I have not seen a BSOD for a long long time, because of my sane choice of OS.
But how can you be certain that it's a sane choice? mine does not crash all the time.  Are you sure? Maybe the computer feeding your vat-brain information just tells you it's not crashing. my uptime is 105 days and 6 hours...  |
|
|
|
I have not seen a BSOD for a long long time, because of my sane choice of OS.
But how can you be certain that it's a sane choice? mine does not crash all the time. |
|
|
|
yeah me too, but clearly for other reasons then you.
Granma locked you in the basement? no... are you trying to determine that if its for the same reasons as you? I have not seen a BSOD for a long long time, because of my sane choice of OS. |
|
|
|
You and TradeFortress can go flaming each other somewhere in private, eh?
 LOL, thanks for posting that. I haven't seen it in ages! yeah me too, but clearly for other reasons then you. |
|
|
|
|
why the fuck would the drug cartels murder you? you are one of their best customers?
|
|
|
|
and [to] answer your question: yes lets compare them.
Excellent, so you will work with me to abolish the state, so that we can set our two societies side by side without interference? no, im happy with the state. thank you. So you're not willing to try them out, side by side.  so sad. yeah man, just ignore the rest of my post. |
|
|
|
i dont know. this is not where the inconsistency lies. pointing out where NAP works great does not sheds light on the part where it does not work well. Then, where is it inconsistent? If declaration of NAP can be considered an act of aggression. which i say it can, and you say it can't. Are we not done with this discussion yet? we are clearly not gonna agree on this. a) im just pointing out that, just as the fools that Russell talk about, you are "pretty sure".
b) and you answer your question: yes lets compare them.
a) "Pretty sure" is not "certain," whereas saying "You are WRONG," is.  b) Excellent, so you will work with me to abolish the state, so that we can set our two societies side by side without interference? no, im happy with the state. thank you. but lets consider the a hypothetical world where there are no states. an an-cap society would lead to the abuse of the weakest, because the weakest are easy to trick, manipulate, and would therefor be an easy victim of an-cap "fair game". Your turn. |
|
|
|
quoting old dead persons are not good arguments.
Simply saying something is not a good argument is not a good argument. Just saying what other people said shows lack of intelligence. Parrot! Ahh, but I didn't just parrot it. My signature shows my own formulation of the NAP. It is similar to the way others have said it, but it is not simply a repetition of other people's words. Failing to recognize the wisdom of previous speakers shows a lack of intelligence. Ostrich! Jefferson and Locke are wrong, the first one is babbling about something called "natural justice". Funny that you should say that with such certainty... "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell funny, i see this whole thread as you fanatically sticking to the NAP, while i question its consistency. Then I present to you the same question that wawahwah avoided: I would like you to explain how no person having the right to initiate the use of force or threat of force is not non-coercion, given that coercion is the use of force or intimidation (threat of force) to obtain compliance.
i dont know. this is not where the inconsistency lies. pointing out where NAP works great does not sheds light on the part where it does not work well. I don't know that an An-Cap society would work, but you are convinced that its best thing in the world.
I don't know if a communistic society would work, but you don't even want to think about it. You fear it.
My guess is that a communistic society would work better then a An-Cap one.
I don't know that an AnCap society would work, but I'm pretty sure it would work better than anything tried so far. I don't know if a communistic society would work, but every time something like it has been tried, it ended up killing a lot of people. I don't fear it, I hate it. My guess is that an AnCap society would work better than a communistic one. I'm willing to put them up against each other, though, without a State to enforce either one. Are you? a) im just pointing out that, just as the fools that Russell talk about, you are "pretty sure". b) and you answer your question: yes lets compare them. |
|
|
|
quoting old dead persons are not good arguments.
Simply saying something is not a good argument is not a good argument. Just saying what other people said shows lack of intelligence. Parrot! Ahh, but I didn't just parrot it. My signature shows my own formulation of the NAP. It is similar to the way others have said it, but it is not simply a repetition of other people's words. Failing to recognize the wisdom of previous speakers shows a lack of intelligence. Ostrich! Jefferson and Locke are wrong, the first one is babbling about something called "natural justice". Funny that you should say that with such certainty... "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell funny, i see this whole thread as you fanatically sticking to the NAP, while i question its consistency. I don't know that an An-Cap society would work, but you are convinced that its best thing in the world. I don't know if a communistic society would work, but you don't even want to think about it. You fear it. My guess is that a communistic society would work better then a An-Cap one. |
|
|
|
quoting old dead persons are not good arguments.
Simply saying something is not a good argument is not a good argument. Just saying what other people said shows lack of intelligence. Parrot! Ahh, but I didn't just parrot it. My signature shows my own formulation of the NAP. It is similar to the way others have said it, but it is not simply a repetition of other people's words. Failing to recognize the wisdom of previous speakers shows a lack of intelligence. Ostrich! Jefferson and Locke are wrong, the first one is babbling about something called "natural justice". "Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks." - Karl Marx "Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains." - Karl Marx you people really needs to look at the world from another perspective. |
|
|
|
quoting old dead persons are not good arguments.
Simply saying something is not a good argument is not a good argument. Just saying what other people said shows lack of intelligence. Parrot! |
|
|
|
<snip a bunch of bullshit that has nothing to do with anything>
Still didn't come close to answering - or even addressing - my question to you: Now, I would like you to explain how no person having the right to initiate the use of force or threat of force is not non-coercion, given that coercion is the use of force or intimidation (threat of force) to obtain compliance.
Translation: a bunch of stoners were unhappy with "the whole world" and all its laws, so they wrote their own airy-fairy peace-loving manuscript. But of course that's not law because, well, there's not enough support for it (and rightly so because as I explained, it would be unusable in the real world). I see. So, Epicurus was just a "stoner"? "Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another." As was John Locke? "Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." And Thomas Jefferson? "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." As you said, Lol. quoting old dead persons are not good arguments. |
|
|
|
|
Expected response from myrkul:
oh no no no, you misunderstood: the NAP is voluntary.
|
|
|
|
Well?
its a violation of the NAP to kick a man when he is down. |
|
|
|
You know the bitcoiners are scared when more and more of them every day are making their way over to ALT territory to beat their chests and proclaim Bitcoin as the top dog.
Every dog has his day.
LOOOOOL!!!!! |
|
|
|
By that logic, removing the 1 MB max block size, which is going to happen and was advocated by Nakamoto, would make it something other than bitcoin.
by removing the 1MB limit you are not messing up all the old blocks. huge difference. Almost any change can be done without messing up old blocks. In fact, I can't easily imagine one that couldn't be done that way. his change proposes to change the protocol. removal of the 1MB limit could look like that there was no need for +1MB block before the first one, and that the limit had never been there. |
|
|
|
You're cherry-picking two or three weeks of chart to compare to an entire life-cycle?  the all time chart says that same. |
|
|
|
|
hmm. The scripting language is not turing-complete, no loops. What are the limits of scripts?
|
|
|
|
By that logic, removing the 1 MB max block size, which is going to happen and was advocated by Nakamoto, would make it something other than bitcoin.
by removing the 1MB limit you are not messing up all the old blocks. huge difference. |
|
|
|
|
if you people took a quick look on the log-charts, you would see that both in november '10 and june '11 there was faster growth.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
