So how? How do you suggest we ensure that the most informed people are in a position to set policy? You don't support the status quo, you don't support AnCap, so I really want to hear your idea.
Let's start by having you (and anyone you know) getting informed. How does that sound? Is that too much? Obviously it doesn't go against what I have been saying. Tell me when you're ready, and I'll recommend sources for you to gain knowledge of things you don't know. From there, you can make further decisions on your position regarding AnCap. Ok, then I'm ready. Post a source to this thread that explains your answer to the question I just asked. I will expect you to actually defend the position taken by this source. "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Einstein |
|
|
|
(This post assumes you haven't clicked my ignore button, and thus agree to actually address what I'm saying instead of condescendingly suggesting another year of study.) So back on topic... first you say the status quo doesn't stop me from driving electric cars. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and explained why it does. Then you say oh I don't support the status quo, I personally want intelligence and knowledge coupled with long term thinking.
So how? How do you suggest we ensure that the most informed people are in a position to set policy? You don't support the status quo, you don't support AnCap, so I really want to hear your idea. |
|
|
|
However, I maintain that we are all responsible for our own decisions. If you are faced with the choice of buying a shine new car or preventing someone's slow and agonising death. You are not only responsible for the choice but also it's outcome. Then who should buy shiny new cars? |
|
|
|
Ability is responsibility, if you are able to save another's life without endangering yours, and you do nothing, then you are responsible for their death.
If I can extend my life by saving money for future medical expenses, then does spending it on someone else count as endangering my life? It's a social contract, others are also responsible for you. That just confused me even more.  Is that a yes or a no? |
|
|
|
As much as it takes to save a life, and cure or help any diseases that are not life threatening.
As much as it takes to save which life? A dehydrated infant, or an ancient cancer patient? Ability is responsibility, if you are able to save another's life without endangering yours, and you do nothing, then you are responsible for their death.
If I can extend my life by saving money for future medical expenses, then does spending it on someone else count as endangering my life? |
|
|
|
The test puts me here:  But the test kept asking irrelevant questions. I really think I'm here:  Apologies for not editing an image, I'm using a smartphone. |
|
|
|
|
Bonus question for people who didn't select "none" - why that much, not more or less?
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen a few people mention that the government has an ethical responsibility to provide health care to its citizens. So how much?
Let me know if you'd like me to add any more choices.
|
|
|
|
Regarding Namecoin simply overriding blocked .com sites... What if the list was maintained by the block chain ? Different sites will be blocked for different miners, and previously blocked sites might become unblocked. If you want to be certain your blockchain stays valid, it can't depend on external information. |
|
|
|
|
If we're willing to do an all-pay auction, then we could layer on top of an existing blockchain.
First claiming a name:
Send a satoshi to an address (A) made using the hashed name + checksum. This address is for record-keeping only and doesn't need a private key.
Bidding on a name:
Send a satoshi to address A, with your bid as the transaction fee.
Checking who owns a name:
Calculate A yourself, see if it has any transactions.
If so, use whatever rules we agree upon to determine the latest owner.
|
|
|
|
LOL, there isn't anything illegal about deploying hashrate in excess of 50.1%. It's not my fault that that the flaw even exist. ~BCX~ You are also ddosing websites which is illegal. And if he dumps fake coins on the market and takes my btc it's fraud/theft. So good luck with all of that. No one is taking your BTC unless you offer to sell them for LTC this weekend. If for some reason you NEED Litecoins at that time, the exchange rate dip will somewhat compensate you for the risk of a double-spend. There is no such thing as a "fake" Litecoin, just more secure and less secure ones based on confirmations. You agreed to this protocol. |
|
|
|
|
I oppose these suggestions of using the law to stop BCX, especially arresting her. Are we going to cry to daddy every time someone doesn't play fair? What does that say about cryptocoin security, or its viability as a replacement for government-run currencies? Would you rather wait until the banks come after us and the cops are on their side?
As for DDoSing pools, GREAT! Stop using big pools already!
This is a free market, bitches. Either pay for your own security or make room for someone who does. If I were a Litecoin holder, I would start a fundraiser to send really high transaction fees this weekend.
|
|
|
|
That includes the freedom to carry any weapon so desired for personal defense. Whether a fully-automatic M-16 or a derringer pistol, a holstered/slung weapon is not hurtingdamaging anyone.
If you don't mine me jerking off infront of your family, blasting my music all night long, driving my car the way i want - i am fine. You can jerk off in front of my family and blast your music all night long, and I can shoot you when you do. Wait wait wait. You can shoot me for jerking off in AnCap? I thought I'd just get kicked off the property because retaliation had to be proportionate. |
|
|
|
If you're an anarchist, you're welcome to immigrate to Somalia. There are actually many different types of Anarchism, so you can't safely assume that all anarchists would find Somalia a desireable place to live. All anarchy means is "no rulers", not chaos. Most of the anarchists on this forum are "anarcho-capitalists". You might as well suggest statists move to North Korea. |
|
|
|
|
Cheaper version: T-shirt that says "Beat me to a bloody pulp!" on the front, and "I was obviously looking for a fight" on the back.
|
|
|
|
I have a reply in mind, but it is possible I may not be truly understanding what Namecoin does, so let me ask this question:
Was it designed to be able to gracefully replace the current DNS system, or is it necessarily disruptive?
I'm not sure I understand your question, so, here are a lot of replies :p - the current DNS system does not allow to be extended to everybody at once without some changes being made at IANA (which controls top level TLDs) - you can't have .com registered both in namecoin and at ICANN, one must have the priority - you can add the TLDs you want in namecoin, they will be available on your computer with the IANA TLDs So : - you can use both standard DNS + namecoin - if you want everbody to switch to namecoin only there are 2 solutions : 1. IANA switch one day to namecoin and register all existing domains in namecoin * this would require some changes in namecoin, but is technically possible (but they won't refuse to get some million dollars :p). * each people could use namecoin or their normal DNS server and they will have the same results 2. everybody installs namecoin on their computer and use both standard DNS + namecoin for .bit (and any other TLD we decide to add) Regarding #2: what would be the benefit of installing/using namecoin for .bit over using, say, a Firefox plugin that maps a list of blocked domain names to ip addresses? As each list becomes more popular, it also becomes more likely that the maintainer would become a target for coercion. "Pssst, Neo! Redirect silkroad.bit on your list to my mirror instead and I'll give you 1000 BTC!" OR "Mr. Anderson, you are hereby ordered to redirect silkroad.bit to gotcha.gov for national security reasons. From now on you work for us." We want just one list that's the same for everyone, so we need to define which list in a way that doesn't put all the power in the hands of one entity. |
|
|
|
But drop this silly "it's a meme!" nonsense, it's irrelevant.
No. Because it's not irrelevant. You can't build and defend a political ideology on memes which upon evaluation are misleading. But people try - witness the meme we just discussed and many others prevalent within this forum. It sounds like your problem should be with misleading statements, not memes. Wasn't your original claim "guns are the tool to kill"? It's misleading because you apparently mean "tool to kill HUMANS", and I bet when pressed your definition will narrow more and more. It's transparent that you're working backwards from some idea that you wish was simpler. You've made it clear that you support neither the status quo nor radical gun rights. So where do you stand? Who should decide what's allowed and what isn't, and what policy do they use? |
|
|
|
I have stopped buying into this "2+2=4" meme. All the sheep keep repeating it ad nauseum, but's it's far less original than my 2+2=5, which almost no one ever says. At least say "4-2=2" for crying out loud, at least it's more original!
Try and think for yourselves for a moment. What's 2+2? And if you mindlessly parrot "2+2=4", then you're just buying into propaganda. I had hoped better of you, you stupid sad disappointing pathetic worms.
Say it with me now, libertard randroids:
The frequency with which I hear an argument is inversely proportional to its truthiness.
If I get your meaning, then it fails. Political memes aren't always truisms, but slogans designed for misdirection. I thought you were a little more intelligent than that. Then I guess I'm unintelligent, because I've been evaluating statements based on if they make logical sense, not based on my assumptions about the intent of the speaker. Let's look at a classic gun rights meme. It goes something like this: "People driving cars kill people too. Why don't we outlaw cars too!"
Some people get stumped by that. It's typically the unintelligent and those who spread the meme. Let's follow through:
Gun rights person: "People driving cars kill people too. Why don't we outlaw cars too!"
Intelligent person: "Cars provide daily utility, and are designed to provide that daily activity, which, decidedly, is not killing. Tanks, on the other hand, do analogize well to guns. Spread that meme."
I know that you know that's a strawman argument. If you think that "usefulness for things other than killing humans" should be a factor, that's fine - I'm not objecting to that. But drop this silly "it's a meme!" nonsense, it's irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
I have stopped buying into this "2+2=4" meme. All the sheep keep repeating it ad nauseum, but's it's far less original than my 2+2=5, which almost no one ever says. At least say "4-2=2" for crying out loud, at least it's more original!
Try and think for yourselves for a moment. What's 2+2? And if you mindlessly parrot "2+2=4", then you're just buying into propaganda. I had hoped better of you, you stupid sad disappointing pathetic worms.
Say it with me now, libertard randroids:
The frequency with which I hear an argument is inversely proportional to its truthiness.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
