Bitcoin Forum
June 20, 2019, 04:01:26 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  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 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 ... 112 »
961  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Right to endanger? on: December 29, 2012, 05:16:50 PM
what if cars run by sophisticated computer programs
We're getting there. In some states a computer-driven car can get a license.

if i drank coffee i'd spit it out about now

You mean peole with computer programmed cars can have their CAR tested to get a license?

which state(s)
Nevada, California
962  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Right to endanger? on: December 29, 2012, 02:57:19 AM
What about driving drunk, myrkul?
963  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Right to endanger? on: December 29, 2012, 01:10:20 AM
what if cars run by sophisticated computer programs
We're getting there. In some states a computer-driven car can get a license.
964  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Logical Explanation on: December 29, 2012, 01:07:14 AM
Oh yeah. folded himself into a sports bag. Seems legit.

What the fuck? Who 'locks' himself into a sports bag and doesn't give himself room to breathe? How? What?
Claustrophiliacs (sic)
965  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Right to endanger? on: December 29, 2012, 01:06:40 AM
No; roads should be made with speed margins, not speed maximums.

Ah, progress. Care to explain this concept in more detail? I believe I understand what you mean, but certainty is always preferable to belief.
Simply that each road should have both a speed minimum and a speed maximum, and violating either is cause for punishment.

Which is why I set my example at a consistent, relatively slow, speed, on identical roadways. Can you give a valid reason why driving 60 in a 50 should be illegal, while driving 60 in a 70 is not? (note: same road conditions, same car, same driver, everything except the number on the sign is identical)

One reason could be that some vehicles are not capable of that speed and the roads are there for them as well. Though in this state there is a law that if you are travelling slower than 10mph under the speed limit and you have three vehicles behind you, you're supposed to get out of the way. Never enforced of course.

I got a great idea for a law:
Don't cause a crash. If you do cause a crash, you have to pay for all the damages you caused. Sound good?
Here's the "right to endanger" thing again. Let me distill it:
You are in a room with two buttons. One of the buttons will kill a person; the other will do nothing. You know this. Is it immoral to press a button? Or is it only immoral if the person dies?
966  Economy / Gambling / Re: SatoshiDICE.com - The World's Most Popular Bitcoin Game on: December 29, 2012, 01:03:05 AM
I <3 SatoshiDice.   Kiss



Well, this hasn't yet ended in tears:



264 BTC from the top of the leaderboard.  Will I make it?!?!

I'm now up by 2000 BTC or so (the calculator on blockchain.info isn't showing for some reason). I think it's time to call it quits!
It is definitely time to call it quits. Take your 26K USD and run.
967  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Right to endanger? on: December 28, 2012, 08:03:03 PM
The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.
Per unit time, yes. But the time you spend to travel a given distance goes down. The longer you spend on a road, the higher your chances that some drunk will plow into you.

The faster you go, the closer you approach a situation where vehicle handling and reaction time is reduced to such a point that an accident's probability is near 100% in any specified period of time.

I don't think you understand probability.  By that logic, anyone driving at 300 MPH would be 100% guarantee an accident.  Since people have driven faster than that without an accident, the logic falls apart.  

Once again: It is not the absolute speed that is the problem.  It is the difference in speed that is a problem.  Two cars traveling at 150 MPH in the same direction are not any more prone to an accident than two cars traveling at 50 MPH in the same direction.  Two cars traveling in the same direction, one at 50 MPH and one at 150 MPH are much more prone to an accident, which is where your reaction time (and to a lesser extent) vehicle handling come into the picture.  Enforcing minimum speed limit and left lane driving laws on highways would do more to reduce accident and injury rates than any other measure currently being considered.

People are always going to speed and break the law.  But forcing people to drive at reasonable speeds on a highway (or take surface roads if you don't want to) and forcing them into the right lane except to pass would go a long way to making the roads safer.

Unfortunately, the absolute speed also poses a problem, for a few reasons:
- Human reaction time is fixed
- Stopping time and stopping distance increase with speed
- As speed increases, centripetal force needed to keep the car on the road around a curve increases. Eventually, the centripetal force required exceeds the maximum force of friction that the tires can provide, and you can't make the turn. (mu*g < v*v/r)

Which is why I set my example at a consistent, relatively slow, speed, on identical roadways. Can you give a valid reason why driving 60 in a 50 should be illegal, while driving 60 in a 70 is not? (note: same road conditions, same car, same driver, everything except the number on the sign is identical)
No; roads should be made with speed margins, not speed maximums.
968  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer - MtGoxUSD wall movement tracker on: December 28, 2012, 07:55:56 PM
http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=1052

You can now bet against me! Bears welcome Cheesy

Quote
Bet deadline: Jan. 30, 2013 end of day Eastern Time

Isn't this a little stupid?

not really bets are weight with time.
the earlier you bet the more you can win.
not sure exactly how that is calculated...
Time weight is equal to (minutes before deadline)*(BTC bet).
45% of the losing bets are distributed based on (BTC bet) alone.
45% are distributed based on time weight.

So to calculate how much you will get:
Code:
.45*(total lost)*(amount you bet)/(total amount bet on winning statement)
+
.45*(total lost)*(minutes you bet before deadline)*(amount you bet)/(total time weight)

Where (total time weight) is the sum of every winning bettor's (amount bet)*(minutes before deadline)
969  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Right to endanger? on: December 28, 2012, 07:49:41 PM
The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.
Per unit time, yes. But the time you spend to travel a given distance goes down. The longer you spend on a road, the higher your chances that some drunk will plow into you.

The faster you go, the closer you approach a situation where vehicle handling and reaction time is reduced to such a point that an accident's probability is near 100% in any specified period of time.

I don't think you understand probability.  By that logic, anyone driving at 300 MPH would be 100% guarantee an accident.  Since people have driven faster than that without an accident, the logic falls apart.  

Once again: It is not the absolute speed that is the problem.  It is the difference in speed that is a problem.  Two cars traveling at 150 MPH in the same direction are not any more prone to an accident than two cars traveling at 50 MPH in the same direction.  Two cars traveling in the same direction, one at 50 MPH and one at 150 MPH are much more prone to an accident, which is where your reaction time (and to a lesser extent) vehicle handling come into the picture.  Enforcing minimum speed limit and left lane driving laws on highways would do more to reduce accident and injury rates than any other measure currently being considered.

People are always going to speed and break the law.  But forcing people to drive at reasonable speeds on a highway (or take surface roads if you don't want to) and forcing them into the right lane except to pass would go a long way to making the roads safer.

Unfortunately, the absolute speed also poses a problem, for a few reasons:
- Human reaction time is fixed
- Stopping time and stopping distance increase with speed
- As speed increases, centripetal force needed to keep the car on the road around a curve increases. Eventually, the centripetal force required exceeds the maximum force of friction that the tires can provide, and you can't make the turn. (mu*g < v*v/r)
970  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: [ANN] BitcoinStore.com (Beta) - Electronics super store with over 500K items! on: December 28, 2012, 05:58:40 PM
I'd advise you improve the search functionality. Right now, if I want a 64 GB flash drive, and I search for it, I get flash drives from 2gb on up. In fact, it seems to ignore numbers altogether, though the number is often the most important thing when searching for electronics.
971  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Right to endanger? on: December 28, 2012, 03:03:16 AM
The way I read it, the self in self-defense refers to any innocent human being, not just 'yourself', as much as the auto in autopsy doesn't refer to a medical examiner performing his/her own post-mortem examination after becoming a zombie or posessing someone else's body to figure out their own cause(s) of death. The 'auto' refers to examination of a human being, and a necropsy is of animals.
I like that explanation Cheesy
972  Other / Off-topic / Re: CASINO WINNING STRATEGY WORKS 100% OF TIME! on: December 28, 2012, 02:44:36 AM
Occasionally a website with beatable blackjack will pop up.
973  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Vanitygen: Vanity bitcoin address generator/miner [v0.22] on: December 28, 2012, 02:21:09 AM
My laptop with NVIDIA GeForce 640M 2GB (devstring 1:0) gets 4 MKeys/s using oclvanityminer
And the i7 2.2 GHz gets 270 KKeys/s. They can run simultaneously, which is nice.
Surprised people mine for vanity addresses at these prices though. 0.000027 BTC/MkeyHr? Really?

oclvanityminer64 works for the graphics card, but the integrated graphics only works with oclvanityminer. Wonder why?
974  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Right to endanger? on: December 28, 2012, 01:35:06 AM
I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule.
The only acceptable use of violence is self defense.
Then it's not OK to use violence to defend your family.
975  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Right to endanger? on: December 27, 2012, 08:44:51 PM
No moral is absolute. But if the only problems we have in the world are gray areas like, "is it OK to lie about your wife's whereabouts if someone wants to kill her?" then we shall hardly need philosophers at all.
Subjective personal preferences that people dress up as morality in order to bully and control people are not absolute.
I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule.

In general, the more general a rule, the more edge cases and gray areas there are.

Killing is wrong
Killing is wrong except in self defense
Killing its wrong except in self defense, the defense of other people, or in assisted suicide
Killing its wrong except in self defense, the defense of other people, or in assisted suicide, or when there is no hope for the person to awaken from their coma

Or you can start small and generalize

Killing a single person in self defense when the danger they pose is grave and imminent is right
add a defense of multiple other people clause, a cadaver clause, etc
976  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Right to endanger? on: December 27, 2012, 07:11:07 PM
Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?
Can the proposed ethical rule, "No one may endanger the life of another person," be applied universally to all people without creating any logical contradictions?
No moral is absolute. But if the only problems we have in the world are gray areas like, "is it OK to lie about your wife's whereabouts if someone wants to kill her?" then we shall hardly need philosophers at all.
977  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: [ANN] BitcoinStore.com (Beta) - Electronics super store with over 500K items! on: December 27, 2012, 06:49:02 PM
I am nimda and I approve this message
978  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Right to endanger? on: December 27, 2012, 06:36:23 PM
Wow OK. I must have a problem with making myself clear. The question had nothing to do with anarchism or airplanes Tongue

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?
979  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin fee to join IRC chat rooms on: December 27, 2012, 04:48:02 AM
It's doable within the RFC; the problem would be getting users to join. Besides, IRC isn't SnapChat (which isn't secure either...), and it's even easier to write a bot which echoes the contents of one channel into another.

Your talking about doing an IRC server, which would take forever (I know from experience tried to write one for a project it took forever) but I think the dude just wants to see if it can be done for fun.
No no, just a quick socket bot. People could join a lobby channel, receive an address from the bot (who happens to be opped in the pay-per-entrance channel), and once the bot receives payment, he lets the person in. Alternatively, the channel could be +v, and you have to pay for +v status. Also, it could be done in such a way that you pay per minute, rather than per entrance. Plenty of ways to do it. I personally like the +v idea; it sets a monetary incentive to not spam.
980  Other / Politics & Society / Right to endanger? on: December 27, 2012, 04:45:13 AM
I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?
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 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 ... 112 »
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!