 That's fantastic. Admittedly, I prefer the "cloud to butt" plugin. "Store all your precious family moments in the butt!" Wasn't there some bitcoin buzz-phrase generator floating around a while ago? Found it: http://freedomfeens.com/bs/
|
|
|
|
.2 BTC
 Confirmed! Thanks. ETA: As an aside, I'm totally fine with changing signatures as the payer wants (within reason). You could resell this contract, and I'd be just fine with that so long as it's not advertising something scammy. |
|
|
|
That's wrong.
No it isn't. And if you think it is, explain why. Both Dogecoin and Litecoin people seem to understand the concept that AuxPoW =/= Merged Mining Merged mining doesn't require anyone to mine anything else, but allows them the option to. It's always up to individual pools, which is why not every bitcoin pool allows merged mining of coins like NMC like they used to when it was valuable. However, you could always mine NMC directly without mining anything else -- it'd be stupid, though. Whether or not it's worthwhile for a pool to permit NMC/similar merged mining, though, is debatable since the value added is so minimal and may be outweighed by the resource requirements of developing the code and using server resources. When these merged SHA256 coins had significant value, pools would usually permit auto-sale of the coins which exchanged to the coin they were mining, so if you were mining BTC, you'd get your normal BTC reward plus a BTC bonus equal to the amount of LTC you earned which was exchanged by the pool. Assuming there is little overlap between DOGE and LTC users, LTC miners on DOGE-merged-enabled LTC pools would probably just have their "bonus DOGE" automatically converted (this can be compensated for by having LTC also offer merged mining if they choose to accept) -- if there's a lot of overlap, people will likely hold both coins and there'd be little effect on price. By DOGE devs saying they don't think there'll be much impact on DOGE price, they're saying a lot of DOGE miners are currently dumping onto the market for fiat or a different coin already or that there's a high amount of crossover between LTC & DOGE users (so they'll hold both). OTOH, if you could mine LTC and earn DOGE at the same time - that'd be a fantastic option for miners, and make both networks significantly stronger since it'd be more profitable to mine LTC+DOGE rather than any one coin individually (ATM). DOGE wants LTC to implement merged mining, too, because then someone can be on a DOGE pool and still earn LTC, which in turn makes it equally as profitable to "mine DOGE" as it does to mine LTC. Technically, it's a great idea, but I can't imagine the economic incentive for it. "AuxPoW" sounds like marketing voodoo. What basically happens is that hashes can be used for both chains (rather, DOGE will accept hashes from other networks' chains), and if the hash exceeds the difficulty target for DOGE and you're mining on a DOGE-merged enabled LTC pool, when you solve a block, you'll probably solve a block for both LTC and DOGE (or just DOGE if LTC requires a higher hash at the time, or just LTC if DOGE requires a higher hash at the time). -So it's the same as merged mining from what I read, but DOGE wants other coins to offer merged mining of their coin, too (which I'm not sure if has ever happened before). If you could merged-mine virtually all the Scrypt coins at once, they'd be extremely powerful since they combine their hashrate. Given pools will likely implement automatic selling of coins the miner doesn't want (and many pools, especially auto-switching pools, just sell all of them for BTC), it probably won't have any positive impact on price unless people feel the network isn't strong enough for its price as-is and that's what's causing sell pressure. AuxPoW implemented by both LTC and DOGE should make both networks' hashrate roughly equal to each other as well as each equaling the hashrate of both of them separately, now (plus much more when implemented, since anyone mining Scrypt will probably want to mine LTC+DOGE over other options). The technical downside of this is that it'll likely dramatically lower hashrate of other Scrypt coins if the price of LTC and DOGE doesn't drop significantly from this. |
|
|
|
|
Willing to rent out signature and info panel section for six months (or more).
Terms:
*I can post up to 40 characters (excluding markup) in my signature at any point of my choosing saying whatever I please. (I don't intend to take advantage of this, but might put an escrow link back in if I start again)
*I want it all upfront, or with half in m-of-n escrow with a third party (at your expense), paid at completion of the contract.
*Failure of me to uphold agreement can be penalized for days where it's proven or reasonably estimated I failed to uphold the agreement as determined by a third-party arbitrator we both agree to (if we should disagree). I will not be held liable for the arbitrator's expenses/fees. Complaints must be registered with me directly before any penalty can be applied.
*A minimum of 30 posts per month is guaranteed. Any month where 30 posts are not made, each post not made under 30 will be counted as a penalty equal to 1/200 of winning bid from this auction. (e.g. if I make only 20 posts in, say, September, and the winning bid was 2BTC, I'd pay ((2/200)*10); .1BTC) -- Averaging my stats out, I make ~112 posts per month, but this isn't guaranteed. ETA: I'll keep track of how many posts I make per month in this thread for you.
*"Six months" is calculated as the day of the month six months (or as specified in the bid if different) in the future plus 14 days from the time a winning bid is selected. (e.g. if a winning bid is announced by me at 10pm, August 11th, the contract would expire at 10pm, February 25th)
Reserve set at .1BTC. All bids must be 5% higher than previous bid with a six-month term (you do not need to account for bids made with a term greater than six months). All bids without a term specified will be assumed to be for six months. All bids must be public. I reserve the right to reject bids for any reason (most likely, if I think it's scammy) and am not bound to select the highest bidder. "Lifetime" terms will be considered (the minimum bid for such is 5BTC).
The auction will end at 9pm (US Eastern), August 11th.
----Post-auction stats----
August 12 - September 12, start posts = 4627, end posts =
PPM:
September 12 - October 12, start posts = , end posts =
PPM:
October 12 - November 12, start posts = , end posts =
PPM:
November 12 - December 12, start posts = , end posts =
PPM:
December 12 - January 12, start posts = , end posts =
PPM:
January 12 - February 12, start posts = , end posts =
PPM:
February 12 - February 26, start posts = , end posts =
"PPM":
|
|
|
|
Fwiw, from a 2013 interview of Bloomberg: If you’re an executive, can you really rule out running for president in 2016?Yes. It’s just impossible. I am 100 percent convinced that you cannot in this country win an election unless you are the nominee of one of the two major parties. The second thing I am convinced of is that I could not get through the primary process with either party. And, incidentally, I think I’ve got a better job than the president’s. He’s got a very tough Congress, and he’s removed from the day-to-day stuff. My job is the day-to-day stuff. That’s what I’m good at—or at least what I think I’m good at. [ src] |
|
|
|
How much an individual values his or her own credit score really does not matter. What is important is how much a specific lender values a customer's credit score that is trying to take out a loan. Unfortunately most lenders put a lot of weight on a borrower's credit score and credit report.
Many lenders use credit reports from the agencies (which are much more detailed than just a number), then use their own scoring system. Unfortunately, some of the time (especially with credit card companies), they use the most idiotic, infuriating method humanly possible, where they offer loans, benefits, interest rates, and credit lines based on your LOWEST-scoring portion of your credit report. -So you could have otherwise perfect credit - say a house and car on loan, then three credit cards, and because you only have five (which seems like too many to me) credit accounts open or maybe only a five year history on your longest-running credit card (my credit score was devastated a couple years ago when a bank bought a credit card debt on my name for 14 years from another bank, which credit agencies then considered a new account which really sucked because my second-oldest account is only three years old), they'll try to insist (and since this is generally automated, give as a non-negotiable option) you're either ineligible entirely or that you need to pay a higher interest rate with more restrictions and a reduced line of credit. It'd be nice for consumers if more lenders reintroduced human judgment rather than relying on algorithms and automated contract generators, but that's just not going to happen. As an aside, one of the best things you can do for your kid's future finances (and your own if you're enough of a doormat to co-sign for them when they're an adult), only because we have these stupid automated systems, is to add them to a couple or few (or ten+ if you're feeling really generous) credit cards, leave them on them until you die, and never tell them about it (though they'll see in the credit report, I suppose). You can screw them over that way, too, though - but it also gives them a lot of options for manipulating which debt "they" hold once they reach adulthood. They can drop their name off certain cards so they achieve ideal numbers for credit utilization, accounts open, as well as drop any cards which may otherwise be keeping their score from being ideal. For example, if something happens like in my case, where my debt was sold, they can just drop that card from their name entirely (assuming they have many other similarly-aged accounts) to increase the average age of their accounts, which would probably be favorable. I think banks need to have automated scoring methods because of the massive amounts of regulations that exist today. These regulations are nothing new and have been around for a long time. If a certain policy were to affect a particular group negatively more then others, then the bank could be accused and sued for discrimination. Even legitimate business decisions can be "discriminatory" so banks must be as automated as possible when making lending decisions to avoid these kinds of accusations. I agree, if too much leeway is given to loan officers and underwriters then the bank could easily be accused of discrimination even if it was not intentional. Point taken. Anyone have on-hand studies on whether or not automated lending has actually statistically reduced the amount of discrimination in lending by race, sex, etc? I don't think I've ever even seen it discussed. |
|
|
|
|
If there were no Internet, I'd be working in a factory and eating really shitty food. I'd have no means to acquire the tools to create much unless I drove to a city, except for general house-maintenance tools. I'd have basically no access to culture outside television programming. I would have enormous additional expenses from not being able to replace services with Internet access, including television and landline service. I'd be in the dark on anything legal, needing a lawyer constantly to understand basic stuff, along with a CPA to file taxes.
Moreover, without Internet access, I'd likely have no exposure to major ideas which've been spread. I would never have read Voltaire or Nietzsche because I never would've even heard of them. OTOH, I may have blissful ignorance. Heidegger and Nietzsche have both pushed me to be more ambitious, but they've also taken the fun out of a good bit of life.
Without the Internet, industrial and agricultural innovations would still lag far behind, with rural areas most likely to be destitute (which may mean even higher population density in cities). Since global companies likely would have no contact with many of the smaller American industries they've lately been buying up on their failure, there may also be a much weaker manufacturing base in the US, with rampant unemployment. I never would've found property so cheap, and wages likely would've never normalized like they have, so working in a factory (if it existed), I'd likely be making a relatively poor wage (while what we now call developing nations would likely be stagnant or contracting, with rampant disease and true exploitation of the workforce). Due to heightened inefficiencies, taxes would also be significantly higher with fewer social programs. Due to increased difficulty in being able to earn a living and reduced effectiveness of LEOs, crime rates would likely be significantly higher. An inability of civilians to effectively communicate would likely result in many more draconian laws, and a relatively crippled ability for civilians to respond, with lobbying groups truly dictating the law.
That's just touching on the tip of the iceberg.
|
|
|
|
... and can't find with a simple Google search. I've been thinking about starting this for a while. Sometimes I have questions but I don't have "a guy" with relevant knowledge, but it bugs me. Q1, 8/4/14: -a) In thermal imaging of humans, the rib cage is so hot, it's usually shown in a fair amount of detail. Do ribs act as a heatsink (partially to transfer heat to the other, bigger heatsink, the skin)? b) If so, is the rib cage's ability to act as a heat sink a necessary function in the human body under normal circumstances? c) Is there any long-term benefit to keeping the heart cooler than its normal heat dissipation mechanisms do? -Or does heart function decrease? d) If heart function increases if cooled beyond what the body is normally capable of in normal circumstances, would there be benefit in replacing natural ribs with, say, thermoplastics? Q2, 8/4/14: -Roughly how much wind energy is generally outputted by the sun? Q3, 8/4/14: -Given waves generally (all?) generate some kinetic force, how much force is generated from, say, a cell phone with, say, four 100%-efficient 200mW cell radios operating at 1.8GHz? An explained formula would be greatly appreciated. Q4, 8/4/14: -a) Why do we use antennas/boosters for such specific ranges of frequencies? If there is any, what would roughly be the percentage loss in range if a cell phone used only one antenna, 300-2000MHz in range, rather than using many specialized antennas deviating no more than 100MHz in range? Does this loss of range/power still apply even if the antenna can dynamically change which frequencies it's actively listening and sending on? b) Given quartz-timed CPUs and the like slightly deviate in frequency from what they "should" operate at, would an antenna with a set 100-200MHz range (with no MoE, so it's not "actually" set to be, say, 99-201MHz) have difficulty consistently picking up and sending out a 100MHz and 200MHz frequency? |
|
|
|
|
Hooray. We now have 0 episodes available for reservation for the first time in this project's history since starting in... gosh, April?
In ~50 hours, all episodes not submitted will be purged from the reservation list without exception (... except e131 and e132, which have until the end of August 12th to be submitted). ETA: No decaying payment penalties will be applied for any episodes submitted before the end of August 5th (US Eastern).
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a horrible investment for someone not paying close attention to it. It's very speculative and needs to be treated as such, with constant analysis. Bitcoin can easily tank and never recover if the smart money moves somewhere else, and I have no doubt Bitcoin will eventually be replaced by another crypto. Holding no significant amount of altcoins, I have no idea when it'll happen outside that it's not happening in the next week and it's very likely to happen before I die.
Some early bitcoin holders bought and forgot the coins for a few years and then become millionaire after they saw the news. Some people win the lottery. So what? |
|
|
|
I understand your point but I think the mothers,wifes,husbands,daughters,sons of the 77 murdered by Breivik would feel much better if he ended up on the electric chair then playing PS2 games in his cell
and that working camp would require giving tools to inmates which they could use in totally different ways then intended
As an aside, nobody can do much worse than Columbia and Ecuador in handling justice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_L%C3%B3pez_(serial_killer) |
|
|
|
I understand your point but I think the mothers,wifes,husbands,daughets,sons of the 77 murdered by Breivik would feel much better if he ended up on the electric chair then playing PS2 games in his cell
I don't deal in feelings, much. I'd suggest if they decide they'd like to electrocute Breivik, the executioners would only need to, combined, work long enough to pay off any debts he'd have outstanding to the government and any victims' families who did not give consent and did not participate (assuming these now "double victims" do not forgive the executioners' debt). Given the value of lives (and other property) lost or otherwise harmed of Breivik's actions and resulting debts, if even a small percentage of families did not consent nor forgive the executioners, those who kill Breivik would probably face life in prison. -So if they feel so strongly, I don't see anything wrong with it so long as they pay off the debts they'd take on in doing so. |
|
|
|
Death sentences are ineffective at preventing serious crime. The penalties are already so high, they must assume they won't be caught or just don't care in the moment. In fact, large US federal grants for local police departments have been shown to have no significant impact on crime rates, though I doubt that does much for my case since people probably assume their police departments and courts are at least semi-functional. If it were totally dysfunctional and ineffective widescale, I'd guess there'd probably be a significant increase in crime rates. -But again, these aren't things criminals think long and hard on before committing -- they don't look at the percentage of successful rape convictions in their town or whether they'd face 20 vs. 40 years in prison before deciding to commit. Prisoners would be more useful in a productive setting - some kind of upscale work camp, maybe. Since they can work remotely, there's really no public safety risk warranted in the labor camp debate anymore. Revenues can be split between paying for the prisoner's living expenses (and yes, even rewarding them with luxuries and decent living conditions) and making regular payments to victims or their family. Actually... I made a little write-up on a possible labor camp program when I was bored a couple weeks ago (I'd put it in this post, but it has some formatting I'm too lazy to manually convert), outlining some revenue split examples in a theoretical work camp prison. Should someone think about labor camps being a safety hazard, I'd argue I don't think that's really a problem given high-risk inmates can be trained to work remotely and thus could even work in solitary confinement. Crimes which can be largely emotional/psychological, like rape in some cases, are more difficult to determine the value of. These would need arbitrary minimum amounts set, I think, and with heinous crimes, a judge may, for instance, order someone's assets to be seized by government and sold off, with money given entirely to the victim(s) but which doesn't count against the debt the offender owes the victim(s) and government (in the paper, I give an example where a child-killer has his seized assets actually counting against his debt just to show how it could work). Anyway, the beneficiaries of "repayments" could do whatever they wanted with the money, maybe giving it to a charity with methods known for reducing the number of rape incidences. |
|
|
|
|
There's another fake bull move to $620 coming after this fake bull move?
|
|
|
|
Yes bitcoin was very much a bubble at the time. The high prices of most bubbles are eventually surpassed over time as fundamentals of the underlying asset catches up to the price of the asset.
Definitely. At that point of time, there was nothing to justify its valuation. There is only so much of future potential (given the uncertainty) that you can squeeze into its valuation.  The 3 bubbles or overjoys if you want to call them (people getting giddy at their computer pressing F5 every 3 seconds) happened at $30, $265 and that last run to $1200. So far this year despite dropping to 1/2 and then going backup up 50% we have not seen bubble. The good and bad news seems to be canceling each other out realtime. What is happening in fact is STABILITY! Bitcoin is accepted by more people and this can only lead to a more stable market for bitcoin .... I wonder where all the people that said that BTC is not stable vanished! ... What? You just quoted someone talking about a 50% decline followed by a 50% increase in price over six months. Do please give me an example of any widely-used currency or commodity which has jumped around like that and called stable, because all I can think of in wide(ish) use which dwarfed bitcoin's volatility is the Zimbabwean dollar. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a horrible investment for someone not paying close attention to it. It's very speculative and needs to be treated as such, with constant analysis. Bitcoin can easily tank and never recover if the smart money moves somewhere else, and I have no doubt Bitcoin will eventually be replaced by another crypto. Holding no significant amount of altcoins, I have no idea when it'll happen outside that it's not happening in the next week and it's very likely to happen before I die.
|
|
|
|
"According to RIA Novosti, the Ministry of Finance said that uncontrollable virtual currencies create shadow economies ..." I'm not sure they've thought this out. |
|
|
|
Of course it's a currency. It's silly saying it isn't, but it is both a currency and a payment system.
Currency, payment system, commodity, IM app, patent registration platform, distributed calendar app, yada, yada, yada. You can call it whatever you want, and the various governments and their agencies will, too. (just as the redefine "entrapment") Ideally, bitcoin would've been a commodity. In that case, we wouldn't be talking about 13-year-olds running criminal enterprises by GPU-mining bitcoins and not having the faintest idea what a tax return even is. Unfortunately, we now have to put up with horseshit stories and risks like in the article. -But "money laundering" charges net the LEAs lots of stolen goods they can sell, so it's not going to change. If Florida wants to call it currency so they can steal from people, they can go ahead and use it to buy what they need (no, not USD) rather than adding insult to injury. |
|
|
|
Retail does not much matter.
Amazon does much more, quite significant business outside retail, including what's effectively wholesale for SMBs and "producer services," definitely including AWS. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
