Hello! Sorry! You didn't use the FM signature made by twister which I have told here. You might have missed my post.  Let me know if you have anything to say.  ~~MZ~~ 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. |
|
|
|
Someone's cold heart... somewhere.... melted a tiny bit for this deflation to occur.
Your personal message has malformed binary. You have five digits at the end that don't create anything. Are they extra, or did you run out of space? |
|
|
|
Thats funny because Russian has half the taxes that USA has, i wonder where it's more easy to start a business?
I`ve read that in the UK you need like 5.000.000 pounds to start up a medium businnes because thats is the regulatory costs.
How the fk do you expect economic growth from these countries, if an average guy cant even start up a grocery store without massive regulatory bureocracy BS.
I think its much more easy to do it in Russia, India or any other non western country.
You might want to actually look it up then. Here are the 2015 World Rankings published by the World Bank: http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankingsHere are the highlights: Russia, India, and China are three of the worst countries to start or operate a business in. The best ranking countries are generally in the western world or have western-style governments.  |
|
|
|
Yeah yeah, I'm sure that's what you'll all say in public.
Wow, its time to leave the 20th century man, very few people are homophobic nowadays. As I type this I am just about to go to lunch with a gay friend of mine. Just because you read somewhere from a blog that all Americans are pigs and racist and sexist and can't tolerate anything different from them doesn't make it true. Grow up. To the ignorant European, Americans are probably just uneducated homophobes who like shooting things. Yee-haw. Anyone who has such a two-dimensional view of a society isn't really worth attempting to correct, as they've already chosen to cling to the safety of stereotypes rather than make the effort to have a nuanced understanding. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Hey MZ, I've been a full member the whole time I've been in this campaign, but I've never gotten paid at the Full Member rate for as long as it has been in force (which is the last two payment cycles for me). The last two payment cycles, I have been paid .0023 and .0021, but the payments should have been .00345 and .00315. The total I have been underpaid is .0066 - .0044 = .0022 btc. Can you please update your records to reflect that I am a Full Member and pay for the shortage over the last two weeks I am missing? Here is my original post to show I was Full Member ever since joining the campaign: I'd like to enroll. There's a lack of open spots in higher paying campaigns now, so I guess I'll have to accept a position here as member, even though I'm above that rank.
Sig and PM are changed.
# of posts: 209
Payment address: 16pvAqwo9fTrkqCMuPmqKPQA7jzsJswWRy
if you want to join write in this pattern Post: Activity: Rank: Bitcoin Addresses : Apparently I may not have used the proper format. Post: 209 Activity: 154 Rank: Full Member (Member) Bitcoin Addresses : 16pvAqwo9fTrkqCMuPmqKPQA7jzsJswWRy |
|
|
|
i think it is already discussed here
did you know that 2013 when bitcoin was at peak they said that bitcoin is not a currency and now they are calling it a currency
If it was already discussed here, I missed it. Whether or not it's a "currency" depends entirely on the angle the writer is taking. It seems wild success like btc experienced in 2013 was proof it couldn't be a currency, it was just a speculative bubble. But once it is doing poorly for a stretch, people jump to announce what a terrible "currency" it is. To Bloomberg's defense though, I think they have generally considered it a currency since about the time they started tracking it and offering quotes on their service at their currency desk. That happened earlier this year. |
|
|
|
Everyone knows the bitcoin 'bubble' has deflated quite a bit in the past 12 months as the mania is subsiding, so it's not surprising it was the "worst" currency in 2014. Still, Bloomberg's take on bitcoin is pretty brutal. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-23/and-2014s-worst-currency-wasbitcoinAnd this bit is not only unsubstantiated, but not even an attempt at a justification is offered: Most of Bitcoin's supporters, meanwhile, seem to be hackers whose resources depend upon the Ponzi-scheme nature of the enterprise itself. Ouch. |
|
|
|
Why russian keep invade other country?
I don't understand.
At present, invade other country can't bring any to their own people.
Even if Russia has invaded other countries, we can surely agree that they are only border countries that are of major strategic importance to them. They don't get involved in frivolous conflicts around the world like certain other groups of nations. Calm down Ruski. I wasn't defending the USA's imperialism, I was pointing out how flawed the quoted logic is. He-he. I wasn't very agitated.  Yes, that logic is flawed (and my comment further showed it), and I would actually take objection to NUFCrichard's reply saying that "Russia invaded other countries". Peace.  I just find it ridiculous that one kind of hegemony can be "better" than another kind. Whether it's the US interfering in the Middle East or Russia interfering in border countries, imperialism is imperialism. These nations ought to be leaving independent nations alone for the good of the planet. |
|
|
|
What if bitcoin is a long term secret plan from the us government to destroy the debt? bitcoin gets mass adoption first then usd goes freefall, bye bye debt
No because it's open source, it has no backdoors, so why would the control maniacs give up the power above the currency? It makes no sense. Plus, the media propaganda always speaks badly about the Bitcoin, if it were a government false flag, then it would be cheered by wallstreeters and media propagandists. He is arguing that if the government had created bitcoin, they did so to cause the value of the dollar to fall so the government can repay their debt with money that is worth much less. I agree that this logic does not make sense because the government would give up control of their monetary policy and it would be difficulty to prevent bank runs in times of economic crisis. It would be better for the government to have a strong Dollar while creating a lot of it. Agreed. The US would prefer to have its cake and eat it too. Plus, the US can do a lot to debase the dollar without inventing competing currencies. And at ~4-5 billion market cap, btc just isn't big enough to make a meaningful impact to the dollar. |
|
|
|
Why russian keep invade other country?
I don't understand.
At present, invade other country can't bring any to their own people.
Even if Russia has invaded other countries, we can surely agree that they are only border countries that are of major strategic importance to them. They don't get involved in frivolous conflicts around the world like certain other groups of nations. Calm down Ruski. I wasn't defending the USA's imperialism, I was pointing out how flawed the quoted logic is. |
|
|
|
|
Is it narcissistic to assume we're the best liars?
|
|
|
|
|
The atomic bombings are more known, but the fire-bombings of cities like Dresden and Tokyo killed far more civilians. If they're going to raise the spector of war crimes, might as well get it right.
|
|
|
|
There has been no system of net neutrality in place.
If you're too stupid to understand basic facts, there's no reason reading what you write. Continuing to maintain that net neutrality hasn't been the way it's been doesn't make it so. Unfortunately for you, you have no facts on your side. But please, keep going on... you're so close to making your non-facts true.  I did not maintain the net neutrality is not the way it has been. ... Quoting one sentence from me above while erasing the rest of the context of what I wrote, is obviously your feeble attempt to obfuscate and change the meaning of what I wrote. Really? I'll restore the full quote since you're distracted by all the lost context. There has been no system of net neutrality in place. The internet has been a free market and grew to serve a billion people with private corporation competition and no regulation of the government.
Net Neutrality (regulation by the government) has been in place since 1995. Now, I believe you were in the middle of defending your dumbfuckery before I interrupted with reality. Please continue so I can continue to not take you seriously. |
|
|
|
Why russian keep invade other country?
I don't understand.
At present, invade other country can't bring any to their own people.
Even if Russia has invaded other countries, we can surely agree that they are only border countries that are of major strategic importance to them. They don't get involved in frivolous conflicts around the world like certain other groups of nations. |
|
|
|
No, in essence, I mean exactly what I said. Net neutrality will prohibit ISP-sponsored censorship by prohibiting extortion against those who can afford to pay. And when net neutrality regulation ends up with ISPs merged into mega-telcoms and the mega-telcoms sleeping in bed with the government, then you will ask for more regulation to regulate to the regulators or some other endless set of excuses, always failing to recognize that the generative essence of the problem is THE IRON LAW of Political Economics[1]. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and never realizing you will get the same result every time. Thus you are insane. [1] In collectivized action the self interest incentives are misaligned with the global optimization. All of your fear mongering is countered by the fact that net neutrality is the system we've had all along. But I bet you're right, keeping the system that's been in place since the beginning of the internet is the boogeyman. There has been no system of net neutrality in place. If you're too stupid to understand basic facts, there's no reason reading what you write. Continuing to maintain that net neutrality hasn't been the way it's been doesn't make it so. Unfortunately for you, you have no facts on your side. But please, keep going on... you're so close to making your non-facts true. |
|
|
|
They've said it will be released!
It was all a plot to get a bigger audience..
I dont know what really happened but, I think I'm agree with you. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30599836 It says "Sony realese The Interview online" and also "only available in the US." I don't know this is true or not because I'm not in US. It is not going to be free. It is going to be released in theaters (only ~300 screens) and via youtube, and google rental services. Viewers are going to have to pay ~$6 to rent the movies and ~$15 to buy it I guess they walked it back from plans a few days ago. Someone quoted an article that said they were planning to release it on Crackle for free. |
|
|
|
I simply don't get it why everyone is calling this a PR stunt.
Results of the "PR stunt" so far:
- lots of financial damage
- a huge amount of private and confidential of the company/employees data floating around on the net
- 5 DVD screener copies leaked
All of this hassle just for 1 movie that will be pirated anyway (if not more than others)?
They are simply not informed people that are calling it a PR stunt. All great points but your last one, this will probably be the LEAST pirated movie in history. Sony is releasing it for 100% free so there is absolutely no reason to pirate this movie at all. http://nypost.com/2014/12/21/sony-plans-to-release-the-interview-on-crackle-for-free/Someone is going to pirate it anyway Also because not everyone live in the USA seeders: 413 leechers: 23753 It raises an interesting question: can you "pirate" a movie that's released for free? Is it still piracy? |
|
|
|
BERKELEY, Mo. — Authorities released a surveillance video Wednesday showing a confrontation that ended the night before with a white police officer killing an armed black man in this St. Louis suburb. The shooting happened about 5 miles northwest of Ferguson, where a white police officer fatally shot unarmed Michael Brown in August, sparking months of civil unrest. At about 11:15 p.m. CT Tuesday while conducting a routine business check, a police officer saw two males at the side of a gas station, Sgt. Brian Schellman, a St. Louis County police spokesman, said in a statement. The officer, whose name has not been released, approached them. Then one of the men pulled out a handgun and pointed it at the officer, Schellman said. "Fearing for his life, the Berkeley officer fired several shots, striking the subject, fatally wounding him," Schellman said. "The second subject fled the scene." The 18-year-old suspect was armed with a loaded 9mm handgun, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said. The police department in Berkeley, a city of about 9,000 where more than eight in 10 residents are black, asked the St. Louis County Police Department to handle the investigation. Authorities later identified the suspect as Antonio Martin, 18, of St. Louis. He died at the scene, but Belmar did not say where the fatal shot hit him and autopsy results are not yet available. Martin's mother, Toni Martin, told KSDK-TV that her son did not have a gun and had only just left their home to go see his girlfriend. [... more available: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/24/man-shot-killed-berkeley/20849045/] |
|
|
|
Yep, inadmissible in court doesn't mean it isn't admissible in the court of public opinion. Live casting services are your best protection against abusive thieving cops trying to destroy your property to hide their crimes. I was asking the question because if this was in Illinois, he could be charged with a felony? The police could then go to his home and take him into custody. What happens after that, who could say? The police can (and will) charge you with anything. I would like to think that the DA has better sense than to try to pursue felony wire tapping charges against a guy who recorded a cop beating his pregnant wife to death. The optimist in me wants to believe that would bring a nightmare of public outrage. There has been a nightmare of pubic outrage lasting for decades in the US, yet bloody tyranny grows ever stronger. This is news to me!  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
