Hey, but Hillary went there, like right into those COMBAT ZONES, man, and like, she got shot at and all that, and I heard all this so it's true, like whoa, because CNN told me.
Why do you even talk about Hillary? Hating Trump doesn't mean loving Hillary... Are you so much in the binary system? |
|
|
|
|
That's a good thing to hear.
Indeed the number of people affected was small, but it was a bit terrifying how impossible it seemed for anyone to get their new account back. Even when you had everything you needed to prove it was indeed your account...
|
|
|
|
|
I might grant you this loan.
Just so you know, CRGO aren't a valid colateral as they can't be traded currently. Providing such colateral won't give you a good rate at all, you have nothing else? And why do you need the loan for?
This ICO seems a very serious one though so let me dig up more and if I consider investing in it I might grant you the loan. But state if you have better colateral which will give a better rate anyway.
|
|
|
|
Hello everyone. So I've got huuuuuuge problems trying to talk with TECSHARE whatever the topic is about. It seems to me that this member isn't able to think or read so I'd like to have your opinion voiced out, maybe if enough people are actually explaining him that he's contradictory he will start reading for good. After all it seems he's the only member in the P&S section that keeps being moderated for his posts, there might be a reason for that no? First thing first he seems like someone really logic and facts focus: What is relevant are facts. What you THINK you understand is irrelevant.
I didn't ask for your reasoning, I asked for proof. At least a micron of empirical data to support your claims. So far I have seen nothing of this nature presented by you.
"Thinking outside the box" and being assured of your position at the pinnacle of human evolution is not a substitute for logic.
(I especially love this one) For TECSHARE what you believe or think is irrelevant, the only things that matter are the pure objective facts. He's also really into logical fallacies stuff. He has a wide knowledge about all kinds of logical fallacies and points out anything you do that can be somewhat interpreted as a logical fallacy: Now that you have used your red herring distraction card, what about the rest of the criticism? Or are you just going to run from that too?
Actually it is a well known logical fallacy called "no true Scotsman". So no, it is not really a valid argument. I will be back for more don't worry  And he definitely doesn't like socialits and communists: Just as predicted the Socialists and Commies roll in and try to take credit for everyone elses work and hijack the group and redirect it toward implementing Marxist ideologies. They are parasites and can build nothing of their own.
But what is funny is how TECSHARE contradicts himself. It's pretty tiring in the middle of the discussion because you have the impression of talking to a seven years old but after some times have passed you go back to old threads and re-read it (yes I do that, I mean that's the best way to learn something, re-reading your discussions once you're calm to see if you were wrong and were just too heat up to realize it) and you see the obvious contradictions lying here. So here is a collection of the best contradictions of TECSHARE with some context (but all the rest will be quoted so you can see I'm not rephrasing or whatever). Enjoy!
Thread: Capitalism is destroying usDiscussion was at first with another user were I was trying to explain and support the claim that success is mainly based on luck, no matter your skills or abilities. So the first answer is about af_newbie not about TECSHARE You're exactly the "self-made man" example who just can't understand why people aren't succeeding.
[...]
Well no. Not at all. It's because you're smart, you worked hard, and you got LUCKY.
[...]
Was my success mine? Sure. I worked my ass off and my parents too! They sacrificed themselves for me that's for sure. I believe I'm both smart and capable and the company paying me is sure happy to do so.
But more than any of that, I was lucky.
I see so, your success is your own, and you earned it, but his success is luck?
Thread: Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?Of course TECSHARE is a climatoskeptic. I presented Nasa graphs showing the corelation between human emission of CO2 and temperature and... Well see for yourself: Just out of curiousity, how do you explain this guys: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/I mean rise of CO2 is quite obviously linked to human activities right? And temperature rise is also quite obvious: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/The link between the two of course, is nearly impossible to prove. But if that's not the CO2 then what is it? Because there is an EXCELLENT explanation of why the CO2 might make the temperature rise, so if you say "it's not true" it means you have something else that is an even better explanatio nright? You claim the link is obvious and just expect us to accept it as fact. That is not science, that is the beginnings of a cult. Might I also add, as the person pushing the anthropogenic climate change theory, the burden of proof is on you to do so, not vice versa demanding people refute your unsubstantiated claims.
Euh... Sorry? I give you an infographic giving both CO2 evolution and temperature evolution, both showing an exceptionnal increase since industrial revolution... How is that the begining of a cult?? What you accept an evidence when you see a phenomenon with both eyes otherwise it's just "unsubstantiated claimes"??
100% proof for anything doesn't exist, and no I didn't ask for it. Why don't you start by presenting ANY scientifically sound empirical data?
You skipped over a very important word within scientific method. It is empirical data. You test the hypothesis by collecting empirical data, changing a variable, and documenting more empirical data of the results. Simulations, predictions, estimations, and theories do not count as empirical data.
Yeah it seems that for him records made by the NASA aren't considered as empirical data :/
Thread: [It's not real communism] or why socialism can still be an answerAnd of course the famous
Don't speak for me. SOCIALISM IS INHERENTLY TOTALITARIAN. END OF STATEMENT.
Then what does he do? I see, so you are arguing Socialism/Communism COULD be good by telling us all about how great it COULD be.
Oh damned, seems like you spoke for me :/
Thread: #metoo as I say, not as I do - Bill C-51 - Sexual Assault Law In CanadaThis one is good as he started the thread saying: So I go read the article, and doesn't find anything that looks like "guilty until proven innocent" and state it: In YOUR article, there is NEVER written that "What is reality is this standard now forces the accused to prove their innocent in order to be able to defend their freedom."
And suddenly his claime changed a bit to be more adequate to his article, all the while explaning me how I know nothing John: What is relevant are facts. What you THINK you understand is irrelevant. The FACT is that this will make innocent people suffer by making it more difficult to defend themselves from false accusations. It is a total debasement of foundational concepts of law.
|
|
|
|
What is relevant are facts. What you THINK you understand is irrelevant. The FACT is that this will make innocent people suffer by making it more difficult to defend themselves from false accusations. It is a total debasement of foundational concepts of law.
Can you tell me, where in this quote is the number 4?
"2 + 2 = "
We can all see the equation.
Just because it hasn't been abused YET doesn't mean it will not lead to abuse or even other unintentional issues. The fact is you don't know a damned thing about law, and therefore have no comprehension of why this is a big problem. Hundreds of years of legal precedent are begin overturned here. That is a problem.
You haven't answered me at all. Where in your article does it state that now rape accusation will be "guilty until proven innocent"? This is YOUR claim: Because appart from your personnal attacks about me "not knowing a damned thing about law" I don't see any fact in your claim or post or answers. |
|
|
|
Its not about being native, it is about culture and integration.
Oh so we're not discussing birthright citizenship then?  We are, and this is not an argument. So if we're discussing birthright we're discussing about the USA Natives... Native: A person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nativeIf you let people in too fast the fabric of what makes the USA the USA breaks down and becomes absorbed by the new culture.
Doesn't mean anything, can you define what makes the USA the USA? Can you define USA culture? If not, how can you see that "the fabric of what makes the USA the USA is breaking down"? I see. So unless I can define American culture to your satisfaction, it doesn't exist? Absolutely not. Stop talking for me. Unless you don't define American culture you can't claim it's breaking down that's all I'm saying here. DEFINITION OF CULTUREThis is the definition of culture. All those things effect the functioning of societies. You claiming these qualities are irrelevant is just asinine. I NEVER made that claim. You're again just forcing words in my mouth for your own purpose. A lot of the people flooding into this country are from nations which are pro-socialist and pro-Communist. They flea the misery that these systems create, not understanding the cause, then come here and vote for entitlement programs and overburden public systems. You do this enough times and before you know it the USA is just like all those failing Communist/Socialist states.
This is just an example, as this could occur in many different ways. We can see this pattern play out on a smaller scale as people flea the more socialist policy heavy areas of the US such as California and Illinois bleeding residents to more conservative states like Texas and Tennessee. They then go there and keep voting for the same broken policies they had from where they left as they begin debasing those systems.
This is just one way I know it is happening, because America is a large place, and we deal with this issue internally between the states as well as internationally.
So you still haven't defined in any way what American culture is for you... hence I don't see how you magically know it's "breaking apart" as you say. Especially if there are already large differences inside your nation. That is not ok, and the constant attempt to cast this as a racial issue is just a very useful distraction from this fact.
What? The question of race or racism wasn't even mentionned in all my posts, what are you talking about? Oo "Native" has distinct racial connotations, and a common tactic of people advocating for open borders is to insinuate or outright accuse those they disagree with as racist. What do you attribute my motives to? Wonderful so now you not only force words in my mouth but also claim I mean things I haven't written about. Native means being born somewhere so the term seems pretty much adequate when discussing birthright citizenship. Stop your paranoïa for a second and maybe you will find not everyone is yelling racist at you... Violent rhetoric and your heavy abilities to ignore facts you don't like and answering only to a small part of arguments make it easy for you to chase away any different idea from what you believe is right. You're not silencing anyone, you're simply exhausting anyone different from you, making them leave the place of discussion you occupy because you're not here to discuss.
Imagine you're in a bus, and while everyone talks politely there is someone who suddenly starts yelling at everyone, without touching them, yelling that they're not understanding shit that they're stupid that they have no logic while not listening to the person or answering any of there argument. That will make everyone leave the bus to take another one. That's what you're doing, you're making extremely exhausting for anyone to try to talk where you are because you're here to dominate the ground, not to discuss. "Violent rhetoric" WTF does that even mean? Advocating for violence? When have I advocated for violence? Words are not violence. Violent rhetoric isn't advocating for violence but being violent in a discussion. If you don't understand that a discussion can be civil and another can be violent, you're either a saint always being civil in every situation or a crazy asshole always being violent in all situations.
Ignoring what facts? Just claiming I am ignoring facts is not an argument. When I answer as one longer reply you cry that I "don't address everything", even though I do, but then when I reply to you, as you reply to me, breaking everything down point by point you complain about "small packets".
I don't complain about small packets, for the first time you're actually trying to adress my answer without chosing to ommit parts of it so I'm pretty happy.
You claiming I am not here to discuss does not magically make it a fact. What you experience could also be described as you running out of arguments to defend your position and giving up on defending it. Your ideas must not be very important if you can't muster a few words for its defense.
It's not mustering a few words, it's having to take your eyes and put them in front of the numerous sentences you decided to ignore while continuing the discussion. Making it extremely difficult to try to speak to you because when you're facing something you don't like, you just ignore it and continue your own agenda.
I am not preventing you from speaking. If you don't like me "dominating the ground" then perhaps you should present some ideas worth a damn. You never know I might even agree with you.
Then here is an idea: You are ignoring facts that you don't like. And when you're really cornered and can't do more you just stop answering and continue on the next thread. Mobbing, threats, coordinated de-platforming, and attacking ones ability to earn a living are the favored tactics of the left.
Don't know what you're talking about... Don't know a single person in the situation you're describing. Well shit, since you don't know anyone it must not be the case. Case closed everyone! Well shit, when you make a claim like that maybe you should provide some informations if the person you're discussing with doesn't know about it? Doesn't it work like that? You say A and if I disagree with it you're supposed to provide some kind of evidence or at least logic? Or maybe that when discussing with you, people are supposed to know what you talk about and if they don't you're the one being right without having to provide context or explanations? When was the last time you saw conservatives show up to a leftist event? Why is it that leftists are at nearly every conservative event? It is because the left can not tolerate dissent and attempts to silence it at every turn, by any means necessary.
Every France Insoumise meeting or demonstration of the past 2 years in France... But in USA I don't know of course. Yes. You do not know. That does not stop you from claiming authority on subjects you are only casually familiar with now does it? Seriously? You ask "when was the last time you saw conservatives show up to a leftist event?" and I answer "I've seen them here but I don't know about all situations" and your answer is "yes you don't know shit"? If you don't see a problem here I can't do anything for you. I've stopped here. There is nothing to do about you if you don't see where the problem is. I would really want to discuss with you. But it seems like it's not possible. Here is exactly what has happened: Techshare Mobbing, threats, coordinated de-platforming, and attacking ones ability to earn a living are the favored tactics of the left. m0gliE Don't know what you're talking about... Don't know a single person in the situation you're describing. Techshare Well shit, since you don't know anyone it must not be the case. Case closed everyone! Which can be translated by: Techshare Makes a claim m0gliE I never have read or heard anything that support your claim Techshare Mocking m0gliE and not giving anything to support the claim How is it possible to discuss with you in those conditions? |
|
|
|
Our new game "Mining Factory" has 3.9% house edge. All the rest have around 10%.
It's really a shame. With such great graphics if you had some correct house edge you would destroy the market I'm sure. But with something like that how can you compete? Yolodice, Betdice, Kingdice, PrimeDice... They all have around 1% of house edge. Going to 2 or 3% might be acceptable, but 10 times the standard of the market? Gosh why not just asking for our money directly? xD |
|
|
|
Hello,
- You need to wager only 35 times
- Every bet counts the same
- Same for all bonuses
Cool thanks! And just to know, do all the games on the site have this... Ridiculous house edge of 10%? Because that's completely messed up as far as I'm concerned. |
|
|
|
No. Inputs have balance, an empty address has no inputs.
Then thanks for your advice and I'm going to consolidate the sit out of everything  |
|
|
|
2. I don't think this matters per se. As long as all the inputs are all consolidated in the new adress, there is no issue. If they're not and instead all spread out over "new"/different adresses, then this is indeed a problem.
Note that you can always reuse an adress if you'd like to do so. I'm not sure how it works with hardware wallets, but it's not like they'll all of a sudden "throw away" the private key for said adress.
Ok thanks for the explanation. The importance isn't number of adresses but number of tx that have been done to this adress then. So if I would like to consolidate a wallet, be it hardware or not, the best would be to generate a new adress of this wallet, then send the entire funds of all the adresses of this wallet to this new adress? Won't the wallet will take the inputs of all adresses next time I send funds? Even if the balance of other adresses is 0? |
|
|
|
|
Hey,
I've got two questions cause I'm really not a technical guy.
1 - Are the inputs sizes based on the number of addresses from which the funds are taken?
2 - If yes, is there a way to stop the sending to a different address at every transaction? For Electrum or even my hardware wallet, every time I want to receive BTC they suggest a new address and I don't know why. On the hardware wallet it's not even possible to get back the old addresses all I can do is get new ones...
|
|
|
|
There is one way to win though! Invest in a casino. Tons of casinos (including YoloDice) allow you to invest to get a part of the bankroll. Once it's done you no longer are on the losing side, you're almost guaranteed to win |
|
|
|
Excuse me if I don't take your legal advice very seriously. What you understand is irrelevant. What is reality is this standard now forces the accused to prove their innocent in order to be able to defend their freedom. You think it is acceptable to set a standard where people can send others to prison on their word, and then be forced to prove your innocence in order to remain free? Kind of funny, "innocent until proven guilty" originated from the French as a concept. I guess this is just another case of you being ignorant about your own nation lol. I don't even know why I answer you as you don't read me... What I understand is irrelevant but what you understand is? In YOUR article, there is NEVER written that "What is reality is this standard now forces the accused to prove their innocent in order to be able to defend their freedom." It's as simple as that, you provide a source and state a claim, I go read the source and don't see this claim. I'm pretty aware that this concept is French and quite proud of it thank you. Fact is that you're stating it's no longer applicable and I don't see it in your source. I was merely being polite by saying "How I understand it" but I can be more direct if you wish: You make a claim. Where is it supported in your article? |
|
|
|
Is that so? Is that why they are trying to make it illegal to criticize immigration now in some European countries, because they are so done with it?
Don't know which country you're talking about... You're starting to sound similar to our French "extreme right" political party who are the most interviewed and the most on TV of all the French parties and are always saying that "the media are silencing us" xD We all know he is not talking about The Schengen Agreement, so lets not pretend this isn't about the 3rd world flooding in.
Similar, immegration laws are more and more harsh the years passing by. More and more countries are starting to put closed borders, redirecting immigrants, expulsing the ones already on the national ground... 30 years ago it was hard to arrive in a country but once the ground you were never deported, never ever. https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/le-nombre-d-expulsions-en-hausse-de-14-en-france_1974518.htmlDeportation are increasing every year so I don't see what you're talking about...
As far as proof the "left is pushing for open borders", why it it that I always see Communists groups and ANTIFA at these immigration protests?
You do realize that you're not reasonning logically right? "left is pushing for open borders" -> means left political parties and their supporters want to open border "I always see Communists groups and ANTIFA at these immigration protests" -> the only ones pushing for open borders are at the left It was always the case and will always be the case. You can't see nationalists and fascists pushing for open borders the only ones you'll see will always be Communists and antifa xD Letting the 3rd world flood in fits perfectly with Communist ideology considering the entire goal of Communism is to destroy nations to make way for more Communism in the resulting chaos.
Lol Letting millions of impoverished people flood into a nation is a good way to do that. Then you have plenty of poor people to vote for your entitlement programs that get paid for by magic some how or something.
Lol again |
|
|
|
Natives first? What did you just get done watching "Gangs of New York" and get yourself all riled up and get yer shillelagh ready?
Natives first is litteraly the patrioc claim of far right in France. Don't know what's the equivalent for USA though. Its not about being native, it is about culture and integration.
Oh so we're not discussing birthright citizenship then? If you let people in too fast the fabric of what makes the USA the USA breaks down and becomes absorbed by the new culture.
Doesn't mean anything, can you define what makes the USA the USA? Can you define USA culture? If not, how can you see that "the fabric of what makes the USA the USA is breaking down"? That is not ok, and the constant attempt to cast this as a racial issue is just a very useful distraction from this fact.
What? The question of race or racism wasn't even mentionned in all my posts, what are you talking about? Oo Please explain how "rethoric" gets rid of some one else's ideas and speech. The left are the ones focused on telling everyone what they are and are not allowed to say. Some one else disagreeing with you is not equivalent to them silencing you.
Violent rhetoric and your heavy abilities to ignore facts you don't like and answering only to a small part of arguments make it easy for you to chase away any different idea from what you believe is right. You're not silencing anyone, you're simply exhausting anyone different from you, making them leave the place of discussion you occupy because you're not here to discuss. Imagine you're in a bus, and while everyone talks politely there is someone who suddenly starts yelling at everyone, without touching them, yelling that they're not understanding shit that they're stupid that they have no logic while not listening to the person or answering any of there argument. That will make everyone leave the bus to take another one. That's what you're doing, you're making extremely exhausting for anyone to try to talk where you are because you're here to dominate the ground, not to discuss.
Mobbing, threats, coordinated de-platforming, and attacking ones ability to earn a living are the favored tactics of the left.
Don't know what you're talking about... Don't know a single person in the situation you're describing. When was the last time you saw conservatives show up to a leftist event? Why is it that leftists are at nearly every conservative event? It is because the left can not tolerate dissent and attempts to silence it at every turn, by any means necessary.
Every France Insoumise meeting or demonstration of the past 2 years in France... But in USA I don't know of course. 10 years ago the left was actually closer to being the true definition of "liberal", in a dictionary sense. That is what the left used to mean, but the Overton Window has shifted SO FAR to the left, even left moderates are now being categorized as being on the right. This was always a Communist/Socialist ideal. It was not always a liberal ideal.
False and it's easy to prove. Simply take a look of the left political programs 20 years ago and the ones now, current political programs are SO MUCH MORE right sided. They're much more pacific and tolerant towards economic inequalities and wealth distribution. At least again in France. Current "extreme left" program is the program of the "normal left" 20/30 years ago. They seem extreme in our society because we only had right-wing politics for the last 40 years so we're more used to this politic now. Raising minimum wage seems like a communist action while it was just a normal thing to ask for 30 years ago. |
|
|
|
Actually, this current push toward "open borders" wasn't part of (yes, what I call) the "left" even ten years ago, was it?
Don't even know what you're talking about... There is no push toward "open borders" rather the contrary. More and more people both from left and right ask for closed borders, especially in free moving areas like EU. I don't know all programs of all political parties of all countries but in mine the left is heavily against current state of the EU and ask either for a huge change or a Frexit.
It's recent and there are specific reasons why. Ten years ago, it was part of a group of concepts being pushed pretty much only by one Soros funded organization.
Again I don't know what you talk about. EU is a project of open borders that was heavily pushed forward something like 30 years ago and is heavily questioned only now... And why exactly do you think today you have to believe in that idea? I didn't use the phrase "goose stepping" without some reasons, you see.
Irrelevant as you absolutely never proved in any way that "the left is pushing for open borders". |
|
|
|
Not as flawed as the masses of liars and creeps that are opposed to him, though, and they certainly can't claim to be patriots.
Sure. Anyone praising Trump is a not so flawed patriot, anyone claiming he's shit is a heavily flawed non-patriot. T H E L O G I C |
|
|
|
|
Sorry but the article is actually pretty OK.
Title is a bit misleading sure but content of the article is objective and presents the facts from all points of view:
-There is a hole that has been made from inside
-It can be a sabotage or an initial hole made while building the station, hence an accident
-Astronauts conducts well and say that until there are proofs there are no way they consider the sabotage with a high probability as they trust their crew.
What is wrong with the article?
And I don't see why you blame USA here... Media trying to make the buzz is not something specific to America xD
|
|
|
|
I don't see the problem here, it seems far from "guilty until proved innocent" as you claim at least in the article you posted: Under the current law, a complainant’s private medical records are not admissible in trial unless the accused can prove that these records are vital to disproving the allegations. The Bill will expand the list of inadmissible records to include personal emails or communications and other personal records such as diaries or counselling advice. "Unless the accused can prove that these records are vital to disproving the allegations" How I understand it means that you can't ask for all the personal records without a good reason, this reason being that there is a proof of consent in it. Hence you no longer can ask for records to be able to prove that the "supposedly raped person" was a depraved someone who had a poor moral, heavily drinking and partying which would mean that she probably asked for it. If you have any kind of "let's do it" in the personnal records they are still perfectly admissible right? Well it's law so I might not interprete it right, especially as it's not a European law and AngloSaxon laws are quite different. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
