That patent sounds like something theoretical, and very optimistic. TBMs are used in major operations, such as Yucca Mountain. Seeing as Yucca is a depository for nuclear waste wouldn't it make sense for nuclear machines to be used there, if they existed?

The only source in that article is the family themselves...

Found other articles, all of which (even Huffington Post) only cite the woman herself. I could believe that someone talked to her, but I think that she's exaggerating a little.

Edit: Huffington Post says that no one actually visited her:



Also, Obama visited me the other day. That's how I know she's lying. Here's the source that proves that he came here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=266411.msg2855413#msg2855413

7 miles per day? Robbins (which is used by the military and civilians alike) can do less than 30 meters per day.

http://www.therobbinscompany.com/news-events/world-records/

Well, I don't disagree that destroying an environment has an effect. But harming the environment changes the climate. In the Haiti case, they cut down too many trees. This allowed the hurricanes that have hit them to build up greater strength, as the wind and water were not slowed by the trees. Keep in mind that climate change is not solely a rise in temperature. Weather is part of the "climate" and the Haitians made the weather a lot worse than it should have been.

On a side note, the Dust Bowl is a great example of humans destroying the environment, leading to climate change, and there being a lot of violence, starvation, and crime afterwards. But that was a while ago.

I don't know much about it, but the increased frequency of tornadoes in the US could possibly be due to overfarming, which flattens the land and makes them more likely to happen.

Overall it appears that this is what happens: Destruction of the natural environment ----> climate change (weather or temperature) ------> destruction of human environment -------> Looting, rape, and all the other great stuff that comes with "natural" disasters.

I feel as though most cryptos would be discussed anyways, so why not have both. However I feel that in order to get traffic you will need to have a website name that relates specifically to bitcoin. People are more likely to google "bitcoin forum" than "cryptocurrency forum".

 
You have two options here: with more transparency you have less possibility for scams (assuming that the scammers put their real information) but less people are likely to join. I think that maybe what would be best is that just to join you don't need any personal information on the site, but in order to go into the "lending" or similar forums where scamming is a possibility it is mandatory that you fill out basic profile information (name and email). Without this information you cannot post in those subforums.


Nonprofit, although you can have paid mods. You certainly shouldn't charge people to get in, and the majority of money should go towards bitcoin-related projects and improving the site.



I don't think that it really matters. Whichever country hosts the fastest servers. I don't think that any government is going to take down a bitcoin forum.


Agreed. Current is pretty ugly.


Agreed, although I don't use mobile I'm sure a lot of people do.


This would be cool, but would most people use it? It might be a waste of resources.


This should be in place, but not mandatory.


The problem is that these are almost never read. But it doesn't hurt to clearly define them.


The main spam posts I see are "+1" or "agreed". Maybe there could be a way to vote on whether a post is constructive or not, similar to reddit and other social media.


Maybe you could restrict IPs to one account? But with Tor people could still make multiple. If a sockpuppet is discovered, it should be instantly banned and the original user should get a warning.


Yes.

I like the idea of a trust system as well, but feedback shouldn't be limited to people in your trust list. In fact, a trust list should not even exist. Anyone should be able to review anyone. If you perform a transaction with someone, you should fill out a quick feedback form which has their name and yours, whether it was positive or negative and how much you transacted or got scammed for. This should be posted under the user's name in threads. I think it should have two counts: one for negative and one for positive. This means that just because you are a "trusted" member of the community you can not get away with scams. Even one incident would permanently tarnish your trade feedback. Because of this, there should be a request to have the feedback looked at if it was falsified.

I think that there should be a seperate ticker for upvotes/downvotes on posts. This would allow people to tell whether or not someone is worth debating with, and in general would show their contribution to the community. Unlike trade feedback, this would be the sum, as it's more likely to be abused by people who just don't agree with what your posting. If you truly were a good contributor, you would stay positive.

Of course post count and activity should be shown, although I feel as though activity is kind of meaningless unless the equation for it is changed.


I think that permanent bans should be based on trade feedback. If you get 10+ transactions that are negative, and you don't appeal them, you should be banned forever.

A normal ban should based on the "reputation" (the aggregate of upvotes/downvotes I mentioned earlier). For example, if you get -10, you get a temporary ban explaining why you were banned which gives you time to rethink your method of posting.



Volunteer moderators would show more effort, as they have no reason to do their job right other than wanting to do it right. Maybe, however, their reputation would result in payment from the community fund.
 
I think that anyone should be allowed to "run" for moderator (within reason, maybe 200+ posts and good rep?), and that mods should be voted on in a community poll, which could take place every month. No one, besides admins, would be permanent mods, although people could run (and win) as many times in a row as they want. Mods would run for subforum positions, with an additional "global moderator" poll. In order for a user to win the spot, they must have positive rep for the duration of the poll, they must receive the most votes, and they must receive at least a certain number of votes (I don't know how many people would vote, but maybe 100+ votes are necessary? Just throwing out a number).

The same thing could happen for removing moderators- obviously if a mod does not win their reelection, they were not too good of a mod. However, if a mod acts poorly early, there should be a seperate running poll (maybe every week) which has the current mods, and a vote on whether or not to remove them. For this, mods would have to be "nominated" to be removed. Note that this poll would be much more serious than simply losing re-election, as it implies that not only did a mod not do their job well, but they in fact did it poorly.


No. There should be no restrictions on who can join, but newbie jail is a good idea.


Those are my ideas. I don't know much about the technical aspect of a forum, but I hope that there's some way that these can be implemented, especially the reputation idea.

Here are the facts:

1. The USD is the currency of the United States.
2. Iran does not trade with the United States, not by its own choice, but because of a US embargo on all Iranian products.
3. Iran cannot trade in USD (from the US) because the US does not allow it.

Iran does not trade in USD because the country that the USD is backed by does not trade with Iran. This is the same reason that Cuba doesn't trade in USD.
The petrodollar theory does not apply because Iran has no choice in the matter. Even if Rouhani decides that he loves the US, he cannot trade in USD because the US has imposed an embargo. The Iranian propaganda department may claim that they are choosing to not trade in USD, but in reality it's not their decision.

If this embargo did not exist, I might agree with petrodollar theory. However, the embargo does exist, and so long as it does Iran cannot trade in USD regardless of what it wants to do.

I am not "disagree[ing] with facts and conclusions". The facts are that Iran is not trading with the USD because of the embargo. This is not a theory like petrodollar, this is the reality of the situation.

My opinion is this: Were the embargo to be lifted, would Iran trade in USD? More than likely yes. Cuba, which has had an embargo for much longer, and has been a much more serious enemy of the US, is still willing to trade if the US imposed embargo is lifted.

No, he's in the newbie section, which is for newbies.

No, it is not irrelevant. Currently, Iran has nothing to do with the USD. Were the US to lift its embargo, USD would be traded through Iran. Were the US to invade, the exact same thing would happen, except that Iran's economy would be destroyed and Americans would die.

Explain the benefit of war versus lifting the embargo.

Of course they don't. We don't trade with them. If the US cares so much about what currency they use, why did we place an embargo on them?

You're saying that it makes sense for the US to invade their country, leading to US deaths, negative public opinion, and a debilitated Iranian economy just so that they use USD instead of the Euro? That is not sound logic.

I think it would make more sense for the US to just lift the embargo. Why go to war?

  All Americans are stupid right? I don't believe that CERN could create a black hole and I don't know anyone who does.

Now keep in mind, I'm writing this from my trailer in the backwoods of Virginia with my third grade 'murican education, but hopefully your cultured mind could at least try and understand the gibberish I'm about to spout. And if I don't respond it's because my inbred sister got loose and is chewing on the internet cables (again!).

I believe that climate change could lead to increased violence, and here's why:

Increased (or unpredictable) temperature leads to more droughts, more droughts lead to famine, and famine of course will lead to violence. The most recent famine caused by drought was in Somalia and other eastern African nations, (2011 East Africa Drought) and it led to increased tensions and violence. In Somalia's case, the influx of refugees from an already destablized nation led to increased violence and sexual abuse of women.

Deforestation (I'll use Haiti as an example) leads to more dangerous storms, leading to not only deaths from the actual storms but also from malnutrition, looting, and other violence in the aftermath.

I don't think that it's as simple as more heat=more violence, but climate change and destruction of the environment does lead to violence and death.

Haiti: http://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/haiti.asp
East Africa Drought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_East_Africa_drought

Ok, I thought that it was per month (so I'd get credit for July). I didn't know that you were keeping track of each person's individual timeframe. This way is better anyways.

Unless I'm mistaken, the US does not import oil (or anything) from Iran, and there are economic sanctions on countries that do. If Iran started using the USD, it would make no difference as the US does not import oil from them anyways.

And again, why does this "mutual defense treaty" not apply to Hamas? If the US wants to provoke Iran, they're going to have to try harder because apparently going to war with Assad is not enough to warrant the stopping of funding, let alone military action.

Explain to me why the US would want to go to war with Iran? And also, since you didn't respond, why does this so called mutual defense treaty which has no known details not apply to Hamas?

My address is 12YG4MswRroukRr9Vg4xaE9KUjNGcW6KJU

Thanks

It's not illegal, as PayPal isn't the law, but if they find out you were buying BTC they will freeze your account and everything within will be lost.

Really? I see loans for far less than this not get filled, and at least with those there's a chance of the money coming back. Joey will never pay the money back.

Fixed.

If anyone wants to throw away 5 BTC, they can throw it my way.

I don't see how Bitcoins are any more susceptible to fraud than other systems. Maybe the reason that debit and credit cards don't see as much fraud is because people are more cautious with them? But that's human error, not an inherent flaw of bitcoins.

So is this basically a plastic wallet?