How effective are they, really?  Out of all the ads I've seen (lately, only on Hulu--fucking Fox plays 3 of them at a time, the rotten bastards), I've never felt compelled to actually buy that new car, or go to Wendy's (unless I already wanted to.)  Of all the purchases I've made in my life, it was born out of an unrelated desire to own those things, not from any advertisement; I don't feel compelled to shop at K-Mart, even though they claim they're better than all the other stores.

Are we simply jaded?  Or is there a hidden effect to advertising?  I can understand a new business which needs to get its name out there, or perhaps a new movie or video game, but what is the reasoning to McDonald's ads?

Is it ibuprofen?

Exactly what will be discussed that can't be found through personal research on the interwebs?

I've noticed this a few times myself on certain articles, but as the saying goes, history is written by the victors.

It's basically a loan, with all the risks involved.

If by inherent value, he means, without human life, gold and silver would still be integral to a functioning universe, I suppose they might have their purpose--but without humans, who would be around to care?  The most valuable currency, it seems, is the one which functions best as a currency and worst at everything else, and Bitcoin's perfect for being the absolute worst at anything but being money; sure, I can't mold the Bitcoin into a rod and hit a guy over the head with it (inherent value gone right there), and I can't wipe my nose with it either, but for what it's designed to do, it's the best thus far, just as there are objects specifically designed for hitting guys over the head, and others specifically for wiping one's nose, which do far better jobs than gold and fiat.  In other words, gold has inherent value because someone, and at least one other person, finds it valuable, while anything this someone doesn't find valuable will not have inherent value, and it seems you can't tell this to a goldbug and expect them to understand; such irrational thoughts can only be worked out by their owners.

We can define any word in any way we wish, so long as we understood the meaning.  I'm going with the consensus on terrorism:


We can also go with dictionaries...


Here's another one:


Organized group = government;
Unlawful use of force = ignoring constitution;
Coercing societies = politics;

It seems the more "official" definitions of terrorism include government, or at least don't imply terrorism cannot be committed by states.  So if we're referring to the "majority", we must be referring to the individual interpretations of terrorism, which, if implying terrorism couldn't be performed by non-state actors, would be adopted by our favorite officials on word definitions.  Whoever these people are that believe governments are incapable of terrorism don't appear to make up the majority of definitions.



Now this one above flat out points the finger at government.


This is the only one which might exclude government; since all that government does is legal (and if it isn't, it will be), they can potentially authorize any form of violence.  If a government official was legally allowed to spy on and torture citizens at random, just to teach the rest "a lesson", it could not be a form of terrorism by this definition, for it would be authorized, and therefore be legit.  But again, we might say, ignoring the constitution is always unlawful, so...I'll give this one 1/2.

It would seem we all agree, then, based on the majority of popular definition; terrorism can be committed by government, including American government.

So, then, knowing this, do we know whether America has committed acts of terrorism?  Based on these definitions, does threatening and subsequently going to war with another nation over what currency their oil can be sold in count as furthering a political agenda through violence?

The status of a poor nation with government: poor.

The status of a poor nation without government: still poor.

The lack of government will not automatically turn dirt into gold.  All it does is come without the guarantee that government can fuck up a situation more than the situation was naturally fucked up before government involvement.  If the Somalians want a better life, they'll seek it, and I believe everyone always actively seeks this; they do not need to vote in a democratic election to have a representative hold office in a palace constructed by another man's labor so he can sit and make the decision as to whether or not the Somalians want a better life, or if he wants a much better life paid for with the former promise on a string.

Sorry to use the US specifically; I live here and it's the only place I know, so I can't speak for any other country.

This is why Bitcoin is so disruptive; we know we cannot continue our lives as we know it and just as well expect Bitcoin to succeed.  Either Bitcoin will need to change to accommodate government, or government will need to change to accommodate Bitcoin.  No technology is more disruptive than that which threatens a government's lifeline.  I have no doubt that Bitcoin will reach the masses, in time, and I have every expectation that there will be conflict.  But it seems, in the future, government is going to have a lot less power, the more Bitcoin spreads.  The complexities of the tax system we have today rely on a controlled currency; with Bitcoin, a flat tax seems to be the only method of taxation left; the age where we taxed money every time it moved is closing.

"Stop telling me what to think!"

"Now, think the same way I do!"

I promise you, kokjo, we will find the cure for autism.

The guy whose happiness is being denied.

In other words, "In America, we punish success."  And then we wonder why there aren't any jobs...

A flat tax rate would force government to tax the poorest of people at a rate which they can still live reasonably well; this would decrease taxation by a huge amount, and force government to be smart about where they allocate tax money (such as what we pay them to do, like roads and bridges and a REASONABLE military to STOP INVASIONS, not big enough wage war against every other nation and blow the planet to smithereens.)

Instead, we throw more money at government, beg them to help us and to tax the rich to shit until they leave (and take their capital, and jobs, with them, to other nations), and cry that we can't support ourselves and need welfare as a staple of our lives, since we threw more of our money at government, and begged them to help us,...

Awesome reference   And I recommend watching The Matrix again to anyone who "gets" how society works now; it's a beautiful allegory based on Plato's.

Right; if happiness were so simple, that merely existing without rulers was the key, life would be such a simple, dull passage.  But in the very least, those who wish not to be ruled couldn't be made unhappy by it.

Except for the people who want to be ruled, and I know people like that, and I think that's great.  Just stop asking me to participate.  A free society would allow the people who enjoy rulers to continue to enjoy that.  A free society also allows the people who do not want rulers to enjoy their lives as well.  Freedom, then, may not make us happier, but it'll make a lot less people unhappy; and we'll all have an easier time to pursue the things which would make us happy, whatever they may be.

Except for those who will only be happy when everyone is ruled.  But I don't mind them being the small percentage that die unhappy.

It seems everyone but the cowards among us can see this: you don't rob a person who is, more likely than not, carrying.  Even if the person isn't visibly carrying a gun, if most people in any given area are armed, it's far too risky for any criminal to even attempt a crime, for there's no telling if the person, or anyone around them, has a concealed handgun.  You do, however, rob someone who is defenseless.  I've never committed a violent crime in my life, but I don't think it takes a lot of thought to come to the conclusion that stealing from unarmed people is a lot easier than stealing from armed people.  Even if we make the assumption that the police are always on their game and respond as fast as possible to crimes, you can never have a cop following you around everywhere you go.  Police do not prevent crimes.  They only help after a crime has taken place.  To stop crime before it happens, you must know how to defend yourself.

I'm going to go out on a limb (slightly off topic as well) and say this: if guns were allowed on the planes which crashed into the twin towers, there would have been no 9/11.  Even if every hijacker was packing, they would've been completely outnumbered by the passengers who were.  In the very least, the job would've been considerably harder, and those who died would not have died in vain.

If all your friends thought cannibalism was cool, so long as you didn't eat each other, you would either have to be a cannibal in the first place or hadn't realized it when you found these friends and decided, to fit in, you would become one--after all, nobody else seems to mind, and your friends are so powerful and prestigious, so why should you care?  Now, replace cannibalism with psychopathy, and it's not hard to see how it's possible that so many politicians tend to be one way; lying to get their way without any regard for other human lives--except their friends, either within the click or in business, sometimes both (as is the case of the Monsanto corporation, off the top of my head.)  If you received huge piles of cash to keep the circus going, why would you stop?  For good conscious?  If your business thrived through manipulation of politicians, why would you stop?  Because it's "wrong"?  The benefit severely outweighs morality; as the saying goes, "Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how government and businesses can exist in one room without circle jerking--and furthermore, why no one in support of these two coexisting can stop it from happening, since it has been happening for as long as the two have existed throughout history and still is at this very moment.

Thank God this finally exists.  Who would've done my thinking for me?  Myself?  Haw!

There's no avoiding it; the USD is associated with more scams than we will ever know about.  It's better to say, money allows scams to happen, and not even this is true; you can scam people with anything, you could scam someone out of their things or scam someone out of their health, without ever bothering with a trade of cash.  We can pretend all day that Bitcoin isn't used for scams, but we know, even without having a clue what Bitcoin is, that if it is money, it is used by scammers.

Besides, newcomers to Bitcoin who would fall for scams would have to be newcomers to the concept of scamming itself; what better way to acquaint a person with the fact that there are scammers than through publicly portraying the scammer and their petty attempts at taking money?  We are better to show everyone the scammer, than to hide him from the individual, who may be unaware of dishonest people, who will then cry on the forum about how he lost a bitcoin to so-and-so and can't understand how someone would do that and wants the person to be banned without bothering to understand that the scammer can come right back under a new guise.  One of the key features of Bitcoin, I believe, is the ability to have complete distrust in people--but it is a feature one must employ; it doesn't happen by itself.  At some point in time, the newcomer must understand that trust isn't something to simply give out, not to the scammer, not to the forum, not their elected officials etc.; and especially true when it comes to whom they give their money.

The guy bought the ad hoping enough people would fall for it; I'm hoping he's unsuccessful and won't try it again.  But I wouldn't feel bad if people, in three years, realized they weren't getting their money back, which is precisely what I believe will happen.  I wouldn't make a loan to a guy who was advertising on BitMit, anyway; he's asking for loans from a lot of people, none of which he'll ever know personally, and if he isn't able to triple all the money he took in, he'll throw his hands up and say "Sorry, I don't have it!" and that'll just be tough--which is also assuming the guy is completely honest, which requires trust, and if you'll give that trust up so easily, then I see a long and hard road ahead.

But anyway, I don't see any problem with it, even if it is an obvious scam; people need to learn to be responsible with their money, and scoff at such attempts to take their coins through such flimsy promises.  Say no to herding!

In order for this to work, people would need to make enough within those 3 or 4 days to survive.  That's something close to 12-16 hour workdays, which I'm certain is entirely possible but those days off would be largely spent resting.