Profiteer rule #1: You need money to make money.
This is an example of a confusion between correlation and causation. People who are economically productive tend to have money and an easier time earning more. People who are unproductive can't hold on to money for very long, even if they start out with a large sum. |
|
|
|
|
Two questions:
Why use Truecrypt instead of LUKS/dmcrypt?
Does the Gentoo LiveDVD include CUPS and hplip?
|
|
|
|
Why can't you have a negative interest rate? It might not make sense with bitcoin, but consider gold: I have 100 g of gold, but I want to keep it safe, so I give it to the bank, and pay an account fee of 1 g of gold. Paying a storage fee for a physical commodity isn't quite the same as lending at a negative nominal interest rate. If bitcoins were gaining in purchasing power at a steady 5% per year would you lend some of yours out at a nominal rate of -1%? In purchasing power terms you'd still come out ahead by 4%, but why would you accept the risk of default to end up with less bitcoins than you would have if you had just held on to them and never risked them at all? |
|
|
|
|
I successfully connected a checking account, bought $100 worth of bitcoins, and withdrew them to my local wallet.
The service works well, other than the unavoidable delay in waiting for the ACH transfer to clear. I initiated the purchase at 9:00 am on the 7th, and did not have access to the bitcoins until the today (13th) at 6:30 pm. I assume that's the banking system's fault and something Coinbase can't reasonably do anything about.
|
|
|
|
|
Six months ago this would have helped me a lot, but I've worked on reducing the number of monthly bills to the point that I don't have many left.
I'd be interested in buying Simple Mobile prepaid PINs, or if possible, auto insurance premiums and loan payments.
|
|
|
|
I would like to be first phone store in my state accepting bitcoins.
Would the service be limited to a single state? |
|
|
|
please give it a try (when you'll need a good laugh or run low on wtf moments). here, some pearls I reposted elsewhere that can give you an idea what to expect:
most people are so ingrained with traditional scientific theory that they have no room in their philosophies for such a totally revolutionary concept.
The resonant metal alloys of transdimensional plasma ships are developed using precision multi-stage temperature and frequency programs that convert base metals into alloys (above) containing all of the precious metals, rare earth elements and trace amounts of every other element on the periodic table - many in crystallized or metallic states not yet conceived of by Earthly scientists. Polarization of the final products is achieved by the micro-layering of perpendicular grain patterns formed within the crystals. Cold fusion advocated are firm believers in, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." |
|
|
|
So now the USG is on the hook for losing a citizen's private property I lol'd. |
|
|
|
Fixed! I was thinking about his sister, Erica, and her big...
Tracts of land? |
|
|
|
Bingo. I think you may have also defined a good cut-off point for abortion.
That's possible, but because there are other issues involved (the mother also owns her body) the issue requires further scrutiny. |
|
|
|
They are their own property at birth. If ownership is defined as exercising exclusive control over a scarce, tangible resource then children own their bodies as soon as they develop a nervous system capable directing the actions of their body. This would place the beginning of self-ownership prior to being born. That also shows why parents can't be said to own their children. Only the child can control his own body and parents are restricted to persuading, threatening or physically coercing the child into taking or refraining from actions. This is prima facie evidence of who actually owns the child's body. |
|
|
|
I don't even have to look at that one before I can undermine your use of it. What you've done is extremely intellectually dishonest but I can help but aesthetically admiring such an exquisite example of sophistry. Since you're going to play word games with the book title instead of actually examining the arguments there is no possibility for further discussion. |
|
|
|
Do I really need to point out that it's the lot of you guys that have been trying to impose your opinions of my parenting methods upon me? That's not the case at all. If I witnessed you attempting to murder someone and I acted to stop you my intervention would not be justified on opinion, but on the fact that your actions violate an ethical standard which is provably universal. Ethics are the opposite of subjective personal preferences. This is not at all about anyone imposing their opinions on you, but the legitimacy of you imposing your opinions on children which are completely unable to defend themselves. It is you who bears the burden of proof that your actions are not abusive. Fine. Come up with others, I'm willing to engage you on any front.
Ethics, defined as defined as universally preferable behavior, is a valid concept. |
|
|
|
I can't, that's the point. That would be a fine admission in other circumstances. If you can't be consistent then what you are asserting can't be true, which moves it into the category of opinions. This would be fine, except that you presume to impose your opinion on other people. Neither can you. Believe it or not, we share a (general) philosophy; but it's an incomplete one. Libertarianism (and all of it's variants) are based upon two central principles. I'm not a Libertarian and I do not accept those premises as axioms. |
|
|
|
There's no need to rebut a contradiction. They literally belong to me, in every philsophical sense. Granted, I can't destroy my children, like I could for something that I really own So do you really own them, in every philosophical sense, or do you not really own them? Pick one and be consistent. |
|
|
|
Well of course having many children does not give me license to choose corporal punishment as a disiplinary option. It's the fact that they are mine that does so. And yes, they are mine. They literally belong to me, in every philsophical sense. I created them, thus they are mine. I nurtured them, thus I have "comigiled" my human labor time with developing them into what they are today, thus they are mine. They are too young to express knowledge of, and therefore claim, human rights of self-ownership; thus they do not have self-ownership, and therefore my own cliams to ownership are superior to any others. Since they are your property can you use them for sex if you want? |
|
|
|
Nonsense. Should I permit a toddler to stick his hand into the blue light on the top of the stove, so that he remembers not to do it again, or would the much less permanent harm that a spanking causes him help his young (and not very rational) mind to remember to leave the blue light alone? Sure, I can reason with an eight year old, and teach them a safe way to cross the street, but if a three year old is inclined to run away at any opprotunity, not using the non-permanent pain of a spanking in order to instill a healthy fear of vehicular traffic is the parental failure.
I shouldn't even have to use the "don't pee on the electrical outlet" example. A toddler can not be reasoned with, as they have no more capacity to understand the risks than a puppy does. How do I train the puppy to stay in the yard (and thus away from traffic and other harm)? By using a collection of positive and negative results to it's actions via treats for desirable behaviors and judicious use of pain for undesireable behaviors. The goal with children is to instil a rudimentary concept of consquences so that the child might just live to the age of reason unmaimed by his own actions, but the methods are similar. This is not abuse. To fail to do so, or at least attempt to do so, is neglect.
I really get tired of this kind of bs coming from people who obviously never had children.
Will you listen to this parent of a three year old disprove everything you just said? |
|
|
|
As long as we have people thinking that beating children up qualifies as "education" or "discipline", we will have adults thinking that beating other adults up qualifies as "justice" or "law enforcement". The idea that parents are justified in using violence against children is the faulty premise upon which all false justifications for violence are derived. |
|
|
|
1. U.S. debt is actually much lower than reported. It means the opposite. It means the government is lying about the state of its balance sheet. There's supposedly a trust fund containing money from the payroll tax but what actually happened is that the government spent every penny of the collected money as it was received and has nothing more than empty promises to back up its commitment to retired seniors. You can "nullify" that intergovernmental debt if you wish, but it means Social Security ceases to exist. Any way you look at it doing so is defaulting. |
|
|
|
|
I have one... somewhere. I'll see if I can find it.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
