Your cells have a limited number of times that they can divide, so as you get older, you deteriorate more and more. We're close to being able to "reset" the cells, so you can pretty much stay as if you are in your early 20's (or ever revert to that) indefinitely. Slightly longer-term, we should be able to create artificial bodies to live in. At that point, you'll be able to have whatever body you want, or no body at all. Estimates are that this will happen within the next 40 years, but I personally think within the next 50 to 100.
Sure, some people will be tired of life, and will prefer to grow old and die. That's their choice. And some people will be power-hungry sociopaths who will do incredible amount of damage and misery. But we'll just overcome them the way we always do.
Huge # of nice people with ethics > 1 sociopath asshole.
Personally, I'll be driven by sheer curiosity to find out what exists beyond the places I have traveled to, and what incredible technologies or discoveries we will have tomorrow.

But NAP is basically answering a wrong (initiated aggression) with self defense. That's all NAP is, One: Aggression and Two: Self-defense. You claimed the two make a right, which you just said you don't have a problem with, yet you called the two, self-defense, a wrong ("two wrongs do make a right"). What was the second wrong that you believe NAP has if not the self-defense/hitting back/insulting back?

According to you (this statement you just made) self defense is wrong.

Not at all. Just a mistake on all the other candidate's part, including myself.

But that's kinda my point, we're very close to solving the whole "finite bodies" thing, and then there will be practically no difference between heaven and earth for many of us. Why die and take the risk that there is no afterlife, just for the opportunity to do the exact same thing there that you were doing here?

Sorry for taking a while to reply...


I myself an not a microbiologists, but both of my parents are, and dad is a geneticist as well, so I grew up around microbiology, often hearing stories and explanations about how genetics, cancers, speciation, and other such things work. Reading the part in bold I instantly thought, "wait, that can't be right..." Just because we don't know what the function is does not mean it is "inactive." But in case you don't want to take my word for it, here's a source "The vast majority (80.4%) of the human genome participates in at least one biochemical RNA- and/or chromatin-associated event in at least one cell type." (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11247.html) and also (http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/)

Regarding the copy machine, that's a bad analogy. With that, each successive copy is degraded more and more. With genes it's more digital, with a closer analogy being copying a file over and over, with a tiny chance that some 0 or 1 somewhere will get corrupt due to being written onto a bad sector. I'm not sure what you were trying to say with that though...

Also, are you suggesting that we can change the chemical structure of molecules deep within our bodies simply by thinking about them or by interacting with our environment? We're not talking about moving a muscle here, but about actual extremely complex and specific chemical reactions in very tiny and specific body areas. Sure, we can force some changes with things like radiation, but typically, a gene being switched results in some very very bad consequences (cancers, viral infections, etc).




I think you may be ascribing way too much importance to yourself and to the rather plain act of your brain simply trying to make sense of the signals sent to it by your senses. Yes, our brains work via abstraction, with everything being stored as a concept in the network I described, rather than data in 0's and 1's. But there's really not much beyond the physical space physically affecting our senses, which send physical signals to our physical brain, which tries to make sense of the data in whatever way it ended up wired up to do.
A long time ago when I was still in high school, I used to take yoga. The last 10 minutes of every class was dedicated to deep meditation, where we had to lie on our backs and imagine parts of our bodies falling asleep one by one, "feeling" the energy drain out of them. Almost every time I was able to enter a complete state of meditation, where I was fully conscious and awake, but no longer aware of the surrounding real world, just existing in my head in a sort of white fuzzy space. It allowed me to escape from the world and be lost in my thoughts, in my own little world. I even used the technique once when I was buried on a beach after a sand tunnel I was digging collapsed on top of me. I was under there for about 3 minutes without air until my dad and some other people dug me out, but instead of panicking, I forced myself into that meditative state, shutting down most of my body so I wouldn't need to breathe and use up energy. As soon as I felt that I was free, I instantly woke up, breathed in, and went into the water to wash off the sand, being more embarrassed than anything. In that state, instead of white, I couldn't see anything other than just black, alone with my very slowed thoughts. So, I've meditated before, but I can't really see learning or "seeing" anything in that state beyond what I already know. There is no new input of data to be gained there.
Sometime, you should learn about the scientific method and see what happens when you totally open up your mind and let all the people who have enormous passion for the things they are studying teach you about the things they understand way better than the rest of us. Instead of trying to figure things out by reflecting on them I mean.



Mental in a physical sense, not in a spiritual, outside of reality sense. Just chemical and electrical physical changes being interpreted by the brain.



Do you mean to say the results of our understanding are based on and limited by our senses? Or do you mean the physical world itself, with it's structure and composition, is the result, and thus influenced, by our internal processes?



Not sure why this is relevant, since relativity simply says that everything is relative to something else, not that something must be the center or a relational base to something else. The sun can be the base compared to which we are hurtling through space, and be just as relevant and important as us being the base.


I speak several languages, and know the weird little quirks and intricacies between them, and I'm still confused by what you're claiming. Some would also say that physics and mathematics itself is a type of language and can be used to communicate. Or are you redefining language into something completely different, where the meaning of the word is so general (space!) that it's practically meaningless?



Based on inferring the mechanical workings of a system? If I roll a tire down the hill, I know that in such a system the centripetal force will keep the wheel upright and keep rolling to the bottom, but that there is also a chance that the uneven terrain and gravity would force the wheel to fall on it's side instead. Both are possible, since both follow the laws of physics and are a possible way of how this "system" can work, but there's a higher chance that one will happen than the other. If the wheel falls over and tumbles sideways, we know why it might have happened (hole or rock on the hill), and can verify our hypothesis by inspecting the hill. Sure, we "don't know why this happened" until we investigate, but we sure as hell have good guesses that aren't something like "god/ghost/demons/someone's mind did it."



Ah, the old "there is no way for us to perceive it, so you can't prove it's not true" argument. Often heard as "Prove to me god doesn't exist," or "God is beyond out comprehension, understanding, and senses." If that's the case, then there is no point in measuring or testing for such a thing. It has no influence on our "lower syntactic" world, since it exists on a higher one. And if it does influence our "lower syntactic level of perception," they we should, and have, been testing for it for a long time. So far, the tests haven't shown anything other than random data.



So how do you explain the evidence of universe's existence for billions of years before we were even mud in some pool? It seems rather self-centered of you to think that our species is that important. Frankly, same problem religion tends to have in general ("we're special!")


How can you be sure that's not just your imagination messing with you? Why wouldn't I be able to claim that I can actually travel to other worlds and dimensions when I'm daydreaming? And if the subject and object were different, then why does brain trauma and physical deterioration of the brain affect the subject so directly and so profoundly, often completely changing the person and their personality? To me that is extreme evidence that we are our own brains, regardless of how we might delude ourselves into thinking we are something greater "trapped" in our bodies. If you believe our consciousness comes from something other than our brains, I'm curious what your evidence for that hypothesis is.

LOL! That was funny I almost fell for it, mainly because I actually hear such arguments against bitcoin stated legitimately.

Emphasis on "potential voters." It was other candidate's mistake to actually try to reach out to the community, instead of only focusing specifically on the small and closed-off Bitcoin Foundation forum membership.

Speaking of Matthew, he will not be able to attend personally, but he will still be there in case you want to meet him. We're still working on on the schedule as to "when"

We as humans *need* the pain and sorry. It's what defines us as human. I think without it we would quite literally go insane within a few decades, and definitely within a few centuries.


Thing is, if there are places to see and things to do that are provided to you by heaven, then all it is is a simulation. I might as well just plug myself up to a feeding tube, and wear virtual goggles plugged into SecondLife for the rest of my life. There are plenty of things to see and do in our own universe. Our entire universe in fact. And as a species, we are defined by our curiosity and our drive to explore and spread ourselves to other places. Thus we derive a lot of satisfaction from working on, and achieving the capacity to do that, whether that is as small as hooking up with someone local, or as big as being able to travel across the world or to another planet. If heaven is a virtual place that simply offers us these things, then we'll know we're just in a virtual reality type environment. If "heaven" is a state were we, as souls, are able to travel and interact with the entire universe, actually exploring the real world on our own and without (many) limits, then this "heaven," which is something that would actually keep us (or at least me) happy is something entirely different.

On the contrary, I'm actually quite excited about the future
(Yes, I have been depressed in the past when I was much younger, and yes, I have consulted a psychiatrist, as well as used anti-depressants to help me get better, and although I may still have some manic brain episodes where flashes of information, ideas, or daydreams just start rapidly going through my head, keeping me up at night or distracting me during the day, and though I sometimes think I may be a bit insane compared to other "slower" people around me, I'm perfectly happy with my life now  )


You are correct. People have been saying this, and it has been happening on a small scale (mainly inflation and collapse, as opposed to everyone being able to get guns) in many countries around the world, including my home country.
Sorry I misunderstood your question. I can address that too.

• If police is still around, they will be a branch of a dying government, which will struggle to hold power using the common dictatorial tactics: band with church, brainwash and disarm populace, use fear of outside threats to band people together and promote jingoism, us fear of inside traitors and unpatriotic types to turn neighbor against neighbor and keep everyone so afraid they can't step out of line. This is the same tactic that has been used for centuries, more recently in 1930's Germany, Soviet Union, now in Russia, and is slowly creeping up in USA. Assuming oligarchs can still make money by taking control of natural resources and gaining their wealth from that instead of direct taxation, these people will continue to be able to hold power, including using the police to maintain control and "disappear" detractors, either into prisons or just out of existence. Such a state will be relatively poor and technologically stunted, with people at the top making money while everyone else being relatively poor due to severe limits in economic freedom and outside investment (other businesses would likely stay out of a risky country like this, and will at most only buy their resources), as well as lack of incentive to innovate. With guns becoming easy to print, 3D printers themselves may become regulated, or the state may end up spending a lot of their resources keeping down an armed and disgruntled populace.
  I would not want to live in such a "safe, gun free, government controlled" country, as I already know where it ultimately ends up, and we have plenty of real world examples of such places (including the country I moved out of)
  
• Private security really depends on the method it uses. There could be two: a service provided by people where the business controls specific territories in a natural monopoly, OR automated technological equipment that can be manufactured and delivered from anywhere to any customer.
  Private service would have to focus on providing the best service they can to entice people to pay for their services. If they charge too much, or are too brutal and unjust, people will simply cancel their subscriptions, print their own guns, and take chances on their own. There is obviously a risk of competing businesses trying to combat each other, but it is much cheaper to settle things through negotiations, or compete on price, service, and quality, than to actually try to kill off the other group's employees. Gang turf war is obviously possible, but not likely to happen often, and is very likely to take any measures possible to avoid involving civilians, since they are the paying customers. "Extortion" at most would come in the form of such security companies freely advertising which homes they are NOT protecting, leaving the place open for burglars, however, such tactics will be mildly effective if homeowners have their own security and are armed.
  Automated tech security would come in the form of more advanced home security systems, such as sensors that can distinguish between the owner and an intruder, and thus can always stay on instead of only working when the owner is away. Other sensors will scan for and detect weapons, such as by recognizing sounds made by guns, and eventually will use defensive non-lethal systems, such as microwave lasers (burn), directed sound blasters, tazers, and possibly even gas, as well as lethal systems such as small projectile launchers and turrets. Drones will also become a lot more ubiquitous, following the user around, recording everything they see to post to the cloud, and possibly using onboard defensive systems to defend the user from attackers if needed. Though likely, just the idea that anyone attempting to attack them will be recorded and instantly known will deter most attacks. Personal clothing will come into play, too, with new stab and bullet proof materials being much more widely available for everyday wear, as well as personal tracking technologies that will post your position to a private online location to deter kidnapping. Regarding problems, only ones I can think of are defects in manufacturing, hackers taking over poorly secured protective devices, and some people not being able to afford the more expensive defensive devices, and having to rely on just their own clothing and their own guns. The benefit, though, is that the protection from devices being used by others will likely spill over to provide protection for everyone around them, so someone defenseless being mugged will be caught on camera, and someone trying to pull a gun on someone else will be instantly identified as a threat and either warned or disarmed.
  Thinking much father into the future, once nanotech comes into play, things like bullet and stab wounds will not really matter any more, as such damage will be quickly and easily repaired. A more serious issue will be not guns, but nano- and bio-tech  weapons that are designed to damage or take apart your body. At that point, entirely different personal security measures will have to come into play.
  This is the country I plan to live in.
  
• Potential problems with the judicial system is the same we have now. People will live in groups that agree to follow specific codes of conduct, many of which will be universal across many groups, and some other people will have issues with some parts of the code, and will break those rules. If caught, they will be tried and judged, and if found guilty, either asked to pay for reparations, exiled, or killed, depending on the nature of the crime and the person's situation. Really no different than the way things are now. Some groups will appoint judges electorally, others will use paid-for arbitrators that the accuser and the accused will both have to agree on. If the accused doesn't even agree to arbitration, then they will likely be considered guilty by default, and simply ostracized or exiled. Yes, obviously there may be a situation where the accused is innocent, and all the arbitrators available are on the accuser's side, but, again, that's no different from what we often have now. Just learn to live with and deal with it.
  One major change on the horizon will be regarding personal reputation. People will carry devices, or have their identity, linked to a reputation database where they can rate others they deal with, and be rated by others, as well as be designated as belonging to specific groups and organizations. When dealing with someone, you'll know if they are trustworthy based on their reputation. If arbitrators collude with the accuser, and mark the accused as untrustworthy, or as having had committed a crime, they risk losing their reputation in turn if the accused proves to be innocent. Plus, the accused can still rely on the positive reputation given to him by others, and those he deals with can just ignore the negative claims of those who have since proven themselves untrustworthy. In short, everyone will be the judge of everyone they come into contact with, and the role of the judicial system will be mainly for the purpose of resolving disputes, not for the purpose of judging someone for a crime and sentencing them to some sort of punishment.
  

So, you guys keep on planing on how to pass better gun control laws, while I'll be busy preparing myself for life in that almost-inevitable world (and not just preparing, but helping it happen, by using and supporting Bitcoin and other new technologies).

Sorry for the long text, but that's what I see the world ending up as within the next 50 to 100 years.

No, it's for me. I specifically requested it, since he's coming from Iceland :9

Well, it's a good thing I'll be on the 5am to 7pm day schedule then (getting up at 10am in Amsterdam every day is like getting up at 5 am in Atlanta).