Bitcoin Forum
August 25, 2016, 03:01:14 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.12.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 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 ... 230 »
281  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Los Angeles police shoot unarmed man in head; and then handcuff him! on: June 22, 2015, 01:42:08 PM
The USA has become one of the most wretched police states in the history of the world. Can't imagine how scary it must be to live their seeing their police force maim and kill innocents indiscriminately.

Honestly, when you turn off the news, it's not so bad. If I hadn't watched any news in the past two decades, the only noticeable differences in daily life would probably be whittled down to some inflated gas and food prices, tightened airport security, better technology, and a lot of silly music and clothing outfits.  9/11 what?
282  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 22, 2015, 03:44:30 AM
Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent,not only gun there are so much other stuff that support the violence
Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy biting my knuckles Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
you silly human the question is about gun control not violence stupid
there will always be violence dumb ass i would rather someone attack me with a knife or a stick or hit me with a punch or a kick than blast my head off with a gun

KEEP YOUR GUNS THEN AND WATCH YOUR COUNTRY FALL APART Cry Cry Cry Cry Cry
21ST CENTURY Cool not 1821 cowboys and indians.. john wayne and all the like
do u know what i was going to write more but just thought whats the point your like religious people you will never change your mind unless you your self been affected by guns
all i will say is be safe and try not get trigger happy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

So if guns are banned, and you're a law abiding citizen and therefore don't break the a law and get one, what are you going to do if a criminal with a gun attacks you?
same as every other country with gun laws phone the police Undecided Undecided Undecided
and if my law was in place he or she will be getting 25 years if caught and will do every day of them 25 years and that will send a clear message out carry guns get 25 years
see what is happening in my area 13 year old kids getting hold of guns well i say guns some look like they found them in the grandad shed from the 2nd worldwar.. and old shot guns that look like the shot guns have wood worm  Cheesy Cheesy there that old
So thank god they cannot get hold of nice new guns and buy them like lolly pops because our kids would shoot each other like no tomorrow
we have about 10 shooting a month in our city
 but i say about 3 to 4 people get killed with a gun a year some years 1 person gets killed and about 25 people get injured because they shoot your legs so if there caught they get done for a lesser crime not murder
but the thing is these young kids 13 to 25 get no real jail time
if a 13 old murders he still got his whole life ahead of him 15 years he only be 28 when he get out of jail.. if he caught with a gun in public he get 2 years in youth offenders now you give this kid a status i am a bad ass so don,t mess with me or i shoot you no matter who you are a 15 year old cheeky little brat
and guns are banned  here So more jail time needed plus if he or she murders a human with a gun then they will never be released from jail not ever


Criminal:  (Breaks through your front door).  Alright motherf*cker, here's the deal.  I'm taking your money, I'm raping your wife, and I'm blowing your heads off.

You:  Wait wait wait.  Time-out.  I'm calling the police.  You're in big trouble, mister.

Criminal:  *Blows your head off.*

Gee, your plan sounded so great on paper.
point 1 most people rob your money very rare someone rape your wife you would be caught in a flash DNA
point 2 if he did rape my wife she would shag him to death thus saving the both of us Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
see because you have a gun more likley be a shoot out resulting in a death instead just handing over your money then phone police
see no one deserves to die for stealing or house robbery even tho i really hate house thieves ..hmmm may be cut 2 fingers off as a punishment or chop half a foot off there foot Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy i am only joking
The law lords need to sit down and say right its the 21st century lets see how we can make these new laws better to keep our citizens safer
plus most of all we need to give our young kids jobs so they have a life instead stuck on the streets to become a street rat


Aside from the weird fact that you seem to think that someone getting caught and thrown in jail offsets your wife being raped (wtf?), I think you forgot the part where he blows your heads off, anyway.

But hey, good thing he got those 25 years afterward, right? 
283  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 22, 2015, 02:31:36 AM
Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent,not only gun there are so much other stuff that support the violence
Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy biting my knuckles Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
you silly human the question is about gun control not violence stupid
there will always be violence dumb ass i would rather someone attack me with a knife or a stick or hit me with a punch or a kick than blast my head off with a gun

KEEP YOUR GUNS THEN AND WATCH YOUR COUNTRY FALL APART Cry Cry Cry Cry Cry
21ST CENTURY Cool not 1821 cowboys and indians.. john wayne and all the like
do u know what i was going to write more but just thought whats the point your like religious people you will never change your mind unless you your self been affected by guns
all i will say is be safe and try not get trigger happy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

So if guns are banned, and you're a law abiding citizen and therefore don't break the a law and get one, what are you going to do if a criminal with a gun attacks you?
same as every other country with gun laws phone the police Undecided Undecided Undecided
and if my law was in place he or she will be getting 25 years if caught and will do every day of them 25 years and that will send a clear message out carry guns get 25 years
see what is happening in my area 13 year old kids getting hold of guns well i say guns some look like they found them in the grandad shed from the 2nd worldwar.. and old shot guns that look like the shot guns have wood worm  Cheesy Cheesy there that old
So thank god they cannot get hold of nice new guns and buy them like lolly pops because our kids would shoot each other like no tomorrow
we have about 10 shooting a month in our city
 but i say about 3 to 4 people get killed with a gun a year some years 1 person gets killed and about 25 people get injured because they shoot your legs so if there caught they get done for a lesser crime not murder
but the thing is these young kids 13 to 25 get no real jail time
if a 13 old murders he still got his whole life ahead of him 15 years he only be 28 when he get out of jail.. if he caught with a gun in public he get 2 years in youth offenders now you give this kid a status i am a bad ass so don,t mess with me or i shoot you no matter who you are a 15 year old cheeky little brat
and guns are banned  here So more jail time needed plus if he or she murders a human with a gun then they will never be released from jail not ever


Criminal:  (Breaks through your front door).  Alright motherf*cker, here's the deal.  I'm taking your money, I'm raping your wife, and I'm blowing your heads off.

You:  Wait wait wait.  Time-out.  I'm calling the police.  You're in big trouble, mister.

Criminal:  *Blows your head off.*

Gee, your plan sounded so great on paper.
284  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 22, 2015, 01:05:42 AM
Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent,not only gun there are so much other stuff that support the violence
Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy biting my knuckles Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
you silly human the question is about gun control not violence stupid
there will always be violence dumb ass i would rather someone attack me with a knife or a stick or hit me with a punch or a kick than blast my head off with a gun

KEEP YOUR GUNS THEN AND WATCH YOUR COUNTRY FALL APART Cry Cry Cry Cry Cry
21ST CENTURY Cool not 1821 cowboys and indians.. john wayne and all the like
do u know what i was going to write more but just thought whats the point your like religious people you will never change your mind unless you your self been affected by guns
all i will say is be safe and try not get trigger happy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

So if guns are banned, and you're a law abiding citizen and therefore don't break the a law and get one, what are you going to do if a criminal with a gun attacks you?
285  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Los Angeles police shoot unarmed man in head; and then handcuff him! on: June 21, 2015, 09:50:30 PM
Aren't these police offers supposed to take IQ tests? Aren't these tests design to help analyze if a person is mentally qualified to become a cop and be accompanied with a gun and a badge? physical fitness and willingness to serve is all good but if your understanding and maturity is of a 7 year old, BEING A POLICE MAN IS NOT THE FUCKING WAY TO GO!

HAHAHA, PREACH! My feelings described perfectly over here! Aren't these people selected, tested, trained, made eligible for the the best services before handing them a badge and a gun? Does the profession kill brain cells?

Read my post above.  Some police agencies have apparently implemented a policy that you are barred from being a police officer if your IQ is too high.  The decision was upheld in a Federal lawsuit.
286  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 21, 2015, 09:46:36 PM
the joint
Legendary
*
you own a gun you must do  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
I think the only way your going to learn is when someone shoots you your family or friend
so be careful trigger happy DICK
 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
this is you so you think Wink Wink
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQoxsMTkVt4

man buys his kid a riffle to go hunting kid trips over
 the butt of the riffle hits the floor blows kids head off now that guy now wishes he had never introduced his son to guns
 and he weeps everyday because he misses him so much sad sad
and i bet if his kid was still alive today he be saying keep the gun law don,t ban it
he not saying it now tho he saying ban them  Wink Wink
 ONLY DICK SHITBAGS WANT GUNS
USE YOUR FIST YOU SHITHOUSE

Well, that escalated quickly  Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes

Quote
I think the only way your going to learn is when someone shoots you your family or friend
so be careful trigger happy DICK...

...ONLY DICK SHITBAGS WANT GUNS
USE YOUR FIST YOU SHITHOUSE

Oh, you angel.
287  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Los Angeles police shoot unarmed man in head; and then handcuff him! on: June 21, 2015, 04:42:41 PM
Aren't these police offers supposed to take IQ tests? Aren't these tests design to help analyze if a person is mentally qualified to become a cop and be accompanied with a gun and a badge? physical fitness and willingness to serve is all good but if your understanding and maturity is of a 7 year old, BEING A POLICE MAN IS NOT THE FUCKING WAY TO GO!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

Quote
A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.
288  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 21, 2015, 04:28:50 PM
Let's be honest, some people shouldn't have the right to own a gun.
For example, If you're a violent criminal, you shouldn't have a gun, mentally unstable or deranged, no guns.
2 amendment is a right, however with rights come responsibilities.
so you do agree people should have no guns Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy you have slipped up my friend

MENTALLY UNSTABLE OR DERANGED you say Wink your words not mine Grin

point 1 any human at any stage in his or her life can become mentally unstable or deranged
for loads of reasons
 getting bullied
 loosing a loved 1
getting jilted at the alter
taking drugs
loosing a job
I could go on for ever many many reasons a human can become mentally ill or deranged
 not all are born mentally ill
 life can trigger mental illness and make you become deranged
and it can happen to anybody
So then NO human should have a GUN because any person can turn mental  Wink Wink Wink Wink
So now what you got to say YOU ARE STUMPED  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Now you see why guns should be banned
plus how many you so called responsible gun owners have left there gun out and a 3 year old kid as blasted is little sister or brother
some have hid there guns but you know kids they root around the house when parents are not watching
the young child finds his dads gun looks down the barrel and blow there own heads off
and yes its happened  many times
NO GUNS NO ONE GETS SHOT
young kid gets bullied in school goes in dads draw gets his gun walks in school and shoots every 1
NO GUNS NO ONE GETS SHOT
man walks in house goes in the bed room and wife having sex with another man pulls his gun and shoots them both yes its happened many times and this guy might of been told by your wife she was single
NO GUNS NO ONE GETS SHOT
plus higher jail time if caught carrying a gun BAN THEM
I REST MY CASE Wink Wink Wink Wink
av a nice day all


 

I'd much rather take my chances with a few gun-toting mentally deranged people than prohibiting my ability to defend myself, or prohibiting the millions of other responsible, sane folk who also want to retain the ability to defend themselves.  There is almost no difference between a police officer -- a person, like any other -- having a gun, and the average Joe having a gun.  Cops keep crime rates down because they have the means of deterring criminals.  Similarly, crime rates are deterred when higher numbers of civilians have guns.  This is backed statistically when controlling for other variables.

By the way, you really should learn how to write properly.  I can't take you or your views seriously, and that's because I'm assuming your chaotic, unstructured post is a reflection of a chaotic, unstructured mind.
289  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 04:29:23 PM
I think the issue of gun control is so often mischaracterized because the issue of government control casts a veil of ignorance over almost everyone's eyes.  The extent to which guns can be controlled is predominantly influenced by how much control can be exercised by government at the Federal and state levels.  The larger governments get, the more tightly regulation generally controls all other facets of life, including things such as commerce, education, criminal justice, mental and medical health treatment, and even social relationships.  

On one hand, progressively granting government more control propels the myth that people would somehow be unable to work together harmoniously without such structure.  On the other hand, granting such control would make catastrophe all but certain if it were suddenly removed (i.e. we've gotten ourselves in too deep to easily pull ourselves out).  The situation is far more complex than people make it out to be, and you'll never reach a viable solution to the gun issue by simply looking at gun statistics, or even by relating those statistics to other things over which the government has been granted authoritarian control.
290  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 02:23:39 PM
Oh give me a break.  You just took a detour into total irrelevancy.  Tanks?  Really?
I'll give you the same number of breaks the national guard will give you if you ever challenge government authority when it comes to your "right" to use your guns: ZERO.

Relevancy-->
And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.

we shouldn't even bother resisting or protecting ourselves from anyone!
You should always seek to protect yourself and your home from killers. A gun in the home is 22 (twenty-two!) times more likely to be used in a suicide, homocide, or accident than for self-defense.



As I stated in the other thread, I see where this is going.  You're a black-and-white thinker, and little more than a parrot of buzz-word rhetoric.  I don't have the time to educate you about how to stay within the context of an argument instead of changing it willy-nilly whenever you have an idea, nor do I have time to explain to you the difference between things like correlation and causation, the definition of "mediating variable," "false dichotomy," or otherwise.  I'll retain my freedom to both carry a gun and think for myself, thanks.
291  Other / Politics & Society / Re: South Carolina church shooting: Nine die in Charleston 'hate crime' on: June 20, 2015, 02:17:36 PM
I'd be interested to know what you think about issue, in your own words, and without framing the issue in an infantile false dichotomy.
What, did you really think I linked material that opposes my own opinion on the matter? Not too fuckin' bright bro.

Why would I type something which has already been typed? This isn't the middle ages, we're not transcribing ancient texts for preservation here guys. This is the internet.

Still, I'll humor you as a show of good faith. Let's treat guns and cars the same!

-Gun licenses that prove competency
-Gun registration
-Mandatory gun insurance
-Education for misdemeanor offenses
-Suspension of gun license for multiple offenses
-Severe jail time for weapons used while under the influence of alcohol (or other drugs)




Ahh, I see where this is going.  I'm not responding to any more of your posts on this issue.
292  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 02:11:48 PM
And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.
Yeah, why don't you ask the Texas Waco cultists how well that attitude holds up when push comes to shove. OH WAIT, you can't because they burned to death.



All your guns aren't going to even put a scratch on one of these.

Oh give me a break.  You just took a detour into total irrelevancy.  Tanks?  Really?
293  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 01:55:11 PM
”Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” -- Ben Franklin
Actually, Franklin never said that.

If you, as a person, give up your freedoms (like the right to carry a gun)
You have no rights. You have privileges.

Fair enough.  I had actually thought it was Jefferson from memory, but to double check I just Googled the quote, and it popped up as Franklin.

Still, who said it, or if nobody said it, changes nothing.

And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.
294  Other / Politics & Society / Re: South Carolina church shooting: Nine die in Charleston 'hate crime' on: June 20, 2015, 01:53:29 PM
And what is stopping that same individual from just plowing that car into a bunch of people?




I've seen your posts in the gun control thread, too.  Nice to know you've thought this one out for yourself   Roll Eyes

I'd be interested to know what you think about issue, in your own words, and without framing the issue in an infantile false dichotomy.
295  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 01:43:43 PM
 ”Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” -- Ben Franklin

If you, as a person, give up your freedoms (like the right to carry a gun) and hand them over to someone else in exchange for protection, you are acknowledging a few things:

1) You acknowledge that someone(s) is more capable of protecting you than yourself.

2) You acknowledge that that you are content with being at the mercy of the decisions of those to whom you have conceded your freedoms.

3) You acknowledge that the extent to which you continue to have liberties is determined by those to whom you gave up your others.

 
So, here's the question of the day:  If you believe you are not best suited to handle the security of yourself, then how can you conclude that sacrificing liberties for security was the best idea to begin with?
296  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 12:57:02 PM

Well that's a neat little piece of information that tells you almost absolutely nothing.  If that's your basis for your opinion, you've chosen a context the size of a peep hole.

It seems like rather a straightforward statistic to me. In what way am I fudging it?

Because if you isolate that statistic, North Korea looks a heck of a lot better than the United States.  
297  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 12:41:31 AM
The UK is possibly the most restrictive country in the world with gun control, not sure. Per capita it has 0.25 gun deaths per 100,000 people. The US has 10.64 per 100,000. That's 40 times more gun deaths.

You can give me all the 'personal protection' 'criminals will get guns anyway' 'people will find other ways to kill themselves' shit you like. When American gun deaths are 40 times lower I'll be prepared to listen to that.

Well that's a neat little piece of information that tells you almost absolutely nothing.  If that's your basis for your opinion, you've chosen a context the size of a peep hole.
298  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: June 19, 2015, 06:01:08 PM
Paradoxes are fun, no doubt.  But, as Langan further notes:

Quote
Saying that a theory is “inconsistent” amounts to saying that it contains one or more irresolvable paradoxes.   Unfortunately, since any such paradox destroys the distinction between true and false with respect to the theory, the entire theory is crippled by the inclusion of a single one.  This makes consistency a primary necessity in the construction of theories, giving it priority over proof and prediction.

This is really the crux of it all.  Presenting a consistent model that provides a means of resolving said paradoxes automatically grants the model explanatory precedence.  Consequently, what thus determines a given, consistent model to be superior to another is generality.  By identifying a limit of theorization and evoking categorical relationships between the limit itself and reality, the result is a consistent model of reality at the epitome of generality, precluding the existence of a consistent model more general than itself.  In other words, it is the best we can ever do, and all that remains is to use such a model as a context within which to frame all sub-theories/models, resolving the paradoxes contained therein and providing us with objective insight which may give us clues as to how we can gain additional, practical utility from them (and perhaps even objectifying practical utility itself, giving us a concrete path to follow with regards to ethics and other considerations).

Let's not shoot the messenger... Plain English would be a superb example where it's possible to construct nonsensical statements, but that doesn't render the entire language useless and we continue to use it. Returning to your "absolute truth" argument,

Consider the following statement:  "Absolute truth exists."  Any attempt to falsify this statement actually reinforces it....

I later pointed out that in some cases it could result in the Liar Paradox, for which you quoted Langan about metalanguages:

Quote
But what if we now introduce a distinction between levels of proof?  For example, what if we define a metalanguage as a language used to talk about, analyze or prove things regarding statements in a lower-level object language, and call the base level of Gödel’s formula the "object" level and the higher (proof) level the "metalanguage" level?  Now we have one of two things: a statement that can be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, and thus recognized as a theorem conveying valuable information about the limitations of the object language, or a statement that cannot be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, which, though uninformative, is at least no paradox.  Voilà: self-reference without paradox!  It turns out that "this formula is unprovable" can be translated into a generic example of an undecidable mathematical truth.  Because the associated reasoning involves a metalanguage of mathematics, it is called “metamathematical”.


Except, rereading, it seems to make more sense to think of metalanguage in computing terms. We can think of a statement as a series of instructions for running a program. Rather than a noun, the metalanguage would be an action: a reasoning process by which we somehow evaluate statements. Except that that still doesn't explain what we do when we run them. Or how we somehow seem able to overcome the limitations of computers.

1) I really don't understand the "let's not shoot the messenger comment."  I'm guessing it's non-essential, though I don't know who I shot lol.

2)  I agree that we can make sensical and non-sensical statements with plain English, and that the non-sensical statements do not render English inoperable or useless.  The syntax and rules of operation for English determine what is sensical and what isn't.  Statements are relayed back to the syntax and processed according thereto to determine if it is meaningful in a way consistent with it.  Thus, at the syntactic level there is indeed a "reasoning" process by which statements are evaluated, but the syntax itself is structural, i.e. it imposes constraints upon what can be considered meaningful.

3)  Yes, I recall your mention of the Liar's paradox.

4)  If you run software with code that does not conform to the syntax of its programming language, it will be evaluated as an invalid input. If valid, how those statements are expressed is a product of both their relation to their governing syntax, and also in relation to other object-level statements governed by the same syntax that may affect them (e.g. if-then or "conditional" statements).  I'm not sure if I fully responded to what you were saying, here.  I'm at lunch on an iPhone.

Edit: Linking this to subjectivity and objectivity, consider a governing syntax of Reality in total as it relates to its internal components.  As we perceive real content and subsequently process and model that content, we can either model that content in a way that is consistent with the syntax of Reality in total, or in a way that is inconsistent.  Because the structural syntax of Reality in total necessarily distributes to all of its content, if our model is consistent, then it is objectively valid, else we have an inconsistent, invalid model that provides us with no objective value.  In this way, we can consider this process in terms of a fundamental utility function, where utility is defined upon consistency and congruency with Universal syntax.  

Now, as you previously pointed out to some extent, real content isn't static, and this is because it is expressed through conditional changes according to the unconditional syntax of Reality.  This implies that Reality's syntax embodies rules for self-configuration via relational feedback between syntax and content, essentially a mechanism of self-evolution.  It is no different for us in an isomorphic sense.  We, too, embody this same mechanism for self-configuration, and this self-configuration can be defined in terms of the utility it generates.  If we self-configure in a way that is consistent with our own structural syntax, then bueno.  Else, no bueno.  I think this can serve as an objective basis for concepts like "good" and "bad," lending itself as a means of objective ethical mapping.

Edit 2: This may be getting a little bit ahead of ourselves, but consider for the sake of argument that what I have said so far in this post is true.  Relating to the computer analogy in which code that does not conform to the syntax of its program language would be considered invalid and thus incapable of being expressed, what would happen then if we do not conform to the syntax of Reality?  Might we, too, be deemed "invalid" and incapable of being expressed?  If so, might this be the basis of seemingly-religious concepts such as Heaven (i.e. something akin to "living with God forever, or in congruence with him), and Hell (i.e. being incongruent with God, and potentially facing interdiction from the system)?
299  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: There was just a block with 0 transactions, is Bitcoin forking or something? on: June 18, 2015, 10:49:28 PM
This has been going on for awhile now. Like a 3-4 weeks maybe.
Those miners are not adding transactions to get the block faster.
Kind of cheap, but I think someone started it, and now other follow randomly.

Edit: To clarify, I have not noticed those 0 transactions blocks till recently, so it is possible this has existed since the beginning of mining.

someone may be attacking the network by finding blocks but not publishing them immediately. then when they have found 3 blocks in a row they would publish them all at once to reverse the transactions of last 2 published blocks since the attacker has a longer block chain.
It would be incredibly difficult because what you just described is called a 51% attack. No one has >51% of the hashing power

You don't need >50% to be lucky for a few blocks.  It would just be statistically impossible to continue outpacing the other chain indefinitely with <50%.
300  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: June 17, 2015, 12:55:31 PM
Weather forecasting. Forecasters would have a theory about how the weather ought to work, which they implement as a simulation running on some computers. However, the actual weather does not care what someone else thinks about it. What it actually does, would be the practice.  This reminds me of the quote "in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is."

Theory would be the subjective reality, and practice would be objective reality. However, since we're "stuck in our minds", maybe we just have to keep adjusting our theory in a learning process?


Quoting from the same source as previous post:

Quote
To demonstrate the existence of undecidability, Gödel used a simple trick called self-reference.  Consider the statement “this sentence is false.”  It is easy to dress this statement up as a logical formula.  Aside from being true or false, what else could such a formula say about itself?  Could it pronounce itself, say, unprovable?  Let’s try it: "This formula is unprovable".  If the given formula is in fact unprovable, then it is true and therefore a theorem.  Unfortunately, the axiomatic method cannot recognize it as such without a proof.  On the other hand, suppose it is provable.  Then it is self-apparently false (because its provability belies what it says of itself) and yet true (because provable without respect to content)!  It seems that we still have the makings of a paradox…a statement that is "unprovably provable" and therefore absurd.  

But what if we now introduce a distinction between levels of proof?  For example, what if we define a metalanguage as a language used to talk about, analyze or prove things regarding statements in a lower-level object language, and call the base level of Gödel’s formula the "object" level and the higher (proof) level the "metalanguage" level?  Now we have one of two things: a statement that can be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, and thus recognized as a theorem conveying valuable information about the limitations of the object language, or a statement that cannot be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, which, though uninformative, is at least no paradox.  Voilà: self-reference without paradox!  It turns out that "this formula is unprovable" can be translated into a generic example of an undecidable mathematical truth.  Because the associated reasoning involves a metalanguage of mathematics, it is called “metamathematical”.

Edit:  I'm a big fan of Langan's work, as you can see my beliefs closely reflect his -- and I've spent literally hundreds of hours dissecting it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. For the most part I actually agree with you, except for your confidence in earlier posts that you've got it all figured out. I suspect Gödel spent a lot of time breaking his way out of "linguistic Mamushka dolls", and what he tried to show was that the limitation could apply to any language.
Btw, I'm not sure what some people have against paradoxes - I think they're great! And I think the whole point of using a paradox was because of its ridiculousness, not in spite of it. It's just a symbol to represent any statement that's "true but unprovable" within its system of thought.

Paradoxes are fun, no doubt.  But, as Langan further notes:

Quote
Saying that a theory is “inconsistent” amounts to saying that it contains one or more irresolvable paradoxes.   Unfortunately, since any such paradox destroys the distinction between true and false with respect to the theory, the entire theory is crippled by the inclusion of a single one.  This makes consistency a primary necessity in the construction of theories, giving it priority over proof and prediction.

This is really the crux of it all.  Presenting a consistent model that provides a means of resolving said paradoxes automatically grants the model explanatory precedence.  Consequently, what thus determines a given, consistent model to be superior to another is generality.  By identifying a limit of theorization and evoking categorical relationships between the limit itself and reality, the result is a consistent model of reality at the epitome of generality, precluding the existence of a consistent model more general than itself.  In other words, it is the best we can ever do, and all that remains is to use such a model as a context within which to frame all sub-theories/models, resolving the paradoxes contained therein and providing us with objective insight which may give us clues as to how we can gain additional, practical utility from them (and perhaps even objectifying practical utility itself, giving us a concrete path to follow with regards to ethics and other considerations).

Quote
Another paradox would be our ability to define metalanguages -- creating higher levels of thought -- to isolate and explain things when we hit some limit at a lower level. If we were previously operating within the confines of a lower-level object language, who could have predicted that we were about to break out of that intellectual prison and create something different? If we can do that, then inductive reasoning suggests there's no known upper limit to the meta-metalanguages we might create. And we don't even know whether there's infinite regression because it's an open-ended proposition. We simply don't know if there will be more higher-level paradoxes as side-effects or not. But if we call it infinite regression and say we're operating at the highest possible level, the continued existence of paradoxes makes our system internally inconsistent.

The "higher-level paradoxes as side-effects" would again be precluded by the reintroduction of yet another metalanguage to resolve paradoxes in an object-oriented metalanguage.  Isomorphic regression is not the same as infinite regression in the traditional sense because falsifying isomorphic regression would require introducing a metalanguage to attempt to falsify it, making it impossible to falsify it without actually adhering to it.  Thus, the falsification attempt renders itself inconsistent and therefore invalid.

Edit:  A way to visualize how isomorphic regression does not equate to infinite regression is to consider a 'prime' metalanguage as an algebraic construct which serves as a primordial archetype which distributes its structure isomorphically to all linguistic subsystems.  This means the archetype is a static, unchanging structure distributed among both reality in total and in part, objectively relating the latter to the former.

Quote
Therefore, in response to metalanguages, Gödel's "incompleteness or inconsistency" dilemma could be a kind of "meta paradox" that persists in defiance of any attempt to contain it. Back to reality, it seems intuitively obvious that reality is incomplete (or inconsistent?) because it just keeps changing. It's not a static system.

On a lower level, it isn't static, but at the highest level it would be totally static and unchanging...complete and self-consistent with respect to its non-static constituents.  A presumption of the kind you're making would suggest there would be something external to reality itself that would be capable of determining it incomplete and/or inconsistent (claiming its either or both is itself an objective determination, and this would reintroduce the problematic infinite regression).
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 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 ... 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!