Let he who is without typos throw the first stone.

 


I can look back further if you persist being the town spellcheck jerk, but I'd rather not have to slog through pages of ethereum shrillzing.

Your metaphor is wrong. It's more like a carnival barker claiming that what is behind the curtain is "Stupendous, mighty, earth shatteringly strong and will destroy all who get in its way!"

Which maybe once or twice should get you to bet against BTC or XMR, opensource technologies that do what they say and how they say it and don't need a manager to pimp their wares. After hearing this over and over again with every new coin that's built on hype and promises, maybe you should be a little less panicky and a little more confident in what is right here in front of you.  

No one is stopping you from betting a little (or everything) on what's behind the curtain, so if you believe all the hype, go for it.

The author deleted the post I linked here a few days ago, but this is the revision:

https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2016/02/27/the-age-of-surveillance-control-societies-in-a-networked-world/

I'll buy a copy if Shen signs it.

How much did Fluffy have to drink?

20+ hour mix times are a fail.

Also, Evan himself has said off protocol anonymity (which is what dash currently employs) is weaker than protocol level anonymity, which is why protocol level anonymity is promised with the evolution release--though without peer review and with Evan's history of promising the moon, mars and the sun, I highly doubt he has the skillset to do any such thing. Weird that dash fanboys keep contradicting what the coin's creator only just now realized after months of criticism--that his masternode privacy scheme is inferior to protocol level solutions. Evan spent so much time preaching his false doctrine that his followers (at least those out of the loop) are caught believing the lie.

FTFY

I'm not sure if Ethereum is a scam (doubt it, seems like it is promising too much though), but I do know a coin with an "accidental" instamine (with a convenient  emissions cut soon after) is a sign of a scam. I also know cramming 11 algos together is a good way to design an insecure coin (if only someone's "chief scientist" could figure this out). I also know (and Evan agrees after months of anyone who knows anything saying so) that protocol level anonymity is way better than depending on nodes to do it. I also know that vapor ware without peer review is a sure sign of a scam or a dev who is in way over his head--guess we'll have to wait six to nine months to see which is true for dash's evolution.

When you figure out the poorly constructed pontoon is sinking, Qwizzie, there's a perfectly constructed aircraft carrier in swimming distance. But I get the feeling that Evan will say, "We're going to find the lost treasure of Atlantis!" and all those on the SS Dashtard will die thinking they can breath under water.

Such LOLZ! My favorite is the woman telling the other, "Don't worry, it's still under a dollar." And the general reaching for his phone. 

Outside this forum is about the only place you can con anyone into believing dash has good anonymity features, x11 isn't flawed, and "decentralized" governance can be achieved with a coin that's ownership is centralized through the process (intentional or not) of a hefty instamine layered with a hefty reduction in coins. I have yet to meet people this stupid outside of the dash ann, but I'm sure they are out there--so happy hunting.

Ceti's always been contextually challenged. In the context of someone believing Dash's claims of anonymity, using it, and then having their ID revealed to an authoritarian government, yes they very well could be killed. Ceti's a moron if he thinks Ric said that using Dash in and of itself will kill you--though my guess is he is trying to spin it however he can, even if it makes himself look like a fool.

I can wait ten years to be right.  

(An AI to emulate human behavior misses what the singularity is about--the singularity is that threshold when the organic brain can't process the technological world around it and will need artificial apparatus to keep up--nanobots being the current leader in what's being developed to achieve this--most likely we don't create an AI, we become an AI with more and more of our functions (brain and body) being processed by artificial means--and yes, most likely to 100% given enough time. So doubtful these uber humans will have any more trouble simulating our current organic brain, with a fair degree of accuracy, than that of a rat. Though this line of thought gives me hope that technology keeps pace in the privacy front as well--to where the technology that allows us to read thoughts also allows us to mask them. On the other hand, my reading on capitalism and acceleratism makes me think that we will become more and more integrated with a centralized network to the point that one cannot realize themselves from the machine, but given the cliche' of becoming one with the universe, perhaps this is the best state we can hope to attain--)

Given our understanding of the brain has gone away from the Freudian equivalent of blood letting to mapping and chemical diagnosis of maladies in the last fifty years, I doubt this is the technological leap anyone is making it out to be--especially when more of our day to day information is being tracked and to a greater degree (who's to say people in five years won't be monitored 24/7 and have that data plugged into a database that could be incorporated when dna brain simulation exist--not to mention that most psychology is tilted towards the belief that genetics is the most determinate factor in who a person is (usually citing the overwhelming similarities in identical twins separated at birth with dissimilar locations and family elements). I'd rather not get into a debate, so let's just leave this here, and in ten years, see if brain simulation is as plausible as holodecks and android body parts controlled with our minds have become in the last ten years.

Language is malleable--some have little trouble adapting to new usages, while others fight it tough and nail in the name of virtue or some other inane principle.  I hope when you're older that you realize how ridiculous it is to apply hard rules on language, especially on a forum where new usages are a source of communal pride. I won't hodl my breath though.  

My fear is when quantum computers come online and someone will be able to do a brain simulation based on your genetic code.

Hodl up, are you saying this is an academic setting and there are editors stalking about? Such lolz, such shrilz.  

You're correct if you assume he can't coin a new word, which is a pretty absurd presumption. It reminds me when the dictionary makers tried to pick and choose words, not based on what people said and meant, but on their own preferences.
 

Noun 1. shrilling - a continuing shrill noise; "the clash of swords and the shrilling of trumpets"--P. J. Searles

A sound can be a shrill, just as a sound can be a thump or screech, the sentence, "I heard a shrill outside my door," is no more incorrect as, "I heard a thump outside my door, " or "I heard a screech outside my door."

I'm trying to think of a sound that doesn't have this property, but it seems most sounds can be used as noun and verb. I think your confusion is that it is almost entirely used as adjective and adverb, which can make it sound outlandish to the modern ear (not that that is the way TPTB_need_war was using it or intended it). Personally I like its use to describe a shill who is shrilling text to hide the flaws in whatever product he is endorsing. Stop your shrilling seems like it could be the mantra for everyone tired of wading through endless diatribes and meaningless text.


Language isn't a set of objective rules, it's more of "what is standard, what is accepted, and what is preferred"--none of which lends itself well to "you're wrong" argumentation. A great example is Emily Dickinson's inventions in punctuation--are you going to tell her she can't invent punctuation or her poems aren't written correctly? Many an editor who did, now looks like an imbecile for missing her genius.

http://futurism.com/echoing-apples-concerns-privacy-ancestry-com-23andme-fighting-cops-request-customer-dna/

I was correct. I was correcting the quoted material and you are incorrect as I pointed out. I wasn't following or referencing any prior arguments--though I pointed out that TPTB_need_war's coinage of shill+shrill is perfectly fine (Shakespeare coined as many phrases as anyone and it would be tough find a more masterful user of the English language). The point of language is communication and precision, and shrill encapsulates an angry shill better than any other word I've seen--would you rather him say shrill-shill like a Dr. Seuss' character?

If you read the essay that I posted on ET, you'll see the philosophical argument that we are moving toward centralized systems in all aspects of life--the economy just happens to be one aspect of a larger network. To misquote Woody Allen, "The network wants what the network wants." Replacing capitalism with network just gets at the heart of what's being created.