Shitty movies are killing the movie industry, not filesharing, it's something that the entertainment business doesn't like to admit so they find a scapegoat.
They can only make shitty movies because they have far less to pay movie makers due to the fact that nobody pays for movies any longer. Same thing happened to the music industry. Music production is shit now. It used to be fantastic because it made a ton of money. He's certainly an opportunist but he is very clever marketing guy and knows how to make steal millions. If he brings millions to Bitcoin then so be it.
"I don't care how dirty the money is, bring it to Bitcoin!". Great idea numbnuts. Bitcoin needs additional legitimacy not more fucking criminals.  Didn't you guys know these industries all died in the 80's? |
|
|
|
Mortal Kombat 1992
Mortal Kombat became a best-selling game and remains one of the most popular fighting games in the genre's history
I remember playing this on arcade machines. Another game I liked to play with friends (waste money on) was cadillacs and dinosaurs. Maybe some of you still remember the arcade era.   This one always had a line. |
|
|
|
|
I should add, I typically buy gear if i can get my money back in 2-3 months tops, but once profits start to appear you must act quick. I bought 280x/290x's on a black friday sale, about $7500, literally days before newegg jacked the prices up. I was really lucky. If you act quick, before other people's hardware deploys, you'll do really well. Right now I typically run at a loss unless my rigs are rented out. On the doge run up in 2013 there was some 400-500 dollars days for a couple weeks.
I suspect there is a lot of hardware idling waiting to deployed right away, we'll need to see the price run up considerable, then have the difficulty plateau a bit, with still decent profit. At that time deploy new hardware.
|
|
|
|
|
If you're not paying for the power...
I did some rough calculations, with 8 antminer s3's you'll gross about 10 dollars a day, with 25~ nvidia gpu's you'll end up with about the same. Setting up a farm is a major undertaking. Gpus are more versatile, but require more maintenance. I run 30 gpus, it just breaks even these days. My rigs suck about 4-4.5Kw
Maybe 6 months to break even if btc price doesnt move much.
3000 dollars for hardware would buy you 12BTC, you will not earn that much with antminers ever, with increasing difficulty. I wont play the asic game. I spent 1000 dollars in 2012 for gpus and my entire farm is paid for twice over.
|
|
|
|
Betarigs, after being taken over by new owners, is far worse when it comes to quality. What is actually happening? Are your programmers completely lame and can't do things the proper way?
 |
|
|
|
Your spiritual essence never dies; that essence is the higher self that persists.
The evidence speaks loudly and you do not address it.
There is actually no death in nature; there is only transformation.
This is my point, more unsubstantiated claims. No argument, nothing interesting, nothing to refute. Every statement these two make is begging the question. A circular argument using the bible as the premise and conclusion ad infinitum. Manifestly different from a real conversation; as the joint has been having. |
|
|
|
No such thing as electromagnetic life just so you know .....
What's your definition of "life"? How many of these criteria has to be met? 1. Consume energy 2. Increase environment entropy 3. Has boundary 4. Can reproduce 5. Can die .... Is computer virus a genuine life form? I was having this conversation yesterday. The criteria you've given is required for an organism, a subset of life. The article I was discussing made a case for a self replicating, unbounded molecule as the first "life entity", making it a second subset of life, distinct from an organism. Following this logic, aa RNA virus is life like, as well as a computer virus, provided the ability for random mutation is present. I don't know if any software can truly make random sequencing errors like a nucleotide polymer. That was my argument away. About purely electromagnetic life, I would have to think hard about that, matter is just a collection of interactions with fields. |
|
|
|
Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.
For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts. For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.  If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal. If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion.  Okay, here's the standard definition: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religionExplain to me what I'm religious about? If nothing else, you seem to be very religious about stating and showing that you do not have religion. I disagree. But thank you for demonstrating to the forum how easy it was making something religious out of thin air. This is the current trend, claiming atheism is a religion. I have total belief in the the lack of belief. BADecker pulls out the typical shit from fox news, its fairly obvious if you pay attention to the media at all. He doesn't think for himself he's just a parrot, which makes for an excellent zealot. I caught this just a few weeks ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jcUIu-1p8sI was hoping you would respond to my response to your post, shown here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10573928#msg10573928I will think on it and respond in a bit... [edit] You've taken a big jump away from empirical science, of which i admit i chased BADecker from the evolution thread to here. And if you're suggesting that logic is incapable of making comment about reality..
I don't think that for a second, and did not mean to represent my position as such. I readily admit, we place faith, of such, in our perception of reality. Descartes' demon may well be real, and this world is a deception. And yes I do admit, as well I think most others, that I am taking my existence and my perception of the world on faith. There is an indefinite continuum from what we can say we know to what, at some point, we must assume. I briefly looked through the pdf you posted, but at 56 pages, it would take considerable study to analyze. Fundamentally, my opinion is such concepts are most likely unknowable nonetheless fascinating to discuss. Anyone who claims to have an answer to an unsolvable problem, particularly in a stone age text, stifles this conversation. I perceive it as a credible threat to our species, whether we exist or not. |
|
|
|
I've never heard about that law... http://www.overunity.com/If you asked people about Bitcoin 3 years ago, 99,99% of the global population would say SCAM SCAM SCAM DONT EVER TRY TO THINK ABOUT IT And I mean think Your bitcoin analogy is flawed. Bitcoin, when created, did not violate fundamental laws of nature. Notice I said Laws, not theory, Laws. Like the law of universal gravitation. A law is an observation, a fact, not an explanation. In all instances for all time, nothing has violated the law of energy conservation. Yes the laws that run your computer right now are wrong. The laws that power vehicles are wrong. The laws that power civilization are wrong. Oh wait... |
|
|
|
thread has nothing to do with evolution theory.
what you can learn here from badecker is a (good) use of rhetoric to persuade people about x (x seems to be mostly religious though).
No he isn't. S/He uses tired arguments, logical fallacies and ignorance. An intelligent high school student can see though it. Arguments like this would fail in any liberal arts course, forget science. The only people convinced are equally as ignorant and uneducated. To think stupidity would be worn as a badge of honour.  I think that's what he's saying. This is a good example of dummies like badecker trying to spread their "knowledge" to other simple minded dummies. exactly imho badecker is far from being a idiot, he seems more like someone you would describe as a fanatic or fundamentalist? he definitively knows how to use rhetoric to persuade people (more so people that lack knowledge about certain scientific topics - check his post history) his arguments are less scientific and much more of a rhetoric nature. Well I agree with both of you, but I will maintain I don't think he is skilled at rhetoric, or presenting an argument. He's just shouts the loudest, many people consider this good enough. Look at a cable news debate. |
|
|
|
Has anyone defined what 'old' means?
Are we going by year or generation of technology?
Perhaps Pre-Internet vs. Post?
Let's go with pre internet ~1995. I'm playing FF3 for the first time right now, its pretty good, a nice blend of the original and snes versions.  |
|
|
|
Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.
For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts. For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post. If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal. If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion. Okay, here's the standard definition: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religionExplain to me what I'm religious about? If nothing else, you seem to be very religious about stating and showing that you do not have religion. I disagree. But thank you for demonstrating to the forum how easy it was making something religious out of thin air. This is the current trend, claiming atheism is a religion. I have total belief in the the lack of belief. BADecker pulls out the typical shit from fox news, its fairly obvious if you pay attention to the media at all. He doesn't think for himself he's just a parrot, which makes for an excellent zealot. I caught this just a few weeks ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jcUIu-1p8s |
|
|
|
I think you don't understand evolution, ...
I teach evolutionary biology and I am sure this is a misunderstanding. There is no mystery here it is very well understood. I assume everyone believes in DNA. Well if you understand what DNA is then you understand evolution. Any person in the world may launch a scientific experiment to test the concept of evolution. They can publish their results for peer review and further testing. Science works by testing ideas with logic. It does not look at claims, rather results of tests. There have been thousands of such experiments but there has never been a finding that contradicts evolution and it is the basis of all modern biology. I suspect the real reason why people don't "believe" in evolution is because of the greater implications in their lives. Few of us who are atheists recognize what is being asked of a person when they look logically at the issue of evolution. It is as clear as day that it is and has happened. Anyone can see that. Except for those who would have to alter their whole world view just to recognize an obvious fact. It is why for centuries astronomers knew that the sun was the center of the solar system but refused to acknowledge it. Opening their eyes meant questioning everything they thought they knew. 100 years ago the issue was dinosaurs. Many people simply could not admit they once lived here. It would call into question the Koran or the Bible or the Bahgavadgita. There can't have been dinosaurs! Eventually religion found ways to accommodate the millions of bones now found in museums. I think that will happen for evolution also. Evolution is modern biology and we use it everyday in medicine etc. In 10 years denying evolution will be like denying the existence of dinosaurs. There will always be some, but very few. It's not only that it changes their entire world view, its worse than that. They have to admit to themselves that they were wrong and fooled. This is a common defence mechanism, people will fight to the death rather than admit they were wrong. Only evolution could produce such a defective species. |
|
|
|
thread has nothing to do with evolution theory.
what you can learn here from badecker is a (good) use of rhetoric to persuade people about x (x seems to be mostly religious though).
No he isn't. S/He uses tired arguments, logical fallacies and ignorance. An intelligent high school student can see though it. Arguments like this would fail in any liberal arts course, forget science. The only people convinced are equally as ignorant and uneducated. To think stupidity would be worn as a badge of honour. |
|
|
|
His kind are dying out. Atheists in the first world are growing fast, religion is not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religionIn terms of absolute numbers, irreligion appears to be increasing (along with secularization generally).[101] (See the geographic distribution of atheism.)
The American Religious Identification Survey gave nonreligious groups the largest gain in terms of absolute numbers: 14.3 million (8.4% of the population) to 29.4 million (14.1% of the population) for the period 1990–2001 in the U.S.[57][96] A 2012 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports, "The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling."[102] A similar pattern has been found in other countries such as Australia, Canada, and Mexico. According to statistics in Canada, the number of "Nones" increased by about 60% between 1985 and 2004.[103] In Australia, census data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics give "no religion" the largest gains in absolute numbers over the 15 years from 1991 to 2006, from 2,948,888 (18.2% of the population that answered the question) to 3,706,555 (21.0% of the population that answered the question).[104] According to INEGI, in Mexico, the number of atheists grows annually by 5.2%, while the number of Catholics grows by 1.7%.[105][106] In New Zealand, 39% of the population are irreligious making it largest percentage of total population in Oceania region He should be afraid. |
|
|
|
Can someone direct me to the peer reviewed scientific paper that proves there is a God?
Science is too limited in scope to comment upon the matter. There are published proof(s) for God, although not peer-reviewed. Although, you could say that it(they) have been informally peer-reviewed. Christopher Langan's paper at www.ctmu.org is one (third bullet point; click on "here"). I've found it infallible so far, to the extent which I understand it and have analyzed it. Edit: I should also mention that I'm familiar with many critiques of his theory. I have not found any that are credible. Edit 2: Direct link to the theory is here: http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdfThe word your looking for is falsifiable. You can't peer review a proof of god. The hypothesis can not be proven false. Methodology can't be duplicated. A proof of god is not a mathematical proof with universally defined axioms. Religious zealots cant even agree amongst their own sects on what god is. Perhaps no two people can agree on what God is, what He looks like, where He lives, and a host of other things one might think about God. Yet, because the dictionary definitions of God are very generalized, people can easily agree that He exists, even when they don't agree on much of anything about Him. To me, the evidence for God in the universe is overwhelming. For example, we can make mechanical arms. But we can't make a real arm out of flesh and blood. We might be able to help and direct nature into growing one. But we can't make one. We wouldn't know how to start, because the technology that exists in an arm is way beyond us. All of that and more(creating a human arm), will be possible within the next 200 years. We've come a long way with stem cell research, cloning, and the like. Next step would probably be fast forwarding evolution(Starting with proteins, then forming single cell bacteria, then forming small animals from that, etc etc). It's aleady happened. Synthetic life form. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-formWe are god now. Please send your tithings this way. I'll send you a tax receipt. |
|
|
|
Can someone direct me to the peer reviewed scientific paper that proves there is a God?
Science is too limited in scope to comment upon the matter. There are published proof(s) for God, although not peer-reviewed. Although, you could say that it(they) have been informally peer-reviewed. Christopher Langan's paper at www.ctmu.org is one (third bullet point; click on "here"). I've found it infallible so far, to the extent which I understand it and have analyzed it. Edit: I should also mention that I'm familiar with many critiques of his theory. I have not found any that are credible. Edit 2: Direct link to the theory is here: http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdfThe word your looking for is falsifiable. You can't peer review a proof of god. The hypothesis can not be proven false. Methodology can't be duplicated. A proof of god is not a mathematical proof with universally defined axioms. Religious zealots cant even agree amongst their own sects on what god is. |
|
|
|
Which part is fantasy and which part is reality and how can you tell the difference between them? People believe what they want to believe at the end of the day. Personally I don't get how religious people can shoot down the idea of evolution because beings are far too complex to have been created this way but believe a far greater being with super powers can just spontaneously exist without questioning how the hell he came into being.
Since we are cause-and-effect people, and since this is all we have been able to find in nature (except, of course, in the things that we haven't found the causes for yet), fantastic and improbable as it may seem, this whole nature and universe must have been programmed. I love this, two entirely conflicting logical fallacies. 1. We found everything, and cant explain anything else, hence god. 2. We haven't found everything, hence god. Not only ignorant, but stupid as well. I wasn't aware we had discovered everything there is to know about everything. Please alert the world. What an idiot. You seem quite the expert on science and being a scientist? Where did you obtain your PhD, please direct me to your list of publications. What is your scientific education and experience? You have about as much understanding as I have of oncology, which is little to none. Why should anyone listen to anything you have to say about anything? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
