Using the phrase "religious people..." is a crude and biased generalization at best. I'm a religious person, and I hold no desire at all to see laws passed that would require people to be executed for their sexual preference. I could care less if someone is gay. It's not my place to judge.
I agree with you on the term being crude and based on biased generalizations. But you can't deny that a large part of the republican party's support comes from religious folks who DO want to see laws passed to restrict behaviors they don't agree with. To pretend otherwise isn't being honest. While the term may be objectionable, I think this is the sentiment using that term was meant to evoke; it was just done in the shortest hand possible. |
|
|
|
FYI 2 weeks passed. Nobody claimed a right to those coins. Today I've distributed block reward ( minus pool fees) for block 425147 between miners who mined that block. So don't be surprised when you see sudden increase of your doge balance.  I'm really curious about that transaction fee. Wish there was a way to track down the person who did it and find out if it was a mistake or if he's some crazy DOGE billionaire who was bored and wanted to see what would happen if he paid a super crazy fee. |
|
|
|
lol the new chief sounds like a complete idiot. GCHQ is a relic from the cold war that should have been shut down years ago, all this 'terrorism' scaremongering isn't going to fool anybody.
I think it scares a lot of people. If people were smart enough to see through it, they would demand institutions like GCHQ and NSA be dismantled. |
|
|
|
YES! Down with the kenyan muslim arabic terrorist president who isn't American!
I can't help but wonder about his legacy, after his 8 years he's out, can we then find out some of the background mystery data? Kind of like cans of SPAM. You always wonder, what is that mystery meat? Are you referring to where he was born? Because that's such a toothless conspiracy theory. Where the money for college came from. Why nobody - nobody - at Columbia remembers him. What his actual grades were. Details about his trip to Pakistan during college. Specific details about his passport. Why no old girlfriends exist. You want more? There is no toothless conspiracy theory here, there is an actual conspiracy to keep personal background secret, of a scale unprecedented in any of the American presidents. There's no teeth in this. All of this is so old, the only people still holding on to it are sad old neo-cons in hopes that the liberal devil is the boogey man they really, really wish super hard for him to be. 'How come no one can find if he ever had a girlfriend, hmmMMM MMM?! Yeah, that's a real credible concern we should be trying to get to the bottom of straight away!  No, I don't want more. I've already seen the quality you've provided so far, and I've had quite enough. |
|
|
|
What i hate is that Richard branson has no sympathy for the pilot who lost his life. He still says that he will work to achieve his dream. Puny idiot
I kind of got the same vibe when I read the first article, but what else could be expected? How many companies decide to just stop all progress at the first death? Coal & textile companies don't shut down when tens or hundreds die, and electronics companies don't even shut down when their employees are committing suicides every other week - they build nets around the building to catch them when they jump. -For much less bold dreams than Branson's, too. Anyway, according to the NTSB report, it looks like there's a fair possibility the co-pilot caused the explosion through misuse, not anything wrong by design. I agree with this sentiment, but I would like to see Branson show more empathy. I don't know what his main motivation is for building this program (money, prestige, corporate empire?) but opening space up to more people is an optimistic endeavor, for our society as a whole. It's dangerous and risky, but acknowledging that and showing sympathy for the inevitable losses diminishes nothing. You just don't want to see the guy driving this get up there and say: 'well, this is risky and the loss of life is the cost of doing great things.' That is a very alienating attitude. It's likely Branson's direct fault that proper rocket motor testing was skipped in order to keep the project on some schedule. There is nothing complicated about this. Dozens of fixed test stand tests, better 100+, before using that motor. That's fatality #4 for this group. It's "likely"? Is there a source for this yet, or is it just speculation? I'd wait until an official report is published before attempting to assign blame anywhere. I see your point. "Likely" is not a totally fact based approach and may not be proper. However, the 3 that have been killed in engine testing to date were directly attributable to safety protocol not being followed. That seems like a rather large liability problem for Branson and his company. |
|
|
|
YES! Down with the kenyan muslim arabic terrorist president who isn't American!
I can't help but wonder about his legacy, after his 8 years he's out, can we then find out some of the background mystery data? Kind of like cans of SPAM. You always wonder, what is that mystery meat? Are you referring to where he was born? Because that's such a toothless conspiracy theory. |
|
|
|
"Remember Remember the 5th of November
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot."
On the 4th of November, the US votes.
What happens on the 5th?
The same thing as always, I presume: nothing changes. Probably so. There's this: https://www.facebook.com/millionmaskmarchBut marches are pedestrian. Ugh. I really hate Anonymous. I see the appeal to some group empowering itself in the defiance of an unresponsive government, but in practice, they don't accomplish good. And like all groups that attain a certain critical mass, they become corrupted and out of control, convinced in their dogma and infallibility. Pass. |
|
|
|
If the technology wasn't available to steal easily, they would either go without or pay for it,
But it is - and from here on in, it always will be. No way around it. The market has changed. But we're not talking about what is or isn't. We're talking about what is right and wrong based on the theory of how things originate. If you pass a store with an open door and don't see anyone around, that doesn't change the fact the door is open and there is no one around. That also doesn't make taking whatever is inside acceptable. |
|
|
|
It's amusing the gymnastics people go through to justify electronic stealing.
It's amusing the gymnastics people go through to equate a civil, financial, business decision like copyright law with a moral issue like theft. I am not a net defender of IP laws, as they are protectionist and anti-innovation, but that doesn't justify people who's criticism of IP law is really just an excuse to steal movies and music they don't think they should have to pay for. If you have a valid criticism of the system, I'm quite open to hearing it. I'm already pre-disposed to not agree with IP law. But I don't agree with people who think there should be no consequence for putting the work of others on the internet (be it movies or music or writing) without the owner's permission, which is what things like Pirate Bay are, or that people have a right to download that work without paying the owner for it because 'internet freedom.' Because it isn't stealing. Stealing is a moral issue; we as a society have defined it as being "wrong" since the begining of civilization. Copyright violation is an invented crime, quite new in terms of human history. It is not "inherently" morally wrong (the romans had a phrase for this type of law, malum prohibita); it is "wrong" simply because the people who stand to profit from calling it wrong, declared it to be so. Now, if you want to call it what it is, a civil matter, I have no fight with that. But don't tell me it is morally wrong. Morality only works when we are all playing by the same rules anyways, and when it comes to large corporations, they don't play by ANY rules so it is kind of moot as far as I am concerned. Stealing is "inherently wrong." If I have a tangible object, you have no right to it. It doesn't matter if I made it or purchased it, it belongs to me. If you take it without my permission, that is "inherently wrong." I don't see the distinction between something I physically made or some form of art I made. If I made a movie, I own it, the same as if I crafted a physical object. My livelihood is dependent on my ability to sell tickets to see it, so I choose not to grant people permission to see it without paying me for it. If they don't want to see it at my price, the market will sort that out. Either I'll have to lower the price or stop making movies if I can't make a living at it. But these are based on voluntary exchanges. You deciding you have the right to see my work just because doesn't hold up, that's not a voluntary exchange, and that makes it stealing. It's property law; you're taking property that you have no right to. Doesn't matter if the owner is a starving artist or a mutli-national, mutli-billion dollar corporation. You don't have a right to take things you don't own, and you have not asserted any legitimate claim otherwise. 1. Stealing isn't inherently wrong. Look at every single other species on the planet, they all take whatever they can get without any sort of moral dilemma. Look at Human beings, for the overwhelming majority of the time we existed, we did the same thing. With the rise of civilization we "decided" we were better off agreeing to a moral code, so much so that it is now ingrained in us. I won't take your stuff and you won't take mine. I can't say this enough though, it only works if we are all playing by the rules! Corporations do not follow the code, and so they do not deserve to have it followed with them either. I mean you're free to follow whatever moral code you want to of course, as am I. 2. It isn't stealing. For most of human history, if I could play a song, I was free to play it. You didn't own it anymore than you owned how to bake a loaf of bread, or fashion a wheel. Somewhere along the line, very recently, groups of people *declared* that such a thing was immoral (not coincidentally, they stand to profit heavily from convincing you and I that it is immoral). As I tried to mention earlier, the Romans, upon whom much of our legal code is bases, specifically had a term for this type of law to differentiate it from moral laws like stealing. There is simply no precedent anywhere in western law for it to be stealing, and in fact quite the precedent for it to be nothing more than a procedural issue (like illegal parking). 3. You bring up an interesting point regarding free trade and western style free market economics. In theory yes, the free market will sort out the price of these things, and if the market determines some guy is worth 720 dollars a minute we consider that "fair". Of course western style, free market economics is very rarely free. In theory you would compete by providing a better product, or a lower price but in fact you demonstrate how it *really* works. Pass laws to make it illegal for anyone else to compete with you rather than provide a superior product at a superior price. But now we are getting way off topic. I'll keep your enumeration for the sake keeping it organized. 1. I still maintain stealing is inherently wrong. Look at every single other species on the planet, and differentiate what makes us different from them: Meta-cognition and the ability to understand right from wrong. Animals don't act "morally" or "immorally" because they don't have empathy. A tiger needs to eat, it kills and eats and has no ability to understand it caused tremendous pain to whatever it just ate. People have empathy, and the ability to understand how their actions harm other people. And choosing to harm other people is "inherently wrong," whether it is physically, economically, or otherwise. 2. I take your points well on the ability to play a song as being analogous to knowing how to bake a loaf of bread. I agree with you in these instances. I'm not talking about this though. If you want to reenact a movie you've seen and charge admission for it, I see no reason you should be stopped. If you want to play a song ("protected by copyright") and charge for your performance, I also see no reason the law should stop you. But I'm addressing the instances in which this is not the case, like taking a movie or song wholesale and consuming it without paying for it. That's stealing, because it's not based on voluntary exchange. 3. I agree with you. I'm against IP laws that are anti-innovation or anti-competition. I do not believe Pirate Bay or P2P networks fit this model however. These are straight theft enablers. |
|
|
|
Stealing is "inherently wrong." If I have a tangible object, you have no right to it. It doesn't matter if I made it or purchased it, it belongs to me. If you take it without my permission, that is "inherently wrong." I don't see the distinction between something I physically made or some form of art I made. If I made a movie, I own it, the same as if I crafted a physical object. My livelihood is dependent on my ability to sell tickets to see it, so I choose not to grant people permission to see it without paying me for it. If they don't want to see it at my price, the market will sort that out. Either I'll have to lower the price or stop making movies if I can't make a living at it. But these are based on voluntary exchanges. You deciding you have the right to see my work just because doesn't hold up, that's not a voluntary exchange, and that makes it stealing. It's property law; you're taking property that you have no right to. Doesn't matter if the owner is a starving artist or a mutli-national, mutli-billion dollar corporation. You don't have a right to take things you don't own, and you have not asserted any legitimate claim otherwise.
The Culture IndustryTL;DR "... popular culture is akin to a factory producing standardized cultural goods — films, radio programmes, magazines, etc. — that are used to manipulate mass society into passivity. Consumption of the easy pleasures of popular culture, made available by the mass communications media, renders people docile and content, no matter how difficult their economic circumstances. The inherent danger of the culture industry is the cultivation of false psychological needs that can only be met and satisfied by the products of capitalism" As for the market deciding the price - well, it is in a way, even with the "stealing" - most people are prepared to pay nothing at all. I reckon the way forward is the Thom Yorke approach FWIW. They're not prepared to pay nothing and go without, they're prepared to steal in order to pay nothing. That says nothing about the market price. If the technology wasn't available to steal easily, they would either go without or pay for it, and that would help determine the market price. Stealing does have an effect on the price, but you can't say that stealing is a component of the market price because the market price is based on voluntary exchange, not theft. But none of that really addressed my points about theft anyway. |
|
|
|
Well at the least it doesn't seem like a university course Unless someone can explain a legitimate backstory to why there is an Anal Sex class (Unless we get hot examples to practice on  ) Nvm read its for Sex Week (Ah that is an amusing course some people will take it for snickers) Yeah, it's a student-run group putting these "classes" on. They're not necessarily university-sponsored. |
|
|
|
Anal sex is unnatural. They are teaching ways to damage the human body. Just my opinion. I remember watching a documentary on TV where a porn star had the tightness of her sphincter destroyed so had to use tampons in that area permanently. This anecdote just ruined my day! |
|
|
|
Now here's a guy who is a master at FUD. |
|
|
|
"Remember Remember the 5th of November
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot."
On the 4th of November, the US votes.
What happens on the 5th?
The same thing as always, I presume: nothing changes. |
|
|
|
peta will most likely be taken over by hosting fee soon
Soon as in a 20 hours. Next difficulty (+10%) would put the theoretical div in the single digit satoshi range at todays BTC value. If you include fuzzy peta math, its gonna be well below zero. Math fail. in theory it should still be ~200 satoshi after tomorrow. BUt then in theory average should be >300 today, and it isnt. Not that anyone cares anymore, peta shareholders all seem to have long written off their investment as a total loss, they have vanished or they killed themselves. Don't worry, I got another e-mail about a new mining IPO on Havelock the other day. I'm sure this one will work out! |
|
|
|
Some will be run by the same people and at least one has been exposed before. Most of the HYIP or Dicesite scammers will just create a new one once it collapses and what better way to promote it with any free signature advertising they can get.
This is probably super basic, but what is HYIP? GIYF. High Yield Investment Program aka a scam. Ah, thanks! I didn't bother googling it because I thought it was going to be something obscure and nichely bitcoin related. |
|
|
|
your last two ventures failed...
No, my last two ventures were hugely successful. dice.ninja wasn't mine in any respect. fact is : moneypot promoted for dice ninja so there is still some unanswered questions
Moneypot isn't mine in any respect either. So again I ask: what is your point? And if there are unanswered questions, why don't you ask them? + now you are pushing this "investment" ?
No, I'm trying to explain how it works to people who are having a hard time understanding it. I came up with the idea around a year ago, with a view to implementing it for Just-Dice, but I saw too many potential downsides (gamblers seeing this new investment scheme as a fun +EV way of gambling, reducing the real action on the site, pushing out the more desirable long-term conservative investors, allowing rich-but-timid investors to dominate the bankroll and take almost all the profit, the risks of messing up the implementation when I already had a working system, and I'm sure more that I've since forgotten). exactly ! ~ so are you are for or against this site now? lmfao ... you caught up again? stop talking out your neck : dice.ninja was your last fail and yes it was connected to you and moneypot. How did you survive getting nuked? You're a cockroach. |
|
|
|
It's amusing the gymnastics people go through to justify electronic stealing.
It's amusing the gymnastics people go through to equate a civil, financial, business decision like copyright law with a moral issue like theft. I am not a net defender of IP laws, as they are protectionist and anti-innovation, but that doesn't justify people who's criticism of IP law is really just an excuse to steal movies and music they don't think they should have to pay for. If you have a valid criticism of the system, I'm quite open to hearing it. I'm already pre-disposed to not agree with IP law. But I don't agree with people who think there should be no consequence for putting the work of others on the internet (be it movies or music or writing) without the owner's permission, which is what things like Pirate Bay are, or that people have a right to download that work without paying the owner for it because 'internet freedom.' Because it isn't stealing. Stealing is a moral issue; we as a society have defined it as being "wrong" since the begining of civilization. Copyright violation is an invented crime, quite new in terms of human history. It is not "inherently" morally wrong (the romans had a phrase for this type of law, malum prohibita); it is "wrong" simply because the people who stand to profit from calling it wrong, declared it to be so. Now, if you want to call it what it is, a civil matter, I have no fight with that. But don't tell me it is morally wrong. Morality only works when we are all playing by the same rules anyways, and when it comes to large corporations, they don't play by ANY rules so it is kind of moot as far as I am concerned. Stealing is "inherently wrong." If I have a tangible object, you have no right to it. It doesn't matter if I made it or purchased it, it belongs to me. If you take it without my permission, that is "inherently wrong." I don't see the distinction between something I physically made or some form of art I made. If I made a movie, I own it, the same as if I crafted a physical object. My livelihood is dependent on my ability to sell tickets to see it, so I choose not to grant people permission to see it without paying me for it. If they don't want to see it at my price, the market will sort that out. Either I'll have to lower the price or stop making movies if I can't make a living at it. But these are based on voluntary exchanges. You deciding you have the right to see my work just because doesn't hold up, that's not a voluntary exchange, and that makes it stealing. It's property law; you're taking property that you have no right to. Doesn't matter if the owner is a starving artist or a mutli-national, mutli-billion dollar corporation. You don't have a right to take things you don't own, and you have not asserted any legitimate claim otherwise. |
|
|
|
fuck these bastards,nobody should pay for music or film unless its made by small independent labels
What is the incentive for artists to produce if everyone is stealing? Music existed for how many literally thousands of years before copyright laws came into being? Exactly. Do you really believe that Johnny Galecki, Jim Parsons and Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting each deserve $1,000,000 for every 22 minute episode? I sure don't, and will never pay for any of their work, although I will download and enjoy it. It doesn't matter what you think they're worth, you're not paying them, and you further don't pay to watch a show that is on the public airwaves. I don't think this is a good example. |
|
|
|
Some will be run by the same people and at least one has been exposed before. Most of the HYIP or Dicesite scammers will just create a new one once it collapses and what better way to promote it with any free signature advertising they can get.
This is probably super basic, but what is HYIP? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
