|
Just to prove I'm not sitting on my ass, doing nothing...
Current Account Status:
BALANCE SHEET
฿192.15699737 Assets
฿143.15699737 BTCWallet
฿45.00000000 MemDeal_Wallet
฿4.00000000 Teukon_Wallet
฿599.31681698 Expense
฿599.30901698 Contributed_to_Charity
฿0.00780000 Transaction_Fee
฿-615.61478168 Income:Available_for_Charity
฿-175.85903267 Liabilities
฿-126.85903267 Contributed_Pledges
฿-45.00000000 MemDeal_Contributed
฿-4.00000000 Teukon_Contributed
--------------------
0
AVAILABLE FOR NEXT CHARITY
฿599.31681698 Expense
฿599.30901698 Contributed_to_Charity
฿0.00780000 Transaction_Fee
฿-615.61478168 Income:Available_for_Charity
--------------------
฿-16.29796470 <-- READY TO BE CONTRIBUTED
List of charities that received contributions:
12-Mar-21 Group B Strep Inter.. ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿127.35400000
12-Jul-20 Kenija2012.com ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿100.00000000
12-Dec-14 BUND Berlin e.V. ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿100.54164468
13-Jan-02 My Refuge House ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿100.00000000
13-Mar-22 BitcoinTheDocumenta.. ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿13.96454230
13-Jun-02 fr33aid.com ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿8.30080000
13-Jun-02 generationsofhope.org ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿8.28000000
13-Jun-07 SongsofLove.org ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿9.10000000
13-Jun-07 antiwar.com ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿9.10000000
13-Jun-07 fesslerfoundation.org ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿9.20000000
13-Jun-21 handinhand-patensch.. ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿9.18500000
13-Jun-21 hiphopchessfederati.. ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿9.86810000
13-Jun-21 iccf-holland.org ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿9.18500000
13-Jun-21 sternenhof.eu ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿9.18500000
13-Jun-21 watsi.org ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿9.18000000
13-Jul-12 asiconservachile.org ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿10.59590000
13-Jul-12 spices.org.my ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿10.59590000
13-Aug-03 khanacademy.org ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿9.63300000
13-Aug-08 virtualdoctors.org ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿9.48770000
13-Aug-25 generationgreen.com ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿9.17000000
13-Sep-21 panperu.org ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿8.11810000
13-Nov-15 primateeducationnet.. ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿2.44000000
13-Nov-17 esquinatangoaustin... ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿2.10520000
13-Nov-21 ibme.info ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿1.61290000
13-Nov-21 lendforamerica.org ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿1.66113000
13-Nov-22 pathwaystoeducation.. ..ntributed_to_Charity ฿1.44510000
That's 26 charities for a total of about $26,000 donated.
|
|
|
|
I'll start working on an address for Freequant and Bruno tonight (sorry for the delay) In the mean time, another one: Chris R. I run a non-profit and am interested in accepting Bitcoin and working with Bitcoin 100. How would you recommend going about this? Our website is http://we-search.org. We are a crowdfunding charity for medical research. I'd be happy to answer any other questions you have. |
|
|
|
Laws are not natural, the universe has none. Our collective reality is only subject to 'laws of physics' and limitation because we believe it to be so.
Why is it that all of us have been believing this for literally millions of years, and not a single one of us has realized they they could just stop believing and do whatever they wanted? Even better, why, or even how, do all animals believe it and follow the laws of physics, too? |
|
|
|
The way I look at it, I just see fear as our human instinct and love as our inner god, ego vs soul. I feel that if we remove all fear of god, and anything, we would be left closer to god.
Only in the sense that you will be ignoring your fear telling you to stop doing stupid/dangerous things, will keep making stupid/dangerous things, and get your ass killed faster. Though I think you will just end up closer to dirt. What? If you're going to reply to everybody at least have a rational debate so people can reply back. Less ego = less fear = more happiness, more peace, more understanding, all of which indicate being close to god. You need fear to tell you that riding a bike at high speed without a helmet will likely end up getting you "closer to god." Basically, fear is a biological instinct that keeps us alive as a species, by making us fear things like steep cliffs and hungry lions. |
|
|
|
Here's one for you, @Rassah, since you assume an absolute separation between objective and subjective reality, or what you consider 'real' and 'unreal' respectively. If we acknowledge the phenomenon of cognition in general as a "real" event that can lead to the formation of entirely "unreal" concepts, don't we have a huge problem on our hands? How can something real produce something totally and utterly unreal?
What is actually being produced? If I project an image of a house on a white screen, am I producing a house? Or just a concept that looks like/represents a house? You could say that an imagination is like a Universe in that the content of one's imagination obeys certain rules and laws; one of these rules is that imaginative content is binary, and accordingly we can not imagine simultaneous yes/no states (try imagining a shirt that is both red and not red).
I think imagination isn't following rules and laws, so much as it is following whatever we are capable of imagining based on our limited experience. Ever notice that all aliens in all our fiction are either humanoid, or resemble some other creature found on out planet? Creating something completely new and never before imagines is a difficult skill (we give out PhD's for such a task). Ironically, while we can't imagine a shirt that is both red and not red, or an element that is there and is not there at the same time, that is, in fact, how the universe works on a quantum level. So, technically, our imagination is even too limited to imagine how the universe actually exists in our objective, observable reality. The funny thing is that people are claiming that our universe is only limited by our imagination, when the trust is that the our imagination is limiting our understanding of the universe. @Rassah, when you talk about some objective reality that can exist totally independent of any subjectivity or observation, you make a logical fallacy (actually two) by imposing an assumption that happens to be false upon a hypothetical scenario that has never been observed, and in fact could never be observed.
Think of it this way. I can observe what is in my room right now. You can't. Just because you can't observe what is here, does not mean that this room doesn't exist. Someone else can, and is, observing it. Extending that to the rest of the universe, just because we are not observing it right now, doesn't mean someone else isn't. And, to me, anyway, its easy to come to the conclusion that just because I am not observing something else in the universe, that it doesn't exist. To think otherwise would be to believe that the unviverse doesn't exist where people are not seeing it, and is constantly being spontaneously created and destroyed as we walk through places, or even pan our vision across a landscape. Actually, that is something that humans do believe when they go through child spychological developlent. If you hide a ball away from a 1 year old, he will believe that it simply no longer exists. Object permanence is the term for the thing we learn when we grow up. Your assumption is actually your conclusion; you assume that objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive.
Aren't they by definition? Otherwise I would have to rethink my political view as an objectivist. But, how could you possibly observe a Universe that is totally absent of observation? This is an inherent contradiction and it could never possibly happen. I find it really interesting that you're forming conclusions about a totally hypothetical and non-empirical event when you're such a stark advocate of empirical study and the scientific method.
Actually, I propose the exact opposite. Somewhat. What you describe there is EXACTLY my complaint about subjective universes, imagines realities, gods, and unicorns. As you say, "how could you possibly observe a Universe that is totally absent of observation?" By this universe I mean one in which a god, or some other imagines creature, exists. If you can't, then it has no relevance on us. Such a god would just angrily wave his arms at me, and have them pass through me without ever having an effect on my life. As for the parts of the universe we can't observe, the only assumption I make is that the rest of the universe follows the laws of physics that I have observed the universe following around me (around me includes things we see out in space with our telescopes). I think it's pretty logical to assume that the universe is consistent with the laws of physics, regardless of whether I am paying attention to them. Isn't it? |
|
|
|
The way I look at it, I just see fear as our human instinct and love as our inner god, ego vs soul. I feel that if we remove all fear of god, and anything, we would be left closer to god.
Only in the sense that you will be ignoring your fear telling you to stop doing stupid/dangerous things, will keep making stupid/dangerous things, and get your ass killed faster. Though I think you will just end up closer to dirt. |
|
|
|
We need to really know God and to know Him is to fear and respect and obey Him not just make up whatever we want to believe about Him.
And yet, Christians have been guilty of this since 400AD, when they put together the bible from parts they liked, and threw away parts they didn't. |
|
|
|
If you are talking about Cantor's diagonalization, where the real number(R) p differs by a decimal digit from every real rational number(Q) n, and thus has no real number partner, the my answer is that p can not exist(in Q), or is an imaginary number. The reason is that since there is an countable infinite number of real rational number n's, you will never come to a conclusion on what p must be in Q. In other words, it will take an uncountable infinite amount of n numbers(which does not exist, as Q is only countable) for p to be created, or put another way, it will take an uncountable infinite amount of time, calculations, attempts, or whatever, in order to create p. So you will always get closer to creating p without actually creating it. But yet it can be constructed by other means.
Do your believe that for every set A there exists a set, called the power set of A, P(A), that contains every subset of the set A? (The axiom of power sets)? No, I don't. There can be two sets that are not mathematically related in any way. We can still count them subjectively, as if by yanking two unrelated numbers out of a barrel of infinite numbers, and saying "This number here, for this number there" and perform this excersise infinitely. |
|
|
|
EDITED TO FIX QUOTES 1) Except you can logically prove that reality cannot only be objective, and so your assumption is wrong.
I'm still looking for such proof. 1) How much do you need? What kind of proof/evidence supports 1 + 1 = 2 aside from self-contained mathematical examples? The fact that 1+1 = 2 is pretty obvious isn't it? Yep, from the examples we have, and the concepts we have formed based on those examples... Well, it's equally obvious that mental and physical reality are fundamentally inseparable.
Only in one direction, that physical reality is interpreted by mental "reality," i.e. that pemtan "reality" is a subjective interpretation of our objective physical reality. We may be talking about the same thing, but the way I see is it that the flow is one way, your objective physical reality influences your mental one, while Dank claims that his mental one can also influence the physical one, such as that if he imagines that gravity doesn't exist, the physical reality just follows his command. It's obvious because we already have established logical properties that directly state that it's impossible to assert an absolute separation between any two things without committing a logical fallacy, just like we have established mathematical rules of operation.
Take out the "we" and replace it with "you." You have tried to establish it. I am still not convinced. Mainly because I still have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe some examples would help? For instance, if you have two apples, and I say they are two different separate apples, how am I committing a logical falacy? Basically, failing to acknowledge that mental and physical reality are fundamentally related is like disagreeing that 1 + 1 = 2 under any possible interpretation. As soon as you assert an absolute difference between two things you immediately commit a logical fallacy.
Yeah, see, this is a statement, that makes no sense to me, not actual proof or explanation. The thing that has been bugging me a bit is that most of what you have been saying were statements, made from the point of view of someone to whom this is already obvious, while I don't grasb the basics of what you are claiming. 4) If you were a microbe on an elephant's butt, would you know that the ground you're walking on is an elephant?
Nope. but I wouldn't throw out random subjective coonclusions about what ground I'm walking on, either. I would only use conclusions I can observe and come to, and get closer to the correct answer by process of elimination (I should be able to tell it's not dirt, sand, or a furry fox butt). I wouldn't subjectively make up some story that sounds great, and claim that it's just as valid a conclusion as everything else (as the "God did it" folks do) 2) The point is I don't know why you would select an empirical model of learning out of all the available methods to attempt to explain reality at such a high level of generality. The scientific method is ill-equipped for the task. If you're trying to formulate conclusions about something beyond the scope of the empirical model, then why not just pick a better model? You're just self-handicapping by using the empirical model. In this regard, you're like a bible banger for empiricism, and no matter how much I try to tell you that there's a whole world of knowledge that is totally (by definition) inaccessible through empiricism, for some reason you have a really hard time processing that. When I look up "Empirical Model," I mostly find stuff about computer programming and observation from 1980's. So I don't know what you actually mean. Do you mean that you don't know why I would select a model of learning based on actual observable universe, and the rules and mathematics derived from those observations and theories? If yes, my answer is simply because a world that can not be empirically studied by observation and mathematical derivation based on rules established from that observation is, by definition, a world we can not observe or experience in any way, and thus is not relevant to our existence. Why study how many unicorns can fit into a stable, or what body weight a troll must consume to survive? |
|
|
|
People would say I'm lucky. But when other people in the audience start flying too, I'm pretty sure I'll have everyone believing.
Lucky would be winning once. Extremely lucky would be winning twice. Impossible would be winning three times, in a row. And it should be very simple for you. If you fly, other people won't fly too, they'll just start questioning how you did it (magicians in La Vegas "fly" all the time). If you win the lottery three times, no one will question your power. Lucky would be the Earth forming by chance. Extremely lucky would be the Sun being in the perfect distance from earth to cause the right temperature for life. Impossible would be for man and woman to be formed by random chance of all of the molecules coming together in such a way to make life from nothing. I know I am way off the topic here, but this came to my mind.  That's like saying Lucky would be someone wnning the lottery in September, extremely lucky would be someone winning another lottery in October, and impossible would be someone winning yet another lottery in November. There are tons of "lottery tickets" out there in the forms of billions of planets orbiting billions of stars. We just happened to have been the ones who got the winning lottery ticket. Also, the span for where earth can be to sustain life is actually quite a lot wider than creationists tend to believe. (Like, from near Venus, which is only hot because of greenhouse gasses, almost up to Mars, which is only slightly colder than Antarctic, and we know life exists there too. In Antarctic, not Mars (though it may have existed on Mars as well). Incidentally, what would you believe if we found conclusive proof of life on Mars, or one of Jupiter's moons? |
|
|
|
|
You can import private keys using Mycelium for Android, but it's not a true P2P app.
|
|
|
|
Got this in PM I have an organization in mind for Bitcoin 100. It provides food, clothing and help with medical bills to needy members of of the Northwest Baltimore community. Although the money is not used for any religious purposes, the organization is run by rabbis and most of the recipients are Jewish since that is the makeup of our neighborhood and community. I read that the recipient organization must be "secular" so I'm not sure if this organization would qualify under your rules. Please take a look at its website ( http://ahavasyisrael.org/) and let me know either way. Thanks! These guys are within driving distance of my house apparently. If they end up qualifying, I may end up just driving and meeting them in person. We're going to have to set up some way to track this, or something. Or I guess I can just keep bugging Edd to post updated on the website regarding which charities are being considered, denied, accepted, and paid. Then if I accidentally pay someone twice, or forget a charity, we can all blame it on Edd. |
|
|
|
I have nooooo idea what to make of this one... Rassah, I am the financial administrator for a USA 501c3 non-profit, Intensive Heart Ventures. We are a secular organization offering assistance to the underprivileged internationally in some of the world's poorest countries. I am very interested in finding out more about how my organization can begin accepting bit-coin donations on our website. Below is a link to our site which has more information on who we are and what we do. If you need anything else, please do not hesitate to let me know. www.heartventures.comThank you, Joe Benscoter I'm not sure how this is a charity, or what it is they do exactly  |
|
|
|
|
Yikes! What is going on here? I was away for the weekend, visiting my in-laws, ad just got home to where I may be able to hash a vanity address or something, but I have no idea what I'm getting myself involved in. Just a lottery with a random number picker?
|
|
|
|
I also just got this totally out of the blue Our 501(c)3 non-profit, Torch Academy, www.torchacademy.org, is interested in your bitcoin offer of receiving 1000 dollars of bitcoin for displaying bitcoin logo and accepting bitcoin for donations. Please send more information. Jackie President, Torch Academy Maybe my dream of running out of money and retiring from this will actually come true some day, but somehow I don't think Bitcoin, with its ever increasing price, will let me  |
|
|
|
I think you should add Frankie Abralind to the list of people to thank, Bruno. Maybe list him as our honorary charity pimp. Dear Devon, Please meet my friend Dmitry. We met in business school and he now runs a foundation that is looking for worthy nonprofits to donate to. He just donated $1,000 each to Jessie Morey's IBME and my friend Amy's Primate Education Network. I think he will really appreciate the International Lifeline Fund's mission. Dmitry's foundation is called BitCoin100. They arose out of the generosity of a few early BitCoin adopters to promote the value of the currency for nonprofits: when donors make their donations in BitCoins, the recipient nonprofit keeps 100% (hence the name). None of the funds are lost to credit card or processing fees. BitCoin100 donates $1,000 to selected nonprofits who agree to accept the currency on their donation page. It doesn't take much work to get it set up, but I know the money could do a lot of good helping with new initiatives at Eureka. @Dmitry, Devon is a neighbor and great pal of mine, as well as a friend of Jessie Morey. She is a devoted nonprofiteur (is that word? Should be) who spent years working with refugees and now helps bring safe food and water to impoverished communities in Africa and Haiti. A $1,000 donation would be a big help with their projects. Good luck! Frankie |
|
|
|
I am in for 1BTC per charity.
I pledge an additional 100 BTC to the Red Cross and Unicef whenever they get onboard.
Today is the 2nd anniversary of my initial pledge. To date, neither Red Cross or Unicef have come on board. In the meantime, Bitcoin has raised 300 folds, making the terms of my initial pledge borderline unsustainable. On the occasion of this second anniversary, I have decided to review the terms of my pledge to match better my donation target in dollar terms, while keeping the initial spirit of the pledge. The new terms of my pledge, effective immediately, and valid until 23 Nov. 2015 are now: 1 - 10k USD equivalent in BTC (regardless of the BTC/USD exchange rate) for Red Cross whenever they join. 2 - 10k USD equivalent In BTC (regardless of the BTC/USD exchange rate) for Unicef whenever they join. 3 - 100 USD equivalent In BTC / charity, up to 100 charities (max 10k USD in total). @Phinnaeus Gage, I don't really have the time to follow carefully this thread, and I don't know most of the charities, so I'd like to ask you if you don't mind to manage pledge (3) on my behalf, and to notify me if you hear about Red Cross or Unicef joining Bitcoin so that I can execute pledge (1) or (2). If you are ok, I'll send you a first installment of 5k USD for pledge (3), please convert it back to USD and use it 100 USD at a time for next 50 charities (please confirm the BTC address) and let me know once it's used up so that I can send you the second installment. Alternately, I can also send directly 5k USD to your Bitstamp account via Ripple (see: Deposit > Ripple > USD). Hi. If you would like us to hold and manage your pledge, and limit it to some specific amount in USD per specific charity, I can do that, but I can't hold it in anything other than BTC. I can just hold it in a separate bitcoin address to make it easier to track. You are free to ask for your money, or any portion of it, back at any time, if, for example, your $5k donation ends up being worth way more than combined $30k. The money I hold on behalf of Bitcoin100 are pledges in my care, not donations we claim ownership to as soon as they hit our address. |
|
|
|
Hahahahaha! Oh mo god! Sorry I missed this thread earlier, and it was such a slog to read through it all, but it's frikin hilarious! AnonyMint just misses point after point after point with this easily refutable non-issue (which, by the way, I understand perfectly, including the parts MoonShadow misunderstood), and then nearly made me lose it with the wall of scripture on page 9. I mean, I knew he was all "I have a high IQ and am more intelligent than you, you should be thankful that I give you the fruits of my mind" type, or whatever, but a christian fundie too? Haaaaaaa!  God, I hope you are actually seriously this broken and not a troll, otherwise I'd feel bad for falling for this level of smug idiocy. Jesus, AnonyMint, did you get your high IQ score from an internet quiz? EDIT: Aaahahahaaa! And then you of the "I am smarter than you, and understand this new Bitcoin thing I just found better than you, because I am so smart!" bring up Dunning-Krueger, in a rather blatant display of suffering from that effect yourself. Seriously, are you sure you're not just trolling? I can't stop laughing! P.S. MoonShadow commands a lot of trust and respect on this forum, because even if he says something wrong, he can admit it and change his mind. On the other hand, your "Ignore” button is getting browner every day. |
|
|
|
My mom wired money from US on Friday, November 15th. Still nothing in her balance, and no reply to question of whether they even got it. These guys are messing with Rassah's mom now  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
