|
Would like to enroll:
Posts: 489
Activity: 224
Position: Full Member
Address: 16pvAqwo9fTrkqCMuPmqKPQA7jzsJswWRy
Sig and P.Msg are updated. Please confirm registration.
|
|
|
|
Apparently Bloomberg is okay with N. Korea, Cuba, Iran, and ISIS money.
Can you elaborate on this more? I don't follow. Just responding to the topic heading. There are many currencies worse that bitcoin. In fact on average bitcoin did far better in 2014 than 2013 so the article is trash and not worth reading, which i didn't. The problem with people like the OP and the author of the article is that they look at too short of time frames when deciding how investments performed historically. If you were to extend the time period to measure performance by at least ~6 months then bitcoin would be, by far the best performing currency. Pretty sure that when you're looking at an asset that is losing value, there is no such thing as a too-short time period with which to examine performance. If your investment in any asset rises 1000% in a year (as btc did in 2013) and then loses 67% the following year (as btc did in 2014), you may still be up on your initial investment, but it doesn't change the fact that your asset lost 2/3 of it's value in a year, and the opportunity cost of continuing to hold it has bitten you in the ass. The point of the article is to make a conclusion that is very much warranted: btc had a terrible 2014. This doesn't have any implication for the past before that or the future after it. But as a post-script, the weakness is continuing into 2015 so far as money continues to flee btc, shrinking the market cap even as more coins are created, resulting in a falling price. I'm not drawing a conclusion as to how it will turn out, but it definitely seems at the moment the shine is coming off bitcoin and people are realizing it's not going to be the end of fiat they once believed. |
|
|
|
Don't mind Contagion. He's delusional and claims to be a Big Deal hacker who built the internet, and now he spends his time sniveling about as a shill for big telecoms. See the first thread he referenced above for details on both. |
|
|
|
Hey MZ, you forgot to update my status on the last pay period, and thus I was paid the incorrect amount. Was paid .0021, should have been paid .00315; am owed .00105.
Sorry!  I have updated it now! Do you need it now or on Sunday, when I or new maintainer send the payment? Updating the list now! ~~MZ~~ Either would have been fine, but I have still not been paid. Last of the payment has been received. Thanks for fixing my situation. |
|
|
|
Hey MZ, you forgot to update my status on the last pay period, and thus I was paid the incorrect amount. Was paid .0021, should have been paid .00315; am owed .00105.
Sorry! I have updated it now! Do you need it now or on Sunday, when I or new maintainer send the payment? Updating the list now! ~~MZ~~ Either would have been fine, but I have still not been paid. |
|
|
|
...[two internet pioneers were socialist pigs]... Don't try obfuscate that you still haven't refuted that you lied above. Socialism pigs are always the same. They lie and obfuscate their lies. I won't let you escape from this humiliation. Go ahead and try, but I will just keep repeating your lie. Now you can throw a hissy fit. P.S. that some internet pioneers were socialist pigs have nothing to do with our original discussion. You're right. I stated a straight up non-fact, which I believed to be based on common-law decisions related to neutrality dating back to telegrams, applied to telecoms, and then applied to the internet in the 1990s. This is not accurate. And yet, you still haven't a valid point, and you still can't present your ideas without being the worst type of human being imaginable, as evidenced by the fact that all your posts are full of name calling and posturing to obfuscate the fact that your point is weak and your fear mongering unwarranted. People with weak ideas have to resort to those tactics for the attention their shitty ideas so desperately need, because you can't sell people on them based on the merits. All the bluster and posturing just makes you look like a dick, and attempting to converse with you confirms it. Unfortunately for you, your shitty ideas were discredited ten years ago when people as equally misguided and wrong as you also tried to pitch the same distortion of facts based on all manner of fear mongering about destroying the internet, and were roundly defeated by people who actually have the credentials to publicly sound opinions on the topic. You were wrong ten years ago, and you're wrong now. That some internet pioneers have sounded off on how wrong you are is relevant to the extent you tried to invoke your technical expertise to bolster the credibility of your opinion, which carries no weight without the delusional grandiosity you assign to it. According to you, everyone who disagrees with you is a socialist pig. But more accurately stated, it's everyone who is smarter than you. Don't be jealous you're on the losing side, mate. I'm sure if you think up some new names to call us all, you can restore the badly damaged reputation you've brought upon yourself by shilling for such garbage. P.S. you highly underestimate the hackers and technologists (such as myself, who helped invent the internet) who will never allow the monopolists (nor the government) to take over. We are actively developing technological paradigm shifts to render impotent any of their attempts to monopolize.
It is really annoying when a dumbshit, young snot such as yourself tries to tell the older people who invented the internet and are doing the programming and design work to keep it freedom directed. Do you not realize how stupid you are?
No, it's you who doesn't realize how stupid you are. How embarrassing for you to claim to have invented the internet, therefore your opinions matter more, only to have the people who actually invented the internet say your ideas about it are wrong. But I guess you can save face on this one by claiming that the people who are smarter than you and actually invented the internet are just socialist pigs. I wonder if Tim Berners-Lee and Vint Cerf would consider you a "dumbshit snot." Odds are pretty good based on how inferior your accomplishments are to theirs, but then again they're probably too upstanding to tell you. |
|
|
|
I guess that would be my problem then. Thanks for pointing it out. I will change it now. Please update my record on your spreadsheet.
Will do it later!  Hey MZ, you forgot to update my status on the last pay period, and thus I was paid the incorrect amount. Was paid .0021, should have been paid .00315; am owed .00105. |
|
|
|
Claiming that all scientists agree on global warming because they're paid by the government to think that is just not grounded in anything but your desire for it to be true. It sounds like you're claiming all scientists agree on global warming. That's quite a stretch. (And you used the old name instead of the modern mandate, climate change.) But many, many such studies, probably most, are indeed paid for directly by government grants or by companies with government contracts. I understand the reason there doesn't appear to be much opposition is that peers don't want to endanger their grants by even reviewing contrary papers. And incentive to publish is reduced by the knowledge that the mockingbird media will knee-jerk label them deniers. Just ask yourself why the government would pay for this result. Then ask yourself what any government wants.
Governments would pay to have an understanding what is going on, the same reason they would pay to conduct a census every ten years that asks invasive questions about your ethnicity and income, or embark on a study of wind patterns, or any other sociological or scientific pursuit that governments sponsor studies on. The government doesn't have a pre-determined outcome they are forcing people to subscribe to. Governments want to govern. They want to have a reason that will be seen as valid to make laws and enforce them. They want to be seen as the white knights coming to the rescue of the adoring, ignorant masses. And climate change gives them a free hand to wreak all manner of havoc in the name of saving the earth. They must keep the public ignorant to pull it off. It's extremely amusing to have to defend my thesis that the government is lying in a thread that's all about the government lying.Government doesn't do anything particularly well. We totally agree on that one. Saying "all scientists agree on global warming" is much less of a stretch than "scientists only believe in global warming because of a worldwide conspiracy instituted by governments." In any event, I was only parroting your earlier sentiments. On the topic though, of published, peer-reviewed papers, it is on the order of the high 90 percent that agree mankind's actions are changing the climate. And whether it's called "global warming" or "climate change" is ultimately of little consequence to me. The fact that the name has been confused reflects the baseless push back by conservatives to spin scientific consensus into a global conspiracy. I understand the the reason there doesn't appear to be much opposition is that science is science, and there's a scientific consensus because that's the reality. Deniers is an appropriate word for someone who refuses to accept reality because it doesn't fit their political ideology. I suppose your conspiracy theory would have more legs in a world where science was only controlled by the government, and there was no such thing as peer review, or the ability to conduct science outside of government offices. Or any shred of plausibility whatsoever in the notion that the US government can control all climate science on a global scale. |
|
|
|
No, I'm just calling bullshit when I see it. You don't have much credibility after you claimed that India and Russia were easier to run a business in than any western country, and then I posted some pretty compelling data to dispel that idiotic notion. Your views on Somalia should be regarded with the same level of ridicule and disdain.
Have you ever considered that that data was manipulated to brainwash people. After all it was given out by the world bank who has a really good record of manipulating people. In India you have the soundest monetary policy in whole Asia, they have high interest rates, and keep inflation in check, they are not running a 0% interest rate 0% margin requirement franctional reserve ponzi scheme. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/india/indicatorsIn Russia its a bit more complicated, but atleast they have small taxes. I think you should check your facts friend because you have been really brainwashed by the Keynesian propaganda machine. It doesn't inspire confidence in your argument that you provide no data to bolster your opinions and your counterargument to data presented against it is "global conspiracy" and "brainwashing." I'm sorry you mistook my critique of your argument for a defense of Keynesian economics. That's really unfortunate for you, since it isn't at all the case. You having a weak point doesn't make anyone who calls you out on it a Keynesian, but it was a valiant effort at misdirection. |
|
|
|
I'm sure you're speaking from your wealth of personal experience running successful businesses in Somalia, but you and I might have a different definition of "easier."
Well i dont know what "financial freedom" means to you but, if million dollar permissions ,insurance costs and government approvals are needed for your financial freedom, then your economic vision will most likely end up with a global recession. It's much easier to start up a business if with 100$ in Somalia than with 1000.000 dollars in the USA, you are just too brainwashed by the statist propaganda to realize this. No, I'm just calling bullshit when I see it. You don't have much credibility after you claimed that India and Russia were easier to run a business in than any western country, and then I posted some pretty compelling data to dispel that idiotic notion. Your views on Somalia should be regarded with the same level of ridicule and disdain. |
|
|
|
Isn't that error revealing?
Liberal fundamentalists don't care about science, except to manipulate it to support their predetermined point. They manipulate it by having the government fund lots of studies with the goal of proving that the climate is changing in sync with man's development. They never consider that fact that the sun is getting measurably larger and brighter with time, or that the earth is still coming out of the mini ice age it was in around the time of the Revolutionary War.
No, I don't find the error to be revealing, because the scientific papers on the topic are actually science, not conjecture like you're offering. Trying to explain a scientific paper to someone who doesn't understand the scientific process or peer review is as fruitful as trying to convince an atheist that the bible is an historically accurate account of what happened 2000 years ago. You can't use the logic of the bible to prove the bible is true. Similarly, if you've already made up your mind that science is wrong because that's what fits your political viewpoint, using science to show you otherwise is wasted effort. You can lie by funding studies that show what you paid for, and that's what's happening. In many science disciplines it's extremely difficult to make sure your analysis is unbiased, that you're not inadvertently making your own expectations influence the results. Every scientist is painfully aware of this. So imagine the pressure if you're a scientist on a grant from an agency that damn-well expects you to get an answer that supports what they want. It would be trivially easy, even subconsciously, to allow bias to get the result that keeps grant funding coming. Also, any scientist that shows anything different than all the other paid-for results has to be very sure of himself to stand up to peers that are also getting government grant money. And the media is on board to keep the masses deceived, so they poo-poo honest results as the work of deniers. When I was in high school, we were inundated with reports that man's pollution was blotting out the sun and causing global cooling that would freeze us all. But the earth didn't cooperate with the hype, so they switched to global warming. (It still boggles my mind that they've duped the masses into believing that carbon dioxide is pollution!! Next it'll be water vapor.) But the earth didn't cooperate with that either, so they switched to something vague enough that they could hype it either way-- climate change. Just ask yourself why the government would pay for this result. Then ask yourself what any government wants. Governments would pay to have an understanding what is going on, the same reason they would pay to conduct a census every ten years that asks invasive questions about your ethnicity and income, or embark on a study of wind patterns, or any other sociological or scientific pursuit that governments sponsor studies on. The government doesn't have a pre-determined outcome they are forcing people to subscribe to. Claiming that all scientists agree on global warming because they're paid by the government to think that is just not grounded in anything but your desire for it to be true. Government doesn't do anything particularly well. Coordinating a global conspiracy rooted in faulty-science that could be so easily disproven with real science isn't something it could do competently. |
|
|
|
|
After seeing multiple pro/anti vegan threads on this board, I'm going to draw the conclusion that there are not many threads on the internet that will go full Godwin faster than a thread about veganism.
|
|
|
|
well they are right about bitcoin performing bad, but using peak vlaue is not fair, that just a peak it doesn't count, they should focus on the price that the majority said it was going to be unbreakable, like 600-800 range
I don't think they intended to use peak value just to slam bitcoin. They were using a calendar year, and bitcoin just happened to be around its all-time high at the beginning of the year. |
|
|
|
Apparently Bloomberg is okay with N. Korea, Cuba, Iran, and ISIS money.
Can you elaborate on this more? I don't follow. Just responding to the topic heading. There are many currencies worse that bitcoin. In fact on average bitcoin did far better in 2014 than 2013 so the article is trash and not worth reading, which i didn't. Ah, I see. 2013 was an amazing year for bitcoin, but the scope of the article was only 2014, and it is stating a fact that no other currency performed worse in 2014. Russia, Ukraine, and Bitcoin were the three worst performing currencies on the year, and of the three, bitcoin lost the most value. |
|
|
|
Please. The BRICS are a great place to make money, but they are too economically and politically unstable for anyone to seriously consider using any of them as an international currency.  Thats funny because Russian has half the taxes that USA has, i wonder where it's more easy to start a business? ... So... If Somalia has lower taxes than Russia, you'll start your business there? Protip: Start it under the sea, in international waters. Lowest taxes evah. Yes. Hire some armed bodyguards, which will be pretty cheap, get like 50 armed guards protecting your shop and you can start right now. You dont need to wait half year for permits and all that BS, and you dont need to pay taxes there, the only risk you will have there is civil riots and gang mobs. It is way easier to operate a business in Somalia than any western country. I'm sure you're speaking from your wealth of personal experience running successful businesses in Somalia, but you and I might have a different definition of "easier." |
|
|
|
That's funny, here you are making your case with the underpinnings of what a technological expert you are, when there are people with real internet pedigrees who have dismissed your arguments almost ten years before you made them. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity. Allowing broadband providers to segment their IP offerings and reserve huge amounts of bandwidth for their own services will not give consumers the broadband Internet our country and economy need. Many people will have little or no choice among broadband operators for the foreseeable future, implying that such operators will have the power to exercise a great deal of control over any applications placed on the network.
As we move to a broadband environment and eliminate century-old non-discrimination requirements, a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive. Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online. There have been suggestions that we don't need legislation because we haven't had it. These are nonsense, because in fact we have had net neutrality in the past -- it is only recently that real explicit threats have occurred.
Control of information is hugely powerful. In the US, the threat is that companies control what I can access for commercial reasons. (In China, control is by the government for political reasons.) There is a very strong short-term incentive for a company to grab control of TV distribution over the Internet even though it is against the long-term interests of the industry.
Yes, regulation to keep the Internet open is regulation. And mostly, the Internet thrives on lack of regulation. But some basic values have to be preserved. For example, the market system depends on the rule that you can't photocopy money. Democracy depends on freedom of speech. Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the fundamental social basis of the Internet, and, now, the society based on it.
Please go on with your tired corporate-shill arguments and what an expert you are and how you're defending the internet from gub'ment regulations. The people whose opinions I should actually pay attention to heard your arguments when this debate was had 10 years ago, and it turns out they're still as stupid and irrelevant now as they were back then. If you're attempting to win this argument based on an asshole attitude and your self-proclaimed qualifications, I'm afraid you've already lost both battles. |
|
|
|
Apparently Bloomberg is okay with N. Korea, Cuba, Iran, and ISIS money.
Can you elaborate on this more? I don't follow. |
|
|
|
It's a good thing Stalin didn't kill any civilians.
Otherwise they would have to start an investigation there too.
If you are aiming at the repressions and genocide of the Russian and Soviet population by Gzhugashvili, then yes, there were investigations, and denouncements after his death. You might not have been keeping up with the Soviet history to know that, though. There were denouncements on the use of nukes too after-the-fact. So I guess everything is squared? |
|
|
|
TheDailyDot story said: Today, 97.1 percent of all scientific papers agree that human beings have negatively impacted the atmosphere. That's obviously wrong. Is it a simple error, or an intentional fabrication? I'm thinking it's most likely an unintentional error due to laziness or ineffective writing. Rather than "all scientific papers," the author probably means all scientific papers on the topic of climate change. Isn't that error revealing? Liberal fundamentalists don't care about science, except to manipulate it to support their predetermined point. They manipulate it by having the government fund lots of studies with the goal of proving that the climate is changing in sync with man's development. They never consider that fact that the sun is getting measurably larger and brighter with time, or that the earth is still coming out of the mini ice age it was in around the time of the Revolutionary War. No, I don't find the error to be revealing, because the scientific papers on the topic are actually science, not conjecture like you're offering. Trying to explain a scientific paper to someone who doesn't understand the scientific process or peer review is as fruitful as trying to convince an atheist that the bible is an historically accurate account of what happened 2000 years ago. You can't use the logic of the bible to prove the bible is true. Similarly, if you've already made up your mind that science is wrong because that's what fits your political viewpoint, using science to show you otherwise is wasted effort. |
|
|
|
Bumping the Update: This campaign is closed as of now. This due to lack of communication between me and lightlord. If you want to continue, you can but I can't promise your payment for this and upcoming weeks.  ~~MZ~~ Campaign is still open for more users.
Lightlord posted that campaign is still open after your announcement that campaign is closed. Do we have a clearer picture of what is going on? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
