|
To clarify, it was things OUTSIDE the house that were stolen. I'd probably have moved by now if they were break and enter thefts! Had a bicycle in my gated carport that was stolen, a pumpkin a few days ago off my porch, my wife's car gone though, a Christmas wreath from the front door disappeared, etc. Doesn't make one put much faith in the neighborhood, or the legal system for that matter. If it were up to me, I'd spend some nights sitting in my darkened living room with the rifle loaded and a window open.
|
|
|
|
I think it's terrible that we cannot shoot criminals for theft. If someone's stealing my car, why SHOULDN'T I be able to shoot them?
There'd be a heck of a lot less theft if people were actually able to defend their own property properly.
I don't know sarge. Do you really own anything worth more than a life? It's not that I'm a pacifist, like any American I have all sorts of guns and I have a Utah permit to carry. But I would not shoot anyone for stealing my stuff, even my bitcoins.  I've seen war and killing on three continents now, they are not good memories. You got me there. I can't think of anything that is worth more than a life. I suppose I am the type who would post up a sign on my property that says "trespassers will be shot". Not because trespassers deserve to be shot, but because I would want to keep people off of my property who might do something malicious to me, my family, or my things. And really, as soon as someone enters my property without authorization or good reason (i.e., the postman delivery a package to my door or something equally legitimate), I would feel that my life is threatened. I would much rather avoid confrontation entirely than have those feelings. And I love avoiding confrontation through threats. If I was lawfully able to shoot anyone who came on my property and tried to steal my things, then there'd be a lot less of that happening. But since I am not lawfully able to defend my property with the threat of killing anyone who tries to take it, there's a lot of theft. Thieves know that, no matter what they do, they are not risking losing their life by stealing from people. If that were a real threat, they might reconsider their choice of career. FWIW, I've had things stolen from around my house five times now since I moved there three years ago. None of the times I actually witnessed the theft, but it's dang frustrating that there's little I can do about it except file a useless police report. |
|
|
|
I think it's terrible that we cannot shoot criminals for theft. If someone's stealing my car, why SHOULDN'T I be able to shoot them?
There'd be a heck of a lot less theft if people were actually able to defend their own property properly.
What do you meant you ain't able? You are fully able unless you are retarded. It's just that it's illegal and might get you in prison and rightly so because your life was never in danger. But sure enough you are able. But why is it ok to just let someone run off with your things? Why do I not have a right to do whatever I need to do to ensure my property isn't stolen? Also related to this subject - why can a trespasser sue me if they trip over a rake that I left in my yard? Just seems so wrong... |
|
|
|
|
I think it's terrible that we cannot shoot criminals for theft. If someone's stealing my car, why SHOULDN'T I be able to shoot them?
There'd be a heck of a lot less theft if people were actually able to defend their own property properly.
|
|
|
|
To demystify the situation, shakaru and I are currently discussing a deal concerning the wrapping up of SIN. No decisions have been made yet.
After paying the last two electric bills, SIN still has $309,50 in the bank.
How come the other shareholders are not in on the discussion? Probably because this is a discussion between the operator of the rigs and the person who may be acquiring our assets. In the end, Tawsix is the one with the physical access to the rigs, and hasn't even disclosed what rigs are owned. (he may have told Shakaru by now) I also believe he reserved the right to make the decision whether or not to liquidate. Have you asked either Shakaru or Tawsix about the progress of the discussion, or are you just pointing out that no one else is involved? Makes sense. I was thinking that all the shareholders should have a say in the matter, but if Tawsix reserved the right to liquidate, I suppose that is his prerogative. Was just pointing it out/asking why. |
|
|
|
To demystify the situation, shakaru and I are currently discussing a deal concerning the wrapping up of SIN. No decisions have been made yet.
After paying the last two electric bills, SIN still has $309,50 in the bank.
How come the other shareholders are not in on the discussion? |
|
|
|
i heard the fundamental analysis about turmoils in the world economy and therefore maybe rises in bitcoin prices here quite often. i serious doubt that that has any effect. why? simple: bitcoins are highly risky (-> money is taking out of such investments in crsisi). there is a shortage of money in nearly every market (-> you don't put your last dollars into a high risk speculation, dropping in value since 5 months regularly). turmoils equals volatility equals good investment opportunities for traders. sure insecurity is a huge factor, but then again it "security" is really not bitcoins main attribute, although systemic risk is improving slowly with more people get to know the brand "bitcoin" and people like me finally deciding to put a penny into it.
I agree with this 100%. Bitcoin is not a store of value against the "destabilizing" fiat currencies of the world. It is much more volatile and unstable than the fiat currencies it aims to abolish. And what gewure said regarding high-risk investments is right on the money. No one is going to look at Bitcoins right now, and think, "Hmmm, that's a nice stable place to keep my money while the world figures itself out." |
|
|
|
You can take orders for free directly and then sell your photos on bittit.info too if that suits you. No fees at all and it's made for the purpose of selling pictures. The image will be visible in low res and users will pay to increase its resolution up to the maximum. You decide the price for the maximum resolution beforehand. Just make sure that you put the right price. For example if your picture at 1/5th of its resolution is still useful then you might consider putting a higher price for the max resolution. I really like the idea of that site. Going to have to see what I can come up with... |
|
|
|
|
I can't wait until we have enough people at bitcoinforums.net that we can have proper discussions there, and get away from this forum. Hopefully, theymos pushing away users from this forum with this new image scheme will make that happen.
|
|
|
|
here're more things to consider to disable:
emoticons
icons
css styles
js
as it is not real information and therefor completely worthless and offtopic, just taking extra space and bandwith
Good point. All you need is tables in a database format. Minimalism at its best! Heck, remove the links too - those just take up space. If you want to get somewhere, just type in the URL. Just give us direct access to the database on the command line. We can add new records to make posts, and do SELECTS to read what we want. Excellent! |
|
|
|
here're more things to consider to disable:
emoticons
icons
css styles
js
as it is not real information and therefor completely worthless and offtopic, just taking extra space and bandwith
Good point. All you need is tables in a database format. Minimalism at its best! Heck, remove the links too - those just take up space. If you want to get somewhere, just type in the URL. |
|
|
|
...The purpose of this forum is to provide a place where ideas can be expressed and consumed with as much freedom as possible.
...Signature images are never useful in exchanging ideas. They never contribute anything to the discussion at hand....
Perfectly justified! We should aim to increase in the useful information density of this forum. People wishing to display off-topic pictures are encouraged to post to some other forum instead. ByteCoin I suppose we have different points of view then. In my mind, a forum is more useful when people can read through a guide with pictures without having to click on each image to display it individually. But I guess not everyone can look past the fractions-of-a-second lost when scrolling past an off-topic picture.  |
|
|
|
|
Hehe, if you say so, Theymos. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
|
I'd be happy to welcome more members to my forum if this goes through.  |
|
|
|
I don't like embedded images. They usually clutter up the discussion without much benefit. This is especially true of signature images: they take up more screen space than a few paragraphs, but they provide almost no value.
If you replace your signature image with a short direct link to an image, it would be easy for someone to write a GreaseMonkey script that expands these images.
But have you asked the COMMUNITY what it likes? Or do you just not care? Really? People complained HARD about having a text ad under the first posting on each page. How are signature image ads not intrusive but a single text ad be something to complain about? And there are plenty of other people who didn't complain about them. I'd just like to see a vote on it, rather than theymos deciding that his personal preferences are what is best for everyone. |
|
|
|
I don't like embedded images. They usually clutter up the discussion without much benefit. This is especially true of signature images: they take up more screen space than a few paragraphs, but they provide almost no value.
If you replace your signature image with a short direct link to an image, it would be easy for someone to write a GreaseMonkey script that expands these images.
But have you asked the COMMUNITY what it likes? Or do you just not care? |
|
|
|
What would stop a person from acquiring many of said ballots to vote with?
With all of these voting mechanisms you'd need an authority that initially confirmed your identity, your right to vote and that you didn't sign up for this process before. There is no magical cryptographic process that would be able to find out who is allowed to vote. If you mean, what is stopping people from selling their vote (their private key), then I guess the answer is probably: nothing. But what would stop the authority from rigging the process? What would stop a person from acquiring many of said ballots to vote with?
Each vote must be tied to a voting precinct (or other localized unit of voting) in order to be counted. This unit would be responsible for validating the identity of voters and distributing ballots to voters. Each ballot would only be valid when a voting precinct issued a cryptographically signed statement publishing which ballots it had available to issue. It could still be abused by the voting precinct. They could just issue the unclaimed ballots to themselves, or to the highest bidder. pay one satoshi to each of your voters set up a voting address for each option hey, cool, bitcoin is a voting machine What prevents me from voting with any x number of more satoshi's of my own? You give me 1 satoshi to vote with, i vote with 100 satoshis on my desired option. Well ... right now the standard client does not allow to use certain addresses to do certain transactions but it is possible. The idea is to distribute ... for example 7 billion tokens to 7 billion people in the world. now as those people have those satoshis associated with their private keys, they can send them on to certain addresses. To find the result of the poll you would track the bitcoins on them back to the distributor and ignore any bitcoins that did not go through the initiator's wallet. What would stop me from getting multiple accounts so that I could claim multiple tokens and vote multiple times? I would never accept government provided smartcards with my personal private key!
The kind of idea I envisioned is if a private provider produced the entire run of ballots, which worked like lottery tickets. They had private keys (or pre-signed cryptographic messages) on them, and votes are cast simply by revealing a scratchoff and publishing the message underneath (e.g. it's a QR code that gets scanned). A vote is void if more than one competing message for the same candidacy is published. Now, we would have to trust the ballot provider. But suppose each time somebody voted, they rolled two dice, and double sixes meant their ballot should be submitted for audit. By this, I mean all keys would be revealed and published and the integrity of the ballot verified... then the voter gets a replacement ballot. This would mean on average, 1 in 36 ballots would be sacrificed for integrity checks. Slightly under 3% of the ballots would be subject to audit, but even such a small percentage would make it statistically impossible to rig them. Then I would double scratch all my opponents votes so they would get thrown out during an audit. Haha, win.  |
|
|
|
I would never accept government provided smartcards with my personal private key!
The kind of idea I envisioned is if a private provider produced the entire run of ballots, which worked like lottery tickets. They had private keys (or pre-signed cryptographic messages) on them, and votes are cast simply by revealing a scratchoff and publishing the message underneath (e.g. it's a QR code that gets scanned). A vote is void if more than one competing message for the same candidacy is published. Now, we would have to trust the ballot provider. But suppose each time somebody voted, they rolled two dice, and double sixes meant their ballot should be submitted for audit. By this, I mean all keys would be revealed and published and the integrity of the ballot verified... then the voter gets a replacement ballot. This would mean on average, 1 in 36 ballots would be sacrificed for integrity checks. Slightly under 3% of the ballots would be subject to audit, but even such a small percentage would make it statistically impossible to rig them. What would stop a person from acquiring many of said ballots to vote with? |
|
|
|
|
In this thread:
Ampeater figures out how to troll a person into trolling another person!
|
|
|
|
|
Man, wish I could do this! But it's too soon for me to get off work in time...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
