Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 03:20:34 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 ... 230 »
1421  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why Science Does Not Disprove God on: April 29, 2014, 03:12:41 PM
You suggested I learn more about the 'scientific method' and 'fallacious argument,' so I'm being equally passive-aggressive.  

Wow, you *really* do place a great deal of stock in your own 'cleverness', shame really, the scare-quotes around that word are there for a reason.

Your point '3' is utterly trite, it is not a clever retort to my remark that you would be better served learning more about the scientific method, if the reason why I suggest such is because the assertions you are making are clearly indicative of someone failing to account properly for the correct application of it as *the* tool for knowledge acquisition.

Either you don't understand the scientific method properly, meaning my suggestion is pertinent, while your point '3' is simply you fallaciously appealing to your own authority or, and this might equally be true, you do understand the scientific method but choose to dishonestly respond as if otherwise while crowing about how 'clever' all and sundry claim you to be, according to you.



Ill tell you what -- rebut points #1 and #2 and I'll concede #3.  However, it seems to me that you don't understand the limitations or boundaries of the scientific method, the discipline from which science is derived (philosophy), and how disciplines like mathematics and philosophy can pick up the slack by tackling issues science is ill-equipped to explore.

Point #3 isn't meant to be clever.  I am allowed to have a self-esteem and take pride in my accomplishments, thanks.
1422  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why Science Does Not Disprove God on: April 29, 2014, 02:42:42 PM
Everything is relative to an observer, including this statement.

"It is the absolute truth that everything is relative to an observer, including this statement."
1423  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why Science Does Not Disprove God on: April 29, 2014, 02:40:00 PM
1)  Actually, God is a logical *necessity*, but unless you're actually curious about why this is, I'll spare you a lengthy explanation.  For example, if you can prove absolute truth exists (this is ludicrously easy as any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence), and you set 'absolute truth'='God' or 'x' or 'Allah' or whatever else, then you're no longer speculating -- instead, you are reasoning about something that is demonstrably provable.  If you have any doubts about the existence of absolute truth, I can dispell all of them in a few sentences.

I think you enter a fallacy region here. By the very same logic I can prove that you, "the joint" is a big green blob using mind tricks to appear in a human form. And it'd be interesting to hear your seasoning about "absolute truth"

If someone says, "There is no absolute truth," they are saying, "It is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth."

If someone says, "There is more than one absolute truth" or "Truth is relative," then they are saying "It is the absolute truth that there is more than one absolute truth" or "It is the absolute truth that truth is relative."

You can't escape it; any attempt to deny absolute truth reaffirms its existence.
1424  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why Science Does Not Disprove God on: April 29, 2014, 02:37:51 PM
^^^ Yum, word salad.

Goodness me you are certainly full of yourself. Shame you are so eminently full of something else too.

Firstly, could you explain to me what your point '3' is meant to be a take-down of? It appears to be solely a way for you to brag about how awesome you were as a student. Doesn't really address anything else though, does it?

You suggested I learn more about the 'scientific method' and 'fallacious argument,' so I'm being equally passive-aggressive.  
1425  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why Science Does Not Disprove God on: April 29, 2014, 02:23:18 PM
It is absolutely possible to reason about god or . . .
No, because if you employ critical thinking and reasoning about the concept of 'God' you swiftly find that the notion falls apart as, in order to maintain the notions required for this topic of conversation, one has to become intellectually dishonest.

What you could say, instead, is, "It is absolutely possible to speculate about God . . ."

Which is just making shit up basically. Anything beyond that falls outside the bounds of intellectual honesty.

any other subject science can't explore including the study of the very large (I.e. the universe as a whole), the very small (subatomic and quantum levels), extremely rare events (e.g. Alien encounters, UFOs, God manifesting the body of a single individual, etc.).  
Can't explore? I suspect you misunderstand what the scientific method actually is.

Science, aside from being a method, is simply one of many theories of knowledge acquisition, and by no means is it the best
Actually it is. You're just making false claims now in order to attempt to rubbish science and the scientific method so your ooky-spooky woo can be painted equally as valid a concept. It is not.

I suggest you learn a bit more about both the scientific method and fallacious argument.



Addressing responses to each quote:

1)  Actually, God is a logical *necessity*, but unless you're actually curious about why this is, I'll spare you a lengthy explanation.  For example, if you can prove absolute truth exists (this is ludicrously easy as any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence), and you set 'absolute truth'='God' or 'x' or 'Allah' or whatever else, then you're no longer speculating -- instead, you are reasoning about something that is demonstrably provable.  If you have any doubts about the existence of absolute truth, I can dispell all of them in a few sentences.

2)  Please tell me how science can explore something abstract (hint: it can't).  I also hope you realize that science carries unfalsifiable (at least by its own methods) assumptions, e.g. we live in a Positivistic Universe.  This is particularly interesting because a Positivistic Universe is provably illogical since invoking a Positivistic Universe requires invoking a logical fallacy, namely the assertion that any two relands 'x' and 'y' can actually be absolutely independent of one another; this is wrong.
1426  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why Science Does Not Disprove God on: April 28, 2014, 07:34:48 PM
They are so stupid... And still trying to prove or disprove something that couldn't  be proved or disproved.  Smiley

You can't "disprove" existence of Cthulhu or Flying Spagetty Monster through using a scientific approach. Science can't disprove existence of God because this statement does not apply to scientific knowledge. These two areas couldn't be overlapped, any attempt to merge scientific and religious knowledge doesn't make any sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Science is science, religion is religion. That's the point here.

Science is science and religion is religion, yes. The problem is that the scientific method is often considered (by true scientists as well as the 'parrots' that regurgitate their findings) the *best* method of acquiring knowledge for all subjects.  Accordingly, all other methods of knowledge acquisition are rendered inferior; and, if there's a subject science can't explore, the subject itself is rendered inferior or unworthy of discussion.

This is where scientists become complete idiots.  It is absolutely possible to reason about god or religion or any other subject science can't explore including the study of the very large (I.e. the universe as a whole), the very small (subatomic and quantum levels), extremely rare events (e.g. Alien encounters, UFOs, God manifesting the body of a single individual, etc.).  

Thankfully, we do have disciplines (e.g. Philosophy) that can soundly explore these topics in a reasonable, methodical way.  Science, aside from being a method, is simply one of many theories of knowledge acquisition, and by no means is it the best or most comprehensive in scope for all topics.

In short, science can't explore religion or religious claims because it is entirely ill-equipped to do so.  But, don't be a fool in thinking this makes the topic unworthy of consideration, but instead recognize that science is unworthy of exploring it.
1427  Other / Off-topic / Re: What Song are you Listening To? on: April 28, 2014, 02:19:21 AM
Devin Townsend - Blackberry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u683qyKISHk
1428  Economy / Computer hardware / Re: [WTS] 30 USB block erupters, 3x10-USB Hubs, 3xUSB fan on: April 27, 2014, 11:51:08 PM
I'm in canada... How much for the 30 USB BEs?

I currently have an offer for 0.26 BTC for the entire lot (including hubs, fans, and shipping to continental US).

I will leave this thread open for another 12 hours from the time of this post.  If I don't field an offer higher than 0.26 BTC within 12 hours, then that bid wins.

The bidder may confirm this if he/she chooses.
1429  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The government is great on: April 27, 2014, 08:23:26 PM
Karma is just another primitive anti-intellectual superstition.

My $.02.

Wink

it can't be proven or disproven though. i would like to believe that there is some sort of universal order admist the chaos though.

There are two.

Mathematics and physics.

My $.02.

Wink

What do you call the system of order that encompasses both mathematics (abstract) and physics (physical)?
1430  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The government is great on: April 27, 2014, 08:21:01 PM
Karma is just another primitive anti-intellectual superstition.

My $.02.

Wink

I disagree with this.  Karma is most often (mistakeably) interchanged with the phrase "what goes around comes around."  I believe this is incorrect.

Karma is just another word for "cause and effect."  If I'm walking down the sidewalk and decide to randomly punch some stranger, karma doesn't imply that I, too, will be punched at some point, nor does it mean that I will necessarily face any legal repercussions.  But, *some* effect is bound to happen.  For example, the fact that I decided to randomly punch someone suggests that I'm carrying around some type of negative thoughts/emotions/feelings, etc.  Punching someone will both 1) reinforce these negative thoughts/emotions/feelings, and 2) will make it more probable that I will act aggressively towards someone in the future.  Both of these effects are negative consequences that I will endure, and accordingly I will have to deal with the resulting stress that comes from having angry thoughts/feelings or aggressive intentions.
1431  Economy / Computer hardware / [WTS] 30 USB block erupters, 3x10-USB Hubs, 3xUSB fan on: April 27, 2014, 08:09:21 PM
Hello,

I'm taking offers for the following:

-30 USB Block Erupters (all hash at ~333 mh/s except for one that mines at ~260mh/s with a buttload of HW errors).  All 30 gives you ~10gh/s.
-3 X AiTech 10-port USB hubs (same as here: http://www.amazon.com/Aitech-Adapter-backward-Compatible-aluminum/dp/B009NESU4M
-3 x ARCTIC Breeze USB fan (same as here: http://www.amazon.com/ARCTIC-USB-Powered-Portable-Cooling-Solution/dp/B003XN24GY/ref=pd_cp_pc_1)

Make your offers in BTC to include shipping, and please include the country these will be shipped to.

I'm looking to sell everything as a set, but am open to piecing things out.

Edit:  Offers in LTC or DOGE also accepted.
1432  Other / Off-topic / Re: What's the worst you've ever messed something up at your job? on: April 27, 2014, 06:20:49 AM
Back in my undergraduate, college years, I worked at a smoothie place in Santa Barbara.  They had all these additives and supplements customers could purchase for a small fee to add to their smoothies.  As employees, we were entitled to one free smoothie per shift.

One of the available supplements was guarana, an energy supplement with high concentrations of caffeine.  Unlike the other powdered supplements which were scooped out of cups with plastic teaspoons, the guarana was kept in a shaker (e.g. like salt or pepper).  I tried shaking a little guarana into my daily smoothie during one of my shifts, but the cap was loose and I ended up dumping the whole shaker of guarana into my drink.

I didn't want to waste the other ingredients I had already put into my drink, so instead I decided to use a spoon to scoop out the excess guarana.  Big mistake; apparently, I didn't get nearly enough guarana out.  

I was fortunate that I decided to make the smoothie at the end of the shift so that, 30 minutes later, I was out of work and back at my apartment when all of the vomiting and shitting began.

I remember it was one of the worst physical sicknesses I've ever experienced.  I felt ice cold and my body was shaking profusely for several hours, and although my body felt completely exhausted and the slightest movement would make me puke instantly, finding a comfortable position, let alone sleeping, was impossible.  I ended up calling poison control and very nearly went to the hospital.  About six hours later, I had finally recovered.

TL;DR:  Don't overdose on caffeine.
1433  Other / Off-topic / Re: What Song are you Listening To? on: April 26, 2014, 06:56:31 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AsQrJgGT28
1434  Other / Off-topic / Re: What's wrong with eating meat? on: April 24, 2014, 07:45:44 AM
My take on eating meat:

1)  If you eat plants, you're not killing, but you are raping and pillaging the food source and/or homes of other animals and insects.

2)  By eating higher up the food chain, you can extract more energy per creature eaten.  Do you know how many vegetables you would need to eat have to consume same number of calories in a single cow?

3)  It's nutritious and healthy.
Finally someone pointed out a few valid points.
Also it isn't that unhealthy to eat meat.
1)   Many plants have a symbiotic relationship with people, we make sure their offspring thrive; market based corporative evolution at play.  We kill pests at our expense, the more we do it the more we need to manage the process. Here diversity and sustainable growing techniques like horticulture is your friend.

2)   Calories come from plants, for every 10 calorie fed to an animal you get 1 calorie back, if you are into consuming just calories, go eat high fructose corn syrup, it is plant based and more rich in calories than any meat. 

3)   Meat is nutritious if you are among the unlucky who don't know any better.

On health coming from a meat and potatoes diet and just cur out meat, that is unhealthy, or substituting meat protean with refined carbohydrates that is unhealthy, but if you take the effort to balance your diet vegetarianism is way healthier.   If you are malnourished, meat is a good food substitute, when you trade off the higher levels of consciousness you can enjoy at the expense of the lower levels animals.


1)  The point is simply that vegetarians aren't exempt from the moral landscape.

2)  Again, animals are going to eat plants regardless of whether we kill them for food or not.  And to the previous poster who mentioned the number of cows on farms is likely larger than the number of cows capable of being naturally sustained in the wild is starting to veer off-topic.  The question is whether it's wrong to eat meat, not which methods of global food production/distribution are most efficient.

3)  I trained as an amateur bodybuilder for four years under the direct supervision of a former Mr. Universe champion who also had experiences training the Detroit Lions minor league football team, etc.  My diet during those four years consisted of eating ~300-400g protein per day of which about 80% came directly from meat, and most of the rest came from oatmeal.  During those four years, over 95% of my daily caloric intake came from steak, tuna, oatmeal, and nothing else.  At one point, I had integrated about 16-24 oz. of mixed vegetables per day into my diet, but the difference it made, though noticeable, wasn't all that significant.  I'm still in great health and am able to do 100 consecutive push-ups, 35 pull-ups, and run 8.5 miles in just under an hour.   I have not had any vegetables in my diet for about  two years excluding a few salads and asparagus sides at restaurants.
1435  Other / Off-topic / Re: What's wrong with eating meat? on: April 23, 2014, 07:29:24 PM
His points don't make much sense at all. And try eating a diet of only meat and see what happens.
1) That's his personal view.
2) Is correct, you need to eat a lof of plants to make up for eating a single cow.
3) This is also correct.

What are you talking about?

A cow which you had to feed with much more plants than you would have needed if you ate them directly...

But you seem to be missing the fact that a cow is going to eat plants whether you knock its head with a brick or not. 
1436  Other / Off-topic / Re: What's wrong with eating meat? on: April 23, 2014, 03:07:04 PM
My take on eating meat:

1)  If you eat plants, you're not killing, but you are raping and pillaging the food source and/or homes of other animals and insects.

2)  By eating higher up the food chain, you can extract more energy per creature eaten.  Do you know how many vegetables you would need to eat have to consume same number of calories in a single cow?

3)  It's nutritious and healthy.
1437  Economy / Speculation / Re: I think we are up from here. on: April 22, 2014, 08:52:33 PM
I believe a nice way to conceptualize the current state of the market is to understand the difference between 'perception' and 'reality'.

The 'perception' lately is that Bitcoin has been under attack and is running into obstacle after obstacle, setback after setback.  This is most notably reflected in recent news stories about China and Mt. Gox, the IRS tax ruling, etc.

The 'reality' is that there has been a steady level of growth on all fronts in recent months -- new users are using, new businesses are accepting, new infrastructure is developing, and new investors are investing.

When perception catches up to reality, up we go.
1438  Economy / Goods / Re: [WTS] 5 x 2013 1-BTC Casascius Coins on: April 22, 2014, 01:27:57 PM
Bump Smiley
1439  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Lets Join Forces And combine our GH to make some Bitcoin on: April 20, 2014, 03:27:13 PM
I am mining with enough GH/s to make a payout.. I tested my theory and mined with 100GH/s and seen the payout, Then I mined with 500GH/s ...The payout per shares was much higher..


Thanks for your feedback.

Let me get this straight -- you're saying that you believe mining with a higher hashrate actually increases the amount of BTC awarded *per share*?

No.

Using hypothetical numbers, let's say that you receive, on average, ~1 BTC per 100 GH/s per 24/hr. period.  This means that with 500GH/s you will receive, on average, ~5 BTC per 500GH/s per 24/hr. period.  The reward per share is not higher; you simply have a larger proportion of the pool's hashrate and are compensated according to that ratio.

The only purpose your proposal serves is to make it a hassle for miners to receive the same payout they would otherwise receive by being smart and staying the hell away from your deal.
1440  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Lets Join Forces And combine our GH to make some Bitcoin on: April 20, 2014, 05:35:49 AM
My recommendation: *AVOID*
Pages: « 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 ... 230 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!