Without the state funding universities and defence and without IP laws there would be no Internet.
supporting that is going to be a difficult experiment to conduct If most of the world still had state-owned and operated telecom, and the US hadn't broken up the monopoly of AT&T, one wonders whether there would have been an internet like we have today... Why didn't it emerge elsewhere? The answer is that it did. France had their own separate internet, Minitel, state sponsored (because France Telecom was still a PTT), which may be why it never made it outside the borders. By the time France got around to splitting the PTT, it was 1991 and they were well behind. I think they finally turned it off a few years ago. It was pretty good despite its limitations at the time. IT might have been much more successful internationally, were it not ... national. And there was the X.25, x.75, and x.400 networks for email, mostly privately supported and paid by business but inter-networked. It was a very reliable protocol that didn't rely so much on line quality. Rumor has it you could run it over an unbroken barbed wire fence. |
|
|
|
...snip... Imagine that? We are not yet entirely socialist despite common opinion. One of the last vestiges of private health care for emergency services remains. https://www.findurgentcare.com/what-is-urgent-care/Probably it will get outlawed in the next ObamaCare update since the original was designed to fail so that it could be endlessly expanded. A quick search shows about 8 of these closer than my closest state funded hospital ER served by ambulances, so cheaper and faster. Interesting - we have that too in the form of religious hospitals with emergency facilities - but how are they paid for? Pay for service, or insurance. Almost always much much less than the state hospital rates. We have the religious ones too, they usually cost more, but often still less than the state facility, and fewer and further between. |
|
|
|
...snip...
That's impossible to prove as its based on an alternative history in which the real Internet created by state funded bodies doesn't exist. Its also off topic - the question is whether there is a place for competition and market forces in emergency rooms. My view is that there isn't - people who are ill/injured and drunk/incapacitated are not in a position to make rational choices about what emergency room to go to.
Simply because States have taken control of much industrial production is not proof that it must be so. It begs the question. No. The state does pure research and infrastructure. There is no private market for subatomic research like CERN or for carbon studies like the UMIST research that produced graphene. Private enterprise takes the outcomes and does innovative things with them. We have no idea what amazing products may come from the CERN work or from graphene. Our modern successful societies are based on a synergy between the two. Still begging the question. That it is, is not proof that it must be so. There may be a better way. You have not offered one. If you have an idea how to care for drunk ladies who break their ankles in high heels that is better than a taxpayer funded emergency room, please feel free to offer it. I did, you ignored it. I'd drive them to the urgent care facility. It is closer, and less expensive, and doesn't rely on the taxpayer. The ambulance drives past a few of them on the way to the closest hospital to my home. Whats an urgent care facility if not an emergency room? Some kind of American thing I assume? Imagine that? We are not yet entirely socialist despite common opinion. One of the last vestiges of private health care for emergency services remains. https://www.findurgentcare.com/what-is-urgent-care/Probably it will get outlawed in the next ObamaCare update since the original was designed to fail so that it could be endlessly expanded. A quick search shows about 8 of these closer than my closest state funded hospital ER served by ambulances, so cheaper and faster. |
|
|
|
...snip...
That's impossible to prove as its based on an alternative history in which the real Internet created by state funded bodies doesn't exist. Its also off topic - the question is whether there is a place for competition and market forces in emergency rooms. My view is that there isn't - people who are ill/injured and drunk/incapacitated are not in a position to make rational choices about what emergency room to go to.
Simply because States have taken control of much industrial production is not proof that it must be so. It begs the question. No. The state does pure research and infrastructure. There is no private market for subatomic research like CERN or for carbon studies like the UMIST research that produced graphene. Private enterprise takes the outcomes and does innovative things with them. We have no idea what amazing products may come from the CERN work or from graphene. Our modern successful societies are based on a synergy between the two. Still begging the question. That it is, is not proof that it must be so. There may be a better way. You have not offered one. If you have an idea how to care for drunk ladies who break their ankles in high heels that is better than a taxpayer funded emergency room, please feel free to offer it. I did, you ignored it. I'd drive them to the urgent care facility. It is closer, and less expensive, and doesn't rely on the taxpayer. The ambulance drives past a few of them on the way to the closest hospital to my home. |
|
|
|
the cautious atmosphere in here affirms my belief that we'll go to $450 and beyond over the next weeks.
Well I wouldn't say it's precisely cautious, there's lots of excitement, gif animated rockets, it's happening and all that. However people aren't getting loans to enter (yet!) so that's a bullish signal. Did I mention that I had a call today via localbitcoins from a guy who had sold his car in order to buy? |
|
|
|
...snip...
That's impossible to prove as its based on an alternative history in which the real Internet created by state funded bodies doesn't exist. Its also off topic - the question is whether there is a place for competition and market forces in emergency rooms. My view is that there isn't - people who are ill/injured and drunk/incapacitated are not in a position to make rational choices about what emergency room to go to.
Simply because States have taken control of much industrial production is not proof that it must be so. It begs the question. No. The state does pure research and infrastructure. There is no private market for subatomic research like CERN or for carbon studies like the UMIST research that produced graphene. Private enterprise takes the outcomes and does innovative things with them. We have no idea what amazing products may come from the CERN work or from graphene. Our modern successful societies are based on a synergy between the two. Still begging the question. That it is, is not proof that it must be so. There may be a better way. |
|
|
|
Without the state funding universities and defence and without IP laws there would be no Internet.
Do you even know what the internet is? because I can only assume with such a silly statement that you have no idea. It is a set of communication protocols for computers to be able to communicate with each other. This can be done over very small distances, one room really. Then it can build over time. Those communication protocols would have been developed regardless. The slow development of the internet before it was commercialised and took off is another example of how inefficient the state is. That's impossible to prove as its based on an alternative history in which the real Internet created by state funded bodies doesn't exist. Its also off topic - the question is whether there is a place for competition and market forces in emergency rooms. My view is that there isn't - people who are ill/injured and drunk/incapacitated are not in a position to make rational choices about what emergency room to go to. Simply because States have taken control of much industrial production, medicine, education, is not proof that it must be so. It begs the question. |
|
|
|
Without the state funding universities and defence and without IP laws there would be no Internet.
supporting that is going to be a difficult experiment to conduct Not really. The private market existed while the Internet was being created by state backed bodies. The absence of an alternative information network is empirical evidence that without the state funding of universities and defence there would be no Internet. Where is this private market of which you speak? Alternate history? If you are talking about the concurrent marketplace, you might as well flip this silly assertion on its head and assert that there would be no internet without the private market and open source free software unprotected by IP. And there were alternative information networks.... Orange Book anyone? |
|
|
|
Without the state funding universities and defence and without IP laws there would be no Internet.
supporting that is going to be a difficult experiment to conduct |
|
|
|
I invested only 20% bitcoin, the rest gold and silver - what an idiot!
This sort of blunder self-corrects in a few months. (I only invested 1%  ) I had a call from a new investor in bitcoin today. He had sold his car to have some money to buy in and found me on localbitcoin. I think he is going in for about 150% of what he can afford. Maybe he is the smart one? |
|
|
|
Ultimately this proof rests on whether human beings can truly understand what God is and that its concept cannot be derived simply as an extension or ultimate regression of something which exists in fact. In which case, God doesn't really exist in your mind, only some superficial idea you are generically referring to as God. But obviously, humans can't completely conceive of God, or maybe they can...
Ineffable |
|
|
|
You are correct, we don't 'create' anything because everything always existed and has happened before us. We are just channeling, changing and controlling, thereby, basically creating with our minds.
So, are we "creating" or are we just "channeling?" You can't have both? And if there is exactly zero factual corroborated and reproducible evidence for any of this, why is it relevant? I guess for you, you hope to be the very first person to actually have factual, corroborated, and reproducible evidence? I wonder what are the chances of that, since you'd be the first human (maybe second) to do this in 250,000 years. It's very simple to understand when you understand what infinity means. If the universe is infinite, everything has already happened infinitely and everything you can think of exists everywhere. We call it creating, though it's not really creating anything because you cannot create more than infinity. But it's a good word. We are conscious creators. Like in Zelazny's Amber Chronicles? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_AmberPerhaps this one has walked the Logrus |
|
|
|
|
If I were following-da-money, the DDOS today is bullish short-mid term. It looks like it was orchestrated to drive the price lower as it was coordinated with eating up the bids and preventing new bids suggesting that the initiators are looking to buy much lower. It appears most of the DDOS activity is on that side of the order book historically as well, which makes sense sociologically.
The geeks are fleecing the wall-streeters...
It is the 5th of November after all.
|
|
|
|
Back on topic: There is no such thing as a market in healthcare when the people who need it are drunk and injured. Unless you plan to leave them fend for themselves, you require an emergency room paid for from taxation.
All the close emergency care rooms near me (I'm in the US) are of the "Urgent Care" type. These are not hospitals, the state ambulances don't serve them, and drive on by to the state hospital. But, a near innocent bystander (or relative or friend) could give me much better health service, and for a lower cost by simply driving my drunken-ankle-broken self to one of these Urgent Care facilities. The notion that the tax-supported state is NEEDED for healthcare is a weird notion. It is in no way necessary to put a government authority between myself and my doctor, it is simply more convenient for societies that want to absolve themselves of caring for each other and leave that to the men in white coats (and the armed men in blue coats to collect the fees). It also serves the state to have the personal information about what healthcare I receive. Our government has no shortage of curiosity about such personal information despite their apparent inability to keep it private. |
|
|
|
Here's a place where the free market doesn't apply for the free market requires rational actors; there's nothing rational about getting hurt, passing out, and waking up in a hospital with a bill.
...
Why would the free market not apply? What can be more rational then planning properly for emergencies that involve you living or dying? If anything it's irrational to hope that some government run "free" emergency care will help you out. Lets take a typical Saturday night admission to an emergency room. Girl gets hammered and falls on her high heels and breaks her ankle. Can a drunk person be expected to make rational plans? No. Do we want to live in a society where a drunk woman with a broken ankle is supposed to look after her own care? No. Under these circumstances, there can't be a market solution. So in your example this woman made no prior emergency plans whatsoever via insurance and to top it off got drunk and the rest of society now should be forced to take care of her. We'll in that case why bother with any market solutions at all if people don't need to plan for their own lives. Talk about perverse incentives. Correct. The market has its uses. The care for the sick, drunk and injured is not one of them. Sure it does, the market is operation through the government which reaps huge taxes through the liqueur tax. They have a strong interest in encouraging people to become drunk, that they get hurt is just a fringe benefit for them as it validates the nanny state. Government is a market participant, it is just that one participant that has the right to kill you and take all you have if you happen to be in a geography it controls, but in order to maintain folks in that geography it only harvests those it can most easily get away with, such as this foolish woman who didn't bother to remove her Louboutins after getting drunk. |
|
|
|
Does everybody realize that public opinion is changing positive towards Bitcoin?
And you thinck that. why  Step one: The public is starting to form an opinion. That alone is positive. In my straw polls, I am coming across an increasing frequency of folks that have at least heard of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Mathematical proof of boundary of a boundary = 0, and the sameness-in-difference principle, lead us to understand that we are fundamentally inseparable from the rest of the Real Universe.
Can you explain this... I can try, but probably not. The subject material is pretty dense and takes a lot into consideration. ... Sorry, I tried, but I still don't quite get it. It sounds like you are trying to apply abstract math to specific physics to show that what is actually completely physically separate in things like chemistry, physics, and quantum particles, is actually not separate because of an abstract mathematical concept. I'm not sure I'm ready to give up physical reality for abstract mathematics yet. You don't have to "give up" physical reality, but it does require that you recognize that physical reality obeys, and is subservient to, mathematical laws. The idea is to build model that is internally consistent at a greater level of generality than all other models including the scientific model (which doesn't even permit formulating a model of reality based upon the very mathematical principles it depends upon). One might flip that over and suggest that mathematical laws are derived from observing physical reality. Newton and the apple, and all that. Just saying "the set of all sets, includes itself" is not all that meaningful. Nor is "fundamental inseparability" without stuff to which such a theory might apply. The notion of what is subservient to which is not all that meaningful. Math serves to describe the physical world, so to then suggest that the physical world "obeys" in "subservience" to mathematics is going to raise some questions that may be difficult to answer with anything other than "well, we just haven't discovered all the mathematics yet". All that says is that we haven't yet made observations of the physical world to the level where we have the language to describe it. LHC, E8, and all the rest are on a path to developing that language, but are "subservient" to the engineering effort to make the observations. They serve each other. |
|
|
|
That was the first of the many 1 million dollars orders that will follow.
Yes, have had some approach me for off-exchange transactions larger than this, within the last week or two. There is more demand than can be filled at the moment, so hang on. It is going to be an interesting week. (Why they think I have so many coins for sale?) |
|
|
|
Please accept my apology for the English. As you may or may not know, we make the Bitcoin Specie pieces. These are the pocket change of Bitcoin.  We have incorporated some Chinese into our designs and are looking to do more of this.  Here is an opportunity for you, if you have a talent for calligraphy and would like your work immortalized in precious metals. We are looking to improve our work with some hand drawn (and ultimately sculpted) calligraphy. If you would like to participate in this, please feel welcome to post images of your work. Specifically the two already in use, and a new one for "Spirit of Satoshi" We look for simplicity, artistic expression, and meaning. |
|
|
|
|
The current administration can get more mileage out of blaming it on "patriots" or "tea party" mentality. Bitcoin is not sufficiently partisan for it to matter to political spin. Its is more of a systemic issue than a partisan one.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
