Sounds like tough talk from a toothpick-framed-mom's-basement-dwelling 'antifa'.

Perhaps English is not your first language, but saying 'humans and apes' is as appropriate as saying 'cows and quadrupeds'.  Humans are apes just as cows are quadrupeds....and if you don't believe as I do here you are a motherfucking faggot.


You keep bringing up 'taste' which has nothing to do with anything.  Your original story had a Russian doctor who looked at (what was probably a) cooked human and wanted to puke.  Not because she tasted the thing but because she recognized the muscle tissue as unusual.  In particular, finely striated.  My point is that if it is the case that more nerves serve a given mass of muscle in humans compared to other apes (and especially other commonly consumed animals such as bovids), a finely striated structure would be expected.

edits: slight.

This was not the article I read since it seems to be only several days old...and doesn't say the same thing I was implying anyway...but is interesting to the discussion none-the-less

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-chimpanzee-super-strength-human-muscle.html

The idea I was thinking of was that in humans more nerves service the muscle fibers (which is believable given our much larger brains.)  This makes it less easy to contract all muscle tissue simultaneously.  I will say that when a jolt of adrenaline hits humans can achieve impressive feats of strength.

You seem to be of the relatively antiquated idea that humans are not apes.  I learned that we are, and it makes perfect sense to me.  In fact, I'm of the understanding that humans and chimps are more closely related than are chimps and gorillas.  That is to say, the divergence was farther back time-wise on an evolutionary tree.

As for the 98% similar genome, I believe that a 0.1% change would be perfectly sufficient to produce a vastly different muscular pattern.  The function of DNA in protein synthesis is such that genome percentages are not a terribly meaningful metric when it comes to defining physiology.

Currently it is in vogue to shit-talk humans, consider ourselves inferior in all ways, and generally engage in self-loathing.  As I understand things, humans are uniquely good at long duration running and it is probably and artifact of being evolved for 'endurance hunting.'  That is, running game such as large ungulates to exhaustion.  From a physical fitness point of view I find that 'something to be proud of' so to speak.

I was recently reading about why other apes seem to have a lot more strength than humans.  Chimps and Gorillas are notoriously powerful by human standards.  Turns out that humans are 'wired tight' so to speak.  More nerve pathways to muscle tissue makes for finer motor control but less brute strength.

Anyway, just thought it was interesting.  I suppose the somewhat different muscle structure compared to other animals might be visible to the naked eye.  Especially when cooked.

Think of how many children 'gets hurt' because skateboards and bicycles are available to them.

Both numbers are dwarfed by the number who get life-long debilitating medical conditions because they are forced by the state to have harmful immune system compromising substances mainlined into their circulatory system.  But at least the pharmaceutical industry is making a ton of money when half of the kids are on some prescription meds for conditions that, for some reason, nobody can figure out the reasons for.

The 'think of the children' line of bullshit is as old as the hills.  Fewer and fewer people are falling for it.  But still way to many.

Achieving this is not currently practical economically or otherwise.

A quick peek at Google shows 7.7/1000 restraining orders alone (U.S.).  Usually restraining orders are taken out by a female when there are problems with a violent and unpredictable former male partner, and often enough the restrainee violates the order.  Considering the population (well North of 300,000,000 here) protecting these people alone with state provided physical security is completely out of the question.

What the state can do, or at least will soon be able to do, would be to fit all citizens with biometric tracking devices.  These devices could be configured to detect behavior which constitutes a security risk and modifies such behavior in real time.  I've no doubt that many people in leadership positions would welcome such a thing (for all but themselves), and I would guess that many people would consider that so outfiting all citizens (including themselves) in the interest of security would be worth the theoretical problems which could crop up.

Of course, in some situations (like mine) threats from wild animals and other rural duties are the primary reason I 'keep and bear arms' so even if the threat from my fellow humans (especially those with a weakness for methamphetamines) were non-existent I would still have need for firearms.

To manufacture these vaccines, biological agents (such as viruses and bacteria) are cultivated in various kinds of tissue (such as animal organs or human fetal tissue such as the WI-38 cell line originating from a fetal cadaver) then extracted.  One of the things which happen is that various virus strains that even the developers don't know about can come along for the ride.

An early example of this was the SV-40 (simian virus 40) contamination which infected many millions of people with a cancer causing virus up until the early 1960's when it was discovered and injections were ceased.  Of course TPTB didn't actually cease injection until the contaminated batches were used up since discarding them would have cost the industry money.

Interestingly, the principle is the same for civilian criminals and non-criminals alike.  The government has no realistic way to provide security for run-of-the-mill civilian criminals of the violent type, and thus this group has 'no choice' but to provide this service for themselves.  The result is that criminalizing firearms for the purposes of controlling criminal access to them is mostly pissing into the wind.

What the U.S. government did do back in the 1980s was the common sense thing.  They made the penalties for use of firearms in the commission of a crime very high.  The effect was that criminals use guns more among themselves for their own purposes, but tend to try not to use them in the commission of a crime against non-criminal citizens.  This is why gun problems here in the U.S. have been on the decline for most of my life.

The moral of the story is that it is possible for the government to make good decisions and implement policy on them effectively when they wish to.  When they are pissing up our leg and fabricating a non-problem in order to achieve a different objective (which is fairly common) then the results tend to be disastrous for the common citizen.

LOL on the crayfish thing.  I'd not heard that one, and have had a life-long fascination with the creatures.

I generally agree with Palmerson.  Very few normal humans would leverage their 2nd amendments rights in bona-fide action against the so-called 'powers that be'  unless backed into a corner.  It is thus fairly safe for said powers to engage in abusive practices to a limited degree.  Going much beyond that introduces a bunch of unknowns in terms of costs and risks.  In shear fire-power I don't doubt that TPTB could effectively harness the powers of state in a paramilitary arsenal with the ability to win, but the costs and end result of this could be great and a win not really worth having.

I am pretty well convinced at this point that the main driving force behind efforts to roll-back the U.S.'s 2nd are people who are thinking as I am and have described above.  Of course 9/10ths (or more) of the proponents of attacks on the 2nd really do want to 'save the children from gun violence' and such.  For over one hundred years the technical term for such people is 'useful idiot'.

If someone thinks they are going to be a Rambo Jr., note that this is exactly what TPTB would like to have happen (on an individual case-by-case basis.)  The operation will be quick and easy, and the paramilitaries will have fun with their new weapons systems.

Beyond that, if anyone has flapped their gums on-line about becoming Rambo Jr., that information is logged.  In planning operations this database entry could provide justification to show up on day one fully SWAT equipped.  Just sayin'.

Looks to me like the social engineers have arranged a situation in Euro-land where there will be a high enough percentage of people who can become jihadist to about match the native populations who indoctrinated against self defense.  In combat effectiveness, that is.  That's one way to achieve a more sustainable population density I suppose.  Fun to watch too...for certain types of people at least.  Also pretty financially lucrative as well for those who can play the future with some insider information.

Nobody seemed to think to wonder about those crates of shotguns intercepted on their way from Italy to Belgium a year or two ago.

My current favored hypothesis is that Bitcoin was a result of the thoughts of one person known as Satoshi, and he was not working on the behalf of or for the corp/gov state.  At least not in his Bitcoin related work.  He (probably a male) did derive much motivation from earlier cypherpunk types who came pretty close to Bitcoin in some fundamental ways.

From thence, I feel that quite early on the CIA recognized the value of Bitcoin to various of their operations.  Probably right around the point when someone had the bright idea of bypassing the financial blockade against Wikileaks using it.  I consider the CIA to be on par with organized crime (and with large amount of cross-pollination.)  Their main function is as the muscle for the corp/gov owners (who are primarily bankers.)  Some say that the Jesuits serve a similar purpose in Catholicism, but I digress.  Anyhoo, I believe that the U.S. govt dropped their reflexive resistance to Bitcoin and became effective (if somewhat silent) supporters in the 2012 timerframe, and a good part of this would have been attributable to pressure from the intelligence community.

Obviously I could be dead wrong on any or all of these ideas.

Now class, this is what we call an 'oxymoron'.

'Cores' are cores for the simple reason that for a long period of time in bitcoin-years they have demonstrated the skill and dedication that induces people to trust them.  If that could be said for Hearndresen then that mutation would be 'core' and the others would be goneski.

I've had my bouts of both delight and of hopelesness with the Bitcoin community.  Thankfully (and in fact surprisingly to me) the community consensus has arrived at pretty much the right point vis-a-vis who/what is 'core'.  At least it alligns pretty well with my tastes.  It's very likely that I would not be here now tapping this out should different decisions have been the consensus.  And I'm much more pleased than I thought I might be back in what are, to me, the early days.

If the current currency solutions available to the typical Mongolian are cumbersome, expensive, or un-safe, then it is perfectly sensible to expect that 'hundreds or thousands of jobs' could be created by the availability of a better solution, and in a population of 3 million it is probably a low-ball estimate.

After studying thing for a time, my belief is that most monetary solutions available to most typical citizens of most nations are designed and implemented by people who are using their creation to their own advantage.  That does not preclude the solution being useful to the average citizen and it makes practical sense to engineer this to a degree, but the focus is going to be to confer advantage to those who own the system and those who 'work for the owners of the system.'

Of course we are currently in a situation where there is kind of a world-wide 'reserve currency' system in use.  Namely, the U.S. dollar (also sometimes referred to, with some good reasons, as the 'petrodollar'.)  This is what I've studied the most, and I believe that my assertions about the motivation and design of this solution are as stated above are at least significantly valid.  Many countries, and particularly those which are targeted for the exploitation of their natural resources, have subservient solutions which are inevitably designed to benefit the more 'global' solution.  An observable artifact tends to be interest in a nation on the part of such entities as the IMF, World Bank, etc.

I would caution that 'the petrodollar' is by no means the worst possible solution and people should think hard before abandoning it for the next thing which comes along.  I suspect that the petrodollar is on it's last legs and the proverbial 'powers that be' are both fairly well aware of this and have been working on replacement plans for a while.  It is a near certainty that the replacement plans will favor the designers and tie up some of the loose ends which they find bothersome, cumbersome, and inefficient for their purposes in our current solution(s).  This will probably be the defining feature of 'globalism', or at least a very big aspect of it.

If the guy 'gave' the BTC to you then the risk factor is pretty much equal to him whether you are pulling a scam or not.  No difference to the donator other than some possible future regret.

I suspect that there are a few people on this thread who would appreciate periodic updates and might have valuable input.  Or non-valuable input as the case may be.  Or input with valuable measured terms of entertainment and education.  This thread is probably the most convenient method by which to communicate such things.

I like Sessions primarily because he was one person in congress who bothered to go into the secret room and actually read what was in the TPP.  When he came out he was hard against it and vocally so.

Sessions was also the guy who was on the Trump-train very early and stayed with him.  I am guessing that this is because Session bought a lot of the BS that Trump was selling as, by necessity, so did a lot of us.  Nobody could predict how much of a fraud Trump is/was or how much he could be influenced to back-track on some of the philosophies he presented.  We all just had to hope for the best.

The funny thing is that I'm pretty much opposed to Sessions' actual projects in a whole lot of cases.  Most of them actually.  But I would rather have a guy who enforces a law I don't like than one who is selective.  Sessions promised to enforce the laws as is his job as attorney general, so I cannot hold it against him to do just that.  He has correctly said that if Congress doesn't like a particular law, then it is up to them to change it.  This wishy-washy thing with, say, pot being illegal at the federal level but the feds look the other way is bullshit and it creates a lot of slop for malfeasance at many levels (which may be a feature rather than a bug.)  I actually wonder if Sessions is trying to influence his former colleges to actually do their job do something reasonable about pot at the legislative level by going on his absurd war on the substance as AG.

As for Mueller, he was head of FBI during and after 9/11.  No more need be said.

It's a fair bet that Hillary has much information as the Clinton crime syndicate could get their hands on over the course of Bills presidency and her stint as a congress-person and secretary of state.  Add to this the information flowing in through their various 'charitable foundation' wings which appear to have been truly remarkable privately held nests of global corruption.  Right up there with the Vatican, KBR (Halliburton), Carlyle, Yunus's global micro-loan network, etc.

Ya, I would say that the woman and her heirs (blood and otherwise) will have a good bit of political clout as far out as the eye can see whether or not any of them run for elected office again.

Theymos had an interest in upgrading the forum with a pretty much from-scratch implementation early on.  Most likely a result of finding that he had half a million or so (in USD terms) to spend on it and the LAMP stack site was being hacked or hijacked every fortnight or so.  He did do at least some non-trivial work on it I believe, but much such things are not very obvious.

My information is mostly just foggy recollection from years ago on the meta section, and I was never a close follower of this stuff.  Assuming he didn't spend it all, the $0.5M is likely a much bigger number by this time.

For history buffs, this site started out as a part of the BitCoin dot Org Forum and was initially set up by a guy who went by Sirus (iirc.)  The guy was WAY early in Bitcoin but seemingly of marginal technical ability.  After one of the hijacks he handed it over to Theymos (or Thermos as I prefer to call him )  Theymos was himself a very early bitcoiner and with some technical skill.  Sirus claims to have taken his early-adopter proceeds from Bitcoin and bought himself a condo (somewhere in Europe) and washed his hands of things.

A judge did a clairvoyant mind-meld with Trump and determined the guy to be a racist, and that formed the basis for her ruling when she rejected his travel restrictions.  That settles it.

I would be more down on Trump for neglecting Saudi Arabia where many 'terrorist' (aka, patsies) passed through, but it turns out that the main reason for this location of transit was that it was a convenient locale for the CIA to run these people through for a relatively long time period.  Some state dept whistle-blower gave a pretty good interview on this.  If Trump's team changes that (and I'm no holding my breath) then Saudi Arabia probably isn't excessively risky.

No intelligent person I know of spends much time on the first two.

On the other hand, I've exposed myself to literally hundreds of bodies of work put together by medical doctors and scientists who have serious reservations about the 'safety and efficacy' of our current vaccination regimes.  Also other researchers who've dug up published documents about such things as lacing tetanus vaccines with human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-HCG) for the purposes of inducing sterility.

Now trying to conflate ridiculous 'conspiracy theories' with genuine concerns is a simplistic and transparent strategy used to try to 'gatekeep' exploration of serious issues which 'conspirators' may hope remain unexplored by the masses.  It's exactly the type of strategy explored by Cass Sunstein, and was probably one of the specifically though I've not studied his work in detail.

Anyway, such tactics work OK on about 80% of the mouth-breathing tards ('lib' and otherwise), but that leaves 20% of the actual thinking people.  And there is a correlation between these thinking types and general effectiveness in life.  It's becoming enough of a problem that TPTB are increasingly floating the idea of trying 'anti-vaxxers' as 'war criminals' and the like.  The true colors of the SJW/Progressive crowd are starting to show through pretty strongly.

Although I make it a point to ignore and not comment on moderated threads...

As a non-spiritual and non-religious person, I suggest that people entertain this hypothesis and match it against observations.  I would use the term 'Luciferian' rather than 'Satanic Cult' however.  A whole family of mystic flavored philosophical thought patterns can be traced back to a common root originating out of the Middle East some thousands of years ago.

Consider also the advantage that someone with a different foundational belief system might have in organizing large societies.  Someone who considers it ethical to lie to people, poison people, etc, and has no compunction in doing so and actually considers it a good thing!  A person who believes that either they are super-human or others are sub-human.  People with such a philosophical mindset would have certain operational advantages which could allow them to 'rise to the top' and form what is considered a 'Kakistocracy' to most others.

In my research I'm feeling like such a thing has happened independently at various times and at various places in history.  Never (yet) on a global scale however.