I'm stupid. Please explain it to me.

And that's kind of my point that leads to the next question, if heaven is still about learning, overcoming struggle, and enjoying achievements and accomplishments, then how it is different from what we already have? The way I see it, heaven was dreamed up by people who had WAY more difficult lives than we have now (and there are some people who still have those difficult lives), full of disease, loss, death, and very hard dawn-to-dusk labor with no chance of ever getting out of it. So, they invented an idea that maybe, after all this hard work that they can't see any escape from, they will have some nice reward after they die. Problem is, many of us in the present already have nice rewards, means of changing our lives and work if we want to, and are often happy and generally satisfied with our lives, so heaven may seem unnecessary even.


Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the concept of technological singularity, which is a point at which our computers are able to think and process as quickly and efficiently as our own human brains, and the point at which we can create artificial intelligence as real as us (with thoughts, feelings, wants, dreams, etc), and when we can upload our own consciousness into the machines, this making us effectively immortal, and being able to learn, remember, and think way more than we can now, as well as feel much closer to others by being able to directly share their thoughts and experiences? This is an idea that people believe we will achieve within this century.

There is PLENTY of country here to go around. You stay in areas that are completely disarmed, others can stay in areas that have guns, and I'll stay wherever the hell I damn please. Are the people in heavily armed areas, like for instance Texas or New Hampshire, trying to force cities like Baltimore, DC, Chicago, Detroit, and some states like NY and Maryland to force people to carry guns? Are they trying to force those places to make it legal to own and carry guns? No? They stop forcing those states to do what you want.

Sure, but how satisfying would it be if there is never any problems or difficulties with doing it? It'll be like, "Hey, let's learn pottery!"  *do a perfect job your first time, because otherwise it would be struggle and disappointment* "Well, pottery is done... " To me, the point of pursuing talents and dreams is to be able to achieve them and get good at them, but that inherently means struggle and lots and lots of overcoming failure. A life without that is not very interesting I don't think, since it would literally mean I can do whatever I can think of on my first try. Why bother to try if I know I will be able to by default?

Let's see if I can reinflate it:

Assuming lowest casualties,
Israel - 8 shootings every 10 years means a minimum of 0.8 shootings a year.
America - 323 shootings every 10 years means a minimum of 32 shootings a year!

Obviously that's not right, so the only other conclusion we can make is that every shooting in America has WAY WAY WAY WAY more casualties than every shooting in Israel. My guess the reason is because everyone in American schools is completely defenseless, so shooters can just keep shooting till they run out of bullets, while in Israel they get taken down quick.

See, that's the difference here. Some people like living in gun shows, but they are not forcing you to. You're free to live in a gun free zone if you want. You on the other hand don't want to live in a gun show, and are hoping to force everyone else to live the same way you do, too. That's the difference between others giving you the freedom to choose, and you forcing your wants on others, and is the same difference between anarchy and government.

Who judges these cases now? Same people would judge them then (the pilots, the passengers, the potential airline customers, and ultimately the judges if it has to come to it) What are you trying to get at?

Any plans on support for Trezzor and/or BitSafe?

Wouldn't it be? 100 years of accomplishments and overcoming difficulties is a long time. An eternity of simply existing is kinda

March 2nd, 2015

The difference that you seem to be missing is a NAP person will ONLY kill when someone is actually infringing on their life or property, while a democracy-type (including the "libertards" you are talking about) will kill when someone doesn't do what they tell them to do, even if they are doing it on their own property and are not harming anyone else. In short

NAP = Someone steps on my property, I defend myself
Democracy = Someone tells me they must step on my property, if I protest, they attack me

(Property could be actual land, or my possessions, or even my personal freedoms)

I think a way more interesting question is, can you really enjoy life (or afterlife) without suffering?

Theists believe suffering is something to be endured here on earth, before we pass into heaven where we will be free of suffering. As an atheist, I believe suffering is something that makes my life here on earth more meaningful and more enjoyable. I don't know what happiness and contentment is without having experienced the suffering that I can compare it to, and I can't feel accomplished or get a sense of overcoming and conquering difficulties without having a struggle to overcome. If everything was always perfect, and everything was just given to me, I wouldn't know what to do or how to feel, and would likely feel completely useless and meaningless.

But, again, all those things we have already known about. It wasn't god who set up those traditions and customs, it was the tribes, who wrote them down on the old testament. They were all things that were somewhat obvious and self-edivent: you eat this thing and get sick often enough, you learn that i's not a good idea to eat it. Since god is all knowing, it would have been trivially easy for him to tell us something completely unexpected and world-changing. But he didn't.



Yes, I have. Basically it's like being a parent to a child who loves you very much, and then when someone challenges you by telling you your kid doesn't actually love you, you decide to prove it to them by allowing them to torture the hell out of your kid, while you just stand there and watch smugly. I think it's a perfect example of why god is a sadistic and self-important bastard. No way in hell would I allow someone I care about be tortured just to prove a point about how much they like me in return.


Because God created Satan, Satan is God's child and his responsibility, and God could supposedly stop Satan with nothing but a thought, yet he refuses to do so, just so that Satan can continue to teach us a lesson in god's stead. It's as if Satan is doing all the work, and god just sits back and asks us to love him.

If he had come and told us, way back then about things like viruses, bacteria, and hygiene, he would have both GREATLY reduced our suffering for these millenia AND would have left an unquestionable ever-lasting mark on human history, bringing knowledge so advanced and beneficial out of nowhere, which could not possibly have come out of humans with that level of science and technology. But, alas, everything he taught us was pretty much common knowledge by then already.

And yet, if the majority decides not to limit its authority, or decides to limit personal freedoms, free speech, and even be ok with killing its citizens, then you're SOL, because, as Mike has said, you have accepted its authority, and thus must submit to ALL of its authority.


And this is why I, and likely Mike, as well as other anarchist, think that libertarians still don't go far enough. As Mike said in his post, those who give any authority to government by default agree to submit to all of it. So, you are right, libertarians would still have the problem of allowing a majority to decide some things, and would still end up having issues to being "subject to the 'tyranny' of the majority." That's why we're not libertarians. (P.S. We agree with that part, and we don't know whom you're talking to with that paragraph).

Libertard - "You are either against murder, or you are pro-murder!"

Kokjo - "I'm against murder, but I'm for some murder."

Yeah, the gray area/middle of the road thing doesn't work here.

Does BTCJam have any sort of customer support aside from Tulkas?

But that's the thing, it's not the lowest possible cost. Or it doesn't have to be. If bitcoin stays at $120, and enough miners join that mining profitability is about zero, if electricity prices go up due to demand, it will be cheaper to buy coins on the exchange than to buy mining devices. Even with mining being profitable it's a bit more expensive, since you have to pay off the cost of the hardware while you are paying for electricity. Plus $1 mil dumped into the market will get you about $1mil of coins right now, plus some loss due to price increase, whereas $1mil dumped on mining hardware will maybe get you enough coins, but that's assuming everyone else isn't buying lots of hardware and taking your piece of the profits, too.

Regardless, you said mining costs decide he lower bound of the bitcoin price. Does that mean you claim that bitcoin proce can not drop below mining costs?




Hmm, I have been mining, and I gotta say, throwing money into mining hardware right now is probably a stupid idea. It was "profitable" for those who preordered early, since they got their devices first and were able to mine before difficulty skyrocketed, but it actually wasn't profitable, because if they had bought bitcoins instead of preordered hardware, they would have had a lot more coins than they will likely ever be able to mine at this point. And anyone new hoping to mine is likely going to get their devices after difficulty increases have made them not worth it, too.

How is money different from any other good or commodity?



How can mining cost decide the lower bound of the price? This is what the other guy was insisting, which didn't make any sense to me. If the market value of bitcoin is $90, and due to increase in electricity prices (it's winter, so more people paying for heating) it costs $100 to make a bitcoin, how can a miner sell his bitcoin for $100 in a $90 market?


Can you explain this process? Aren't miners a relatively teeny-tiny proportion of the exchange market where people compete for bitcoins?

Happy 9/11 everybody!