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.

With your intention you will not change the outcome of the hash function itself, but you will choose a different reality in which your hashing device will process a different set of data resulting in a solved block.

Our science is only getting to the point of understanding these phenomena, and providing any sort of proof will be very subjective. If you see something with your own eyes is it an ultimate proof? Someone might just say it was a hallucination...

If you are interested in what might be possible once we reach the next stage, check out this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5_6R8YBlv4
I'm afraid, it will make our current science obsolete.

Let's do it! I will gladly contribute my thoughts and intention to such an experiment.
Same results all the time although random. Seems like the perfect setup.

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.

There is 12 years of data.
Yet 3 lines from wikipedia is sufficient for your soul to close the deal?
Bless you, young man. May you be happy in whatever you pursue in life.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq began on March 19, 2003. The data showed no sign of it. The space shuttle Columbia broke up on re-entry on February 1, 2003, but had no effect on the random number generators. An earthquake in Turkey on August 17, 1999 killed nearly 4,000 people, but you wouldn’t know it from examining the pattern of random numbers.

I have seen lotteries on here.  That would also be considered illegal wouldn't it.  Didn't think a couple of friendly wagers was an issue.

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+!!!"

come on Grue!
You will find whatever you seek. Quoting some citation without delving in the project itself and make your own informed decision?

"data anomalies reported by the project are the result of "pattern matching" and selection bias which ultimately fail to support a belief in psi or global consciousness.
"
That is intellectually very poor and proof that you have not followed progress in science one iota. It's like using quackwatch.org to improve your health.

Why deprive you of the wonders of curiosity and think for one instant that everything you knew was wrong.

Whatever you believe, you will find true and we are all, including you, a prime example of that.

One belief is more empowering, the other weakens us but both are made true. It may be interesting a while, but it does not need to be continued for ever long, the belief that you have no impact whatsoever and anything at all in this world and your life.

how about reading the project itself, this one and others and not rely on wikipedia for your understanding?

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.

Skeptics such as Robert T. Carroll, Claus Larsen, and others have questioned the methodology of the Global Consciousness Project, particularly how the data are selected and interpreted,[3][4] saying the data anomalies reported by the project are the result of "pattern matching" and selection bias which ultimately fail to support a belief in psi or global consciousness.[5] Other critics, whilst disagreeing with GCP findings, have noted that the open operation of GCP "is a testimony to the integrity and curiosity of those involved."[6]

I tried this 12 months ago when I had subsribed to Vladimirs mining contract. I intended for better than average and then he sent me an email I got lucky with my first blocks The whole thing got switched to zero variance after though.

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.

So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that "the joint" is a retard.  Specifically, "the joint" is able to significantly make retarded posts beyond what could be expected of a normal forum member...

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

So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes.  Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone.  So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance.

Speaking about version, I will use 0.4.1 as long as it works. Hundreds of transactions with it and still working fine. The Qt version is turned out to be crap.

I will be no getting any profit at all if I do 10 small transactions instead of 1 big and I'll get account suspended when I do 10 small transactions in row.

My profit from that deal is still my concern and I dont see why do you care? Like anybody in the world cares if someone makes profit when he's buying any stuff lol,you're weird.

I am not scammer,because how I can scam you when you're paying me with reversable paypal and i will be paying you with noreversable bitcoins? just answer me that if you're so smart my friend.

How exactly is he making a profit? I can already think of 2 ways. The first is the obvious "you send paypal first", and the run away with the money, preferably after buying a boatload of stuff on ebay. The second way is probably to launder his "dirty" bitcoins.

The reason I gave all of you makes sense,if you cant understand it then you're propably brain disabled,sorry to say.

And my profit is noone of your guys concerns, i am making profit out of this,otherwise I wouldnt be making this exchange point,sorry to hurt your feelings.

Do I need to repeat third time in row why I am not accepting low amounts? just look up and you'll see reason and why this is not suspicious.

Also I am only taking "mid-big" orders so I can get something out of this too. Minimum I would say is 50 coins worth of money(mtgox rate), ofcourse more you pay with PayPal more willing I am to make a deal with you.

This looks fishy.

Very likely he's using stolen PP accounts.

-Charlie

Please give me a ref to a thread where a PP buyer lost their money.  We both know there are many where the seller lost a lot but I have never seen a buyer lose.