Those are not facts, they are opinions. 

Not a button, but perhaps a menu option.

Let the bitcoiner beware.

I suppose that you can chock this up to a learning experience, whether or not you ever succeed in getting your funds back.

Yes, but that is unnecessary.  Stop the client, and give it about 10 minutes to really stop.  And make sure that it's not hiding in the dock.  After your delay, restart the client from a command line with the -rescan flag, and it will sit there for some time rechecking the blockchain and rebuilding your index.

That's actually price inflation.  The economic definition of "inflation" in this context is the expansion of the monetary base.


You should take your own advice before playing among the adults.

I see.  No, it's not a matter of miners not accepting it.  If the transaction is visable in block explorer, then it had to have been accepted by all of the clients between you and blockexplorer as valid.

I recommend a -rescan.  It's most likely that your client just missed it for some reason.

The default transaction fee is no longer zero, and that makes people mad too.  Still seems unlikely that a transaction would be in limbo for so long simply because it's free.  There are plenty of blocks that still go by without transaction fees at all, and the online wallet services don't send a fee by default either, and I've done several of those kind of transactions over the past couple of weeks and had to wait 30 minutes at the most.  If your transaction didn't make it out to the network, that would explain it as well.

Based upon your assumptions about what the majority may believe, I'd have to say that you are correct in a literal sense.  That people are expected to act in accordance with the NAP, under the potential threat of retaliation.  However, the assertion that the majority disagree with libs on this point is false, and provablely so.  The threat of retaliation isn't the same as coercion under threat of force, because it matters who is the initial aggressor.  Also, the majority of people actually do agree with the NAP as a general social rule, but most people have exceptions.  The difference is that (most of us) don't make exceptions, and none of us make exceptions based solely upon the idea that a police officer is doing the action.  If the police officer represents someone with an honest claim, then the officer is within rights to act upon the interests of said party, whether that be another citizen or even the group of people loosely called the state.  However, that does not give the state the right to make up violations that don't exist, and then expect the police officer to enforce them.

In what way is the libertarian concept of "coercion" different than the general definition?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

Money quote:
"Coercion (pronounced /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, rewards, or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced."

Definately not pointless.  Justice for a murderer (a real one, not an accidental one or an incidental one) is death.  Incarceration is not.

And I don't really think that you will.

Some people did pay a high price for the learning curve.

There is no mistake, the timestamp is provided by the machine that submits the block.  The client permits a great deal of variation for the timestamp before it rejects it, because the only reason that it's in there at all is to determine the retarget value once every 2016 blocks, and it only needs to be so accurate.  It wouldn't be necessary to reject incorrect timestamps at all, if not for the possibility of manipulation of the retarget.

I'm just curious, since this topic has touched upon muggings.

Has anyone on this thread ever been mugged?  More than once?  And if yes, where do you live?

Personally, I've never been mugged, and I was in my thirties before I met anyone who had, and he was a self admitted homeless person at that time.  I've yet to met anyone else since.  I've had stuff stolen out of my car, and out of my backyard overnight, but I've never been confronted with an actual individual willing to threaten harm to steal something from me.

But then, I live in a citizens' concealed carry state, which probably influences such things significantly.

It's different for Japan, at least for most people.  Some parents send their children to after school classes for English with a native English teacher, but nearly every Japanese student attends publicly funded schools, which are prohibited from hiring foreign nationals as teachers due to union rules.  The result being that a Japanese born native speaker of English is a rare teacher, and one who is in very high demand; while the vast majority of English students (which is all children in public schools in Japan) get a teacher who's native language is Japanese.  This causes distortions in the grammer that is detectable by native English speakers that is commonly called "Japlish".  Although they can be understood, they are also easily identified.  It really is different for native Chinese.

Those are all retrofit designs.  There are designs intended to use the thorium fuel cycle as the primary fuel, after the initial breeding cycle of course.  India has been studying teh feasibility of transitioning to the thorium fuel cycle for a number of years.  I don't know if they concluded that their existing reactors could be retrofitted to a complete thorium cycle or not, but even if only new reactors were completely thorium fuel, the mixed fuel setup would still allow India to detach itself from the international atomic fuel industries to a large extent for decades.

Scientists, yes, but it's spelled a bit differently in common usage depending upon the language.  You understood what he was talking about well enough. 

Bear in mind, also, that in such a society that generally honors the NAP, there will be those who will not.  The criminal would have to deal with being labeled a criminal, which largely removes that person's expectations of civil support in the event that another criminal were to take advantage of them.  Most people would simply call that karma, whether or not the second criminal were himself blacklisted.

Of course not.  I don't think that you could be convinced of anything.  You have a strong belief system, and are unlikely to accept any evidence to the contrary of that belief system.  It's like trying to convince a muslim from afganistan that a Catholic is correct.  It doesn't really happen.  Very few people who grow up surrounded by such a particular belief are going to be able to break free from it,