We were about 5-6 persons, and the leaf-blower more than halved the time it would otherwise have taken to remove the leafs.
So what if it halved the time? You can halve the time of grocery shopping by careening around the store with your shopping cart pushing people aside everywhere you go. You can halve the time of cooking by ignoring some ingredients and not cleaning up after yourself. In other words, certain things need to be done right. And doing things right takes more time. I guess the reality of the situation is that gardening and cleanup actually costs more because the proper way takes more time. But that's just the way it is, because halving the time with a leaf blower isn't really an acceptable way to do the job. Plain and simple. You can even more than halve the time of transporting the goods to the shop by using a large truck. But I guess Wheelbarrows are the correct way. Not to mention those pesky digger, we have shovels for a reason. Did you see anyone complaining about large trucks here? Because I didn't. I think large trucks are too loud. Now there is one. It's not as hard to do a little complaining as one might think. We are talking about utility vs negative impact here, and it's only natural to bring in other examples. If you think the truck analogy is wrong, then say so and reason why. Don't just go "nobody have mentioned that particular example earlier in the tread." And BTW - I used that analogy because it's related to your poor shopping analogy. I actually approve of most of these devices. I just like to bitch in threads that are obviously about bitching  (I'll make an exception to the leaf blower. They have their uses, but I frequently think they are misused and do more harm than good to the job at hand. If ya got that big of an area, a vacuum attachment for a lawn tractor makes more sense.) |
|
|
|
Hmm, There should be cheaper ASIC's by september I need to decide to buy or wait.
now i understand your endless braindead thinking outloud.. you just want to plug your sig links as much as possible finally using the ignore button now..... I think it's more related to him being all fogged up on weed all of the time. At least I certainly hope so. I wouldn't want to guess what it spells for humanity if he's like that sober. Uhh I dont do drugs... Good god. Let me start up my space ship. This planet is lost. Will you sell me the design? And does it do FTL or do I have to rely on relativistic dilation to get there alive?  What's FTL? Another new coin? Man, those things pop up faster than light. LMFAO!!! I like you  |
|
|
|
Hmm, There should be cheaper ASIC's by september I need to decide to buy or wait.
now i understand your endless braindead thinking outloud.. you just want to plug your sig links as much as possible finally using the ignore button now..... I think it's more related to him being all fogged up on weed all of the time. At least I certainly hope so. I wouldn't want to guess what it spells for humanity if he's like that sober. Uhh I dont do drugs... Good god. Let me start up my space ship. This planet is lost. Will you sell me the design? And does it do FTL or do I have to rely on relativistic dilation to get there alive? Ill sell you a working design. 50BTC. I do not guarantee it will fly and be safe( Im serious ) I have a number of those designs. If you got FTL, I'm interested, subject to verification by a skeptical physicist. Hull design and life support I can do myself. I'm tongue in cheek, for the most part, but still telling the truth. |
|
|
|
They often happen to be profitable, otherwise regulations against them would be nothing but folly.
What makes you think they aren't? Have you read any book on economics that wasn't Keynesian? Have you read anything other than wikip? Take this silly page you reach for so ardently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scaleHave you noticed anything odd about it? Now, go back & look at the talk page  Edit: forgot to answer the less bated of your two questions: Are you saying that monopolies didn't exist before regulations against them, or that you welcome their existence, and a unified body of armed thugs is what you're expecting to happen? To my extensive knowledge their has NEVER been a monopoly that was enforceable absent a state. Going clear back to Babylon. Odd choice of words. Had to read that sentence a couple of times to catch the meaning. Are you trying to say that monopolies need protection (from the state or anything else) to exist? That's not just counterintuitive, but in most cases absurd on its face. First, let me try to define the terms & list a few exceptions like monopolies which (probably) wouldn't exist without support from the state. Printing $$$ falls under that, it's explicitly forbidden*. Here the lines between the monopoly & the state are pretty blurred (“Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws" -M.A. Rothschild, who was dead serious, afaik). This blurring seems to be both intentional & necessary, though all this is an entirely different topic The Beef: Many industries tend towards natural monopolies. By definition, these result not from decree, but from purely economic factors: Barrier to entry, economies of scale, etc. These types of monopolies may incidentally garner assistance/protection from the state, though that's just gravy -- their success, once established, is guaranteed by anything short of draconian laws against them. And i do mean draconian with all of the negative connotations -- like chemo for cancer, these laws must dispense with all niceties, or become more than pointless. The cure will just weaken the patient & cancer will come back. I'm sure you disagree, just not sure how & why, so i'll wait. If you look to more recent history, before they butt raped him, Andrew Carnegie supported the various tarriffs for the STATED SOLE PURPOSE of protecting monopolies.
I'm not sure what you're driving at. JMK was not exactly noted for his accuracy, even by his admirers. Charm, wit, and bravado, certainly. But not accuracy. Menger, Von Mises et. al. have won this one by being accurate. Which doesn't make them popular, as their analysis doesn't condone nor call for monopolistic interventions on the part of regulators.
Again, i'm not sure why it's worthwhile for us to drag out our hobbyhorses. I have no interest of pitting Keynes against anyone, and have neither the time nor the motivation for verifying his accuracy. This is the interwebz. I'm sure you can dredge up bargeloads of evidence to support your position, though my guess is it's veracity will be much like the Standard Oil links in this thread. Since i knew none of the people you've mentioned personally, i can't discuss their charm, wit, bravado, tendencies towards inaccuracy or mass appeal with any authority. At best, i can deal with concrete, objective and verifiable examples of their work. Though I feel we could discuss basic notions like monopolies without appealing to those mental giants for validation *Even with money, though, you'll see a few cracks developing, Bitcoin's an example. Edit: typos Unfortunately I don't have the time to address this properly right now. I'm leaving The People's Republic of Pennsylvania tomorrow morning and will be offline for at least a couple of weeks. I do have a serious rebuttal, but doing it off the top of my head is just ranting. I need to do some research for specific citations and examples. I brought up Keynes because your position mirrors his (on those rare times when he had any sort of position) and we are talking directly about ideas and ideology that are directly relevant to his general theory (and also Menger and Von Mises, from a whole different angle.) Anyway, I'm finding some rather interesting people to talk to here. I will return! |
|
|
|
So you understand why I said it would be funny to say what you said there..
Yes, obviously, those guys can go months without scrutiny and even then it's scripted and manipulated with compliance paid for. Also with full acknowledgement and government involvement on many many levels. Interbank lending rate scandals. Oil price fixing. HSBC money laundering. Credit default swaps. Zero recourse to any implicated parties. No imprisonment. Fines less than the profits made breaking laws... Preferential tax breaks. List goes on and on...and the above is only the past 12 months minutes!!! FTFY |
|
|
|
Nobody? Argh. Back to wading through 600 page posts I guess... Hitting the road for several days tomorrow morning, so if some of you decide to help me out here and I don't reply for a few days, I'm not ignoring you. Just moving across the country |
|
|
|
Hmm, There should be cheaper ASIC's by september I need to decide to buy or wait.
now i understand your endless braindead thinking outloud.. you just want to plug your sig links as much as possible finally using the ignore button now..... I think it's more related to him being all fogged up on weed all of the time. At least I certainly hope so. I wouldn't want to guess what it spells for humanity if he's like that sober. Uhh I dont do drugs... Good god. Let me start up my space ship. This planet is lost. Will you sell me the design? And does it do FTL or do I have to rely on relativistic dilation to get there alive? |
|
|
|
It appears we are in agreement on most things, however I might diverge with you (and Zarathustra, and probably lots of others here) on what might not be an insignificant point.
(...)
Zarathustra does appear to have a point: that society is influenced by many factors, not just its money. From someone on the sidelines, a little less labeling of people into broad categories might help that one find what is sought.
Hi NewLiberty My point is that, as soon as the state is eliminated and private debt/money is replaced by assets (gold, gold 2.0 etc.), the economy will have lost its motor. A 'barter economy' is ahistoric science fiction. (read G. Dalton: Barter). The motor of doing business and creating surpluses is the state enforced tax (census) and its derivative, the interest on debt owed to creditors. Even Ludwig von Mises knew it: „There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.“ That means: Even if all the debt is going to be replaced by assets, it will only be a crackup boom, but in the end the economy comes to a standstill, because the motor (debt and interest) is missing its fuel. The stateless communities in the rain forests theoretically could have a barter economy, but in reality, they don't. A blood-community is not economically interacting with people from outside. And if, then in a very minimal amount. They avoid doing business; there is simply no need for a self-sufficient community of doing business with strangers. Otherwise you would observe growing economies and growing 'capital' in the rain forests, but you don't. No where did Von Mises say that the economy comes to a standstill. He in fact showed exactly the opposite. He was pointing out that such credit fueled booms are UNeconomic and eventually destroy the currency and credibility of what is being traded. You also don't see the rainforest populations living to old age, building computers, overcoming famine and disease, or becoming anything greater than they are. As for them not trading? Dude, check your premises. They trade with other tribes frequently. |
|
|
|
Noted.
I am looking at it from the agorist viewpoint. Anything that is difficult for the government to control, yet popular, draws a lot of their resources. Something as difficult as Bitcoin, should it go mainstream, will tie their regulators in knots for decades. Anything that clogs the system is good for those who want it to fail. Exploit the bastards any chance you get. I'm even strategically in favor of using their various welfare programs (though it leaves a bad taste in my mouth) as a means of guerilla market strategy. ANYTHING that clogs their system up.
No such grandiose goals here. Such a massive failure is not an experience I would much enjoy. I take my cue on that from those who have been through the USSR dissolution. Perhaps I'm too optimistic as I'd rather hope for the best and prepare for the worst. But that (USSR) is basically because people had become so dependent on the state. Which btw, is what is starting to happen in the West. It's a scary pattern. More and more people becoming dependent on the state until the state buckles under the weight, then you have all these helpless people with no-one to look after them. That's why we are saying now, let's start preparing for the end of the state NOW. If we can reduce as many people's dependence on it as possible then when it gets to the point where it is ultimately dissolved, hopefully there won't be too many helpless people and there'll be enough free market independent people and capital that we won't have a great disaster. It's time to put an end to these risky situations where you have a state which encourages dependence on it and then eventually collapses leading to all kinds of calamity. The way to get out of this cycle is to work towards the end of the state as a concept. It appears we are in agreement on most things, however I might diverge with you (and Zarathustra, and probably lots of others here) on what might not be an insignificant point. IF bitcoin achieves a notable measure of success... then by the mechanism you describe above (reducing dependence, et al) we may also serve to AVOID the collapse of the state by lessening its burden, not just prepare for it. For myself, that would be a very acceptable outcome, and even preferable. I don't carry any ideal political agenda of what makes for a perfect society, but I would be very happy to discover myself living in a better one, and Bitcoin is hopefully one very small step toward effecting that. By increasing personal liberty, entering the marketplace of monetary choice with a viable offering suitable for our new world, and by playing well with others. So by succeeding with Bitcoin, we are not (necessarily) deconstructing the state, but perhaps increasing the resilience of our society and its economy, which may have the effect of saving the state as much as deconstructing it (for example, by allowing it find a more manageable size). Whether this happens or not is far outside the scope of influence we are likely to have, but either way, Bitcoin provides many social goods. Consider the example of the USA, it tends to become more like the things that challenge it. When Communism is its big threat, it adopts more communism; when terrorism is the threat, it adopts more terrorism. So if personal liberty is ever perceived as such a threat, perhaps it will simply adopt more liberty? We can not predict the outcome, but our influence on it seems very positive. Zarathustra does appear to have a point: that society is influenced by many factors, not just its money. From someone on the sidelines, a little less labeling of people into broad categories might help that one find what is sought. Hey, I'm still here for a minute Anyway, yes that is possible. And yes, I have thought of it. It's a bit beyond the scope of what I have posted. I cannot recall who said this, but it was one of the wiser abolitionists right around the time of the War Between the States. He said that slavery would likely end in increments, but that the abolitionist must at all times call for full, immediate abolition or be compromised beyond repair. That's a paraphrase, the man in question was more eloquent. This is more or less where I stand. I am a radical even in my own circle. This doesn't mean I would turn down incremental improvements in liberty. Quite the contrary I would applaud them while pointing out how much further we need to go. The agorist goal is to deconstruct the state piecemeal in such a way as to render it redundant, insignificant, and ultimately extinct due to no longer even being PERCEIVED as necessary. A truth that even the die hard statist will acknowledge is that states do not EVER produce anything. There's is the power to confiscate, redistribute, and destroy. Mao was correct when he said that all political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Money is indeed only one factor. But it's a very large one. If it gets to the point where merchants will only accept a limited currency or a few of 'em (ex. Gold and Bitcoin/hypothetical other) then government becomes restrained in what it does by the very fact that the printing press and it's Keynesian policies are no longer relevant. No matter how draconian a government is, it still works with the consent or apathy of the producers. When they cease to be apathetic and withdraw consent, the government collapses. Anarchism, like all social theories, is constantly evolving. I am a rather modern anarchist. I don't want to go back to the trees like some of them do, nor do I want society to devolve into warring tribes. What I, and others like me, want is to change the focus of the public from building bigger empires to building better humans. Every man who is able to do two things is a defacto threat to rulership that cannot be eradicated without them revealing their true nature. 1. Stand alone (produce what they need to survive) 2. Trade with others. (produce more than they need, exchange it for goods they want.) That, then, is the ultimate goal of the individualist. Individualism is by necessity both anarchic and cooperative. Systems of polity based on these ideas preclude the governmental meme of a monopoly of violence over a given territory. As you have already demonstrated a working mind, you can see that those two straightforward points are neither easy nor simple, but they are achievable. Past societies, regardless of Zarathrusta's (lack of) understanding of history, have achieved this. Voluntary cooperation ALWAYS produces better results than coerced cooperation. Even in the case of actual slavery, it was quickly noted by more civilized societies that the freeman working for a wage outproduced the slave by a significant amount. All humans try to profit by their endeavors, and any system that denies that will ultimately fail. Which is why I am not a socialist. I like a lot of the ideas behind socialism, and have incorporated those that make sense into my personal philosophy, but there is a core to it that doesn't work. A Vow of Poverty, more or less, that makes it impossible to maintain on a large scale. (I think it could work in small groups, but only if there were an exit strategy for the disaffected and ambitious). And to Zarathrusta, Patriarchy, regardless of feminist bullshit, means rule by FATHERS, and has been a quite successful paradigm in past societies (e.g. ancient Israel prior to Saul, The Bedouin, The Turks prior to the Ottoman Empire, The Cherokee (my people), and many others. Further, a society that produces no excess starves to death during bad times. We have a common word for such societies. Extinct. The Feminists use the term Patriarchy in place of Paternalism (substitution for fathers) because they desire to (and have successfully) create a false dichotomy in which you look the wrong way while they are doing exactly what they pubicly decry. In debate, this logical fallacy is known as a red herring. It is very effective against the unprepared. |
|
|
|
Hello all. If this has been covered, sorry. Couldn't find it, or where I did, I didn't understand it. I'm currently mining on a really low spec machine, just basically to get my feet wet. Made 8/10ths of a bitcoin so far At any rate, in case my question is pool specific, I'm mining on bitparking. in cgminer I get lines like this: accepted xxxxxxx Diff 5/1 GPU 0. Most of it is obvious. What I don't understand is the difficulty thing. it's different with just about every share. Does a higher number mean a higher payout, or is it just a tracking thing, or what? And the other question, and this one is purely for the future, is it possible to hash on multiple pools simultaneously with cgminer (or any software for that matter)? I ask because I'm in the process of raising money for an ASIC machine as they become available, and I can see some advantage to hashing on more than one pool. |
|
|
|
Any update or responses to some of the posts and questions? A lot of us are watching this very closely, this is a race, and Steamboat seems to be winning.
Updated the website with our office address. Final moving in tomorrow. Anybody who wants to come visit can call us for an appointment. We are still deciding whether to accept Paypal/CC/Bank Transfers. The modular boards, even if ordered without a case, will come with heatsinks. The DX Mini supports 20 K16s, not 10. Dude, all I can say is credit card takes the liability off your customers you want to build trust from. Think about that... +1 on accepting CC Master/Visa cards directly, there are too many people offering ASIC's demanding up front $$$ and no products to show and 99% of them are scammers, forget about using your CC card through Paypal.....no Real protection after 45 days, even after 45 days you try to claim back through your Cc provider they will refuse as you used a 3rd party (PAYPAL)... There seems to be some leeway on this. Look up Bitcoinorama's posts on the subject in the KNC Miner threads. I don't yet know how much this applies in the US, but his CC issuer will take up the case after Paypal is done. Since they are simply a payment processor, the law may not consider them a third party. (He is in UK) |
|
|
|
Generally collectivist refers to those who view everything as common property. Your view above, cooperation, is more along the lines of voluntaryism. Other than that I largely agree with your conclusions here.
Except one thing. The decentralized nature of Bitcoin is potentially subversive, simply because it is nearly impossible to be centrally controlled.
Thank you for sharing your understanding of these terms. I would be more likely to use the word "communist", or "socialist" society to describe common property social systems, and to use "collectivist" to refer to group decision making and social cohesion irrespective of property rights, though I respect that collectivism may engender the former (or not). For example, I would view Japan (especially the older generation) a collectivist but not communist and only somewhat socialist society. My view of Bitcoin is also more like a group of philosophically and technically savvy vanguard taking steps to provide a more resilient alternative for commercial interactions more suitable to the digital age. It does not seem any more overtly political than something like twitter or Facebook, which could certainly be used for subversive activities but are by no means dedicated toward it beyond the individual actions of those that employ the technology, so I agree that it has that potential. Noted. I am looking at it from the agorist viewpoint. Anything that is difficult for the government to control, yet popular, draws a lot of their resources. Something as difficult as Bitcoin, should it go mainstream, will tie their regulators in knots for decades. Anything that clogs the system is good for those who want it to fail. Exploit the bastards any chance you get. I'm even strategically in favor of using their various welfare programs (though it leaves a bad taste in my mouth) as a means of guerilla market strategy. ANYTHING that clogs their system up. Empires are rarely conquered from without or fall to revolution. They eat themselves. As to the term collectivism, my first exposure to it was in the writings of Ayn Rand, and later, Murray Rothbard. Both used it as a generic term for socialist/communist "people's republics" and their ilk. I think your definition is of some utility as well, as I've long liked the idea of a capitalist commune. Again, something I'll go into in detail after I get moved. I'm kinda lurking on the forum between moving heavy shit right now Probably the computer will go in the box tomorrow morning, so if you don't get a reply from me on anything for a couple weeks, I'm not ignoring anybody. Just moving 2200 miles. |
|
|
|
Hmm. I wonder what food it would be more beneficial to plant in a limited space garden... what sort of garden would be the most nutritionally complete, and how much space would be required per person?
I might do some research on that.
A good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_foot_gardeningand another one. http://www.markhamfarm.com/I think rural Idaho is a good place, because it's largely unpopulated and game is ever present. Water isn't much of an issue either. You can hit it at about 3-4 hundred feet most places in a well, and there are numerous lakes and streams. Just stay away from Boise. It's full of Boiseans |
|
|
|
I just tried to recover my password (I had registered and reserved the Mars FPGA and the Jupiter ASIC) but I get the error message:
"User with current E-mail is not found."
I'm at work and don't have my password folder with me (yea, I'm still old school and write them down on paper).
Has anyone else encountered this problem. I'll be emailing KNC in a minute.
Been on almost since the site launched. Never had a problem logging in. |
|
|
|
Ok Daggeteo, just emailed me this. So anyone with any questions and concerns that want them asked tomorrow;
<snip>
AND DON'T FORGET TO THANK HIM!!!
Just did. Only .01 BTC, but I'z poor Haha, geezer!  I meant type 'thank-you for taking the time to ask this shizzle!'...I'm sure he'll be grateful for any acknowledgement other than being taken for granted!!!  Geezer?!? Not yet, I hope. My kid ain't even in school yet, you young whippersnapper! seriously, though, I thought thank you with a tip was better than just thank you. Spent a lot of my life working for tips Language barrier again buddy, sorry!; http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=geezer Meant to have been a compliment!! Damn! You're giving me a crash course in British slang Maybe I should tip you. I won't derail it further, except I always wondered why it was "Geezer" Butler in Black Sabbath. Makes more sense now. |
|
|
|
Ok Daggeteo, just emailed me this. So anyone with any questions and concerns that want them asked tomorrow;
<snip>
AND DON'T FORGET TO THANK HIM!!!
Just did. Only .01 BTC, but I'z poor Haha, geezer! I meant type 'thank-you for taking the time to ask this shizzle!'...I'm sure he'll be grateful for any acknowledgement other than being taken for granted!!! Geezer?!? Not yet, I hope. My kid ain't even in school yet, you young whippersnapper! seriously, though, I thought thank you with a tip was better than just thank you. Spent a lot of my life working for tips |
|
|
|
|
Fluff.
I'm not ready to roll on this, or I'd do it.
Let us know how it goes, eh?
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know how much a Jalapeno, if received right now, would earn a day in dollars? Just curious.
http://bit.ly/SoPGhdAccording to the above $37.45 per day Beautiful link! Have a beer! I love well crafted sarcasm. |
|
|
|
Agreed, that post was ridiculous and ignored or glossed over BFL's role in this this whole business association breakdown while casting the investor in the worst possible light.
First off, I'm not glossing over BFL's role. They're late with a product, it's frustrating, emotions are high, yadda, yadda, yadda, we all get it. There are 1000 people beating that dead horse, I don't need to beat it further. But the OP wants to have his cake and eat it too. He decided to go out and trash the company, they decided they didn't want to do business with him anymore if he was going to treat them that way, and refunded his money. He can't admit any wrongdoing here. He thinks he had full license to go around trashing them. His "Apologies" always consist of more back-handed name calling and threats (that's not an apology). The OP has gone and manipulated his posting history to gloss over his role in baiting them into canceling his order. Think what you will of BFL, and their mishandling of orders/launch/PR, etc. But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the OP showing his ass, and getting it spanked, and then going around and manipulating things to make himself appear to be a victim more than an instigator. And for the love of god, quit calling him an "investor" he's not an investor, he's a customer (ex-customer now). There's a WORLD of difference, even if you might not know the difference yourself. Getting a bit tired of the whole thing myself. But a "pre-order" that stretches over a year's time should be viewed as an inadverdent investment. I disagree. It should be viewed as a pre-order that inadvertently didn't ship when anticipated. You don't get the option of a refund on investments if they go bad. If there were no refund available, you might be able to argue that it had become an inadvertent "investment" in the company, and I'd be right there screaming "bullshit" with everybody else if that was the case. But it's not the case. The case is simple. People have pre-ordered a product. It's been MASSIVELY delayed, more than once. Yet, everybody still has the option to request a refund if they decide the wait is too long. Ergo, it's not an "investment" in BFL. Point taken. I've actually tried to stay neutral in this whole mess. I wanted their machines, but I can't justify the risk. Inaba was actually very civil, if a bit hostile, with me. I'm in the wait and see boat. I really think KnC and Terrahash will beat them to market. But my crystal ball doesn't hash very well, so we'll see. edited the messed up quote tags. Typing with a huge bandage on your finger is a bitch! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
