here is a succinct and well polished video that explains why even if one person is better at literally everything than another person it still makes economic sense for both of them to work and trade with each other ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0H7r_Dl1CQ). This means that as long as people want to work, there will always be work available. As for the issue of not being payed enough to survive, that will be entirely offset by the fact that the same productivity that has displaced them has also made the products that they consume proportionately cheaper, after all that was the reason why the entrepreneur chose to displace them to begin with. |
|
|
|
im the gollum.  "We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious." |
|
|
|
|
quantum entanglement should allow for instantaneous communication over any distance.
|
|
|
|
|
i think you are right because we are in a bubble. not a bitcoin bubble but an asic bubble. however those who manage to buy the most advanced hardware to come to market before that bubble bursts will have a really great opportunity i think. everyones future difficulty predictions will be way off because they will be expecting a new generation and that generation will not come. this will cause them to undervalue the last generation of hardware to be released before the bubble pops, and that is an opportunity to someone who can sense it.
|
|
|
|
i just picked some random things off the top of my head with the intention of providing some perspective.  this train has clearly left the station  |
|
|
|
|
it will be a VERY long time before machines become better at literally everything. Even when machines are making pretty decent artwork, there will still be a VERY long gap before machines become better critics than humans. So like say you have your favorite show and it gets discontinued, so you tell hall 9000 to continue it for you. For someone else who wants to know what media to consume, and has limited time on his hands, your reviews and critiques of hal 9000's productions would be a valuable asset to him.
at the point where there isnt even a market for human artists or human critics. well then things would be so fundamentally different its hard to contemplate. machines may just have their own society and we would assume the role to them that dogs and cats fill for us.
|
|
|
|
I have perfect trading record,
EnJoyThis - enough trolling, you were outbid in last auction, I never swindled anyone.
Well seemed you had 'two auctions' going on one public and one private. Don't say you did a honest auction, because you did not make the 'other' bid public. Now you have both the forum auction and ebay (and private?), just saying ppl should do their own dd that's all. some people place bids on the thread while other people chose to bid in pm's, that's pretty much standard practice in my experience. |
|
|
|
I have perfect trading record,
EnJoyThis - enough trolling, you were outbid in last auction, I never swindled anyone.
Well seemed you had 'two auctions' going on one public and one private. Don't say you did a honest auction, because you did not make the 'other' bid public. Now you have both the forum auction and ebay (and private?), just saying ppl should do their own dd that's all. some people place bids on the thread and other people chose to bid in pm's, that's pretty much standard practice in my experience. |
|
|
|
It is all well and good to do TA, and chase the markets, but this is the type of thing that will change the world.
Maybe. These ideas don't sell themselves though. Who is actively "marketing" Bitcoin as a P2P, low fee money system in Africa right now? Africans who haven't ever seen an ice cube aren't going to learn about Bitcoin on their own, or even know it exists. The social media integration alone, if successful and implemented, would be enough to allow Bitcoin to reach mainstream audiences. Africans who haven't seen an ice cube are on facebook and "tweeting"? Its not beyond the realm of potability. many Africans who do not have freezers do have cell phones. its not so amazing really, frictionless communication is more important for survival than cold drinks. |
|
|
|
....is there anything wrong with this statement? -> "i believe that i am". if not than, using the socratic method, i think it could be used to break your claim "Both the terms belief, and faith imply that evidence is not used in the decision process."
I think Christians might look at things such as the wonders of life as 'evidence', but with exceptions of some of them who are idiots and misunderstand their own faith, they are basically, 'the faithful'. Faith, and belief, are central issues. "evidence", is secondary or tertiary... Yes, there is a lot wrong with the statement "I believe that I am." Let me correct it to "I am." as far as wonders being evidence, its not a bad argument really, i sympathize with it. unfortunately it is flawed, because we have NO idea how large the sample set is for initial conditions for universes. there could be *insert graham's number here* total universe out there, each with random laws. if this were the case than there would almost certainly be some with wonderful properties and with no need for an intelligent creator. and honestly an intelligent creator doesnt solve that problem, it just begs the question because it would be a wonder its self. What is wrong with the statement "i believe that i am", is there some reason why i should not believe that i am? "i am" is also a true statement but it does have a slightly different meaning from "i believe that i am". granted you could say that there is never any good reason to chose the statement "i believe that i am" over the statement "i am" but that doesn't make it wrong. p.s. sometimes epistemology breaks by brain. so if what i wrote up there is totally insane, and it might be, i apologize for that.  *edit* perhapse one might argue that at this point we are delving so deep into the bowels of epistemological thought that the Socratic method is no longer valid since the Socratic method is built on top of such structures. |
|
|
|
I only believe in things that have good evidence and/or logcally consistent arguments to back them up, i have not yet encountered such evidence and/or logically consistent arguments for any religion. I am however uncompromisingly open minded so if you felt so inclined as to share with me the evidence and/or arguments that convinced you, and if the evidence evidence is good and/or the arguments are sound than i'll certainly climb on board.
Sure I will explain my point of view. For the largest part I hold to be an atheist, and I am not particularly interested in the 'jesus christ was he real, etc' issue of western philosophy. Today many think we approach a technological singularity, and some style of intelligent machines. I think this is reasonable if we give it 50-100 years, instead of the 2025 date that's often quoted. We know some of the consequences of that type of an event. They may be summarized as, after the initial spark of consciousness, growth of that entity's knowledge and understanding and capability in terms of doublings per millisecond. The generally accepted statement is that "We don't know what the world will be like 24 hours later." Having noted these ideas, I would conjecture that we're not the first or only intelligent species to have existed in the several cycles of stellar evolution in the universe. And there would have been other, prior technological singularities. This implies that the universe is what might be called 'intelligence and consciousness rich'. I think that's a reasonable view - if you like, consider it faith based. But it doesn't have much to do with religions as they have existed historically, does it? The opposite end of the spectrum, and what I would call the "19th century mechanistic atheist view", is that man is alone, as far as the evidence shows. This viewpoint reminds me of what Galileo fought against. The universe DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND THE EARTH. lol... oh sure, and we will probably simulate universes on computers in the future, and those universes will probably develop life and that life will build computers that simulate universes on into infinity and that is a pretty good argument for the fact that our universe was probably simulated in such a manner. if you want to call the scientists who created our universe gods, than yea ok there is a reasonable chance that god or gods are real. That doesn't meet my criteria for god though. And of course none of that is faith based, i think its a pretty decent and logically consistent argument. if you want to call such beings gods, than it sure as hell is a better argument for the existence of gods than, "well i just have faith". |
|
|
|
Original we havent forked it yet
be sure to send me a pm when you do. |
|
|
|
I'm uncompromisingly open minded. If you can show me good evidence than I'll climb on board. So what is your evidence?
Evidence for what?  If you refer to 'a belief in Jesus Christ' then you refer to a faith based dogma. Both the terms belief, and faith imply that evidence is not used in the decision process. I would note here that a personal stand based on faith/belief can be much, much stronger than one based on 'evidence'. IIRC Jesus himself scorned those who demanded 'proof' and who could not or would not take matters on faith. Not in the mood to go look it up, but the question posed was not his nature as 'son of god or man/god'. Rather the question would have been related to 'the Creator' or such. if he did that than i could just counter by saying that he should disbelieve in jesus and that he should accept that claim on faith. If he believes that faith is a good justification for believing something than he should also believe my faith based claim. Meaning that he should both believe in and disbelieve in jesus at the same time. also is there anything wrong with this statement? -> "i believe that i am". if not than, using the socratic method, i think it could be used to break your claim "Both the terms belief, and faith imply that evidence is not used in the decision process." |
|
|
|
|
I only believe in things that have good evidence and/or logcally consistent arguments to back them up, i have not yet encountered such evidence and/or logically consistent arguments for any religion. I am however uncompromisingly open minded so if you felt so inclined as to share with me the evidence and/or arguments that convinced you, and if the evidence evidence is good and/or the arguments are sound than i'll certainly climb on board.
|
|
|
|
|
rofl no. i mean it may be possible that libertarian rhetoric is beginning to supplant traditional conservative rhetoric but libertarianism is built on principals and the republican party has no principals, it only has rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
What a great way to start of your account, asking for a loan.
I want a loan, too. Since OP has less post then me, I want 1000 BTC. I will pay you back in my next life. i will loan you 1000BTC but ill need a loan for 1001BTC from you first hey look its the federal reserve and the treasury |
|
|
|
|
"Finally, the upside is exacerbated by illiquidity, or the limited bitcoin supply." Someone correct me if im wrong but that is not what liquidity means. liquidity is related to the availability of BUYERS not sellers of a particular good.
not bad, i mean hes very fair. though i think hes putting the cart before the horse. hes saying, in order for bitcoin to become more widely accepted it needs to stop being so volatile, but the only think that will stop it from being so volatile is wider acceptance. so needless to say, i hope he is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
i literally lol'd. thanks for that.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
