 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
 What kind of collar is around this mannequin's neck? |
|
|
|
I want an individual of great skill in these markets to give me a look into the price of the future founded on rationality and reason. There will be money for your writing. I need 1500 words at the least. If you're interested, contact me: alpha.harvey@gmail.com |
|
|
|
If you think you have an excellent Bitcoin-related post on this forum, I am interested in purchasing it in exchange for certain rights. Contact me at alpha.harvey@gmail.comThanks. |
|
|
|
http://lewrockwell.com/slavo/slavo79.1.html
For the better part of two decades FEMA detention camps were believed to be a figment of tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists. As more information over the years has been made available through alternative news researchers like Alex Jones in his full length documentary Police State 4 and former governor Jesse Venutra's FEMA camp exposé, it is becoming increasingly clear that the government has been taking steps for quite some time to ensure a rapid and effective response in the event of a national disaster or U.S. military deployment on American soil.
As many of our readers know, the U.S. Senate recently passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which, it has been argued, authorizes the establishment of domestic war zones and the subsequent detention of those who are suspected of engaging in terrorist-related activity – including, arguably, U.S. citizens. What you may not know, however, is that just days after the passage of the act reports are surfacing that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security, is requisitioning private contractors to provide services for government, defense & infrastructure pertaining specifically to FEMA activities with respect to emergency services.
At first glance, this may seem like no big deal. Why shouldn't the government prepare for emergencies?
However, a review of an email made available through Info Wars from Kellogg, Brown & Root Services (KBR), a subsidiary of mega government contractor Haliburton, notes that the contracting opportunities available through the government and KBR are specifically for "temporary camp services and facilities."
Key Excerpts from the email and Project Overview:
Kellogg, Brown and Root Services (KBR) is seeking subscontractors on a national basis to provide temporary camp services and facilities as part of its current and future emergency services contracts for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and state/local government agencies.
The continental US will be broken up into five regions – Services will be required in each State within each region.
Establish services listed below within 72 hours for initial set-up and respond within 24 hours for incremental services. This is a CONTINGENCY PROJECT and it should be stressed that lead times will be short with critical requirements due to the nature of emergency responses. Subcontractors must be flexible and able to handle multiple, shifting priorities in an emergency environment. Supply lines needed must be short but not necessarily pre-positioned.
The personnel on site to be covered by these services will depend on the size and scope of the recovery effort, but for estimating purposes the camp will range in size from 301 to 2,000 persons for up to 30 days in length.
|
|
|
|
|
I see relationships fail all the time because one partner tries to "fix" the other. Of course this isn't love; it's a pure quest of domination. Never has this been remotely compassionate but merely attempted assimilation and hatred for who the person currently is.
In regards to political philosophy, the only schools of thought I know that accept people for their individual desires, cultures and choices are ones that advocate decentralized states that can conform to many types of people. This to me is love. It doesn't judge and it doesn't control: it accepts you for who you are. You can choose to live your life how you wish with people you can genuinely care for.
Other philosophies try to create one world and one people and bend them to their whim. Like their human counterparts, they are bound to fail.
Who here likes to truly love people and not control them?
|
|
|
|
I desire Bitcoin literature of at least 1500 words written proficiently, regardless of opinion. Your work can be of any opinion and of any objective. It can be a story, a manifesto, an argument, anything--as long as it is insightful, good reading and Bitcoin-related. I will be paying on the criteria of the originality, accessibility and entertainment value of your work. It must be readable by most English-speaking persons and, most of all, challenging to the reader. I want the reader to be put into deep thought by your writing. This isn't a place for common knowledge. Your work must be unpublished. I can either pay for your essay with a fixed price or we can discuss a royalty rate per sale when I publish your work. If you're interested in working with me, contact me at alpha.harvey@gmail.comI look forward to meeting you. |
|
|
|
#Bitcoin is fair. http://goo.gl/4IBm8 You're just a self-entitled #philistine. I've seen Mr. Mucus post his rants from time-to-time and they are usually aligned to the misguided, zero-sum mentality common among leftists: Bitcoin is unfair because people can profit from its success just by "hoarding" the currency from its inception. My mind begins to hemorrhage and rupture as I enter this twilight zone; this zone of hatred and envy. It's very simple: Nobody is losing from these Bitcoin profiteers. If anything, it only boosts the success of Bitcoin and gives people proper incentive to market and use the currency as they so please. So what if it isn't as liquid as you would prefer? It's meeting people's desires whether they be wealthy tycoons or ordinary people. Yes, some are gaining more success than others but they aren't denying it to the people who didn't win this game this time. There are plenty of wealth-bringing opportunities: It's not a zero-sum game. Wealth is not limited when it comes to innovation through software and technology. If you are so convinced that every time somebody wins that another loses, you need to get your head checked. The fact is everybody is responsible for their own actions and they shall reap what they sow. Their earnings were never yours, society's nor under your supposed god to begin with. Oh, the poor souls that didn't get to enter the game and profit massively from Bitcoin's rising price. Where's their share? That's what you will always hear from the envious left when somebody succeeds, in a cowardice whining lisp, with the lingering smell of body odor draping from his neckbeard you'll here the whimper of "Where is my share?" They don't care for your success. If anything, they hate it, they despise it. If they can't be in a constant of orgasm of riches and pity, then nobody can be happy. All they want is destruction and equal mediocrity. If you know what's best for your time and for the rest of the rational world, ignore them. Enjoy your success and the profits from your choice to purchase Bitcoins when the time was right. Without remorse say "Fuck them." You got yours and be damn proud of it because in their world there would be no success; only disdain for those who do succeed and its only success that raises the median wealth in the first-place. You've stolen from nobody but only acted with your own property. Again, be proud and show no remorse. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/elv26o |
|
|
|
|
I have sent an email to Twitter proposing #Bitcoin as a promoted trend. What this means is #Bitcoin could be displayed on top the sidebar to all Twitter users at select time periods. If they click the trend, they will see all the news and tweets regarding Bitcoin. During this time, the Bitcoin community could shout their voice the loudest using the #Bitcoin tag and we could get a lot of new people informed on Bitcoin.
What are the obstacles that are preventing this from happening? One, we need Twitter to actually consider the request. Two, we need a minimum of $5,000 to fund the campaign. Who would be interested in helping fund this? Is this a equitable cause?
|
|
|
|
#Bitcoin: The Myth of Compromisable #Anonymity. - http://www.twitlonger.com/show/eli5dgIn face of The People's Bank of China statement ( http://bit.ly/uO2Nlu), people are beginning to claim mass mining of the Bitcoin currency by governments and central banks--such as China's--will inhibit anonymity of its purchasers and transactions. This is based on the folly assumption that the market for Bitcoin is zero-sum: The distributors of Bitcoin can become centralized and people will not be able to purchase Bitcoins without displaying ID to authorities. This is easily refuted: Almost anybody can purchase and manufacturer computing power capable of producing Bitcoin, given proper market incentive. Bitcoin-capable hardware, whether it be GPUs or otherwise, will not be regulated and limited by states any time soon. In turn, people outside of government and banking cartels can still sell currency anonymously without requiring valid identification. Even in the face of restrictions on Bitcoin-capable computer hardware, where one can only purchase Bitcoin and Bitcoin-hardware with a valid government-issued ID, people can still effectively launder Bitcoins through randomized protocols. This means transactions can still be anonymous in the face of a centralized cartel on computing power. This stands under the assumption that people can still act within modern internet protocols with little restriction. So it stands that if the internet doesn't remain as the decentralized communication protocol today, yes, Bitcoin would be reasonably threatened. The real question is such a situation feasible? I'll ponder on that and answer it all in good time. Now, let's say governments and banks acquire numerous amounts of Bitcoin computing power through illicit funds acquired through taxation and monetary inflation; they outprice every small Bitcoin retailer on the block. This will not eliminate anonymity either considering that if anonymity is still highly desirable, people will still pay a higher price for anonymous transactions through the smaller Bitcoin resellers. Easy money won't achieve the centralized fantasy either. The rational fact is if our current internet freedom is maintained, Bitcoin anonymity and its core virtues are not going anywhere. It will likely remain as the decentralized, anonymous currency it is today. Harvey Alpha | 1MJFSyQyn9JuT8bUdpfb2XPfoQ9pQv9Tep | This work is licensed under the WTFPL - http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/COPYING. |
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LkaH3hEmV3MFrom a priest: "I don't think hell exists... It's part of a control tactic..." "The church doesn't like the people to grow up because you can't control grown-ups. That's why we talk about being 'born again': When you are born-again, you are still a child. People don't need to be born-again. They need to grow-up; they need to accept responsibility for themselves and the world." I haven't heard more truth from a title that usually evokes lies.
|
|
|
|
|
If it weren't for me sharing myself on this forum like I do, I would not of have met the love of my life. A lot of it is due to our lovely friends on the SomethingAwful forum. She is a member of that forum and she used to casually browse it. She stumbled upon the Bitcoin thread and eventually me through the goon's commentary. It started with emails over a month's time and eventually daily phonecalls. Now she has become one of the closest people in my life.
The funniest thing is she is a self-proclaimed Marxist while I'm an absolute individualist, yet we both recognize the same problems in our society. We just wish to evoke change through different means. It's as if differences don't really exist...
Anyways, I regret nothing and this place has been permanently burned into my heart. Ironically, this applies to SomethingAwful as well although I've been banned from there two times for "libertarianism".
Just consider this a big thank you.
Laissez Les Bon Temps Roulez
|
|
|
|
|
So, there's a race of people and they produce the most undesirable offspring. They are anti-government and hate the current regime and it's due to a certain gene that effects how one perceives humanity. On the congressional, senatorial and presidential ballets are candidates that will support eugenics and forced contraception of these people that "threaten society". You are proud of the current government and believe it will put humanity in the right direction but if these people keep reproducing, they will eventually stop everything you stand for. You believe these people's views will hurt humanity as a whole.
Do you vote for forced eugenics on these people?
|
|
|
|
This is not true. Human needs are actually quantifiable scientifically, to an extent. All humans have certain biological needs, certain psychological needs and certain social needs. All of these have elements that are fairly universal and elements that are individual, based on needs. I'm not advocating that we base anything on the opinions of a leader, group of leaders or even a collective. I'm advocating a more technocratic approach, if you will.
First I have to clarify that the wants of human beings are actually a criteria in this approach. It doesn't mean that everyone is fed the right kind of porridge and everyone sleeps in optimized dorms with bunk beds. This approach might fill the biological needs people have but not the psychological and social ones. All of these are taken into account and partially from an individual perspective.
Using this approach we can take solid scientific models such as the Maslow hierarchy into more practical use. Our goal would obviously be to allow every human being to reach the highest level. To be able to do something motivating, to better themselves, to be creative. But I want equality which means that we should first fulfill the two lowest levels in the Maslow hierarchy for everyone. These are physiological needs and safety. We claim our civilization is advanced and so great but still we have BILLIONS of people in the world who do not have even the basic needs met adequately.
A sane approach to society is to make sure the lower level needs are being met and then we can focus on giving everyone the opportunities to reach the highest level which is self-actualization. This approach is beneficial to everyone because it reduces crime in a society, increases trust among members of society, increases mental health, physical health etc. Everything that REALLY MATTERS go up. Now we live in a society where we get kicks from our profits soaring, GDP going up, all the while the indicators that really matter go from bad to worse. It's all right here, folks. They want to confiscate your life, cage you like rats and fill your basic "scientific needs" according to their whims. Then when everybody is on the same "level" can you reach their criteria of self-actualization. Now they claim otherwise by citing the most extreme case with bunk beds and pooridge; however, of course they know nobody produces in these conditions so they call for meeting "psychological needs" by handing out the minimum amount of freedom so the human will still be happy enough to produce a taxable income. Isn't it lovely? You don't even need to worry about your own needs anymore. The technocrats know everything you want FROM SCIENCE. Everything is going to be alright. Big daddy Technomage is going to take care of you. He's going to confiscate all the undeserved wealth from the producers and give it to the "lower people" so they can be up to level 2 on their scientific charts. I haven't met a technocrat before but it seems I found one. It's as disgusting as I imagined. |
|
|
|
|
...then how stupid was the question?
|
|
|
|
|
A good lot of Bitcoin exchanges and services could be considered Money Services Businesses and be required to be licensed and pay horrendous and nearly unprofitable fees. This is a problem and could very well centralize the Bitcoin market to only big exchanges; the small guys will be left out.
The solution: Bitcoin needs to be called what it is. Not money and not currency but a data protocol to provide free speech and communication without inhibition across the web.
We're going to get in a huge mess with the regulators if we don't begin changing our culture in regards to this. I would prefer our economy to be diverse with small merchants rather than a oligarch of government-approved Mt. Goxes created by corporatist regulation.
We may even see the bigger faces such as Gox and Tradehill bought out by the government with favoritism and exemptions (aka corporatism) to allow for further centralization of the Bitcoin market. Using their voice, the Bitcoin culture could be altered to support widespread government control of the currency. This is scary stuff and it could stifle Bitcoin. We need to be alert.
|
|
|
|
|
