The largest campaigns that pay per post already have a max post count, it's only that in their rush to claim the "highest paying" title, no one can probably reach it.



Indeed you do; unfortunately, the message that comes along with those posts is not one that most people trust, considering past history.

True, but not many people do more than 500 posts a month, I'd wager... so, it's effectively the highest paying campaign at the moment.

Well, FXOpen has weekly payments, so that should help mitigate the risk a bit. Also, you never know when a campaign might disappear; it can happen even to those more well established. What you do know however is that they are paying approximately 20% more. 

Perhaps you could also add the maximum number of participants allowed in the campaign, 30. I expect that if they pay out in the first week, the places will be taken pretty quickly.

Suspicious, but they could also just be friends or something like that... I guess only mods can see the IP address of users, right?

That reminds me of the unconditional income the Swiss had proposed a few months ago, as well as an European initiative with the same intention that failed to gather enough signatures to move forward. Also, things like these have been tested before, as in for example Mincome, in Canada. Too bad no one ever bothered to continue looking at it. 

The great majority of jobs are already in the services sector; considering many of those could be easily automated tomorrow if we wanted, I'm not sure it would be possible to re-train everyone for others tasks anytime soon. And even then, re-train them to do what exactly? Official youtube/facebook like giver? Or for that matter, forum poster?

Whatever the result, the number would likely be higher if the poll values were realistic to being with... one might be libertarian/anarchist and still look to a gradual change in the system towards their ideal, even if just by freeing people from the misery they're in.

I know I'm probably wasting my time here, but I'll give it another go anyway...

This isn't a black and white issue: dictatorships only have state propaganda, and democracies have free press; it's more complicated than that. While in a totalitarian state the press is usually under direct control, in more open societies the press still has to respond to its owner's interests. That is to say, the press is restricted in its speech by the people that write the paychecks of those that work there. If they don't like what you're saying, they'll cut it out of the news, and if you insist on it you're fired.

There might appear to be freedom for discussion and different ideas going around in the mainstream media, but this is mainly in subjects that don't really affect the interests of the business owners; those with real power. That is not to say these exchanges aren't important, they are: so for example, you might see a lot of debate going around about gay rights. That's great, and it will affect the lives of many people, but ultimately it's meaningless to the "owners". Now look back at the reporting before the Iraq War we were talking about yesterday: where was the debate? There was none. The news were full of "Iraq has WMDs" and "they were responsible for 9/11" or some such nonsense, both of which were obvious lies.

To further illustrate this point, look at the cases of those that dared to speak against the establishment; you have multiple cases, just in this last decade if you want: Manning, jailed, tortured, held for an endless time before even getting the chance at a trial (nevermind a real trial); Assange and Wikileaks which despite in many respects being little different than the many other mainstream news organizations that printed the same stuff they did, they alone have been persecuted; the attacks on some journalists at the Associated Press; etc.. And even if you'd think they should be safe going through proper channels and reporting wrong doing to their superiors and stuff, the cases of Thomas Drake and William Binney for example show that those in power won't care, but will still hunt you down and shut you up first and foremost, in whatever way they deem convenient.

I don't think most people grow up dreaming of being a McDonald's employee; but life happens, and especially if you have a family to feed, you might not have that many options of where to work. Often times this is true even for people with college degrees, sadly enough. And needless to say that going freelance isn't always an option, and when possible can still be a huge risk.

In the future, you can also just use the "watch" button in the bottom of the thread, and then click on "Watchlist" on the top to see any new updates to the threads you're watching.

I don't think the minus before the one is accidental, so it's effectively meaningless; he's broke.

It seems to be still available, but you can take a look at the list in the first post to find out for sure. Besides, I'm sure EvilPanda would just edit the post to state they had reached the limit if that was the case.

Can I really do that without breaking the thread again?

As with most people here, I usually have anywhere from 0 to €5 with me, and just use a card when I need stuff. There are very few places that don't accept them directly around here these days, and even for those that don't there are always ATMs at no more than a minute walk. It sucks to leave a trail for everything that you buy, where you buy it, at what time of day you do, etc.. but it's just far too practical. 

And eventually get the person banned from the forum altogether, once the mods get tired of the spam; I don't know if they are still in "banning mode", but I wouldn't risk it. 

Hence the crux of the question; if pairs of them form into fullwits, wouldn't they be safer to hang around?

Guilty conscience in my heart for 9/11? You knew what I thought? This is getting ridiculous; are you going to accuse me of having participated in the 9/11 attacks next? And as I said, I don't mind answering the question if it is in anyway relevant to what we were discussing; but instead, you seem to be using it to run away from my previous arguments. Are they that hard to answer honestly, or did you never thought about them and are desperately trying to evade them?

And "In democratic countries, medias are free and open"? "Only the authoritarian State media spread propaganda"? Now I hope you really are just joking; have you never heard of "Faux" News? One serious look at the mainstream media, in the US for example, will tell you how wrong you are. Please stop watching that stuff and use online sources for news... 

Do two halfwits make one fullwit?

I didn't refuse to answer your question, I only asked how it was relevant to any of this. As soon as you can provide a satisfactory answer, I'll answer your question.

And I'm sorry to say, but I suspect you mostly watch propaganda. I suggest you avoid mainstream media, because you're never going to learn anything about the outside world through it.