....
The mere fact that the party seems to promote so called blockchain projects, seems suspicious to me. Why would they promote supposedly immutable and decentralized networks if not for seeking control over them? Maybe it's just an attempt to funnel money to China from the west.
Why would you presume that a so called blockchain project was anything remotely similar to what Satoshi defined as a blockchain? |
|
|
|
...
Calculating the overall cost of mining the minerals => driving a Tesla vs Drilling for oil => Driving your normal car is not something either of us are qualified to do.
The research I've done tells me it's a very complicated calculation, but electric cars are the overall winner. I can not find a single reputable source that agrees with you and lots that explicitly disagree with you.
For each kilowatt of energy, coal will produce 2 molecules of co2 for every one that gasoline produces. If your power plant is coal fired electric is worse. first ask the right question... |
|
|
|
@suchmoon and @eddie13
Your bet is great and very clear.
My understanding (i read the 5 pages) is that you haven't put the funds with an escrow (you are both very well know members that won't ruin their reputation for a mere 0.1btc).
However, what happens if one of you guys dies before the 2020 election?
Wouldn't it be better if there was a multisig 2 out of 3 with on escrow in the middle?
Maybe a dead switch with a lack of activity for 45 days. You guys are posting daily, a 45 days absence would mean something bad happened.
If the winner dies, maybe the loser will want to honor the bet and "help" the family of the defunct.
If the loser dies, maybe the winner will take pity and won't claim the money as a gesture to help the family of the defunct.
Many possible scenarios...
I am sure you can work something out.
Even, what odds would you give on their performing or not performing on their bet? If the odds and amount are right, maybe I can promise to pay the winner, if the other party flops. |
|
|
|
Free speech needs to be revisited in the age of the internet. Screaming climate change is not human caused on the internet is the modern equivalent of telling people there is no fire in a burning building.
Are you a complete idiot? Nobody except complete pathological liars, delusional climate alarmists, and really stupid people would say climate change is OR IS NOT "human caused." There has been a serious scientific discussion for several decades about what possible percentage and within what error bounds humans may have on climate. |
|
|
|
I agree we can't observe the total emissions, it's important to view it per capita.
We can't expect countries with a billion people to have the same emissions as countries with a 100 million.
Still, however, I don't see how this temperature rise correlates with any human activity.
The ice mass was significanlty lesser thousands of years ago then it is now.
Nasa does a pretty good job of breaking down what's going on with climate change... No, they don't. They know as little as anyone else. All the CERTAINTIES are in the minds of TRUE BELIEVERS. |
|
|
|
This whole debate reminds me a lot of the myth that electric vehicles are better for the environment. It is all just marketing. Instead of burning gas you are burning coal at some far away plant, less efficiently than an internal combustion engine I might add. That is not to mention all of the rare Earth minerals that have to be mined to make the thing work and all of the pollution that creates. Facts are irrelevant though, because like low flow toilets, it is about virtue signalling and adding another layer of bureaucratic controls and taxes, not really about protecting the environment.
Okay ... can I respond to that from my Cybertruck? |
|
|
|
You should probably move this to Off-topic instead of Politics&Society.
I think it's racist to assume that [flat] Martians don't have politics or society. I think it should be established how flat the flatness of the flat Martians is. My guess is it's pretty darn flat. But how would you measure flat, if you were flat and everything around you was flat? Just try to hold a ruler up, perpendicular to the flat. It won't go "up", and maybe, "up" does not even exist. Are we talking about a world in 2D? How would people there watch Avatar? |
|
|
|
I have a question I can see why you would believe the outcome makes a difference to suchmoon and eddiee13, this is 0.1 BTC we're talking about  But you all seem to be behaving as if the outcome of the election itself is actually going to make a meaningful difference to the direction of the USA? Do you really believe it? What substantive reasoning is there for such a belief? Trump if re elected will have 7 of 9 SC judges picked by him. Recent events have made it pretty clear that the Dems would 100% let the USA be overrun by illegal immigrants. Trump would/is doing enough that we may only be 50% overran. We now have a funded Space Force. So yes, there are substantive differences... |
|
|
|
....
The Swedish teen complained that school climate strikes have “achieved nothing” and claimed that opponents of her radical agenda are trying to “silence” her and her supporters. ....
Please. Don't silence her. We need more adversaries at this level. |
|
|
|
How about some economic facts? From the wikipedia entry, "low-flush toilets are estimated to have saved the city of San Francisco 20 million gallons of water per year." That's at current water rates about $200,000 per year savings. Assuming 300,000 households in SF and an average cost of $500 to install these commodes, you are advocating a 150M investment that returns 200K per year. That's a rate of return of 0.1% per year BEFORE THE EXTRA EXPENSES bolded above. So clearly you've created a new economic negative for your supposed climate positives. In short, you don't know what you are talking about. You, and your friend Al Gore, bungled it up, using pseudo science and a know-it-all, social controller attitude to force ignorance and stupid ideas on the public. Actually that's typical for climate advocates, though.
Seems like you neither. You're assuming a 500$ cost to install this yeah sure. And the only benefits is the saved water? So you're considering that the main purpose of the installation (flushing) isn't worth anything? Or you believe that only brand new toilets were replaced? I mean you can't say "this toilets cost 500$ and they only save 1$ of water". No, these toilets cost 500$, their first purpose is to flush your poop away AND they save 1$ of water. Now of course if those cost 500$ MORE than not low flush toilets your argument would make sense. But that's not what you're saying here. I'm assuming $500 parts and labor, which is likely really low. I'm also assuming 300,000 new low flow commodes put in since 1994, which would be about one in each home or business. That may be inaccurate. But you have to consider that ALL OF THEM that didn't work properly, which was a lot, were then again replaced. All at cost to the public. Regarding your argument that the "Main Purpose" has to be considered, that is fair for those ones (1) that did work properly (2) that were not on purchase more expensive than the old style. All I'm doing is quoting Wikipedia and commenting on it. What's the point? It's simple. If you have a social engineering scheme that you believe in, don't think you are smart to force it on the public without truly extensive testing. The scheme that works great in your head quite likely won't work in the real world. |
|
|
|
I'd take the opinion of someone owning hotel chains and tens of thousands of toilets over some ivory tower "environmental scientists" any day of the week about how well toilets work.
But don't worry, your esteemed environmental scientists can always get jobs cleaning commodes.
Trumps word over a scientist. Because he owns lots of toilets. And I don't think you're trolling. jesus Scientists do not create, test and manufacture things, like commodes. Engineers do. Engineers then look at issues like equipment performance, reliability, and cost-effectiveness. Businessmen and consumers operate equipment. But you'd ignore their opinions? That's ignoring reality. I can't imagine why anyone would complain about someone saying that a government mandated rule was bad. Why attempt to ridicule Trump on this? A person would only look foolish as the facts came out. How about some facts from Wikipedia? The early low-flush toilets in the U.S. often had a poor design that required more than one flush to rid the bowl of solid waste, resulting in more water used than a single flush of a standard toilet.....
In 2011, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that, while low-flush toilets are estimated to have saved the city of San Francisco 20 million gallons of water per year, the reduction in water volume caused waste sludge to back up in the city sewer pipes, designed expecting a higher ratio of water to solids. The city was attempting to solve this by adding chlorine bleach to the pipes, a proposal that raised environmental objections.[3] In house drain system design, smaller-diameter drain pipes are being used to improve flow by forcing waste to run higher in the pipe and therefore have less tendency to settle along the pipe.
....
The first generation of low-flush toilets were designed like traditional toilets. A valve would open and the water would passively flow into the bowl. The resulting water pressure was often inadequate to carry away waste. ....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-flush_toiletHow about some economic facts? From the wikipedia entry, "low-flush toilets are estimated to have saved the city of San Francisco 20 million gallons of water per year." That's at current water rates about $200,000 per year savings. Assuming 300,000 households in SF and an average cost of $500 to install these commodes, you are advocating a 150M investment that returns 200K per year. That's a rate of return of 0.1% per year BEFORE THE EXTRA EXPENSES bolded above. So clearly you've created a new economic negative for your supposed climate positives. In short, you don't know what you are talking about. You, and your friend Al Gore, bungled it up, using pseudo science and a know-it-all, social controller attitude to force ignorance and stupid ideas on the public. Actually that's typical for climate advocates, though. A similar example was the compact fluorescent bulb. That was claimed by governments and environmentalists to be the thing that was going to save the world. But they really, seriously underperformed. Did the control freaks such as you advocate stop pushing the CFL? Nope. The rules take on a life of their own. Meanwhile private industry (and scientists!) developed the white LED, then brought it to commercial viability, then the CREE LED. Now the world of lighting really is a different place. No thanks to your authoritarian controllers. |
|
|
|
.....
The low flow toilet regulations are from The Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Bush was president, and it had bipartisan support in both house and Senate.
Passed the House on May 27, 1992 (381-37)
Passed the Senate on July 30, 1992 (93-3 )
,,,,
Has your opinion on anything changed at all after realizing it was Bush and nearly every member of Congress that signed the 92 EPA Energy act (with the toilet regulations), and not some liberal assault on our rights by Gore and Clinton?
You are referring to the 1375 page bill that was passed by a democrat congress and a democrat senate, into which one of those liberals inserted the toilet regulation bill? You left those facts out didn't you? Why? All it does is show the extent you will bend the facts to make a point. I'd take the opinion of someone owning hotel chains and tens of thousands of toilets over some ivory tower "environmental scientists" any day of the week about how well toilets work. But don't worry, your esteemed environmental scientists can always get jobs cleaning commodes. |
|
|
|
I think the relevant point here, is there is nothing here to make fun of Trump about
Except that he said Americans have to flush the toilet 10-15 times a day. Except that that is factually true, with the fraction of toilets installed that really don't work on the low flow standard. Please consider that a guy running huge hotel chain would actually know stuff like this. Really? It's factually True because Trump said it or because there is some sort of statistical evidence? All the data I can find says the number is 4-8 times a day. Don't be ridiculous. Those rules passed by Al Gore were essentially pushing beta testing of low flow devices on the American people. A lot of junk was sold and had to be replaced, and a lot of it is still out there. The law was simply a restriction in water flow per flush. There was NO requirement the devices had to work to a standard of quality. ', or anything else he said about it is really relevant. ....NO, OF COURSE THaT WOULD NOT BE RELEVANT TO A THReAD ENTITLED... Re: Trump has declared war on water saving toilets and it’s hilarious (15 times)  |
|
|
|
The private company Spacex is getting ready to move the passengers from Earth to Moon by the year 2025 and also he mentioned that they will move 1 Million people to Mars and create the first civilization of Mars along with himself.
Do you believe this will become possible in the next five year? Or just a sci-fiction story!
It wont be really possible in next 5 years but I see that happening in maybe future when Musk's kid is leading the command. Even pioneers like Virgin group with their Virgin galactic and Bezoz's vision to Mars shows that we indeed will colonize to Mars sometime in future. As it is, Mars is considered as twin sister of Earth and holds evidence of life and supportive environment.Really? Cold enough to keep Co2 in snow form, and it's our twin sister? Evidence of life? Nope. Supportive environment? Peroxides in the dirt would kill most any living thing. Try again... |
|
|
|
Calm down. They were making a bet was on whether or not Trump will be elected to a second term, which is the topic of this thread. Since we are projecting emotional states upon one another, stop having a psychotic break, the topic is "WILL TRUMP BE ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM?", not lets iron out 100 details about a side bet about it. Seriously, a 0.1 BTC bet is worth its own thread. It is like "that big of a deal." |
|
|
|
I think the relevant point here, is there is nothing here to make fun of Trump about
Except that he said Americans have to flush the toilet 10-15 times a day. Except that that is factually true, with the fraction of toilets installed that really don't work on the low flow standard. Please consider that a guy running huge hotel chain would actually know stuff like this. Really? It's factually True because Trump said it or because there is some sort of statistical evidence? All the data I can find says the number is 4-8 times a day. This article cited 5 different sources, and there are lots of others.   Don't be ridiculous. Those rules passed by Al Gore were essentially pushing beta testing of low flow devices on the American people. A lot of junk was sold and had to be replaced, and a lot of it is still out there. The law was simply a restriction in water flow per flush. There was NO requirement the devices had to work to a standard of quality. |
|
|
|
I think the relevant point here, is there is nothing here to make fun of Trump about
Except that he said Americans have to flush the toilet 10-15 times a day. Except that that is factually true, with the fraction of toilets installed that really don't work on the low flow standard. Please consider that a guy running huge hotel chain would actually know stuff like this. |
|
|
|
Yeah this is about low flush toilets. Just to start off, here's the definition from Wikipedia on what a low flush toilet is and does.....
I think the relevant point here, is there is nothing here to make fun of Trump about, rather you could make fun of the ridiculous crap devices forced on the American public by Al Gore, and the legislation that he pushed. At the same time, not all the commodes were poor quality. Or over time, they have improved a great deal. Just take a look at this? 1.28 gallons per flush and it will down 20 golf balls... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD0x34e-V9U |
|
|
|
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
Quote
I got it!!!!
Trump was the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll!
Trump killed JFK!
Why do you even participate in those censorious threads when a free version is available? All you do is enable that kind of behavior by doing so. So...you mean here in the free version, it is not a Twitchy sort of Truth? |
|
|
|
These charts are highly deceptive. For the first one, the statistical spacing of data points is for the 2000 year period, far apart, and then for the last portion, close together. That means that spikes such as shown recently may have randomly occurred but would not be visible in a proxy-driven chart. Further, the recent rise (right hand "hockey stick") is junk science (reference Michael Mann evidence and disclosure in recent court case, also Briffa tree ring omissions). For the second one, the left hand of the time series is cut off in the 1990s. But sea level has been rising since 1900 hasn't it? Sea level rise is WELL KNOWN to have started well before human factors such as co2 omissions affected climate. Typical alarmist abuse of scientific findings to promote their political causes. Also known as LYING. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
