|
I had the same problem with my setup. Strangely, it turned out to be my CPU.
|
|
|
|
For sale is my buddy's fiberglass 1996 sprint 262 fishing boat. You can compare this boat to Nitros fiberglass bass boats. Sprint is a sm Texas company that hand makes these boats, also the transom is guaranteed for life. The hull has never been patched or repaired. This boat is made out of fiberglass and it cuts through the water like butter, meaning you wont be bouncing around like on a aluminum boat. It comes with a 88 HP Johnson V4 'special' motor with very low hours. The motor has been compression tested and it's perfect with 120 psi across the board. Runs perfect, holds idle even when cold, and will start in two turns even after a long winter wait. My buddy also has a hose adapter he can hook up to the motor so you can run it. The boat is registered in Illinois under his name and the registration is current, with a clean, clear title in hand. The boat has two live wells, a Minkota 55 ft/lb trolling motor, he has put in two brand new marine grade batteries in -- trolling motor battery is separate from the main motor. Has Lowrance fish finder and depth gauge. He can include all the state required accessories like life vest and paddle ect (that stuff adds up!) if we can agree on a reasonable price. He's not looking to give this boat away, as he is an avid fisherman and will continue to use this boat regardless if it sells. Its $6500 obo, BTC or cash only. He MAY do a partial trade + cash/BTC as he is interested in motorcycles, cars, hunting bows, and things that go 'BANG!'    |
|
|
|
oh my miscreanity, oh my.  I knew it. You don't know shit. This thread is worthless. you're right. i don't know shit. move along...  |
|
|
|
Yep. The problem with nuclear radiation is that it follows the laws of probability. Let's say exposure to 20 rem will give 1 person cancer. Interestingly, if 20 people are exposed to 1 rem, then 1 person will still get cancer. If 200 people are exposed to .1 rem, then 1 person will still get cancer. If 2000 people are exposed to .01 rem, then 1 person will still get cancer. |
|
|
|
oh my miscreanity, oh my. I knew it. You don't know shit. This thread is worthless. |
|
|
|
My forecast based upon my research in precious metals -- keep in mind I've only been learning about precious metals for about 3 months and I did not read through this thread: 1) Gold short-term outlook = down 2) Gold mid-term outlook =  ? 3) Gold long-term outlook = up I do not believe the US dollar can sustain itself over time. Gold will always remain useful for industrial purposes or for jewelry. It will continue to be a status symbol whether or not it is used to back a currency. Moreover, if and when the US dollar sees a significant decline in value, I would expect to see a positive correlation between gold and Bitcoin. I'm looking to buy a little bit of gold right around $1500, and then more if it hits $1400. 3 mo 'eh? you see there guys? now you know you're in trouble. I'm truly not sure what to make of your response. I'm genuinely trying to learn about the precious metals market, so if you could elaborate a bit upon what you mean, it'd be helpful  Son; read the thread. ... I asked what you meant by the response, not what the thread was about. And judging by the way you called me "son" coupled with your previous post, "as the USD shoots up to..." I'd rather not wade through 62 pages of what is likely to be a series of cryptographic clues (aka opinions) which have been intentionally made to be indirect. I'm asking for your direct explanation, and I highly, highly doubt that you have some kind of clairvoyant powers to know for certain what's going to happen in the precious metals market. I have a feeling that you want me to read the thread in its entirety so you can feel satisfied that someone is meticulously looking over the details in a thread that you yourself created. You really came off as an arrogant dick the way you phrased that. I'm not here to bump your self-esteem. |
|
|
|
My forecast based upon my research in precious metals -- keep in mind I've only been learning about precious metals for about 3 months and I did not read through this thread: 1) Gold short-term outlook = down 2) Gold mid-term outlook = ? 3) Gold long-term outlook = up I do not believe the US dollar can sustain itself over time. Gold will always remain useful for industrial purposes or for jewelry. It will continue to be a status symbol whether or not it is used to back a currency. Moreover, if and when the US dollar sees a significant decline in value, I would expect to see a positive correlation between gold and Bitcoin. I'm looking to buy a little bit of gold right around $1500, and then more if it hits $1400. 3 mo 'eh? you see there guys? now you know you're in trouble. I'm truly not sure what to make of your response. I'm genuinely trying to learn about the precious metals market, so if you could elaborate a bit upon what you mean, it'd be helpful |
|
|
|
My forecast based upon my research in precious metals -- keep in mind I've only been learning about precious metals for about 3 months and I did not read through this thread: 1) Gold short-term outlook = down 2) Gold mid-term outlook = ? 3) Gold long-term outlook = up I do not believe the US dollar can sustain itself over time. Gold will always remain useful for industrial purposes or for jewelry. It will continue to be a status symbol whether or not it is used to back a currency. Moreover, if and when the US dollar sees a significant decline in value, I would expect to see a positive correlation between gold and Bitcoin. I'm looking to buy a little bit of gold right around $1500, and then more if it hits $1400. |
|
|
|
A GeForce 210? Are you serious? That has to be one of the absolute worst cards for mining that is even capable of mining at all. But don't worry, for there is a way to increase your hash rate with this card: Enable CPU mining. That should at least double the hash rate you're getting from just the GPU. I wish I could say I was joking, but I'm not - your card really is that bad. Or you could just buy a better graphics card.  You could do this, but don't. Turn off your GeForce 210 immediately because you are losing money due to electricity. CPU mining Bitcoins is also a way to lose money. |
|
|
|
It seems I touched a nerve when I said that getting better at playing a zero-sum game isn't a good way to make the world a better place.
I was thinking of day-traders at the time; people who don't care what asset they're buying and selling but just try to buy low and sell high to make a profit. Or high-frequency traders who try to be just a tiny bit faster executing transactions to take advantage of tiny inefficiencies in markets.
Probably I don't have a deep enough understanding of the value of liquidity in asset markets or a deep enough appreciation for their role in creating market prices, but it seems to me the world would get along just fine without them spending all their time and effort competing against each other.
I wasn't thinking of competition in general as being a zero-sum game, because in general it is not. Competition drives efficiency, and efficiency (creating more by using less) is what makes the world a better place -- assuming that the thing you're making more efficient has a positive effect on the world. Competing to build the most efficient bomb or assault rifle is not a world-improving activity.
To bring it back to Bitcoin: competition between Bitcoin miners is a zero-sum game for the miners, but if you think that Bitcoin will make the world a better place (I do) then the competition to be more efficient at mining is a net positive for the world as a whole.
Nice post. Actually, I question whether competition drives efficiency long-term. To me, it seems that competition for profit is primary and that one means of obtaining this objective is to provide efficient products and services. However, long-term, I think this actually hurts efficiency. While a given product (e.g. I-Phone/I-Pad) may be more efficient than its competitors, competition also means that this product will be outdated in a very short period of time. How efficient is a product or service if it is already behind the curve 3-6 months after its release? While an I-phone/I-pad may be an efficient product relative to its competitors, the process by which the product was created seems extremely inefficient as a huge amount of resources is devoted to creating a product which will become outdated very shortly. I need to do some thinking about how this applies to Bitcoin as it is still in its infancy. |
|
|
|
|
I wish you the best, Zhou.
|
|
|
|
I just wanted to wish you all a happy day. |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79755.0The article indirectly demonstrates that money is different from simple exchange, but the intended purpose of the article is to identify a fundamental flaw with money as I described above (i.e. it displaces subjective value). In your example about 100 people in a room, "collectively agreed on" and "spontaneously arrived at" appear synonymous despite the apparent linguistic contradiction. Regardless, if and when the phenomenon of labeling certain things as more valuable occurs, a higher operative syntax is created in tandem which effects the perceived value of all other goods. A man standing in the room of 100 holding a loaf of bread will find himself changing his perceived value of that loaf of bread as he now begins to consider others' valuation of it. And, I bet it won't even matter how hungry he is...this becomes a secondary concern. This is why people risk stress/jail/death for money -- there is a higher syntax at work influencing their decisions of which they are largely unaware. I seem to remember that in the story of King Lear, the king's youngest daughter vowed never to marry, for she would have to divide her love and devote part of it to someone other than her father. Clearly she was confusing two somewhat different concepts which happened to share the same name. Similarly, there's money, which, to keep things simple I'll define as: a useful tool to facilitate exchanges of 'stuff'. A consequence of exchanging stuff is that another concept arises, called: 'price'. Money and price are two different ideas. Do they have to co-exist? Perhaps not. Maybe a society could use a rudimentary system of tokens, but still be too primitive to have developed arithmetic. Conversely, perhaps a society could have excellent notions of pricing, but never thought of any "special token" to facilitate transactions. I find it interesting and have to agree that most people readily defer thinking about yet another concept: 'value',... "how much are these shoes worth? 80 bucks." Not how much do they cost, or what is their price? But what are they worth. Is it intellectual laziness? Indoctrination? Lack of education? Complete faith in a market's ability to determine 'fair value'? I would suggest that it's a combination of all of those factors, and perhaps a few others. However, since the concepts are different, I disagree with your complaint that money displaces subjective value. For example, I am capable of imagining both concepts at the same time. And I disagree the conclusion that money is therefore flawed. Money is just the tool. Humans are at fault if they don't use it properly.If you click the link that I posted to the article I wrote and read through my responses to others' critiques, you will find that I clarify the point to mean that this displacement of value is something that we do have control over, but many of us choose to relinquish that control and submit to the concept of "value" as constructed through multiplied propagation. In other words, whereas you (and pretty much anyone else) can separate these concepts and evaluate them differently, on the whole it is a largely unconscious process, and people are largely unaware of how money influences their interpretation of value -- we allow ourselves to be influenced by it. I agree money is just a tool, and to that extent I concede money is not necessarily flawed. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine a scenario in which some other form of money including Bitcoin, gold, or anything else, would not create this negative influence (I still contend that its influence is a negative one). So, while money itself may not be flawed, I would suggest that allowing it real-world application is a flawed decision with negative consequences. The article I wrote calls into question whether the benefits that money has in a global economy are worth the negative consequences. |
|
|
|
|
I smell an advertising meme...
|
|
|
|
This is your brain:  This is your brain on Bitcoin:  |
|
|
|
I have never voted in my life.
+1 I registered to vote while living in California shortly after I turned 18. Within two weeks I received a jury summons. Thanks for the privilege, assholes. |
|
|
|
A colloquial article is so much easier to read and absorb than a purely analytical presentation of facts or personally held beliefs. The way you use colorful metaphors lets the reader “live your beliefs” without feeling the need to agree with them or argue against them. Very nice!
Thank you |
|
|
|
To preclude money from society is to preclude trade.
And to say that society can exist without money is to say that nothing along that ordinal range of goods can ever be exchanged by anybody to anybody else. THAT is an absurd notion.
I disagree with this, and I wrote an article about how money is demonstrably different from simple exchange. As I wrote in my article, money is constructed through collective agreement. Money is not "constructed" and it is certainly not "constructed through collective agreement." When two people trade, they themselves agree are on the terms of the trade. When another set of people trade, they arrive at different terms. And yet a third pair of traders will arrive at a third set of trading terms. None of this is "collective", but rather a spontaneous occurrence. No two people who trade require the agreement on the value of their goods by anybody else. You have something I want, I have something you want, we come to an agreement and trade. No input from anybody else is needed. As we see humans often trading with each other, we might notice that they tend to start using a common good for these exchanges. This good is not "collectively agreed on," but spontaneously arrived at. The name given to whatever people tend to trade with is money. Your example of the gold watch and the guitar is a silly one. The reason you'd prefer the gold watch (which you don't want to use) over the guitar (which you do want to use) is because you can then trade the watch for a guitar + some bread, both of which you want. I simply do not understand what is so difficult or contentious about the idea that money is intrinsic to trade... Set 100 people in a room and give them random stuff. As they start trading with each other for things they want, they'll begin to value certain stuff for its usefulness in trading that stuff to others. It is impossible to avoid this phenomenon. What's the link to this article of yours, which tries to argue that money is demonstrably different from exchange? The article indirectly demonstrates that money is different from simple exchange, but the intended purpose of the article is to identify a fundamental flaw with money as I described above (i.e. it displaces subjective value). In your example about 100 people in a room, "collectively agreed on" and "spontaneously arrived at" appear synonymous despite the apparent linguistic contradiction. Regardless, if and when the phenomenon of labeling certain things as more valuable occurs, a higher operative syntax is created in tandem which effects the perceived value of all other goods. A man standing in the room of 100 holding a loaf of bread will find himself changing his perceived value of that loaf of bread as he now begins to consider others' valuation of it. And, I bet it won't even matter how hungry he is...this becomes a secondary concern. This is why people risk stress/jail/death for money -- there is a higher syntax at work influencing their decisions of which they are largely unaware. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
