A 2017 and a 2019 article? Wow, that's really current events! (NOT) ^^^ Right! I think that somebody in his family - wife, daughter, son, son-in-law - will get elected following Trump's second term.  Ivanka? The first woman President? She'd have to change her hair a bit and cut the barbie look. Or not. ORANGEGIRLBAD!!!! |
|
|
|
Hi there I am going to give you my mantra for coping with depression.
Whenever I feel depressed about something, (a loss in trading/gambling, a bad river in poker, any missed opportunity, my impulsive irrational behavior which could have been easily avoided etc) I think of 'Evolution' . I contemplate about how long it took for us to get here and do whatever we are doing in our life. I think of difficulties we had to overcome for just survival sake, over millions of years. How we develop our senses, our consciousness over the period of millions of years. Then I compare my recent problem with that, and guess what I usually laugh after this comparison.
I get depressed when I think of "Devolution," the reverse of "Evolution." |
|
|
|
So what? Can you present your analysis or opinion? |
|
|
|
I like puppies, I just hate the people who treat them badly.
But the level of self-approval of the authoritarian controllers is proportional to your inconvenience experienced at their measures. |
|
|
|
It is another massive waste of our money. I will resist being tested, and will demand details of the testing methods, and the replication factors applied. I believe that they are setting up roadside testing stations, and making the testing mandatory, with forced self-isolation following a positive result. It will be interesting to see what happens if I get an independent test which is negative if they hit me.
Who do you think you are? The authoritarian controllers have to control. If you deprive them of this, they will be unhappy. Think of all the people you would have made unhappy. Next thing you'll be advocating strangling puppies.  |
|
|
|
Today I watched a very convincing video on how the following years are crucial for the future of humanity. Scientists agree that for humanity to survive global warming without catastrophic consequences on a global level, then global warming should be limited between 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius. ....
Are you going to stand by watching idly? I say us bitcoiners should take a stance.
Perhaps we should create a blockchain to immutably record temperatures? Because there are issues with adjustments by climate freaks to those temperatures. Alarmists keep saying that we've only got ten years left to fix things. They've been saying that since the 1980s. It got to be called "Al Gore's Sliding Timetable of Doom." What do you think? Should we bit coiners do what we know best how to do, create a blockchain, and force a stop to all the lying? |
|
|
|
I never noticed that you don't ask for links to whatever we say. So, thank you for taking us at our word, except when you contradict us with all your hearsay, because you don't have any links to back up whatever you say.
Here is a link to back up what I'm saying. Take note of item #1 in the list contained therein. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0There is no need for links. There are thousands of ways to say ORANGEMANBAD, with a smirk, a whisper, a menacing tone, a croak. Many other ways are yet to be created. Some may turn entire Trump rallies into pillars of salt. But they don't stop The Trump. |
|
|
|
Title self a explanatory...
That's soooo yesterday. "Dimwit, Man-Child made President" That was for Bush Jr. For Trump it's ... ORANGEMANBAD!!!! |
|
|
|
I feel like guns are important as a self-defense tool, but it can definitely be used as a way to harm others as well. Gun regulation by the govt is the only way to eradicate (or at least minimalize) the gun violence rate
But when as in the USA, cities vote to defund the police, more and more people will get guns. Because it totally makes sense. The pandemic and George Floyd protests caused record rates of background checks because of how many Americans are rushing to buy guns - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/31/americans-guns-coronavirus-protestsUsually when it's election time or after there's a mass shooting, gun sales go up, but we haven't seen anything like this. In the midst of so much violence, the calls to defund police is moronic. No, it is happening, so there must be a fashion in which it makes sense. For example, a politician might whisper to his cronies, "We'll defund the police, and then put the money in XYZ.There, we'll keep a good part of it." |
|
|
|
I feel like guns are important as a self-defense tool, but it can definitely be used as a way to harm others as well. Gun regulation by the govt is the only way to eradicate (or at least minimalize) the gun violence rate
But when as in the USA, cities vote to defund the police, more and more people will get guns. Because it totally makes sense. |
|
|
|
....
I get that argument though. As the founders WOULD'VE NEVER allowed for us to live in the current state that we live in. ICE operating near the borders pulling over private citizens everyday? ....
Sez who, the founders wouldn't have thought that was proper? |
|
|
|
....
2nd amendment is one of those things that are VERY tough to debate about. You're totally right on it being a debate where both sides have some pretty good points. Though I do think the right has some of the better points when it comes to constitutionality and that sort of thing....
Time after time, pro-gun advocates demolish arguments of anti-gun. The reason is quite curious. As in this thread, anti-gun people are always quite ignorant of the very subject they pontificate on. They have never handled the pistols, hunting or military rifles, or antique guns of which they profess knowledge. Actually knowing and having experience does matter. I grew up with guns, was in the 4-H trap and skeet league in High School and still go shooting with my Dad and Uncle every time I visit. There are rational, valid arguments on both sides of the gun debate. There are also irrational, invalid arguments on both sides of the gun debate. Like the one you just made, for example. The 2nd amendment isn't about skeet, 4-H trap, or shooting with your Dad. It's about the right of a public to be sufficiently armed to overthrow a tyrannical government, if and when that need arises. This implies weapons of certain types. As for the wording of the 2nd amendment and other parts of the document being vague, maybe that's a feature not a bug. |
|
|
|
....
2nd amendment is one of those things that are VERY tough to debate about. You're totally right on it being a debate where both sides have some pretty good points. Though I do think the right has some of the better points when it comes to constitutionality and that sort of thing....
Time after time, pro-gun advocates demolish arguments of anti-gun. The reason is quite curious. As in this thread, anti-gun people are always quite ignorant of the very subject they pontificate on. They have never handled the pistols, hunting or military rifles, or antique guns of which they profess knowledge. Actually knowing and having experience does matter. |
|
|
|
Yeah, I think that everything relating to handling sex offenders (once they've been convicted) is up to the states. No federal control unless something has crossed state lines, though -- you seem to contest that the federal government is helping at all, even when people are crossing state lines.
The states can't do shit when he crosses statelines and thus far the FEDS haven't or won't either... FEDS are pretty tight-lipped, which I understand and I appreciate, but holy fuck. Right now it's entirely a State problem, but the problem is the states stuff stops at their lines and once Joshua Hayden Scott crossed into Oregon outside of the 400 mile state arrest warrant... that was that. So now, we are attempting to serve him with Child Support paperwork, but it's really hard to do without him having an address. Keep in mind he was a Level 3 offender in FL, AR, and WI previous to OR... however, he's not been leveled in OR this entire year. Curious on your source for the 15k for getting a legal automatic weapon? Sounds ugh -- well interesting to say the least. I know those are HEAVILY regulated, though they are still allowed.
$15k is really high (but that's the price of my next gun).... $10k would do the ticket. Example: https://www.armsunlimited.com/Heckler-Koch-223-556-Machine-Gun-Pre86-Dealer-p/hk33k.htmFully automatic guns should be legal in America. It's unconstitutional as fuck to strip and price out these poor folks of their constitutional rights. This is the first 'legalize machine guns' argument I've come across. Are they pricing them out simply by banning any automatics produced post 1980's, or is there some other system pushing up the price? Unless the law is repealed, they'll all be obsolete in what, a few decades? 100 years? I'm no expert obv, but I feel like spending $10k on a 1986 machine gun is really just for fun and anyone that owns one is going to grab something else in pretty much any situation that doesn't involve entertainment. Any weapons you agree the government should ban or regulate? As an investment, machine guns really hold their value. As a novelty item to own, they are quite interesting. I could go for a 1920s Thompson machine gun, and there are also some 22LR machine guns that are interesting, but the latter would require careful cleaning after each use. Correcting errors: Machine guns ARE LEGAL to own in the USA. You must pay a 200 USD$ fee for a stamp each year. Also an error. "Useful life." Barring corrosion and with decent care, a firearm can easily last for hundreds of years, not decades. If engineering drawings are available of the parts, they are quite easy to make. Utility: The M16 was fielded with three settings: Single shot, three round burst, and full auto. The reason for the 3 round burst was to keep the soldier from doing the "spray and pray," using his ammo up, and then getting killed. Full auto might be of use to keep an enemy from advancing, but it isn't likely to hit anything. A machine gun with a couple of 500 round cases is a different matter entirely, than a handheld rifle with seven 30 round magazines. So the MILITARY usefulness of full auto is not 100% for such things as handheld rifles. [Edit] The M16A2 currently issued to US troops does not have a fully auto mode of fire, just the 1 shot and 3 shot options. .....
What's a step up from automatic weapons? RPGs? Bazookas? Large ammounts of explosive material....biological/chemical/nuclear weapons? There's gotta be a line somewhere right?
That line exists, and the law and regulation is pretty good just as is. Different sections of the regs, like section 8 handle "explosive devices." Lot of people work in areas that require approval under these sections, no big deal. No need for a far out argument of bio/chem/nuke to make your point. Various regulations do cover all these matters currently. |
|
|
|
Obviously it's quite unacceptable for a scientist to not publish the data. ...
Great, then we agree that any credible belief in the hockey stick of temperature cannot be based on Mann's work, and it should be discredited (more than it already is). |
|
|
|
Much of the housing is government-owned.
Actually it isn't. The arch-Oxford globalist, Margaret Thatcher and successors gave it ....gave a lot of out .... very charitable, wasn't she? except for giving away what wasn't hers... |
|
|
|
conclusions are worthless
And why exactly is that? This is the core of my question. .... So, you'll ignore completely my question about Mann's data and methods, and go on to another parroted talking point. Blah-blah-blah. Or do you actually not understand why it's unacceptable for a scientist to actively prevent people from attempting to replicate his results? If there is believed to be "a consensus", replication and verification of results is no longer required? (Hint: Your response to this tells us if you are an idiot bot or a human. Hint Hint: Humans can be bots also) |
|
|
|
So why isn't the overwhelming evidence published by established academics and institutions fit for your standards to confirm climate change is real and man made?
...But one response to your assertion is worth making. Dr. Michael Mann, inventor of the "Hockey Stick" of global warming fame, hid his data and his procedures and methods. As a result, his conclusions are worthless. I'm curious if you have a problem with that. I wonder if the replication crisis would show it's ugly face in climate science provided academics were allowed to pursue alternative theories without outstanding backlash. Here's a relevant quote from Peter Thiel I can't resist mentioning sort of the anecdote from one of my friends. His advisor at Stanford, Bob Laughlin, got a Nobel Prize in physics in late '90s. And he suffered from the supreme delusion that once he had a Nobel prize in physics, he would have academic freedom [laughter], and he could do whatever he wanted to. And so what he decided to do is he was going to sort of investigate all of the other scientists at Stanford who, he was convinced were sort of stealing money from the government and sort of engaged in mostly fraudulent research, just a lot of input of money, but not much output. The two grad students, he'd sort of come into their office once a week and it would be, "I'm very proud of you. We're on the front lines. We're doing battle for science against the whole universe in this office." And you can sort of imagine how this movie ended. It sort of was quite catastrophic. The grad students couldn't get PHDs. He got defunded. And my hermeneutic suspicion is always when there's speech that is completely forbidden and questions that are not allowed to be asked, normally, you should assume that those things are simply true.
Excellent question, link, and Thiel quote. Here are a couple 'thought questions' on the general subject. All are the "show your work" variety, so answers parroted from the internet won't work. 1. What is the equilibrium temperature of the Earth? The average temperature? The correct temperature? 2. Can anything prevent the next ice age? What? 3. What are the implications of the virial theorem for Earth's temperature? 4. If "global warming" is a scientific theory, what was the hypothesis? |
|
|
|
So why isn't the overwhelming evidence published by established academics and institutions fit for your standards to confirm climate change is real and man made?
You are not reading or thinking, but parroting. Evidence is one single step in the method. I did link to it. But one response to your assertion is worth making. Dr. Michael Mann, inventor of the "Hockey Stick" of global warming fame, hid his data and his procedures and methods. As a result, his conclusions are worthless. I'm curious if you have a problem with that. |
|
|
|
These are the covid news from my point of view:
1. Statistics lie.
2. People are tired of isolation, they want to live their lives to the full.
3. The virus will not disappear if we wear masks and use sanitazers. Evidently, later or sooner, we will all catch it.
The numbers mentioned earlier, "number of cases per nation" is not even a statistic. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
