You can avoid the fees if you use electrum where you can set it to zero. But you must fulfilled certain conditions like age and size of the transaction. If you are sending large tx who cares of the fees which adds up few cents. So it all depends on how you look at it.
Electrum forces you to specify a transaction fee if the priority of the coins is not high enough. I guess there are other clients where you can try your luck with zero transaction fee, and hope for it to get confirmed. The very simply solution would be to not use electrum. You can generally easily create, sign an push your own custom TX (as long as you have access to the private keys in question) and you can do all of the above while not including a TX fee with your custom transaction |
|
|
|
Hey I just signed up again for the year. I switched to another plan this year and found better coverage for about $15 more than what I had last year. The website still has some issues. A few links I clicked on were dead or linked back to the same page. But it basically worked.
I believe you, but anecdotal evidence is not statistics. By contrast with your experience, my insurance rates have doubled, to over $22,000 per year for the family. Never a signficant health issue, by the way. I would say that your experience is more the norm then the exception. How the ACA aka obama care is structured will force insurers to raise insurance premiums for people who have a low amount of risk in order to subsidize others who have much higher amounts of risk |
|
|
|
You are still entering into a binding contract.
The contract has nothing to do with you being guilty though. All the contact says is that you will appear in court to face the accusation that you committed a crime. The court system is the only institution that is able to make the conclusion that you committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt Regardless of your guilt or innocence it entangles you into a contractual agreement that you do not willfully wish to enter into. If you do not you will usually be arrested in most jurisdictions. Any contract where you are forced to sign under duress is not valid, but in this case it has the full weight of contract law behind it in addition to any criminal penalties. A ticket is merely a summons to appear in court, and your signature is merely your acknowledgment of receipt of the summons. In the event that you refuse to sign the ticket, you are correct that you would likely be arrested, however when you are brought before a magistrate you would likely be released on your own recognize after the magistrate can document that you have been served the summons to later appear in court to face the charge. When you are summoned to appear in court you do not have a choice as to if you wish to appear or not, it is an order to appear. You are describing to me what happens according to policy during a ticket. It is a fact signing a ticket is a BINDING CONTRACT with a corporation, regardless of how many thousands of other ways you can also describe it. What exactly are you claiming that the contract is binding you do? From what I can tell a ticket is a summons for you to appear in court and your signature is your acknowledgment of you being served such summons. Can you give a different explanation as to what your signature means on a ticket? -snip- The Police Officer is instructed to explain that your signature is merely an acknowledgment that you received a copy of the CITATION but in actuality, your signature is notification to the Court and Judge that you have accepted or CONSENTED to this offer to CONTRACT, which also grants the Judge CONSENT; PERSONAM and SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over you and the case! -snip So you are claiming that by signing a ticket you are acknowledging that the subject court has jurisdiction over the subject case? If this is the case then what is the downside to consenting to this? You should have the same rights if your case is heard in the 1st district or the 2nd district (for example), and in the event the court makes an incorrect ruling then you can appeal to a higher court which can correct any incorrect ruling. The down side of this is you are not required to, and any contract that is forced and signed under duress is not legally enforceable. By signing the ticket you submit to jurisdiction as well as all of the terms written on the ticket. You are entering into a binding agreement regardless of what you think your rights are. Okay, so the ticket is not legally enforceable. I don't think the police make mistakes regarding jurisdiction very often, and when they do, any mistake the court makes can be reversed via the appeals process. However I would say in the vast majority of cases, even if you did not provide consent to the court having jurisdiction, the court would find that they do have jurisdiction based on the facts of the case. Also per your own argument, any contract entered into in duress is not enforceable, therefore any disadvantage you receive from consenting to jurisdiction could be reversed in the event that the court in fact does not have jurisdiction. |
|
|
|
You are still entering into a binding contract.
The contract has nothing to do with you being guilty though. All the contact says is that you will appear in court to face the accusation that you committed a crime. The court system is the only institution that is able to make the conclusion that you committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt Regardless of your guilt or innocence it entangles you into a contractual agreement that you do not willfully wish to enter into. If you do not you will usually be arrested in most jurisdictions. Any contract where you are forced to sign under duress is not valid, but in this case it has the full weight of contract law behind it in addition to any criminal penalties. A ticket is merely a summons to appear in court, and your signature is merely your acknowledgment of receipt of the summons. In the event that you refuse to sign the ticket, you are correct that you would likely be arrested, however when you are brought before a magistrate you would likely be released on your own recognize after the magistrate can document that you have been served the summons to later appear in court to face the charge. When you are summoned to appear in court you do not have a choice as to if you wish to appear or not, it is an order to appear. You are describing to me what happens according to policy during a ticket. It is a fact signing a ticket is a BINDING CONTRACT with a corporation, regardless of how many thousands of other ways you can also describe it. What exactly are you claiming that the contract is binding you do? From what I can tell a ticket is a summons for you to appear in court and your signature is your acknowledgment of you being served such summons. Can you give a different explanation as to what your signature means on a ticket? -snip- The Police Officer is instructed to explain that your signature is merely an acknowledgment that you received a copy of the CITATION but in actuality, your signature is notification to the Court and Judge that you have accepted or CONSENTED to this offer to CONTRACT, which also grants the Judge CONSENT; PERSONAM and SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over you and the case! -snip So you are claiming that by signing a ticket you are acknowledging that the subject court has jurisdiction over the subject case? If this is the case then what is the downside to consenting to this? You should have the same rights if your case is heard in the 1st district or the 2nd district (for example), and in the event the court makes an incorrect ruling then you can appeal to a higher court which can correct any incorrect ruling. |
|
|
|
I don't even think a 50/50 split agreement would persuade the thief to return the money, after all, he is a thief and planned this theft. I know there was a link in one of the posts of this thread to a case where the thief did return 50% of the coins, I wonder what the circumstances were in that case, what coerced him to return half the coins. To the hacker:
I do have your login IP address and .edu email domain from a European country with Google.
I will be investigating this to the fullest extent allowable by law. Please contact me if you don't want this.
Best of luck. But your chances look really slim. Maybe try to negotiate with him and give him 10% or something to have any shot at getting it back. 10% haha try 50/50 split and it might get returned There is likely no split that would potentially compel a thief to return the OP's stolen bitcoin (assuming he is telling the truth), unless he left behind some evidence of his identity. If there was some level of evidence then it would potentially be possible the thief would return some percentage of the stolen money depending on what laws were potentially broken and how likely the evidence would potentially lead to the hacker's actual identity, in exchange for the OP agreeing not to contact law enforcement and agree to not press charges (and to not testify in the event that law enforcement does get involved) |
|
|
|
|
I would say a better solution would be to delete your wallet app when you cross the boarder. You could easily store your private keys in an encrypted file in the cloud and then retrieve your keys once you have crossed the boarder (it would probably be wise to also transfer your coins to a newly created address at this point).
I also know that if you use a blockchain.info wallet, you can archive your private key so your balance does not appear when you archive an address (although the balance is viewable to someone who knows where to look).
I personally do not think that carrying a private key to an address that contains a lot of bitcoin would be considered to be you carrying a lot of "currency". I also don't think that boarder agents are able to compel you to give up the password and/or unlock your laptop or phone for them to inspect.
|
|
|
|
It's like he just jumped right in the boat without even bothering to put up a fight. Too bad his response offered up absolutely nothing of value. I really do wish someone who's been mining on BAN would come and share their experience and payouts so we can see just how they actually do. Good luck on that wish. Based on their thread(s), it's nothing but people who can't spell, perform basic arithmetic, or understand that -10% fee PPS is going to end in a lot of people getting fucked over if they're not already. eleuthria its hard to get "fucked over" when you can get paid hourly. I have enough bonus payments and then some (a S3 miner free) that I could not get paid for a month and still not get screwed. I have been screwed over worst back when I mined at Slushes pool ( and no pool operatorer to be found when needed) and got screwed on a couple of payouts and that is why I moved to BTC Guild when I did. edit: I just moved my miners off BAN as the payments and website are both down but will move them back once I know everything is ok. The miners who started mining early on will likely end up with a positive EV from mining on BAN as their early extra payments would make up for the lower/no payments that will eventually happen when they can no longer afford to continue paying 110% pps. It is the miners who start mining on BAN later on that will end up getting screwed as they will have a higher percentage of their total EV mining reward withheald when they eventually collapse and stop paying mining proceeds. The only way a pool can payout 110% pps is if they are able to have an average luck of over 110% |
|
|
|
I think it is absolutely ridiculous that the government has not done more to prevent the kind of looting and arson that is taking place in Ferguson, to the point that would almost deserve the resignation of the governor
Remember when George Bush was called out on national tv for "not caring about black people" because the national guard was late to the party? Nevermind that in reality he urged governor blanco in advance to please grant him the right to send the guard in before the storm hit and she flat out told him no, either way the liberal media assassinated him for it. Now we have the national guard awol on the night everyone KNEW there would be riots. So why isn't the same accusations and criticism being hurled at Obama? I don't think Obama has been called out about this yet. I would be surprised if he does get called out. The difference is though I suspect Barack told Missouri's governor to stand down instead of pleading to send them in, after all a few good "great tv shots" sure did serve as a distraction from his immigration policies...
It has been speculated in the MSM that Obama did tell the governor to stand down and I would agree with this theory. I don't agree with the reason however, I think it is more likely that he wants to worsen racial tensions so more blacks will go out and vote for democrats in 2016 and to put more pressure to loosen voter id laws |
|
|
|
Yet another case where the general public reacts based on passion rather than fact. And of course, the mainstream media, as usual, is doing its best to cover up as many facts as possible in an effort to spin it in the way they want it to be spun. The left wing part of the media has a history of spinning stories and evidence to support their left wing agenda (NBC for example edited the 911 call of the guy who killed Trevon Martin). There are several facts that were released right after the incident that are conveniently being left out now that it has gathered more attention. The first is that the 911 caller stated that someone who appeared to be in his 20s was holding a gun and pointing it at people and basically scaring the shit out of everyone. Now, he did say to the 911 operator that he thought the gun MIGHT be fake, but he wasn't sure. The 911 operator did not relay this information to the responding officers. I don't think this would have made a difference. Even if the officers were told the gun might be fake, they would not have assumed that it was fake from the start, they would only act as if the gun was fake once they can tell for sure that it was in fact fake. Looking at the video I can see two things that would definitely put me on edge if I were a cop. One, the kid definitely did NOT look 12. Second, as the cop car is pulling up, the kid starts walking toward the car and lifts up the front of his shirt to show/grab the gun. Now, I am no police officer, but I have had tactical training in the military. It is a fact that in situations like this, cops/military have to make split second decisions based on what limited facts they may have and from an immediate survey of the scene/situation. And having someone walking toward the car like that will always be treated as a threatening gesture. The kid was only escalating the situation by doing this. I would like to know who taught him to act like that. People are saying the cop was too hasty in his shooting of the "suspect", but I am sure in his mind he was only thinking of protecting himself and his partner from what at the time seemed like a life-threatening situation. Cops are shot and killed by armed suspects all of the time. It's funny how there's never a public outcry when that happens. Newsflash! Not all cops are hate-filled bigots whose only purpose in life is to kill as many innocent people as they can.
agreed |
|
|
|
Why don't you take part in the ongoing contests? There are at least 2 available now.
Because people who know nothing about signatures are easily swayed into thinking a shitty signature is a good one. roslin's are a good example of that. Know nothing about signatures? What the hell does that mean? If anyone here believes their signatures are good when they're infact shitty it's you. Pretty much all of your signatures are very basic and just throw as many colours into the mix and look a complete eyesore. You quite clearly cannot handle not winning these design contests. I've won 3+ contests, I'm not mad when I lose. I just, can't stand new users falling for the bullshit those users send through PM. You calling mine shitty? Let's see what you can do sir. Mine are about simplicity and modernism, which is what looks the best imo. Lol. You're not the Van Gogh of signature campaigns. It's funny how you claim winning signature contests means your designs are good but when others win instead of you it's a different story. I remember you complaining about how "crappy" you thought the winning Silver Wallets sig design was when it was actually a really tastefully done signature that matched their product, and yours was just another trashy multicoloured eyesore. Learn to take criticism or stop crying and slagging everybody else's designs off when you don't win. This is classic sore loser behaviour and coupled with the fact that you think your designs and designing skills are amongst the best indicates you really do seem to have quite a deluded and arrogant opinion about yourself. It appears that he does not take the product/service that is being advertised into consideration. There are times when a colorful signature design wold be appropriate and others when it would not. All the submissions of candy that I have seen all are colorful. If you are so arrogant that anyone who criticizes you in any way is "spam" then you have a lot to learn about this forum. If you want to do any kind of business on here, then you will need to deal with criticism.
Your designs are not unique, nor do they have any real level of quality. You seem to make use of only one feature (various colors) of potential signature features.
Unfortunately this is the type of childish atttitde Candystripes has and it's why anybody with any sense doesn't trust him around here, but of course he can't see this. I think he is conducting a lot of trade just to build up trade feedback (he is trading just for the sake of trading). I have also seen allegations of him providing and receiving feedback without actual trades taking place. IMO both of these are more of a reason why people do not trust him (although his immaturity is certainly on the list) |
|
|
|
Absolute tosh. Everyone knows the only way to commit terrorism or murder is with a gun, and FFLs accept EBT cards.  They were probably planning on selling the EBT card for cash (or the funds on the EBT card). This is quite common as people want the government to pay for their drug addictions but there are no government programs that pay illegal drug dealers directly. |
|
|
|
It's interesting to say the least
The fact that there were 9 white members of the jury and 3 black members
With 9 needed to reach the majority does say something
If they wanted a gender neutral trial should have went with 2 to 3 asians 2 to 3 blacks 2 to 3 hispanics 2 to 3 whites and two to three africans
That way no one would be able to say there was a jury bias based on race or gender.
The grand jury members are picked at random. Over time grand juries will have a similar racial and gender markup of the overall community. Grand Juries do not have any kind of affirmative action or qoutas to have each race represented. The officer was also not accused of committing any kind of hate crime so race should really not be an issue. I don't know enough about the evidence to state one way or the other, but burning down your own neighborhood is not the way to send a message. Hopefully things calm down quickly now that the legal process is concluded.
+1. |
|
|
|
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/07/25/st-louis-county-police-officer-charged/This is also troubling. The same prosecutor had no problem filing charges against a black cop who struck a metro rider on the hand with his baton during an argument earlier this year. I wouldn't draw a conclusion from this alone, but with everything else, this is worth taking into consideration. The contrast is stark: prosecutor fails to win a slam dunk indictment against white cop for shorting black teen 7 times, files criminal charges against black cop for hitting someone on the hand with a baton. It doesn't seem right to me in the context of the other legitimate questions raised. You forgot to mention the time between each time that Brown was shot. You also forgot to mention that up until Brown was shot for the 7th time that he was still actively moving and attempting to attack a police officer. |
|
|
|
|
I think this just shows how productive members of society the people who are protesting/rioting because of the grand jury's decision not to indict the Officer Wilson.
Even if these men had been successful the rioters have already caused much more damage to local businesses. For example the cigar shop that Brown had robbed prior to assaulting Wilson was burned to the ground.
|
|
|
|
Back when this bill was rammed through there was major tensions going on at Congressional town halls across the country so it's not like the voters didn't know what was up. Sure, there were the idiot drones that bought some of the BS PR that was being sold but the average voter had their say in the immediate election afterwards and voted republican in droves. It's more like during this pitch scam, the media kept repeating the BS and the democratic Congresspersons were playing partisan politics rather than getting to the bottom of what this health care bill would do and who it was written to benefit.
The ACA (aka obamacare) was really never popular with the public. House republicans even tried (unsuccessfully) to force members to cast their vote one at a time on camera. It was speculated that republican opponents would use this footage during the next election cycle to attack members who voted for the aca; this was not done because democrats knew how unpopular the bill was with their constituents. |
|
|
|
Why don't you take part in the ongoing contests? There are at least 2 available now.
Because people who know nothing about signatures are easily swayed into thinking a shitty signature is a good one. roslin's are a good example of that. Know nothing about signatures? What the hell does that mean? If anyone here believes their signatures are good when they're infact shitty it's you. Pretty much all of your signatures are very basic and just throw as many colours into the mix and look a complete eyesore. You quite clearly cannot handle not winning these design contests. I've won 3+ contests, I'm not mad when I lose. I just, can't stand new users falling for the bullshit those users send through PM. You calling mine shitty? Let's see what you can do sir. Mine are about simplicity and modernism, which is what looks the best imo. I have to agree with hilariousandco on this one. Your signature designs are very basic, and really use nothing more then a lot of colors. I personally do not think they are very unique. Although I have no interest in trying to make a better signature, I do think yours are of low quality. You also have negative trust, so I doubt anyone will trust you enough to buy your template. Thank you for your opinion, but nobody really cares about it  . Not trying to be cocky but there aren't alot of people that have better signature designing skills than me. If you reply to this message it will be considered spam and will be reported. If it is off-topic, but important, please PM me. If you are so arrogant that anyone who criticizes you in any way is "spam" then you have a lot to learn about this forum. If you want to do any kind of business on here, then you will need to deal with criticism. Your designs are not unique, nor do they have any real level of quality. You seem to make use of only one feature (various colors) of potential signature features. |
|
|
|
Ohio is actually an open carry state so this case will be interesting. Did the cop know Ohio was open carry or was he just massively incompetent? In an open carry state I'd imagine they first try and give the suspect a chance to surrender or put down their weapon. This 12 year old kid didn't stand a chance. He was just shot in the head right then and there.
Warning: video is pretty brutal to watch
The "toy gun" wasn't the pink plastic water pistol you imply. It shot BBs and was modified to look real. "Open carry" doesn't mean you can point a realistic gun at people, especially cops, and expect anything less than a promptly delivered Darwin Award. The parents are at fault for doing a terrible job of supervising their son. Now the poor cop has to live with the awful consequences of their failure to raise a properly monitored and disciplined child. It is my understanding that the pink/red cap on guns were suppose to show that a toy gun is in fact a toy. The very reason these caps were placed on toy guns (and BB guns) by the manufacturers is to tell the police not to shoot when they are pointed at them because they know they cannot do any real damage/harm. If the gun was modified to not have this red cap then the police officer should assume that it was a real gun |
|
|
|
Normally, the govt would try to step in and use public funds to help those out that have had the misfortune of a natural disaster or some instance like this. It's nice to see the charity come out of the hearts of those that have been witnessing the ghetto actions of some miscreants that are harming the lives of their own people. Voluntary actions of charity do exist in the absence of govt interventions and it makes for a better overall population instead of people sitting back and letting the state take care of things in their stead.
I would think that most businesses would have some kind of insurance to protect themselves from arson and looting (although it is possible that some insurance contracts have clauses that prevent them from being paid in the event of looting). I think it is absolutely ridiculous that the government has not done more to prevent the kind of looting and arson that is taking place in Ferguson, to the point that would almost deserve the resignation of the governor |
|
|
|
You are protecting other people by buying health insurance. Hospitals are required to provide emergency care regardless of insurance status. You're protecting others from footing your medical costs. Even if you don't have medical coverage outright, you're still de-facto covered under some circumstances. The mandate fixes this loophole.
This is not true. The hospital is only required to stabilize you, not provide free care to you. If you are already stable then they may not accept you as a patient if you cannot pay. They also generally charge higher rates to the uninsured so if you can pay then you are paying for those who cannot. |
|
|
|
...when they have thousands of dollars of ink tatted all over their bodies and up their arms.
This is what people mean by the "entitled" culture. People think a paycheck is meant to blow on fun stuff while the government picks up the tab for your basic necessities like food, housing, healthcare or child care.
I agree 100%. Much of the "poor" population does not understand the reason why people need to work for a living and are used to relying on government assistance for their basic necessities. This is why they were able to "protest" (aka riot) all night when the grand jury decision was announced as they did not have to work as they were willing to give up a little money they could blow (or more likely were not working in the first place) on stuff they never needed in the first place nor could they afford if they were actually supporting themselves |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
