|
Why no SC mini rig tally?
|
|
|
|
|
6/23/2012 1769 N 3 0 - - The Joint
|
|
|
|
4x SC Mini-Rigs and a few Jalapenos for the folks, to keep their coffee's warm while they help me take over Bitcoin.
I want to be the first 4+TH Miner.
Damn bro, I hope you're one of the first to receive these! If you are, you'll probably make tens of thousands more in the first few months alone compared to if you're near the back of the line. Good luck with your investment! |
|
|
|
stupid, or just fudding?
Well, his observation is neither smart, nor rational, so I'm gonna say C: All of the above C:/user/desktop/stupid/fudding/alloftheabove/findthebadmen...execute!!! Windows paths use backward slashes lol FAIL \\\ Wow, look at you! Ya got me. You're really on top of your game today!  |
|
|
|
stupid, or just fudding?
Well, his observation is neither smart, nor rational, so I'm gonna say C: All of the above C:/user/desktop/stupid/fudding/alloftheabove/findthebadmen...execute!!! |
|
|
|
I want people to be their highest power. That's all I meant, joint.
Now, state your point. I am intrigued.
As you wish. My cause...: It is for every individual...
Every individual includes me, by the way. Compared with...
I'm sick of you saying you knows whats best and that you know how to live my life...etc. etc....
You're not god....
Though, to some extent, this is besides the point because the whole intended message of my mental illness thread is that people do, in fact, wield an incredible amount of power and that they have control over their lives. Guess what I voted for in your poll? |
|
|
|
Rene Descartes is the mathematical philosopher who in addition to giving us Cartesian coordinates also wrote:
"I think therefore I am".
Interestingly his view on the validity of the input of his senses actually appealed to the existence of god: (Wikipedia)
"Descartes also wrote a response to skepticism about the existence of the external world. He argues that sensory perceptions come to him involuntarily, and are not willed by him. They are external to his senses, and according to Descartes, this is evidence of the existence of something outside of his mind, and thus, an external world. Descartes goes on to show that the things in the external world are material by arguing that god would not deceive him as to the ideas that are being transmitted, and that God has given him the "propensity" to believe that such ideas are caused by material things."
He basically used god's existence as an axiom and the validity of his senses is inferred as a corollary.
He did live in the early 17th Century, so this might have been to appease the very powerful Roman Catholic church. You can imagine he was quite a radical thinker for his time.
If you were to use Descartes's philosophy, not only are bitcoins backed by god but every image you see, perfume you smell and the texture of everything you touch are also backed by god.
I have a maths degree from Cambridge University and have thus have seen hundreds of mathematical proofs. I can honestly say that not a single one of them started with an axiom:
1) Suppose there is an omnipotent, omniscient being god, which we will call G.
Interesting though that Descartes asserted that there is essentially an absolute chasm between mental and physical reality which leads him to completely contradict himself. |
|
|
|
My cause...: It is for every individual...
Interesting. Dare I clarify the irony/hypocrisy? There is no contradiction. I selfishly enjoy the liberation of others. You seriously don't see the irony in what you said? Really? Edit: I'll give you a hint. It involves something that you accused me of and condemned me for. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the plus one and I think you do get what I mean but check this out, In my perspective what you just said is flawed(aka Not the Ultimate Truth, fake truth) in my interpretation(even though I know what your really saying I just want to show others my perspective of this type of thinking) I see what you're getting at. I think that's half of it, for true knowledge I believe is still useless without application. First you need to know what is true and correct, and then you need to act with that knowledge.
Lol. Yeah, the perspective issue is always the confusing part. I tried to address this problem earlier in this thread with my explanation of different levels of logic. We must always try to explain higher levels of logical syntax by first thrusting them into a lower level of logical syntax. The example I gave for this is how we, as 3rd dimensional beings try to explain the 4th dimension by acting as though it were the 2nd dimension and thus capable of being understood comprehensively by our intellect (e.g. by representing the 4th dimension as a tesseract on a piece of paper). |
|
|
|
I have boiled down the root causes of mental illness to 3 things; feedback and comments/challenges are encouraged.
1) Desire (I'll go with the Buddha on this one)
2) Attempting to control things that are beyond one's control (an offshoot of desire)
3) Identification with a false concept of identity.
Brief explanations:
1) Desire: Whenever a person has any type of desire, it implies that they are dissatisfied with what currently 'is.' Dissatisfaction implies discontent and a lack of happiness. If you want something that you don't currently have, this is a problem.
2) Attempting to control things that are beyond one's control: This is one of the leading causes of anxiety, anger, etc. How often do we define our own happiness according to the actions of other people, communities, governments, girlfriends/boyfriends, husbands/wives, etc.? How often do we become frustrated when our attempts to change these people, communities, governments, etc. fail?
3) Identification with a false concept of identity: Who are you? How did you reach that conclusion? According to all 11 definitions of identity in Webster's Dictionary, identity implies stability over time. Yet, how often do we identity/define ourselves conditionally? For example, let's say that someone says, "I am a teacher." Ok, great. Now, if your job is in jeopardy, then your identity is also in jeopardy! Now, in contrast, how many would have answered this question by saying "I am an observer"? For, as long as we live, we observe.
Note: I would expect one of the most common challenges to these assertions would be, "Well, what about chemical imbalances? What about genetic predispositions?" To this, I would remind everyone that environment vs. genes (i.e. nature vs. nurture) is a false dichotomy. It is known scientifically that interactions with our environment has effects on the genome which are then passed down and inherited generation by generation. Thus, I would assert that any 'genetic predispositions' for a mental illness are the results of the 3 root causes that I listed to begin with, but in previous generations.
Basically ignorance is the root of all mental illness. The Tibetan (Buddhism) philosophy has it right in my opinion as they acknowledge that their is two truths (but only one is the real truth, just stay with me). The fake truth is when you watch tv you see a silly cartoon cat chasing a mouse. The ultimate and real truth is you are viewing tiny dots of light. So I say ignorance is the root of all mental illness because its ignorant to think one exists at all or even acknowledge an "I", "me" or "you" unless they are talking about the ultimate one "I", the infinite self. I see what you're getting at. I think that's half of it, for true knowledge I believe is still useless without application. First you need to know what is true and correct, and then you need to act with that knowledge. I think it's kind of like a feedback loop wherein knolwedge --> action -- > more knowledge --> more action etc. with better refinements each time. I'd still give ya a +1 because I'm pretty sure I know what you mean. |
|
|
|
Dammit Garr you're making me jelly  But wasn't OgNasty claiming first spot  ? First jalapeno vs. first single I believe. |
|
|
|
Interesting, I imagine music would serve as a proxy clock. Each song is about 3 minutes long, etc.
I was going to use songs from various genres that are incredibly long relative to the average song. I had some pre-selected classical and heavy metal tracks (to name a couple of genres) that run as long as 30 minutes specifically because the average time it would take a normal person to complete the word search was far less than 30 minutes. |
|
|
|
I've become a complete convert to the bayesian way of thinking. I believe once there is a critical mass of researchers thinking in that manner it will go a long way towards improving the system. Second point is that researchers need to reduce their reliance on government funding in every way possible. The very basis of the funding is arguably unethical, on top of that it relies on a relatively easily corruptible, centralized authority to distribute funds for reasons other than merit. Science is very, very sick right now and I know I am not alone in this opinion. I don't have time now but once I have finished my current project I plan to spend some time developing a system to crowdsource funding of individual components of research proposals (to supplement government funding..for now) and crowdsource some of the tedious work when possible. I would encourage others to attempt the same in their free time.
I think Christopher Langan said it best about the peer-review system of meritocracy. First off, unless you have at least a masters degree (and usually only a doctoral degree, depending on the field), nobody in academia really cares about what you have to say. If I recall, Langan asserted that even those with advanced degrees can only make little "tentative moves" forward, but nobody is really able to do anything too radical to shake things up. Case in point, I took an undergraduate research and design class for which we had to submit a research proposal to the APA board then then conduct a scientific experiment. The APA board turned down my initial research proposal. You know why it was rejected? It wasn't because it was unethical or ridiculous...it was rejected because nobody had done it yet. In other words, I was not allowed to conduct an experiment simply because I had nobody to cite. What a load of bullshit. Well perhaps they wouldn't give you money because you haven't "shown you could do it" which is legitimate when it comes to novel experiments. The problem is that many people considered capable actually aren't, instead CV's and publications are used as a heuristic. This wasn't even about funding. It was a simple research experiment (quasi-experiment) using student participants from the Psychology 101 class. They didn't need to give a dime to any of us. In that case... SCIENCE FAIL. There is opportunity cost to everything though. What did you end up doing instead? My rejected proposal involved testing the effects of different types of music on a person's perception of the passage of time while conducting a simple task (e.g. such as a word search). My accepted proposal involved testing the effects of the presence of a clock in the room on a person's perception of the passage of time while conducting a simple task (e.g. such as a word search). One group conducted a word search with a clock present somewhere in the room. The 2nd group conducted the same word search, but the clock was removed from the room. Participants then answered a questionnaire about the task they completed, and one of the questions asked them how much time believe had elapsed from the time they began the word search until the time they finished. Results of the study indicated that participants believed that a longer period of time had elapsed when a clock was present in the room than when the clock was not present. The clock was actually placed behind them during the task so they could only see the clock upon entering the room, but not while performing the task or completing the questionnaire. |
|
|
|
I've become a complete convert to the bayesian way of thinking. I believe once there is a critical mass of researchers thinking in that manner it will go a long way towards improving the system. Second point is that researchers need to reduce their reliance on government funding in every way possible. The very basis of the funding is arguably unethical, on top of that it relies on a relatively easily corruptible, centralized authority to distribute funds for reasons other than merit. Science is very, very sick right now and I know I am not alone in this opinion. I don't have time now but once I have finished my current project I plan to spend some time developing a system to crowdsource funding of individual components of research proposals (to supplement government funding..for now) and crowdsource some of the tedious work when possible. I would encourage others to attempt the same in their free time.
I think Christopher Langan said it best about the peer-review system of meritocracy. First off, unless you have at least a masters degree (and usually only a doctoral degree, depending on the field), nobody in academia really cares about what you have to say. If I recall, Langan asserted that even those with advanced degrees can only make little "tentative moves" forward, but nobody is really able to do anything too radical to shake things up. Case in point, I took an undergraduate research and design class for which we had to submit a research proposal to the APA board then then conduct a scientific experiment. The APA board turned down my initial research proposal. You know why it was rejected? It wasn't because it was unethical or ridiculous...it was rejected because nobody had done it yet. In other words, I was not allowed to conduct an experiment simply because I had nobody to cite. What a load of bullshit. Well perhaps they wouldn't give you money because you haven't "shown you could do it" which is legitimate when it comes to novel experiments. The problem is that many people considered capable actually aren't, instead CV's and publications are used as a heuristic. This wasn't even about funding. It was a simple research experiment (quasi-experiment) using student participants from the Psychology 101 class. They didn't need to give a dime to any of us. |
|
|
|
I've become a complete convert to the bayesian way of thinking. I believe once there is a critical mass of researchers thinking in that manner it will go a long way towards improving the system. Second point is that researchers need to reduce their reliance on government funding in every way possible. The very basis of the funding is arguably unethical, on top of that it relies on a relatively easily corruptible, centralized authority to distribute funds for reasons other than merit. Science is very, very sick right now and I know I am not alone in this opinion. I don't have time now but once I have finished my current project I plan to spend some time developing a system to crowdsource funding of individual components of research proposals (to supplement government funding..for now) and crowdsource some of the tedious work when possible. I would encourage others to attempt the same in their free time.
I think Christopher Langan said it best about the peer-review system of meritocracy. First off, unless you have at least a masters degree (and usually only a doctoral degree, depending on the field), nobody in academia really cares about what you have to say. If I recall, Langan asserted that even those with advanced degrees can only make little "tentative moves" forward, but nobody is really able to do anything too radical to shake things up. Case in point, I took an undergraduate research design class for which we had to submit a research proposal to the APA board and then conduct a scientific experiment. The APA board turned down my initial research proposal. You know why it was rejected? It wasn't because it was unethical or ridiculous...it was rejected because nobody had done it yet. In other words, I was not allowed to conduct an experiment simply because I had nobody to cite. What a load of bullshit. |
|
|
|
I placed an order for 2 SC Singles (upgrade). My order number is 1801, but it's meaningless since it's a bankwire transfer and I'll have to wait for them to send me wiring instructions, and then arrange for the transfer and wait for it to be processed and confirmed.
Can anyone confirm that the pre-orders will be shipped in order according to who paid first, and not simply who ordered first? |
|
|
|
|
This is exactly why my last "mining rig" is a top-of-the-line kick ass gaming computer.
|
|
|
|
The test orders that Steve and I put through to their database entries were 1650-1655.
So 1656 and 1657 are the lowest order numbers after the page was made public.
Any word on what the highest order number is at present? |
|
|
|
There have been many studies that say that the most satisfying jobs are those that involve helping people. So why are the psych professions the cause of so much drug addiction by doctors and suicides by therapists? Simple, we have put the weight of the world on their shoulders. Their 'patients' are created by our monstrous social machines that chew us up and spit us out. Anyone left behind is relegated to a community outside their own..... Ya know what... I can't talk about this anymore. This system is totally fucked for the next 5-7 generations and that's only if we start to do something about it today. That's why I quit the system. The only person I can change is me.
It is because the methods pyschs and sociologists use are largely ineffective and the people who do it know that the literature is not reliable. The anxiety/etc experienced by these people results from realizing they don't know wtf they are doing. There are people with problems who can be helped somehow, but no good, practical algorithm for figuring out how is available. The field needs to focus resources on assessing effectiveness properly and stop throwing a million sociologists with notebooks at the problem. The brain is just a really, really complex machine we don't have the schematics or source code for. If something is worth doing it is worth doing right and I have come to realize over the last year (I am a neuropharm grad student) much of biomed, psychology, and sociology is not being done right. These people need to start figuring out the power of math and real stats. I agree, most psychologists and sociologists don't know what they're doing. Much of the problem is that psychology and sociology is treated in the classroom as an isolated discipline. If you try to bring up mathematics and try to use it to support a therapeutic model, good luck. Believe me, I've tried. Nobody wants to hear, for example, how the mathematical proof of 'the boundary of a boundary = 0' has implications for therapy. Moreover, in research and statistics classes where mathematics do come into play, people over-emphasize the importance of mathematics to the point where they ignore the limitations of statistical analysis. Correlation is often mistaken for causation, validity for soundness, and everyone thinks that just because something is published that it must be correct. Case in point of the stupidity that I was taught, I had a social policy professor claim that "the cause of oppression and injustice in society is the result of bad social policies," to which she added, "which means that the only way to remove oppression and injustice is to create good social policies." I raised my hand in class and said "bullshit." Assuming her premise is true (which it's not), then it would be axiomatic that you need to remove ALL 'bad' social policies and start over from scratch. I firmly believe that the things I am talking about in this thread are going to become more prominent in the future. I am making a bold statement when I say this, and I know it can come off as very arrogant. But believe me, I've put in an incredible amount of time formulating these ideas. I acknowledge that most of them are not new. But, they didn't come from the predominant psychological and sociological models. They come from biology, math, quantum mechanics, philosophy and logic, physics, chemistry, etc. in addition to psychology and sociology. To this extent, the ideas presented here are comprehensive in scope, and there's a ton of information to support my claims that I haven't yet posted. |
|
|
|
Although because the price of BFL stuffs is tied to fiat, if BTC goes up I'd be losing coin.
hehehe. *dons the tinfoil hat* Which is precisely why the released whne they did. The BTC price had just lulled down to about $6.40 Then after all the knucle heads get done ruashing in to be first the price will jump back up, maybe to voer $7 from all the rest of the knucle heads trying to buy BTC. ;p *forgets to remove tinfoil hat* So, let me get this staight. First shipment is not 'scheduled' until Oct but we are happy to give them money now 3 months+++ before then? they can double up by investing it with pirate by then Watch the value of BTC tank temporarily during the first few weeks after these things start reaching consumers. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
