as long as you make sure to destroy your private key you are good

I dont find this graph very convincing. Why does it only use tree rings when there are so many more reliable methods available like coral samples and ice cores? Another scientist provided such a graph with a broader data collection methods for submission in the exact same ipcc report which did not show this dramatic hockey stick. Why was the more dramatic graph utilizing less data chosen over the one that was less dramatic with more data? I mean its not like climate scientists would stand to benefit from the public being alarmed by climate statistics or anything, so we know its not that /sarcasm. Why does dr mann suddenly switch to thermometer data as soon as it becomes available? Sure its more accurate data but in order to have an objective comparison you cant simply switch data collection methods half way through the chart. It reeks of lysenkoism.

Of course i could be wrong. In which case its worth pointing out that the benefits of warming would likely outweigh the costs. Presently there is more land rendered uninhabitable due to extreme cold than extreme heat.

*note* i know you didnt claim that the government should attempt to solve this problem. i wanted to point that out so that i dont get accused of strawmaning.

And even if its not the case that we would be made better off from global warming there is still this very strong argument against spending any significant amounts of money on fighting it because it would almost certainly be cheaper to address the issues as they arrive. All we have to do is get the government out of the insurance business and the risk of building on areas which were in danger of being effected by rising sea levels would be priced into the market over night. This would incentive people to move out of flood prone areas long before the flooding became a problem. Additionally erecting man made barricades around cities would almost certainly be cheaper than the net costs of carbon taxes or carbon credit schemes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0

Its a very complicated issue which is very hard to discover the truth on because there are many perverse incentives at work here mostly resulting from the extent that governments stand to gain from convincing the public of the reality of this mother of all market failure problems. Maybe its real maybe it isnt but it surely isn't as simple as "hey look at my hockey stick, discussion over".

its pronounced "hodling" not "hoarding"

perhaps you might just manually cancel my order for me since nothing is working?

Why don't you just save us all some time and say "anything means everything but also nothing"

nice. good time to buy too with some big stake holder taking massive dumps all day.

we are still at the point where there are stake holders big enough to singlehandedly drive the price down to 0.00001. all that has to happen is for one big whale to decide to dump on the market and the price falls big time. shouldn't surprise anyone. the good news is that this is very good indeed for the long term value proposition of nxt.

aweome. drive it down to a price that i feel like buying in at.

from my observation of the charts it appears to be driven from the supply side. strong demand but big seller(s) taking very large dumps.

+1

i mean why not be polite about it. no sense in flibbering all over someone elses work unnecessarily.

I agree with everything here except the part i marked out. So generally we are in agreement on these points. Humans are damaging the planet very severely and I definitely care about that. I don't think the claims in my comment and the claims in your comment are contradictory though.

its definitely not theft. the idea of theft requires that someone else be deprived of property. copying code doesn't deprive the other person of his copy. i mean maybe its immoral but if so than not because its theft, it would have to be some new moral construct that doesnt have a name yet. something meaning "immoral copying". i vote that we call it flibber.

i never contrasted those things. they were completely unrelated. I was using torturing babies as a means of applying the Socratic Method to the statement that implied that things ought not be opposed.

oh wow. if both of our major competitors fail just think about how much capital we would absorb.

I don't think this is right.

I think the "chain themselves to trees" types of environmentalists do it as a way of easing their conscience. They have been tricked into being part of a new religion. The environmental impact on the planet of being alive is the new original sin. So this causes them to to feel guilty about consuming resources, something that all living organisms do. Once they feel guilty about consuming resources, products with little green stickers on them can become the new analogue for "confession".

This comes from the fact that religion in general is so prolific because it exploits unmet emotional needs. So when you embrace secularism without addressing the unmet emotional needs behind religion it leaves a void. One thing that can rush in to fill this void is environmentalism because it has all of the same hallmarks as a traditional religion only in a secular context, namely original sin and forgiveness.

Now as for the "real" environmentalists, the scientists and lobbyists. Some of them probably fall into the former category, but others are just rational people who have found ways to capitalize on and profit from what was described in the previous paragraphs.

I made a similar argument about birthday parties before. I was run out of town. Basically everyone was saying, "survival is very worthy of celebration".

Whats the big deal. Let him try to fork it. If hes successful than he has done you a service because now you know that your software is flawed and thats the first step towards fixing it. Its called stress testing. Many systems PAY for stress testing. If he tries and fails then no harm done.

So you don't oppose the willful torturing of new born babies?

Either you do not oppose the willful torturing of babies or you do and you would say something like "why oppose anything?" anyway. Either way its pretty good evidence that you are mentally ill. I'm not saying that to hurt your feelings. Im saying it because recognizing something is the first step towards correcting it.

I understand that we live in a world of lies where more than half of everything we are ever told from friends, families, authorities, and even scientists is fiction. Sometimes its easy to go to far is lashing back against this. Considering the sorts of things that you occupy your mind with you really ought to consider engaging in a deep study of epistemology. It may help you to regain some rooting in reality. Hell with the way your mind works you may even be able to add something to the field. But you HAVE to be rigorous and that means that you have to look for, identify, and REJECT paradoxes. You can not passively accept paradoxes.

I think even if this were a legit criticism i think it would be a bit like saying that nausea as a side effect is a legit criticism of some break through life saving medicine. which would be true but a little bit beside the point if you are dying of cancer (like we are right now from the cancer called the state) and this medicine could potentially save you.

Yea I agree with a lot of that but the point wasn't to make value judgments. (i think i technically did and perhaps i shouldn't have) My intention was to examine the question of whether nxt would or would not tend to cause the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor.

also as a side note the net transfer would be very minor i think.