@OP. You must live in a state that didn't accept the Medicaid expansion. Otherwise, if you make 99% of the poverty line, you would get Medicaid. But hey, State's rights and all.  All I can recommend is move to Colorful Colorado. You should be able to get Medicaid as soon as you establish residency. Unfortunately, housing costs are a little high in the Denver metro. Maybe live in one of the rural areas on the plains. |
|
|
|
Why do people fear hydrogen so much? It's literally safer than gasoline. It may seem that several myths were spread throughout the public (probably by big-oil).
Perhaps the dangers are a bit overinflated. But we do have a rather dramatic example of how hydrogen could be dangerous.  |
|
|
|
|
Protip OP. If you must have multiple alt accounts to claim bounties, you probably shouldn't use the same address. 0xfFeE0F576bde5120C36485E672763f27d6cc64f8 I found one alt so far, but I am sure there are many more. Just a note: The permaban is on you as a person. All of your alts also should not post or are subject to being banned for ban evasion.
Furthermore, if your sister, wife, mother, uncle, friend, lover, bro etcetera are sharing the same eth address to claim bounties, they will also be banned and we probably won't believe them when they claim they are separate people.
|
|
|
|
SNL hasn't been funny since Eddie Murphy left. This is the first time I've even heard of Pete Davidson. Just another nobody trying to make a name for himself... As they say in Hollyweird; no publicity is bad publicity.
No publicity? You must be out of touch. The guy had a brief affair with Ariana Grande. I'm sure Clinton would have loved to have a Freaky Friday moment with Pete.   |
|
|
|
Looks like a lot of bullshit, and also misleading to equate "power" to miners and mining. We already learned from the UASF that power in bitcoin (likely also to be true in bcash) is more distributed than just miners being able to dictate outcome, and the most powerful players, overall are the users.. so they can play their little games and try to suggest that miners are all powerful, when they do not have as much power as the misleaders like to propagandize to be the case.
All the UASF did was give the miners motivation to do what the users wanted. If most of the miners decided to ignore it, the UASF would not have gone anywhere. A chain on the Bitcoin Blockchain cannot advance without at least a few miners cooperating. It also testifies to the fact that although some people complain that BTC mining is overly centralized, none of the miners were willing to risk that they would end up being a lone wolf and have their blocks orphaned. It is clear the miners are still in a healthy competition rather than colluding with one another. |
|
|
|
I don't know man, the ''government profits from this'' argument just doesn't do it for me. Every single conspiracy theorists uses that, vaccines, flat earth, bombs, terrorists, etc etc.
The government could be making money from a lot of different things, legalizing weed for instance, I'm sure they would make money with it, don't you think? Yet they don't do it. The government is people, they are not fucking Satan. They also make money with all the fines/tickets for driving, drinking, etc etc but are they not doing it for our benefit?
Colorado is definitely cashing in on pot revenues.  Also the government is "Satan." Every time that I have to go visit the DMV, I am reminded of this. Thank goodness that I can deal with most government business over the mail or internet these days. |
|
|
|
Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more.
I'm sure it's not helping, obviously, but what's the real impact of it? Like are we contributing 0,001% to it or are we the 50%? As I said I don't really know much about it, I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it? Well, I think the thrust in thinking of many conservative people is it is just another way for the government to increase their revenues through taxes and penalties. Then that money is wasted in the inefficient bureaucracy of the federal government. Furthermore, when deciding what to do with the extra revenue, we can expect lots of pork to crop up. |
|
|
|
So, for the sake of argument, even assuming humans are causing it... what are the costs of reducing C02 output? People like to pretend "oh we might as well be safe rather than sorry! Why not? We have nothing to lose!"
Actually we have plenty to lose. Direct loss of life and reduction in quality of life for millions. Economic collapse is potentially another outcome. All for the "Well maybe we MIGHT slow down global warming." This is the main sticking point here. Implementing Co2 reduction as planned will have EXTREME COSTS.
In this context it is very appropriate to demand solid evidence, none of which has yet produced any reliable data suggesting humans are responsible. As you noted the sun cycles are also a factor, and in my opinion THE primary factor, not human contribution to C02 output.
Fossil fuel are not in unlimited supply here on Earth. Eventually, the cost to mine it will become more to more. Market forces are eventually going to force us to find more efficient and alternate forms of energy. We might as well start now rather than later. We already have hydroelectric plants for electricity and Hybrid cars are already becoming cheaper. If you prefer, not expending these "extreme costs" now will just translate to the costs having to be expended in the future. I really doubt that we are going to see an unbearable reduction in the quality of life for millions. From where I live, almost everyone is driving around in a huge SUV or monster truck. Is driving a compact car and/or hybrid car instead really that much of a tragic loss of the quality of life? Edit: TLDR? to be a bit trite, "A stitch, in time, saves nine." |
|
|
|
Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.
Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more. |
|
|
|
Luckily, we have a fairly robust justice system, so even when assholes refuse to step down, they'll still be held accountable.
Unfortunately, those assholes are the ones who can nominate and approve federal court judges for the foreseeable future. Hopefully, they won't invoke much more damage on our "robust justice system" before all is said in done. Fortunately, in Avenatti's case, it will be done through the local courts. So the federal courts likely will not get involved. |
|
|
|
I mean, following your logic, half the GOP and Trump needs to resign instantly if you want to set your own (retarded) standard. Luckily, we already have a legal justice system for the standard here in America Yes, that would make me really happy if Trump and half the GOP resigned. Al Franken did the right thing.  PS: You do know the term "retarded" is not approved by the PC police. |
|
|
|
Whatever happened to #metoo? Aren't women supposed to be believed? Or does that only apply to conservative supreme court justices? Al Franken resigned on very minor allegations when compared to this. Or does #metoo only apply to sexual abuse and knocking a woman around needs to go through the whole due process bit?
This false equivalency argument is getting annoying as shit. READ MY FUCKING POSTS BEFORE RESPONDING WITH YOUR BULLSHIT. I'm saying THIS SUBJECT DOES NEED INVESTIGATION. How more clear can that fucking be? Are you just willfully ignoring what I'm saying to propagate your own reality? What kind of "investigation" was conducted on Al Franken before he resigned? If we are going to set standards, then so be it. But we must not make them double standards. Avenatti needs to go on a leave from his lawyer duties until this matter is resolved. He should have quite a bit of money saved up from the boatload of cash he has made. If not, he can write a book. I'm sure he can make quite a bit that way.
It makes sense, they are probably just mad because liberals often use the ''guilty until proven innocent'' argument.
I happen to be a registered Democrat, who usually votes the party line. Don't put me in a box of "they." |
|
|
|
Avenatti respects the legal system unlike others.
Why are you defending this person?  Just because this lawyer represented someone who could bring up a sexual scandal against Trump? (and later Kavanaugh?) Quite frankly, I don't care what the president does sexually, if it is between two consenting parties. I guess the hush money is of some concern, but Stormy broke the agreement so she could obviously cash in for more. I really don't care for this guy. If he runs for president, I won't vote for him. I'll vote for a libertarian candidate before checking a box by this fool's name.  At least the libertarians have it about half right. I'm not defending this individual. I'm saying that this individual is calling for an investigation into the matter. I'm supporting said investigation as it's part of the normal legal system. I don't understand individuals are having issues understanding that. Whatever happened to #metoo? Aren't women supposed to be believed? Or does that only apply to conservative supreme court justices? Al Franken resigned on very minor allegations when compared to this. Or does #metoo only apply to sexual abuse and knocking a woman around needs to go through the whole due process bit? |
|
|
|
Avenatti respects the legal system unlike others.
Why are you defending this person? Just because this lawyer represented someone who could bring up a sexual scandal against Trump? (and later Kavanaugh?) Quite frankly, I don't care what the president does sexually, if it is between two consenting parties. I guess the hush money is of some concern, but Stormy broke the agreement so she could obviously cash in for more. I really don't care for this guy. If he runs for president, I won't vote for him. I'll vote for a libertarian candidate before checking a box by this fool's name. At least the libertarians have it about half right. |
|
|
|
What will happen to my bch balance when the fork happens? Be very careful when moving coins. It is going to be really difficult if you want to only send coins from one of the forks since there is no replay protection. I for one have no idea how to go about moving coins when there is no replay protection. However, if CSW has his way, there will only be one surviving fork. We will see. |
|
|
|
|
Hope that this bit of news gets this clown to fade away. I can't stand this guy nor the client that propelled this creep to the limelight.
|
|
|
|
I gather that he isn't going to be able to command $100 for his account anymore. Yeah, but I'll bet the account is still worth something if it has any sMerits available to be given out. I forget how many sMerits Sr. Members got airdropped, but I know it wasn't much. In this case, I think it'd be enough to rank up a few Newbie accounts at least. Thanks for the notification about this. I just checked BPIP. The account didn't send out any merit at all. So, you are right.  |
|
|
|
Satoshi Whitepaper is irrelevant , the English language & logic was around before all of us, and Truth is apparent
The Satoshi white paper is irrelevant in this matter? It's obvious you are not in the mood to be rational at all. If you are going to pooh-pooh the original words of the creator of Bitcoin itself, (and the one who basically invented the first working blockchain as well,) than it's really no use in having any kind of discussion with you at all. |
|
|
|
FULL NODE HAS THE COMPLETE BLOCKCHAIN AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES! Pruned Node DOES NOT! THEREFORE IT CAN NOT BE CALLED A FULL NODE, EXCEPT in ERROR!If it can not be used as a complete replacement with the same performance only a Moron believes it can be called the Same Name. I suggest you look at the dictionary which was around long before either of us, as you are the one with erroneous definitions. You and your core team are the one confusing people and when I point out: If a Pruned Node was Truly a Full Node, then it could replace all full nodes of which it can't. Therefore calling it a full node is a lie. I am not the one destroying the English language by modifying the meaning of words to suit my PR campaign. That dear maxwell is you!  Please read section 7 of this document. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf It appears Satoshi himself is referring to a pruned nodes in this section. Also, if you refer to section 5, it doesn't seem to mention that storing the full blockchain is one of the requirement of a node. I will acknowledge that section 5 may give you better material to base your underlying pro-POS arguments on. I'm not certain how Maxwell is destroying the English language here since the concept of pruned nodes is spelled out in the original whitepaper. Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before it can be discarded to save disk space. |
|
|
|
|
Well IMHO, a good moderator for a section should at least have an interest in the main topic. I'm not certain that it is possible to find another candidate that is interested in P&S, yet is also totally unbiased. Perhaps a better solution is to add an additional moderator to the P&S section. Perhaps someone with an perspective that leans more to the right.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
