Bitcoin Forum
September 04, 2015, 07:44:20 AM *
News: New! Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.11.0 [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 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 ... 368 »
821  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Capitalism. on: June 28, 2013, 08:32:16 PM
 No matter how smart Ben may be, which no doubt is smarter than any of us, he doesn't merit that level of authority.

You give him and his like too much credit.  While there is a certain kind of 'smarts' required to obtain and maintain these positions of power, there are many different kinds of 'smarts'.  The kind of 'smart' required to succeed in a social position of power (i.e. politics) is decidedly distinct to the kind of smarts required to analyse a complex economy.  The latter kind of smarts is both rare and humbling, as the end result is usually that, no matter how well you did in school nor how many times your mother told you were so smart, you're not smart enough and you can't be.  And that is the fundamental lesson not taught in economics courses.  Those classes teach the students methods of simplyfying the overal picture, in such a manner as to be able to approximate the massive issue.  But just like chaos theory implies that the choice of direction a butteryfly may take can impact the course of a typhoon halfway around the world and 6 months later, the long tail of data in the economy cannot be rounded off and accurately approximate such a huge and dynamic system for any real timescale.  Oftentimes, the long tail of data isn't even available for analysis.  How do you know what deals that the recycler in Africa makes, if he is not willing to tell you the truth?  What if you never ask?
822  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is clearly degenerating into anarchy on: June 28, 2013, 06:05:01 PM

Bitcoin was designed to be a tool for 'anarchy'.  Your choice of words exposes your bias.

EDIT:  Oviously, this is a trolling post thread, intended to evoke a response.  It obviously worked.  Well played.
823  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Capitalism. on: June 28, 2013, 06:01:26 PM

The problem which the Anarchocapitalists is that they want two systems which mutually exclude each other: Anarchy and a progressively increasing economy.

I don't want a progressively increasing economy.  I want the right economy.

OK, let's have a quick look at what that might entail. Say you want a 'stable' economy,

You've already failed the test.

You're obviously not an engineer.
In general terms stable just means feedback loops don't cause exponential growth, decay, or oscillation. Try again, Moon (obviously-a-liberal-arts-major) Shadow Wink

I'm pretty sure you're well aware you're misrepresenting my educational background.

The problem with "stable" is that it is a subjective valuation.  All economies oscillate, it's called the business cycle.  Unfortuantely, there are many people who will make well intended, but ill advised, attempts to suppress that oscillation.  The result of which is that 'forces' become pent up, and create greater havoc when they are finally released 'out of phase'.  Still other people stand to make huge profits from the timing of changes in teh business cycle, and have a perverse incentive to encourage the realses of such 'forces' on their own timescales, thus making things even worse for everyone else.  George Soros famously made an even bigger fortune doing exactly this to England.  To most poeople, 'stable' would mean that an economy grows at or slightly better than the population rate.  By better, most people would say somthing around 2% APR.  The problem is that even 2% annually is an exponential growth rate, and cannot continue forever.  By definition, that which is not sustainable cannot continue indefinately, no matter the best wishes of  anyone.  To myself, and in this context, 'stable' would mean that the natural 'forces' that result in the business cycle be left alone, so that the magnitude of those oscillations don't have the chance to compound.

And that is what I mean by the 'right' economy.  The one that develops naturally from the people and conditions that are present and develop in the future, without influence of well intended politicos and self-interested powers.  It would be possible for some of those oscillations to be particularly harmful, even to the point of severe social strife, but over the truely long term, such oscillations (by definition) balance out.
824  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Capitalism. on: June 28, 2013, 04:39:31 PM

The problem which the Anarchocapitalists is that they want two systems which mutually exclude each other: Anarchy and a progressively increasing economy.

I don't want a progressively increasing economy.  I want the right economy.

OK, let's have a quick look at what that might entail. Say you want a 'stable' economy,

You've already failed the test.
825  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Capitalism. on: June 28, 2013, 04:29:01 PM

The problem which the Anarchocapitalists is that they want two systems which mutually exclude each other: Anarchy and a progressively increasing economy.

I don't want a progressively increasing economy.  I want the right economy.  The best way to have that is to take a 'hands off' approach, because politicos really don't know as much as they think they do.

This makes some sense.  If trade is mutually beneficial, the economy ought to increase.  When it isn't it decreases.  Over time this also includes the non-trading third party that share the environment, which if harmed decreases the economy too, yes?

If by that, you mean real ecological damage, than yes.  In such a case, such 'externalities' do, indeed, negatively effect an economy of any nature or size.  The cavet here is that not all claims of environmental harm are, in fact, harmful.  Burning firewood, for example, isn't actually net harmful, even if human beings in the near environmental space may find it uncomfortable, or even personally harmful.  Inasmuch as fossil fuels are burned for energy, they are not necesarily harmful either.  Burned 'clean' such actions only produce CO2, which itself shouldn't rationally be considered a pollutant.  It's a greenhouse gas, yes, but it's also so difuse in the atmostsphere that it's actuall net contribution to global climate changes is highly debatable on scientific grounds.  But that is a huge tangent.


 It doesn't seem to necessitate an unsustainable growth or even any growth, and the growth is just a measure of the participant's good faith dealing.

Perhaps the political class needs it to increase to win elections and so may sacrifice long term for the term of the next election important to them.

He can be taught!

"War is the health of the state."
826  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Capitalism. on: June 28, 2013, 02:51:09 PM

The problem which the Anarchocapitalists is that they want two systems which mutually exclude each other: Anarchy and a progressively increasing economy.

I don't want a progressively increasing economy.  I want the right economy.  The best way to have that is to take a 'hands off' approach, because politicos really don't know as much as they think they do.


They deny that stateless communities beyond the state (rain forest) don't increase production. They produce the same amount as they did thousands of years ago, because they are not enforced to produce ever increasing surpluses. That's enforced and needed in collectivist societies exclusively.

I don't deny this either.  I don't know anyone who has besides your claims that someone has.  I just don't find such a society to be ideal.  If you do, why are you still here?  There certainly are groups within the US and elsewhere that prefer the kind of "natural" lifestyle you think is appropriate, and some of them will even accept you.  You just have to find them.  Or create your own.

The obvious answer is that you really don't believe that you would be better off without modern industry and/or the Internet, or you would be doing so.  You certainly are still free enough to do so, despite you claims to the contrary.  It costs you almost nothing to go hiking into the wilderness, and 'camp' in public parks.  There have literally been cases of people that have been found camping in national parks that have been there for years.  Camping isn't illegal, yet.  People have done it in city parks, although that is certainly illegal.  I've even seen a tent that is shaped to resemble a car, put up in a city parking spot.  I've seen people camp in freeway medians; which if you have ever driven though Kentucky, you would realize is not very difficult to do undetected.  Learn to set up trappin snares, there are such books in the public library, and you would never even have to 'hunt' for your food.  There are tribes in Africa that get most of their food from simple snares, because they still use an atlatl ( instead of the more effective bow and arrow for hunting.
827  Economy / Economics / Re: The end is near on: June 28, 2013, 02:33:20 PM
It will end as all civilised societies ended: with a collapse. I call it Tainter's Law. It ends by the diminishing return on additional investment in additional complexity. The difference to earlier collapses is the fact, that today 500 nuclear reactors will blow its nuclear inventory around the northern part of the planet as soon as nobody will cool them anymore.

This is a rediculous idea.  Again, nuclear power industry accidents across all of the history of the world do not exceed the amount of radioactive material that is launched into the atmostphere by the worlds coal plants in a single year, and we have been burning coal for almost 200 years, and seriously powering industry with it for over 100 years.  Modern nuke plants don't really 'blow', and even if 100 of them had leakage accidents similar to what happened in Japan (very, very unlikely) we still wouldn't exceed what humanity has already dosed our environment with over the past 100+ years.  That plant had a quadruple redundant emergency cooling system, which we now know isn't quite good enough for a 1:10K year tsumami wave.  It's certainly more than enough for a global economic breakdown,

Dream on! (your ridiculous dreams).
 Fukushima blew out a significant part of its inventory. In case of a black out of the whole power grid, which is a question of when but not of if (sun storm, economic collapse and  panic/revolution etc.), it would have blown out its inventory totally, and so would have all the other reactors. Power grids become more and more fragile to maintain the 50 Hertz, totally depending on the computerised, hypercollectivised communication system.
 Societies collapse, because societies are problem solving societies (Tainter). Each solved problem increases the complexity in the system, and increased complexity generates diminishing returns until the end (bifurcation point), when additional investion in additional complexity generates negative returns. Forget at least the northern part of this planet if this society will not end the nuclear industry.
Probably it won't, because society means collective stupidity, which until today always ended collapsing. This society will also end abruptly in a worldwide, globalised panic with worldwide bank 'holidays' and nobody will go to work anymore; not to the banks and not to cool the nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors need each other to cool them, but after a black out you'll have to cool all of them. The collective stupidity will not be able to do this.

You obviously don't have an accurate understanding as to what actually went wrong with that reactor in Japan.  That reactor was designed with a multiplely redundant emergency cooling system.  It was specificly designed to suffer an earthquake of a power of 9.0 on the Riecther scale within 20 miles or so of the epicenter.  It was desgned to suffer through a tsunami.  It was designed to suffer though a complete failure of grid power support, as well as total failure of all of the AC water pumps.  What was never considered was the incredible odds that all of these things would happen in the same day.  It was a harsh lesson learned, and many heroic engineers and techs working for a private company lost some or all of their remaining lifespans in concerted efforts to save public lives.  It sucks to be that tech, when that crap happens at your plant; but just like joining the military, they knew what they signed up for.  If you don't thik that there are equally heroic corporate employees of every other nuclear powerhouse in the world, then you don't really understand why these men and woman get paid the salaries that they do.  But know that the nuclear industry knows that such a one in ten thousand odds event can happen, they are already reconsidering their own emergency cooling plans because reglatory agencies require them to and because they don't ever want to be the next set of guys to have to die to save humanity.  For that matter, the complete breakdown of civil society is one of the most common emergency scenarios that nuke plant disaster planners have long considered, and one of the easiest for them to plan for.  It's way harder to plan for a 35 foot high tsunami wave.   Fukushima power plant had diesel powered pumps that could run underwater, and generators that could survive an earthquake; but not both at the same time.  And furthermore, none of those failues would have mattered at all, had  Fukushima  not been involved in their once in a three year refueling cycle when the bovine fecal matter made contact with the rotating cooling device.  The other reactors were all automaticly in emergency shutdown stage 60 seconds after the earthquake was detected, and never caused any problems; but that one (number 4, IIRC) was not set for automatic shutdown due to being involved in a fuel rod exchange that very week.  Fresh, hot fuel rods were waiting in the storage pool, while engineers and tech were running all over a damaged and dangerous reactor trying to get the emergency neutron sheild down into the remaining core, and everyone managed to forget about the storage pool.  The water in the storage pool evaporated enough that the tops of the fuel rods were exposed to air, and then they caught on fire due to their own internal heat.  It was not really a 'mealtdown' in any practical sense, but radioactive smoke is no small thing.  To the best of my knowledge, Fukushima could still be in operation today, if the populist government had not halted all nuclear power in the nation, as teh damage to the reactor itself was not really significant.  Nothing like Chernobel for example, or even Three Mile Island (which didn't actually release any radiation BTW, but did damage the reactor)
828  Economy / Currency exchange / Re: (WTS) $30 STAPLES GIFT CARD on: June 28, 2013, 12:08:51 AM
I'll offer 0.2 BTC, if you're willing to mail it to me before I pay.
829  Economy / Economics / Re: Peter Schiff on Bitcoin on: June 28, 2013, 12:06:35 AM

In short, there can be heavy deflation before the onset of hyperinflation. This Schiff does not take into account.

This is, almost word for word, Mish's complaint with Schiff and other hyperinflationists today.
830  Economy / Economics / Re: The end is near on: June 27, 2013, 10:05:48 PM

This late guy really got me you know. He's like 21? Watch the whole video. It worths it.

Great kid, very smart.  But that isn't an original idea.

No, it's a bit different. The idea is to use depleted nuclear waste (ie: plutonium) together with its relevant salt (ie: Ca or Na). The metal forces the nuclear waste to form a high temperature which in a few minutes turns the salt to its liquid form. The heat continues on and a Stirling device converts the produced heat to energy via adiabatic process thus not losing energy. The reactor can go on for as long as 30 years...!

Nope, not a new idea.  The 4S was specificly designed to run unattended for 30 year refueling cycles, and is quite capable of utilizing downgraded weapons fuel.  It can also use a Strirling engine at the surface generator house, although it's actually desinged to use a liquid salt to boiling water heat exchanger.  Stirling engines are more efficient, but they are also more expensive to build, so the 4S can do either.  The early test version, such as may eventually be built for Alaska, assumes that the waste heat is used for municipal hot water distric heating.  This is more commonly called 'cogeneration' and the total energy efficientyc is much greater than that of a Stirling engine producing electrical power alone.  And the 4S is just one example of this style of small, unattended reactor design, other companies have similar designs.  Another design that aims towards similar ends, but uses a classic deep pool unpressurized light water design is the SLOWPOKE (, intended primarily for municipal district heating and is largely incapable of electric power geneartion because it niether operates at a high enough carnot efficiency to use a stirling nor is it designed to biol water for pressure, since it's an open top design exposed to atmostphere at the top and boiling water is used as super-critical limiting feature in the core.  It's literally impossible to 'meltdown' the core in this one, because it depends upon the presence of a precise amount of water in the core space for the proper regulation of neutron flux, and either the presence of steam bubbles, or the pressence of normal air (in the event of pool water boil-off) permits too much neutron flux to escape the core to maintain a critical reaction.
831  Economy / Economics / Re: The end is near on: June 27, 2013, 06:00:37 PM

This late guy really got me you know. He's like 21? Watch the whole video. It worths it.

Great kid, very smart.  But that isn't an original idea.
832  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Capitalism. on: June 27, 2013, 05:22:07 AM
Most of what is "public" is less public than the private open spaces.
Some have suggested that Nixon's "environmental movement" took vast amounts of private land for the government away from the owners for environmental reasons, and essentially so that they minerals and oil and trees could be sold to back the national debt, when we left Bretton Woods.
So ironically, the more that is public, the more funding there is for the war engines.

All that federally "owned" land, particularly out west, is the perfect example of the American form of communism.  Undeveloped land is the most basic of resources, required for any form of industrial production I can think of.  By definition, communism is public ownership of the means of production.  There has never been any claim that those resources actually need to be in production to qualify for the definition.
833  Economy / Economics / Re: The end is near on: June 27, 2013, 04:23:34 AM
But who's going to scoop up the salt and put it back in the Pacific?  Or do we want to desalinate the oceans too?

Don't be so pessimistic, this is a good idea.

The real answer is we won't put it back, instead we'll collect it sell it on an exchange, create demand by promoting consumption and call it money. We can start a forum called and blog about how it is the future of money.

And the past of money.  There is a reason we have the term, "not worth his salt".
834  Economy / Economics / Re: The end is near on: June 27, 2013, 04:21:19 AM
This has now become an interesting conversation!
Not really.

All of that infrastructure and land for a measly 200 MW is insane. Even if it was 2 GW that would hardly be worth the effort.

And that is exactly my point.  200 MW is hardly worth the effort of all that geoengineering.  Despite the fact that it would pay economic and ecological dividends, both in actual power and in local climate mitigation, for 10K years or more.  We simply don't, as humans, think out that far.  We discount the value of such a massive construction to our great-to-the-power-of-whatever-grandchildren.  If we can't get a net positive return on investment within out own lifetimes, we don't see the value in it.  This is the short term thinking that afflicts the human race with some of it's greatest flaws.  There is a 'food forest' in Vietnam that has produced food for humans for 300+ years, almost without human labor to maintain it.  There is a theory that the Great Pyramid in Giza was not a burial site at all, but an elaborate water works construction; from an age prior to the Egyption culture when the local climate was much wetter.

BAsicly a massive ram pump, used to send the water of the "Upper Nile" (which no longer exists) great distances.  A similar 'ram pump' construction was once proposed to push a portion of the water flowwing down the Mississippi River West across the Great Plains, although today the Mississippi River basin has enough trouble maintaining a shipping depth.

Humanity just has real problems thinking in such long range terms, even when the benefit to our decendents is certain.  One reason that a space elevator is never going to be built.
835  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Capitalism. on: June 27, 2013, 04:00:51 AM

So you imagine the future with a radically different sociopolitical structure, but you imagine everything in it will be the same as things are now? Why not:
- Public transportation replaced with suspended rails going through the city and country, with pods, that you can rent, automatically traveling under them to preset destinations (patented idea, replaces road maintenance with something much cheaper).

Subscriptions to road areas in the same way that you can buy a London metro ticket that gives you free ride within limited areas.

BTW, roads were never public land or publicly maintained before the foundation of the USPS, which provided funds and legal status for the public development of "postal roads".  Today, all roads are postal roads.  Makes one wonder how we ever had roads before the USPS.

Personal VTOL aircraft to avoid roads altogether, flown with GPS and computer avoidance assistance.

- Community supported and sponsored parks, with gardens grown by shared owners or even produce by companies that want to show off their designer fruits and vegetables.

GE's appliance park was the original 'industrial park'.  How did it get it's name, might you ask?  From the 50 acres of company maintained parkspace on the East side of the employee parking lot provided to the public free of charge.  Eventually the city parks department took over maintaince of the privately owned park, and since then portions have been sold off to other companies; so little of the original park remains, but my point is that we used to do things this way.

The Biltmore estate is ran as a private park, but there is some fees depending upon what exactly you want to do.  Walking the gardens is still free.  And yes, it's still privately owned.

Berhiem Forest is a private park of huge proportions in Kentucky that is as large as many state parks.  It was priavely oned once, and now it's owned and maintained by a fountation that the original owner stipulated in his will shall forever be a public park, and shall forever be free to access.  The Bernhiem foundation does receive some state tax funds indirectly via state agriculture education subsidies, as it's the primary location for aborists to study in Kentucky.  True to their word, all of the forest is hike accessible during daylight summer hours; but there are portions that are so difficult to access, no one besides the arborists are known to have ventured there in years.

My point is this, we can and often do these very public things privately today.  Whether or not these privately owned public spaces accept public funds today or not, they aren't dependent on the support, or likley even the existance, of the state.
836  Economy / Economics / Re: The end is near on: June 27, 2013, 03:36:14 AM
But who's going to scoop up the salt and put it back in the Pacific?  Or do we want to desalinate the oceans too?

This has now become an interesting conversation!

What about making a huge direct solar desalination plant at the output of the drainage - Then we don't mess with the humidity of the region or effect weather at all... and could pipe clean water somewhere...

Like Los Vegas? Nah, they don't really need drinking water that bad.
837  Economy / Economics / Re: The end is near on: June 27, 2013, 03:35:04 AM
But who's going to scoop up the salt and put it back in the Pacific?  Or do we want to desalinate the oceans too?

Who cares?  How do you think the salt flats got that way to begin with?  It was once much like the Dead Sea.
838  Economy / Economics / Re: The end is near on: June 27, 2013, 12:48:50 AM
For that matter, one solution is to build caissons on the ocean floor and use power during the day to pump water out and air in to these giant caissons. When you later need that power back out, you start letting water in which pumps air out at very high pressure, driving a generator. Voila, constant power as needed.

Another solution would be to build huge culverts to funnel the Pacific Ocean from San Diego to the Salt Flats, which happens to be about 200' below sea level and was an inland sea itself that finally dried up a few thousand years ago.  A few water turbines near the Salt Flats, and with the evaporation rate of the area, easily 100 Megawatts or more for as long as we like.  More, if we decide that an inland sea would be a good thing to have there.  It would alter the immediate environment, increasing humidity, cloud cover, and rainfall for several hundred miles around.

Not that the NIMBY crowd would let something like that happen either.
Yeah, that's the main issue there. You can also do that with large bays that have a narrow inlet.

You're talking about tidal power generation, I'm not here.  Still, tidal generation is an excellent example of what I'm talking about.  The few naturally occurring ideal places to put a tidal generator are all owned by people who don't want you to touch their ocean view.  They don't want you blocking their yachts from entering or exiting the bay either.  And the environmentalists don't want you to alter the shape of other coastlines, even if the benefits could possiblely outweight the massive costs of construction work on any foreseeable timescale.

What I was taliking about was literally a controlled drain of the PAcific Ocean into the saltflats.  No dependency on weather patterns or the orbit of the moon.  24/7 power generation so long as the output water was at or lower than the average evaporation rate of Death VAlley, which is considerable.  Power forever, literally, so long as the pipes and gensets are maintained; in the same sense that most hydroelectric plants are power forever, so long as they are not damaged and the run of the river remains the same.  Difference only in which direction is the source and sink.  Again, it will never happen.  NIMBY all but garrantees that large scale geoengineering projects are imposssible, no matter the cost/benefit analysis of it all.
839  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Capitalism. on: June 26, 2013, 07:40:40 PM

I am often prevented from taking personal posession of public property by capitalists and cops.
New boss, old boss. wage slavery, abject poverty or luck and access to resources. These three options are all capitalism offers.

That's not capitalism.  That's communism.

And around and around we go, where we stop, nobody knows.
840  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Capitalism. on: June 26, 2013, 07:36:42 PM
Those bitter little PMs you sent my way are all the reward i need Grin   

I haven't a stance.  Maybe that's why its vague to you?

I don't have the answers to "the way things ought to be" and yet am deeply curious about those who do.  So here I am bemused by your random potshots apropos of nothing, but not at all enlightened by them.  
All you have taught me yet is that "the way things ought to be" would include fewer folks inclined to behave like yourself.  So lets pause to figure that out.

Inexplicably you seem to be enjoying inspiring emotions in other folks that they are not enjoying.  Why is that?

I feel as if you're not fully open with me, NewLiberty, as if something's ... left unsaid.  If not for your otherwise irreprochable manners, i may have read a hint of anger or even malice into your piqued tone.  Tell me i'm a fool to worry? Huh
shitposting sucks

REally?  So what you're saying is this; even if crumbs had not long ago earned his treatment, we should prevent that which comes around from going around because you somehow are innocent, and must deserve to be protected from offense?  Did I get that part right?

I'm just saying, the reputation of she who is offeneded is at least as important as the offenseive material itself; particularly when she isn't the intended target.
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 ... 368 »
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!