Although I have strong suspicions that the general plans for the current outcomes were pre-planned by the global elite as part of the chaos needed to bring about a world government, if one prefers a non-planned explanation then the Minsky Moment is a candidate.
Now you are talking. Kudos on the nod to objectivity. I think we can all now conclude that Armstrongs Oct 1 turn date has proven to be true. The world has gone to hell in a very short period of time centered around this turn date, with the key marker of Russia starting to bomb the USA funded rebels exactly on the turn date.
Leaning toward agreement. There is a lot of crazy shit going down right now. Politically, wars, migration, markets, commodities, capital outflows, economics, etc. Also don't forget the huge downward revision in US jobs (important indicator of the economy) that was announced on October 2. Of course that is backward looking data but it is clear the downward break has happened sometime around the end of Q2 into Q3 2015. EDIT: It is still possible this "big turn" turns out to be a dud, if many of these major sources of instability end up becoming less serious on their own or are easily resolved. We'll have to see. |
|
|
|
You are still approaching this from thinking about what to do as fair, but there is no chance of that. The system is rigged. For as long as you waste time in that direction, you are just feeding the problem. The Europeans who are still confused about fairness are being raped by the system. You will sold that the world government will be more fair. And most of those who have been indoctrinated with using collectivism to achieve fairness will follow this outcome. They simply don't ever think that maybe there is another way (e.g. individual empowerment via technological innovation and destroying the collective economically so humans can be free). In my opinion, the problem is you (and most others) don't see all governments as evil.
Let me offer another interpretation, and this is coming from someone who is no fan of governments or top down control. It may not be entirely indoctrination and people may just differ, perhaps even genetically, in how they weigh fairness considerations in their decision making process. Focusing on one word in my statement and expanding the reasons which people ascribe to collectivism isn't "another interpretation". You are not disagreeing with what I wrote. I never wrote that indoctrination is the only way that people fall in love with collectivism as a fairness solution. Don't you understand that forum comment is not a fucking novel. I write one word "indoctrination" instead of a novel, because no one is going to want to read a novel and I don't have time to be exhaustive in every last detail. The point of what I wrote remains. if people strongly value fairness and collectivism and the reason those policies exist is to best serve the people. In that case you are the one trying to top-down impose individualism and take away the freedom live within such a more socially-oriented system. Such people may even value that sort of system so much that they are willing to accept corruption, less individual freedom, structural instability, and other bad outcomes as a cost of (attempting to achieve) fairness. In the event that turns into a catastrophic failure, well in that case antifragility will take over and these genetic tendencies or whatever they are, will likely be wiped from the gene pool. But that may simply be the nature of people doing what they want, not bad policies imposed by an elite. And none of that is contrary what I wrote except the bolded accusation which is in error. On the second bolded part, there is no way I could force someone to not participate in a collective with technological innovation that enabled others to choose not to. Duh. The non-aggression of individual choice is one fundamental principles that makes it so fair. However, viewing individual choice as such a fundamental principle is relative to your own individual makeup. If other humans have a different (possibly genetic) makeup that elevates, for example, fairness over individual choice, then there is nothing to say that your way is right and theirs is wrong. What are you going to do, wipe them off the face of the earth? Wish them out of existence? Convince them that their genetics are defective? RMA under warranty? You have to acknowledge the subjectivity of your own values relative to others'. Well, you don't, but it's clearly there anyway. What part of "individual empowerment via technological innovation so that those who want to opt out can" did you misconstrue as " wipe them off the face of the earth"? Smooth you are just babbling nonsense today. What happened to you. I was in the process of writing an edit along similar lines when you wrote that. See above. But the key point you are missing is that people are not necessarily "confused" about fairness as you wrote above, nor are they even necessarily being "raped" by the system, they may simply attach a different value to perceived fairness (and therefore be willing to accept greater costs in pursuit of even an imperfect version of it). The NHS in the UK for example is apparently enormously popular, even among people who do pay for it (net taxpayers). They are not being raped, they are living within a partially collectivist system largely of their own making and largely aligned with their own values. |
|
|
|
You are still approaching this from thinking about what to do as fair, but there is no chance of that. The system is rigged. For as long as you waste time in that direction, you are just feeding the problem. The Europeans who are still confused about fairness are being raped by the system. You will sold that the world government will be more fair. And most of those who have been indoctrinated with using collectivism to achieve fairness will follow this outcome. They simply don't ever think that maybe there is another way (e.g. individual empowerment via technological innovation and destroying the collective economically so humans can be free). In my opinion, the problem is you (and most others) don't see all governments as evil.
Let me offer another interpretation, and this is coming from someone who is no fan of governments or top down control. It may not be entirely indoctrination and people may just differ, perhaps even genetically, in how they weigh fairness considerations in their decision making process. Focusing on one word in my statement and expanding the reasons which people ascribe to collectivism isn't "another interpretation". You are not disagreeing with what I wrote. I never wrote that indoctrination is the only way that people fall in love with collectivism as a fairness solution. Don't you understand that forum comment is not a fucking novel. I write one word "indoctrination" instead of a novel, because no one is going to want to read a novel and I don't have time to be exhaustive in every last detail. The point of what I wrote remains. if people strongly value fairness and collectivism and the reason those policies exist is to best serve the people. In that case you are the one trying to top-down impose individualism and take away the freedom live within such a more socially-oriented system. Such people may even value that sort of system so much that they are willing to accept corruption, less individual freedom, structural instability, and other bad outcomes as a cost of (attempting to achieve) fairness. In the event that turns into a catastrophic failure, well in that case antifragility will take over and these genetic tendencies or whatever they are, will likely be wiped from the gene pool. But that may simply be the nature of people doing what they want, not bad policies imposed by an elite. And none of that is contrary what I wrote except the bolded accusation which is in error. On the second bolded part, there is no way I could force someone to not participate in a collective with technological innovation that enabled others to choose not to. Duh. The non-aggression of individual choice is one fundamental principles that makes it so fair. However, viewing individual choice as such a fundamental principle is relative to your own individual makeup. If other humans have a different (possibly genetic) makeup that elevates, for example, fairness over individual choice, then there is nothing to say that your way is right and theirs is wrong. What are you going to do, wipe them off the face of the earth? Wish them out of existence? Convince them that their genetics are defective? RMA under warranty? You have to acknowledge the subjectivity of your own values relative to others'. Well, you don't, but it's clearly there anyway. I guess one reasonable answer is just wait for them to self destruct and the possibly pick up the pieces the best we are able. We probably don't disagree on that, given your comments about finding a place to hole up (south america or whatever) and try ones best to live life. |
|
|
|
If you're going to go there, then show your work. Make an actual mathematically grounded case for it (based on any branch of mathematics), or don't throw names of mathematical theories around as rhetorical flourishes. That's a cheap trick.
WTF? Why has this thread turned into "each comment has to be a white paper"? Are you trying to filibuster me? The simple point has already been sufficiently explained. If you can't figure it out (about chaos theory), that is not my problem. If I have incentive to write a white paper I assume I will. I don't know why you can't understand what I wrote: If someone is into symbolism and then someone else can demonstrate their symbols form another pattern, that sort of makes the initial symbolism a joke. It was a point about serendipity and the futility of control. Someone was so serious about the alignment of the stars to their structure and the orientation, etc.. And that seriousness falls to random chance. haha.
The alignment of the stars in a particular structure is not the point. Various forms of astrology have been around since people have been around. The interpretation of the geographies of things like pyramids and airports is more out there, and demands a stronger support if that is possible (which I seriously doubt). Granted something like the Guidestones which may be somewhat arbitrarily placed could have been placed by their originator to aline with other objects of occult significance, for whatever astrological or similar reasons (see above). The airport (which was built after the Guidestones) I'm much, much more skeptical about being anything other than overfitting. |
|
|
|
You are still approaching this from thinking about what to do as fair, but there is no chance of that. The system is rigged. For as long as you waste time in that direction, you are just feeding the problem. The Europeans who are still confused about fairness are being raped by the system. You will sold that the world government will be more fair. And most of those who have been indoctrinated with using collectivism to achieve fairness will follow this outcome. They simply don't ever think that maybe there is another way (e.g. individual empowerment via technological innovation and destroying the collective economically so humans can be free). In my opinion, the problem is you (and most others) don't see all governments as evil.
Let me offer another interpretation, and this is coming from someone who is no fan of governments or top down control. It may not be entirely indoctrination and people may just differ, perhaps even genetically, in how they weigh fairness considerations in their decision making process. Focusing on one word in my statement and expanding the reasons which people ascribe to collectivism isn't "another interpretation". You are not disagreeing with what I wrote. I never wrote that indoctrination is the only way that people fall in love with collectivism as a fairness solution. Don't you understand that forum comment is not a fucking novel. I write one word "indoctrination" instead of a novel, because no one is going to want to read a novel and I don't have time to be exhaustive in every last detail. The point of what I wrote remains. No I think the point entirely fails if people strongly value fairness and collectivism and the reason those policies exist is to best serve the people. In that case you are the one trying to top-down impose individualism and take away the freedom live within such a more socially-oriented system. Such people may even value that sort of system so much that they are willing to accept corruption, less individual freedom, structural instability, and other bad outcomes as a cost of (attempting to achieve) fairness. In the event that turns into a catastrophic failure, well in that case antifragility will take over and these genetic tendencies or whatever they are, will likely be wiped from the gene pool. But that may simply be the nature of people doing what they want, not bad policies imposed by an elite. |
|
|
|
And thus you made the same mistake he made. How many humans can afford to construct the Georgia Guidestones. Duh. (and the power to make sure you remain anonymous!)
It only takes one, and yes there are many relatively wealthy people who do eccentric things. The cost of the guidestones was significant but not billions, and doing things anonymously in the 70s was relatively easy. I don't buy this as a signature of a global elite. He may be part of one, but it is impossible to say. Beware confirmation bias. I never said he must be the global elite, although I am not saying he isn't. It is amazing how you and generalizethis wrangle on and on and completely lose focus of my original point 2 or 3 days ago. Which was the irony of the serendipity that these globalist memes displayed at the Georgia Guidestones and the Denver airport, when considered geometrically with the Great Pyramids form a pentagram which is often associated with Jesus's 5 wounds and as juxtaposed against the 6-pointed star which is an occult symbol foisted on the Jews by Zionism and not the historical symbol of Judaism. Honestly it doesn't mean a damn thing unless... Oh go study Chaos theory. If you're going to go there, then show your work. Make an actual mathematically grounded case for it (based on any branch of mathematics), or don't throw names of mathematical theories around as rhetorical flourishes. That's a cheap trick. |
|
|
|
And thus you made the same mistake he made. How many humans can afford to construct the Georgia Guidestones. Duh. (and the power to make sure you remain anonymous!)
It only takes one, and yes there are many relatively wealthy people who do eccentric things. The cost of the guidestones was significant but not billions, and doing things anonymously in the 70s was relatively easy. I don't buy this as a signature of a global elite. He may be part of one, but it is impossible to say. Beware confirmation bias. I never said he must be the global elite, although I am not saying he isn't. It is amazing how you and generalizethis wrangle on and on and completely lose focus of my original point 2 or 3 days ago. Which was the irony of the serendipity that these globalist memes displayed at the Georgia Guidestones and the Denver airport, when considered geometrically with the Great Pyramids form a pentagram which is often associated with Jesus's 5 wounds and as juxtaposed against the 6-pointed star which is an occult symbol foisted on the Jews by Zionism and not the historical symbol of Judaism. Honestly it doesn't mean a damn thing unless you specify the pattern you are looking for before you test for it. There are just too many possible patterns that may emerge when you cherry pick "interesting" patterns from unlimited data. Anyway, I don't disagree with you that some of these ideas are cultural norms. That's kind of a different question from whether someone is actively promoting it or not, using vague and ambiguous symbolism. The idea that many people have many fucked up views is not remarkable at all. |
|
|
|
You are still approaching this from thinking about what to do as fair, but there is no chance of that. The system is rigged. For as long as you waste time in that direction, you are just feeding the problem. The Europeans who are still confused about fairness are being raped by the system. You will sold that the world government will be more fair. And most of those who have been indoctrinated with using collectivism to achieve fairness will follow this outcome. They simply don't ever think that maybe there is another way (e.g. individual empowerment via technological innovation and destroying the collective economically so humans can be free). In my opinion, the problem is you (and most others) don't see all governments as evil.
Let me offer another interpretation, and this is coming from someone who is no fan of governments or top down control. It may not be entirely indoctrination and people may just differ, perhaps even genetically, in how they weigh fairness considerations in their decision making process. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game, especially the (questionable) report under experimental results suggesting genetic differences. There is possibly a degree of hard wiring in these views, and it isn't just that people "don't see" something as evil, but to them it genuinely is not evil (and the alternative you propose may, to them, in fact be evil). |
|
|
|
All I see is a file on a web site, and one full of paid traffic links and I think also trying to sell something
Instead of wasting 2 days of my time, next time would you first do your research. Congressmen and other influential people received 100 hand signed copies of his book. The only person who knows his identity confirmed the veracity of the book. I have little patience for the kinds of low quality web sites that tend to report on this stuff, and also tend to spam search rankings in the process. If you have an authoritative source that can strongly verify the claims you just made, go ahead and show it. Don't turn a conversation into a treasure hunt. |
|
|
|
And thus you made the same mistake he made. How many humans can afford to construct the Georgia Guidestones. Duh. (and the power to make sure you remain anonymous!)
It only takes one, and yes there are many relatively wealthy people who do eccentric things. The cost of the guidestones was significant but not billions, and doing things anonymously in the 70s was relatively easy. I don't buy this as a signature of a global elite. He may be part of one, but it is impossible to say. Beware confirmation bias. |
|
|
|
so wikipedia may be wrong about that It is well known that Wikipedia is very often wrong about contentious issues, because it is a for sale to the highest bidder. This is true of encyclopedias and text books also. Are you just finding out about that reality of life  Wikipedia is wrong. There is no "maybe". I don't know that the authenticity of the book has been established. All I see is a file on a web site, and one full of paid traffic links and I think also trying to sell something. The internet is full of all kinds of unrelable crap, as you well know (and state above one example, but wikipedia is no more for sale than paid traffic sites, maybe less so). Even when money is not involved (but especially when it is) people will fake all kinds of things simply for notoriety. Now my guess is that the source cited on wikipedia for the nuclear war interpretation probably didn't even know about the book and was just wrong, but when it comes to unvalidated stuff on the internet, there is always a maybe. |
|
|
|
That video is wicked cool! Wow. Had to share it on Facebook.
The vid is also good in showing to others that monero development is ongoing, its far from dead, many ppl help, and is constantly evolving. The Monero bears and shorts will get to play until 0,9 is out. After that all bets are off. Wht do you mean. Beta of 0.9 for windows is available for a while. What would change for bears and shorts if 0.9 becomes stable? I mean tagged and official for download from https://getmonero.org/downloads/. What changes for the bears and shorts is that the development work that has been going on for well over 9 months is released officially. It also means that the process for the necessary hard fork is started. I'd add that many people are routinely confused about the state of the code. It is easy for us who are basically all insiders here to say that we know all about 0.9, we've tried the Windows beta and github source, etc. But with some frequency people download the 10-month old binaries, and report various problems with them only to be told to try one of the newer ones. It can't be known how many people evaluating it never ask for help and just give up after seeing the state of that old release (or do ask, are given that advice, but decide it is too much trouble and give up), but it is logical to assume that a large fraction do. |
|
|
|
The humanist theme I wrote about up thread where it is incorrectly assumed nature doesn't manage itself and man is in control and the desire to make a perfect world which I explained with some mathematical description up thread means destroying life... http://govtslaves.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Common-Sense-Renewed.pdf#page=14Humans are special creatures.
...
We appear to be the only agents capable of consciously working to improve this imperfect world.
These are powers of discernment about the global elite that I have developed. I'm sorry but the idea that humans are capable of consciously working to improve the world is not a signature of the global elite. I'm quite certain I could round up hundreds of people tomorrow who believe that and have nothing to do with any kind of elite. The earlier comments about ink blots are valid to an extent here. |
|
|
|
After browsing through the book a bit, if we assume it is authentic then I think both of our interpretations are off a bit. There is little to suggest it is specifically directed at post-catastrophe people (so wikipedia may be wrong about that, and my impression as well), though I guess his intent that it carry on for centuries suggests that could be included within his intent. He does seem to want to influence cultural values, as I suggested, but not in a top-down TPTB-imposed sort of way, nor dependent on a catastrophe. Indeed his stated goal is appealing much more to the capacity of people and societies to gradually learn and evolve over long periods of time: Key passage (page 7):  Overall he does seem quite taken in by the sky-is-falling Population Bomb nonsense. Seems reasonably smart though. I wonder if his current perspective might be a bit different, now that the resource depletion scare has been largely debunked (if he's even still alive of course). |
|
|
|
they clearly appear to me to be more likely to be advice on how to build/rebuild a society, not advice on how to change the society we already have
You still haven't explained how inscription #2 can be congruent with this interpretation. It is quite obvious to me, as I explained above. The creator of the Georgia Guidestones wrote a book. Why didn't you bother to check it?
Maybe because I'm not that interested? As I said, my comments are based on the language of the inscriptions themselves, and the historical context of the time they were written. In Chapter 1 on the same page he mentions the threat nuclear war but in the context of Thomas Paine's call for reason unfortunately resulting in war because humans would not resort to reason. And his plea is to form a world government to prevent nuclear war. Which certainly suggests he was quite concerned that it might happen! I agree I haven't read his book so I have no idea what else he might have said. Based on what I've seen the stones look like advice to post-catastrophe people. |
|
|
|
You're assuming the advice is directed at immediate survival, but it is more obviously directed at long term rebuilding of a better society than the one that blew itself up (if that is the intent at all, which I don't know, but as I have said repeatedly I find it more plausible than directives such as promoting diversity and fitness, for example, being directed at a non-obliterated population).
It all may well be bad advice too. Who can say that some older guy with some money and white hair actually has any fucking idea how to properly rebuild humanity. My take on it is to interpret what intended audience is most logical given the language of the directives. I find the theory of a post-nuclear war audience quite plausible. I can't prove that was the actual intent though.
BTW, I already explained the 500M number. In the 70s it was widely believed (in some circles at least) that humanity had overstepped the carrying capacity of the earth and this would or at least could lead to (if it hadn't already) global resource competition and potentially catastrophic wars or other societal collapse (see Limits to Growth). To avoid a repeat you would need to keep the population smaller.
You moved the goal posts as I stated you would. First you tried to argue that the " 2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity." was directed at a small number of survivors that needs to improve their fitness and diversity. And now you move the goal posts and argue that the statue is directed to the long-term. It is directed at what a small number of survivors should do long term to create a healthy (and better) society than the one that had failed. i.e. trying to instill cultural values. Whoever was behind it probably thought of it as a sort of ten commandments. That's pretty obviously true, the only question is who is expected to pay any attention to these commandments. I don't really see people pre-catatastrophe ever paying much heed to some anonymous guy's writings on a monolith, but post-catatstrophe, people might. After your logic has blown up, you resort to the senile old man defense rather than just admitting your interpretation fails to be congruent. I never said that he was senile. I said that even if well intentioned (and I don't know), his advice to future people may still be ill-advised. We have no idea of his level of expertise in developing a set of foundational values for a healthy society, if such expertise is even possible. Do you really believe your interpretation makes much sense as compared to the one I presented? If yes, I can only sigh. Yes I do. Furthermore in reading the inscriptions on their own and doing my best to ignore/disregard any commentary, they clearly appear to me to be more likely (though still not certain) to be advice on how to build/rebuild a society than advice on how to change the society we already have, or how to behave within the context of that society. Of course we each bring our prior beliefs and assumptions to any observation of new things. |
|
|
|
You're assuming the advice is directed at immediate survival, but it is more obviously directed at long term rebuilding of a better society than the one that blew itself up (if that is the intent at all, which I don't know, but as I have said repeatedly I find it more plausible than directives such as promoting diversity and fitness, for example, being directed at a non-obliterated population).
It all may well be bad advice too. Who can say that some older guy with some money and white hair actually has any fucking idea how to properly rebuild humanity. My take on it is to interpret what intended audience is most logical given the language of the directives. I find the theory of a post-nuclear war audience quite plausible. I can't prove that was the actual intent though.
BTW, I already explained the 500M number. In the 70s it was widely believed (in some circles at least) that humanity had overstepped the carrying capacity of the earth and this would or at least could lead to (if it hadn't already) global resource competition and potentially catastrophic wars or other societal collapse (see Limits to Growth). To avoid a repeat you would need to keep the population smaller.
You moved the goal posts as I stated you would. First you tried to argue that the " 2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity." was directed at a small number of survivors that needs to improve their fitness and diversity. And now you move the goal posts and argue that the statue is directed to the long-term. It is directed at what a small number of survivors should do long term to create a healthy (and better) society than the one that had failed. i.e. trying to instill cultural values. Whoever was behind it probably thought of it as a sort of ten commandments. That's pretty obviously true, the only question is who is expected to pay any attention to these commandments. I don't really see people pre-catatastrophe ever paying much heed to some anonymous guy's writings on a monolith, but post-catatstrophe, people might. After your logic has blown up, you resort to the senile old man defense rather than just admitting your interpretation fails to be congruent. I never said that he was senile. I said that even if well intentioned (and I don't know), his advice to future people may still be ill-advised. We have no idea of his level of expertise in developing a set of foundational values for a healthy society, if such expertise is even possible. EDIT: BTW it is also possible that the feared catastrophe that would lead to a failure of society and a need to rebuild with advice from monoliths was not nuclear war at all, but simply overpopulation and resource depletion leading to a rapid mass die-off (as some forecast at time time, Paul Ehrlich notably). Maybe the white haired guy was a fan. |
|
|
|
2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity. What does State managed Planned Parenthood have to do with fear of nuclear holocaust? Rather this is clearly the Rockefeller foundations' signature (and thus one of his legions such as the globalist member Ted Turner's work). I'm pretty sure any post-nuclear war interpretation of this comment would have nothing to do with Planned Parenthood. Certainly one could imagine that a small group of survivors would benefit from improving fitness and diversity. Honestly, to me it makes more sense interpreted that way than trying to make this fit Planned Parenthood or any present-day reproductive issue I can think of. As I said I have no idea whether the intent of the stones actually had anything to do with nuclear war, but the theory seems credible to me. That also doesn't necessarily mean you have to agree with every bit of advice expressed on them either. Ahem, smaller populations suffer from reduced fitness and diversity. Exactly right. That's why a small group of post-nuclear war survivors would need this advice (especially since the survivors would probably be strongly selected for nuclear war survival, not necessarily so well selected for rebuilding humanity). Yeah I see that clever twist linguistically, but... We are telling people who are trying to survive to think about finding each other over a scorched earth planet and focus on diversity of their reproduction and to form a world court, when in fact these people are going to be most concerned about finding food and water that is safe to consume. You're assuming the advice is directed at immediate survival, but it is more obviously directed at long term rebuilding of a better society than the one that blew itself up (if that is the intent at all, which I don't know, but as I have said repeatedly I find it more plausible than directives such as promoting diversity and fitness, for example, being directed at a non-obliterated population). It all may well be bad advice too. Who can say that some older guy with some money and white hair actually has any fucking idea how to properly rebuild humanity. My take on it is to interpret what intended audience is most logical given the language of the directives. I find the theory of a post-nuclear war audience quite plausible. I can't prove that was the actual intent though. BTW, I already explained the 500M number. In the 70s it was widely believed (in some circles at least) that humanity had overstepped the carrying capacity of the earth and this would or at least could lead to (if it hadn't already) global resource competition and potentially catastrophic wars or other societal collapse (see Limits to Growth). To avoid a repeat you would need to keep the population smaller. |
|
|
|
2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity. What does State managed Planned Parenthood have to do with fear of nuclear holocaust? Rather this is clearly the Rockefeller foundations' signature (and thus one of his legions such as the globalist member Ted Turner's work). I'm pretty sure any post-nuclear war interpretation of this comment would have nothing to do with Planned Parenthood. Certainly one could imagine that a small group of survivors would benefit from improving fitness and diversity. Honestly, to me it makes more sense interpreted that way than trying to make this fit Planned Parenthood or any present-day reproductive issue I can think of. As I said I have no idea whether the intent of the stones actually had anything to do with nuclear war, but the theory seems credible to me. That also doesn't necessarily mean you have to agree with every bit of advice expressed on them either. Ahem, smaller populations suffer from reduced fitness and diversity. Exactly right. That's why a small group of post-nuclear war survivors would need this advice (especially since the survivors would probably be strongly selected for nuclear war survival, not necessarily so well selected for rebuilding humanity). |
|
|
|
That video is wicked cool! Wow. Had to share it on Facebook.
The vid is also good in showing to others that monero development is ongoing, its far from dead, many ppl help, and is constantly evolving. The Monero bears and shorts will get to play until 0,9 is out. After that all bets are off. Wht do you mean. Beta of 0.9 for windows is available for a while. What would change for bears and shorts if 0.9 becomes stable? He probably means tagged and released binaries after beta ends. There are many Monero projects going on right now that being short seems very dangerous. There seems to far more to lose from shorting than to be gained right now. CryptoKingdom registration being opened up again after the Ultima release will probably open some doors for Monero also. I've already got two guys from work signed up and they just heard me talking about it and asked how to sign-up. Apparently the investment/play aspect of the game appeals without any selling. Is there a new schedule? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
