Who says it's a mathematical operation?  Who says it's random?  It's you, and the only reason you believe it is because everyone else does too (ad populum is a logical fallacy, though it doesn't make something less pluasible).  And by the way, random is a bullshit word, anyway -- "It was caused by randomness."  Go figure that one out.  Additionally, absolutely every single definition of anything is essentially a theory of it; we live in a world of theories whether you like it or not.  This includes operational definitions which are the basis for knowing what the hell it is you want to measure in the first place.  When you say you want "results," you are asking for the results of what happens when one piece of reality (us) tries to measure some other piece of reality, without taking into account the entire system in which we both inhabit.  But, without understanding the 'theory of theories,' (aka Universe) you are simply asking for results to pile atop a nonexistent foundation.

Fortunately, the things that help us learn about the 'theory of theories' are self-evident.  The 'results' you are looking for are an indirect route to knowledge whereas direct experience is, well, a direct route to knowledge. "What one can prove, he does not know.  What one knows, he cannot prove." ~ Me

On a side note, I wasn't trying to form a rebuttal.  I was following up on the 'double slit experiment' because it was mentioned by someone else.

Double-slit experiment implies that we literally create reality (keep in mind that a lone experiment is not the sole basis for my reasoning).  This experiment shows that at the quantum level, there are observable and detectable changes directly influenced by observation.  But, when you scale up to macro levels, this effect becomes increasingly smaller until it is undetectable at the systemic level.

Believe it or not, this implies that no reality exists independent of an individual's perception of it.  The changes are undetectable at the largest level because you ARE the largest level, and thus you don't notice the changes because you are the change.  In this way, a paradox is formed wherein change at the micro-level implies a static reality, and where no change at the macro-level implies pervasive, Universal change, hence the wave-particle paradox.

TL;DR:  Everyone is essentially a mini-universe, like a holographic or isomorphic image of the entire Universe, or the set of all sets.

I don't have skype

Still interested...I want to get whooped.

Citations don't prove anything either, and neither do published, peer-reviewed articles that accompany them.  Have you ever really sat and READ most of these research articles?  The vast majority of them are either horribly designed, terribly written, assert conclusions that simply cannot be implied from test results, or have results that are themselves fabricated by the researchers for personal gain or notoriety.  On the other hand, creating a research design to test the effects of intention on a random computer process is pretty hard to fuck up, so I'm more inclined to trust what I heard, especially when I have overwhelming amounts of first hand corollary experience that give credence to its plausibility.

Also, I'd bet that for many people, adherence to the belief of the infallibility of the peer-review system only discourages them from actually finding the reference article and dissecting it.  "Oh, so it looks like you got some good citations here.  You must be well informed!  A+!!!"

Well said.

No, it's more like I simply don't want to waste my time looking up a citation because some stranger thinks he needs it.  And apparently it's not a standard world-wide if they keep giving me A's on papers in which every single reference is completely fabricated.

I don't have to back up anything.  Take what I said or leave it.  I said earlier that I remember learning about it in high school science class.  I already know that when I think about moving my arm, I can move my arm, so it's already established that mental thoughts affect physical reality.  Not sure why this is so much harder to believe.  The peer review system is arguably the single largest obstacle to scientific progress, so I don't really give a shit about citations.

I've been known to make up entire bibliographies for my papers in college and grad school (Big Dog Publishing Company, anyone?).  Somehow I keep getting A's.

If you need it go find it.  I don't need it.

+1

Scientists took professional archers and did some brain scans while they were shooting at a target.

They found out that right before the archers released their arrows, their was a momentary calming of their brain waves.  The archers KNEW and FELT that they were going to hit the target -- there was no "if."  They put their faith in their skill and they let the arrow go.  Unprofessional archers didn't show this same calming of brain waves.  They had doubt, they lacked faith.

All I know is that according to my experience, shifting my attitude has brought success without even really trying.  I'm a lot like you, "boss," in the sense that I spent the vast majority of high school and my undergrad college years despising authority, loathing the hoops I was seemingly forced to jump through by spending 18+ years in an educational bureaucracy so I could actually get my foot in the door somewhere, watching the news and media with increasing distaste for what I thought was the obvious downfall of societal values and thinking that everyone was ignorant to the things that would make the world a better place.  Rap music?  Fuck rappers, fuck the Kardashians, fuck Jersey Shore, fuck Enron, fuck Bush, and fuck you if you don't see that I'm a critical thinker and that my passion for answering life's most important questions makes me more wise, sophisticated, and just than you will ever be.  Take off the goggles dude, you're all fucking blind.

But, when I started to shift my attitude to see the good in all I had considered bad, to see the just in the unjust, to take sole and utter responsibility for my well-being, and, most importantly, to recognize the ultimate and pervasive freedom of my own mind by understanding the power of interpretation, amazing things started to happen.  I define reality, and through defining it I literally construct it.  I can be the richest man or the poorest man, but the choice is mine and mine alone to decide which I will be.  

There is no "out there" independent of what's "in here."  Projection is not only a defense mechanism, it's a truism, and I realized that the only reason I saw authority as trying to manipulate and control everything is because it was the same approach I was taking.  I was trying to control and manipulate by preaching my ideals to anyone I could find, especially late at night when I was left alone to my thoughts and they were bursting to get out.  How could they not agree with me?  How could they not see my ideas are special?  How could they not understand that the depth of my thoughts was an obvious correlation to my unwavering desire to make the world a better place?

As it turns out, I had simply invested too much of myself -- my emotions, my ego, my values, etc. -- in these ideas, and by preaching them I was simply being selfish.  I wanted to change the world in a way that my ego wanted, and I wanted to make the world just according to what my ego considered just.  I was the person I was criticizing.  I was a CEO, Bush, Enron, a rap star, a Kardashian, and a Jersey Shore nut all wrapped into one, and I didn't like myself then.  It took me a long time to figure out why.  In fact, I'm still figuring it out.  I advise you to do the same.

There's a contrasting idea that suggests the "elite" (for lack of a better term, and it's short and to the point) don't become the elite by trampling over the "peons" or trying to control them.  Rather, they have a unique mindset that distinguishes them from the people lower down on the SES ladder.

I saw a documentary where it was suggested that while the vast majority live according to beliefs such as "what you put in is what you get out of it,"  "money only comes from hard work,"  "I need to continuously plan for my future needs,"  etc.,   the elite think in terms of "money comes easily,"  "I have an abundance of all that I need," and "what matters is how I think and act right here, right now."

As a result, a self-fulfilling prophecy is created and those on the lower rungs are constantly coming up with conspiracy theories of how the elite are continuously trying to control/manipulate them.  They also find that money does only come from hard work, that they always need to be concerned about future stability, and salaried wages are fair because you get paid for exactly what you put in.  In reality, it could simply be a mindset.

I've noticed truth to this in people with depression.  Those with depression continually think about what they DON'T have, and they think about their lack of what they want and need.  As a result, they continue to not have the things they want and need.  

Additionally, many depressed people seem to think it is more important to be "good" or "perfect" than it is to be happy.  When you ask them to identify the "good" people they know, they are likely to identify people who also have depression/anxiety and who hold similar values and beliefs (e.g. that money only comes through hard work, etc.).  When you ask them to identify the "bad" people, they end up identifying people who are, for the most part, mentally OK, psychologically happy, and seem to have a lot of things going for them in the material world.  Another obvious example of this is employees who say they hate their bosses -- or look at the way people like those in the Occupy Wallstreet movement hate banks and CEOs.  They are fighting the "good fight," but nobody with any real prosperity is on their side.

Maybe a simple attitude change can make the whole world shiny and bright again.

Awesome   You have a PM.

To Phinnaeus Gage, should he visit this thread:

I'm getting on this.  Are you?

Haven't heard a thing.

This is cool.  I've been trying to learn a little chess, but I'm still quite new to it.  I'd love to give it a shot -- I don't think I'm completely terrible   

Yes, but it also has one of the best hash/dollar values.

I've seen people cut out pieces of their case where it was getting in the way of GPU installation.  Beating the useless metal to bend it out of the way works too   You could also try a caseless rig, but my Coolermaster case keeps my cards cooler than with the case off.

I'm sure Bit-Pay could do something about this, like generating a random number of addresses for merchants that are randomly rotated for every purchase.  This feature could be turned on and off at will.  

So, for example, a company may sign up with Bit-Pay and receive 20 wallet addresses linking to their Bit-Pay account.  At random, 1 out of these 20 addresses would be used for the first transaction after which another 1 out of 20 addresses would be selected randomly for the 2nd transaction.  The merchant could choose to turn the randomness feature on and off at will so that someone who thinks they can simply look at one address and multiply it's received BTC by 20 to estimate the gross earnings would be making a mistake.

Another option would be for Bit-Pay to use a Bit-Pay-owned static address that indirectly funnels the money from the customer to the merchant.  So, if a customer purchases something, the money would be sent to the Bit-Pay-owned address, and then the money would be send to the merchant.

Diagram:    Customer -----> Bit-Pay ----->  Company A, or B, or C, or D, or E, etc.

As far as going straight from a customer's wallet to a merchant's wallet, improved client options for addresses may be needed.

He can thank us later for the bumps.

And to remain on topic, $100 for a 5830 isn't way out of the ballpark, especially if it's in good shape.  It's slightly on the higher end, but it gets good hash power for the money whether you find it at $100 or $80.