Yes.
You are just nitpicking. Savings and salaries are not needed for insurance to work, and originally wasn't part of insurance. The very first historical instances of "insurance" was farmers who were taking their produce down the river, splitting their goods evenly across all the farmer's boats. If one boat went down, they all still had their remaining food in the rest of the boats. You could look at it as them paying a premium (10% of their total contents in the sunk boat) to cover the rest of the produce (90% in the remaining boats). Maybe you could set up something like that, I don't know.


I didn't see anything regarding limits on payouts for damages. What's to stop someone for claiming a $20,000 claim on a $500 damage, and spreading the money among the judges? Why would other people be curious about something as boring as someone else's insurance claims?


Hire them with what? Part of that $100 they get? I don't think so



Yes, that's what insurance is for: to make you whole after a loss.  I think $100 is the wrong number to get started. It may be enough for some judges, and way too little for others. How do you set a rate? More so, there's still the problem of lack of skills, and likely not knowing whom to hire. You could end up hiring a scammy adjuster or someone in cahoots with the person seeking compensation. How do you prevent that?
I just see way more problems with this than solutions for things like property insurance.

Few concerns:

1) Insurance works because everyone pays into a pool, and the pool has to follow this formula:
Sum of all premiums paid through the year = Sum of all claims during the year.
Who will be in charge of the pool of money, and calculate the required premium amount? (Currently that's done by high-level specialists called actuaries)

2) What is to prevent the judges from colluding with the claimant and taking as much money as possible?

3) Insurance has skilled adjusters that evaluate the damage, look for any signs of fraud, and submit the info to a team that researches how much it actually costs to restore what was damaged

4) Biggest one - people who buy insurance do so because they don't want to worry about having to deal with issues, and are paying for the service of someone taking care of them when they get in trouble. This 5 members thing sounds like it would be really unpopular, in the same way that being called out to jury duty would be unpopular. Not having the skills or the knowledge to do this work aside, people are typically already really busy, and don't want to take on yet another job.

Well, sometimes when you are all the way at the bottom, the only way up is to stand  on top of those who are down there with you...

Yeah, that's not how inventors and scientists work. They come up with ideas on how to create motors and energy generators using actual real physics, discovered and tested by others before them, then they build their machines with very specific expectations, and then they test to see if their ideas and hypotheses were correct.

They don't just slap some magnets and "scientific" stuff together, test what it does, and try to come up with "explanations" afterwards. Crackpots do that. Besides, if these guys build something, test it, and their tests show that it's putting out more energy than it's taking in, the correct conclusion isn't "free energy" or "over-unity," it's " your testing equipment is broken."

Getting a patent doesn't prove anything scientific. If they had been published in IEEE, that would've meant something.

Sure, I can read their claims and news, or I can just read the following

And laugh at them and their believers.

Fire, the actual yellow or blue flame you see IS plasma. Just as different materials turn to solids, liquids, and gasses at different temperatures, they turn to plasma at different temperatures as well. Nor does it have to be particularly hot, as n neon lights are technically plasma too.

Um, the only "radioactive" way to use hydrogen is to fuse it. Hydrogen is the lowest level element (1 proton, 1 electron), so any energy from it would have to be either from nuclear fusion, or burning it with oxygen. Only the fusion is radioactive. Did he actually figure out how to make a fusion reactor? If he did, he's ahead of every other scientist on the planet... Warning: Bullshit detected.


Oh, plasma! OK. Except "plasma" is just a fancy word for "fire," so I guess his reactor just burns hydrogen. Why the hell is that radioactive? Bullshit alert level rising.


What country? Is it in the Americas or Europe? What government office? What scientists? What university? Was it a diploma mill? Were the scientists even in the same field of research? Why so vague??? Bullshit levels critical!

Keshe bottle plasma energy = dude just created a very basic acid battery, no different from a potato or lemon school science fair battery. Contrary to his claims, we understand where electromagnetism and gravity come from really well.

In light of reviewing greyhawk's prior posts, and realizing that my statement reflects greyhawk's sentiments almost exactly (I.e. that "we/bitcoiners are all idiots and scammers, and deserve what we get"), I'm forced to apologize for having opinions similar to those of his and the rest of the goons, and retract my statement.

It depends on whether you want quality or save money. The repraps are cheap at about half the cost, but their resolution and quality is kinda crap compared to the commercial units.

Perishable costs?

There's not much maintenance in these. As long as you stick with the materials designed for them, they'll work for quite a while. Otherwise you may damage the nozzle, and some materials with metallic ingredients may even dissolve it over time

Again, depends on what you need them for. The main difference between cheap and expensive units is resolution, not production time. Meaning cheaper units will have small ridges all down the sides (the sides of the printed flat pancakes will stand out), while higher resolution expensive ones will be more smooth. If you are planning to sell printed items, customers may prefer better quality smoother prints. You can also sand the lower quality ones, or have the customers do it, but that will cost more time/money.

Makerbot 2 is currently the highest quality home 3D printer available. Really high resolution, and the final prints come out pretty smooth. The final products will look good enough that you won't need to sand them, or even really notice the grain. It's also the most expensive one out there, though.

In summary, I would go with commercial, and steer clear of Makerbots for now. They'll cost you more in lost business from the low quality.

How much if your financial situation worth to you, compared to your reputation on some forum? I.e. will paying back some people make your real life more difficult for you? I'm not sure that those who would receive money from you would really NEED it.

I just want to state that ANYONE who receives money from Matthew from this, I will consider as either an idiot, or a scumbag. An idiot, because you put your money into something as stupid as Pirate or this bet without taking responsibility for your own stupid financial decisions
Or a scumbag because you could easily claim that you made such a bet without proof, and are just trying to steal money from this naive fool

No, I think we should explain to them as much as we already know, and if they have more questions, explain those as well, as opposed to oversimplifying because "they're just kids, so they wouldn't get it anyway." That's what my parents did, anyway (explain everything in as much detail as possible I mean). I still remember the lecture while walking with mom to the metro station on the properties of light, it's multiple wave frequencies, how they reflect at different angles when sent through prisms, and how prisms could be made of glass or water, and clouds are essentially a collection of millions of little prisms, when my 5 year old self asked, "Mom, where do rainbows come from?"
The idea, or hope, is that you can give your kids as much of your own knowledge as possible, so that they can start from where you are at and continue expanding their knowledge beyond that, instead of dumbing things down for them, and hope they get to your level when they have "grown up."

Why would someone explain to a child that money is just something to buy TVs and candy, as opposed to explaining what it is, how it came about, and who is in control of it now? I think dumbing down things for kids is part of  the reason for all our problems today

Would it be fair to say that orbiting planets and electrons are just stores of energy (kinetic, atomic, etc), like a battery or a spinning gyro, and not perpetual motion machines?

Telling stories is just making up hypotheses. Anyone can make tons of those, and they are entirely useless. Just stories. It only becomes science when you actually start to test them.

EDIT: And yes, you can test the theories behind physical cosmology, which makes them not stories.
We also have "microscopes" that can see individual atoms, so those aren't just guesswork, either.

Oh godamnit. Let me say it again, using the words of the simple sentence you quoted:

Perpetual motion devices using magnets are not perpetual because MAGNETS ARE NOT A SOURCE OF ENERGY

Neither is gravity. Background radiation might be, but there is so little energy in that radiation that it would take an ENORMOUS collector to collect any useful amount of it. In all your examples, it's not a question of "how do we tap it," it's "how much energy is actually in it?" And all your endo/exo-thermic examples are not "free" energy, they are engines that take in energy and covert it into another energy, whether solar to motion, or explosions to heat. This whole think with perpetual motions is actually really quite simple: that energy can not be created or destroyed is a law, and anything that uses energy only converts it into some other form of energy. No other options or "but's." You just can't have something that is moving perpetually. Even in the vacuum of space, not connected to anything, just the fact that you are able to look at it moving around means that light is exerting a force on it and is causing it to slow down. And you can't have something that is generating energy from nothing. It ALWAYS has to come from somewhere.
So our ONLY options are cheap energy generators that convert energy from something else (solar power, chemical reactions, etc), or... nothing. That's pretty much it. If anyone claims they have created a perpetual motion machine or a source of free energy, just ask him where that energy comes from. If he says "magnets," or some other fancy physics gobledegook, he's an idiot.

Easy: continue to make our technologies more energy efficient, as we have been throughout our existence. Our cars went from 5 miles per gallon to 50, or lightbulbs went from 100 watts to 10, our computers went from taking up buildings and using up kilowatts of power to fitting in our hands and using a fraction of power, etc. And we have yet to start seriously using our natural gas reserves, nuclear power is still practically in the "dirty coal-powered stream engine" stage, solar is still only beginning to be explored (I like where advances in solar stirling engines is going), and we have yet to tap into fusion power. We still have a very long way to go.

You mean a microwave generating magnetron? Yeah, we already built one. His death ray is now practically in every kitchen in America 

Our brains work a bit like computers, in that they have short term memory, like RAM that stores about 7 seconds of mmemory, and long term memory, like a computer hard drive. Everything you experience gets recorded into your short term memory, and your brain selectively records stuff out of it into your long term. So, if you catch yourself fast enough, you can recall what you just heard even if you weren't actively listening to it.
I use it to count the number of coo-coos our clock makes to tell time, after it already chimed (as in, it starts going, half way through I realize it's coo.cooing, and after it stops I go back and count how many I heard, despite not noticing or counting them right away).

I know, I'm just trying to dumb it down for the people as much as possible. A magnet to inducing a current in a wire (attaching to and pulling electrons) is as a spring attaching to some crap with one end and dragging it along when you pull on the other. I guess I could call a magnet just a fastener.