Sounds good to me

Pretty much any nation using fiat is going to wind up going this path at some point in time.  All the talk about protection is just fluff, adults aren't children and can certainly be prudent about how they handle their finances; this is about ensuring that nothing can compete with the central bank's power, which stems from printing fiat (i.e. transfer of wealth from the population to the central bank, and by connection the state), which bitcoin thwarts since the banks can't print it.  Void of this power to print, they'd have to go back to borrowing and taxation, and that will, at minimum, reduce the power of the state drastically (since they'd have to take a lot more from you directly, thus you'd feel the effects of their spending), and at maximum, result in overthrowing the reigning regime (in the case that they are stubborn about how they're spending.)  That is no bueno for those with such power, that means they must stop anything which threatens that power.

The sad part is, all this will do is turn what would've been a voluntary transaction into a criminal act; the crime rate in Taiwan will rise simply because of this new law.  Any law-abiding citizen will avoid bitcoin if they can, which means major businesses are sure to stall adoption indefinitely, and the smaller businesses can't afford whatever consequence will befall them; this not only stunts the spread of bitcoin but limits it to people who don't care about breaking the law, which will likely strengthen the association between bitcoin and other criminal activities, in the same way that alcohol was associated with criminal behavior when it was banned, and the same way certain drugs are banned now.  This gives them more ammo against bitcoin--not that they aren't already doing everything they can to associate bitcoin with criminality.  It's almost like the MSM is bought off or something...

SJWs in a nutshell

I don't see why the two couldn't co-exist, it's just that I don't like fiat because its supply is infinitely printable thus rigging the game completely in the favour of the printers.  Imagine playing a game of monopoly with someone who could just write "1,000,000, etc$" on a napkin whenever they wanted and then use it as in-game tender, why would you even bother?  You know you're going to lose in the end.

Alternative title: Modern rubbish mistaken for art rebuilt in Italy

For shame, OP

No, the reason is simple: if it wasn't Hitler, it would've been someone who shared the beliefs of Hitler, which were plentiful enough to make that whole fiasco happen.  Only thing that separated Hitler from the others is that he was the most charismatic, plenty of charismatic men were also present who could've fulfilled the same functions of representing the general will of the nation.  That so many people said yes indicates a general willingness to "do what it takes", without knowing what "it" actually is.  Sure, beating yourself over the head with a hammer is a hard thing to do, but would you do it if it meant having a million dollars?  It's a trick question, the real question is, does self-infliction help that cause?

Here are some qualities I've noticed about SJWs:

1. They're heavily sheltered from reality, i.e. naive on their perceptions and judgements, leading to quixotic behaviours and overreaction to common and insignificant phenomena (e.g. "micro-aggressions")
2. They exclusively (AFAICT) identify with authoritarian leftism and typically have little tolerance for anything but authoritarian leftism; "if the highest authority isn't doing something about it, then nothing's being done about it"
3. They do not self-assess their own belief systems, they only become self-aware when they are exposed to ulterior thoughts and PoVs; this allows them to go for long periods holding self-destructive or hypocritical beliefs, e.g. anti-white whites who identify as anti-racists; oddly, they are acutely aware of what they are superficially, and will talk in great lengths about, for example, their unique sexual orientation; essentially narcissism, self-centred
4. They seek "safe spaces" where they become sheltered from those ulterior thoughts and PoVs which make them uncomfortable, amplifying the deterioration of the individual's connection with reality
5. They discriminate on everything they tell others not to discriminate on, which rings loud the bell named "psychological projection"; they are not trying to solve problems, they are trying to put off their problems onto others, the "equal sharing of misery" as Churchill said about something closely related; "He for She" comes to mind
6. Poor concept of, aversion to, and/or disrespect for property and the rules associated with it, allowing them to waive crime depending on circumstance (such as those circumstances which benefit them and their causes, which is actually a rampant issue with all authoritarian lefties)

I once shared a small group with a SJW, she was still in her teens, just about to graduate HS.  She had no sense of danger whatsoever.  She believed guns should be completely banned outright and ownership of weapons is futile, seeing them as unnecessary in the modern world, and all form of defence should be handled by the state.  When I asked her what she would do if a burglar broke into her home, she said she would call the cops, and when I asked her what she'd do while waiting for the cops, she said she'd feed the burglar, assuming hunger to be among the only reasons someone would break into her home.  She doesn't realize that burglars are actually out to steal from her, not looking for food as would be the case with a dog.  When I asked her what she would do if the state wound up turning on her after all the weapons were gone, she thought I was crazy, and felt such an outcome would never happen.  She believed capitalism is utterly evil, referring to the system we have now (which is actually interventionist, something her school failed to mention no doubt) as being proof of it.  She was also very uncritical towards written language, allowing her prose to be riddled with typos and misspellings, and encouraged others to be as lax.  She believed that people should be taken care of regardless of who they are and what they've done, and believed the taxpayer should foot the bill for it; when questioned about the practicality of this, she accused me of not caring about people's right to food and shelter, arguing that because these needs are present that they should be satisfied, "how can you let someone go hungry"; in other words nobody can ever have their livelihood threatened, according to her ideal.  The last quality I recall, she believed nationalism was a "disease"; I believe she was referring to the Nazi sort of nationalism, however, which is very actively taught in public schools (at least when I went roughly 7 years ago), so I can't completely blame her for being scared shitless of it.

Granted, when I first came to this forum a few years ago, I shared a lot of these qualities (well, I was never as bad as a SJW but I was around the area) and didn't understand why such qualities were negative, so total turn-around in political orientation is absolutely possible.  What worked for me is constant exposure with other viewpoints, which inevitably showed me how I was wrong in my thinking and forced me to change.  I remember when I hit the breaking point: TheButterZone had grilled me on gun bans and I had to concede that gun bans were ineffective in producing the desired goal of reducing criminal violence (since criminals subvert the law to get weapons in case of a ban); after that it was all downhill, as I also had to concede that law was an ineffective way of curbing criminal behaviour all together which caused my entire belief system to avalanche (i.e. the idea that the highest authority was fixing it, or even could, was destroyed.)  In other words, "attacking" SJWs (i.e. disagreeing with them) is what stops them from being SJWs, and to protect who they are (i.e. windmill tilters), they have to guard themselves from these "attackers" i.e. eliminate the chance of exposure to reality, namely by removing the offending individual from the community all together.  We've seen it on Reddit recently, where censorship is very high as well as corruption, and they ban anyone who contributes to the communal discomfort (or who gets in the way of corrupt schemes)--this caused people to leave in droves once the truth started getting around about how bad it was, and caused anyone still around to severely dislike the site and not want to go to it, which is going to kill it over time like a toxin.  We've also seen this in places like China, Cambodia, USSR, Nazi Germany, where they resorted to jailing, silencing, even killing any opposition to the leading party, in each case focused around community, culture, and anti-business, which inevitably ate those organizations from the inside out (why China's as far from their communist ideal as ever, but won't stop being socialist since all that power would be lost from the organizers the moment that goal dies and nothing replaces it.)

What contributes to the creation of a safe space?  Primarily, freedom of speech needs to be abolished; there can be no safe space if people are free to stray from the accepted list of that which can be talked about.  Individuals who violate another's right to be comfortable must be removed from the community and treated as any rule-breaker would, which also removes them from the conversation (no voice.)  In order to remove individuals from the community, you need ownership over the community, the power to decide who is welcome in the community and who is not; therefore, those who seek safe spaces must also be amongst company; to turn the given community into a safe space, you need a high level of safe spacers along with a high level of people who don't naturally recognize obstruction of information transfer, both of which make up some clear majority, particularly a majority which outspends the minority, thus giving greater incentive to community organizers to cater to the safe spacers; since the safe spacers are incompatible with non-safe spacers, one group has to go, and once one group is dominant, the other is naturally locked out--they aren't completely barred from using the site, but it becomes practically useless to their purposes, which pushes them away from it, again Reddit is a great example.  When it comes to communities which are greatly opposed to safe spacers (but which the safe spacer wants to be a part of), the only route for a safe spacer to take is "middle of the road", where the safe spacers encourage the existing community to compromise on their current situation by a small increment now and small increment later, to allow the safe spacers more and more control over how they can be interacted with; this encourages heavy moderation of how the community members can and cannot interact with one another, which inevitably increases that community's rule-breaking behaviour as more and more rules are piled on as to what is and is not acceptable (thus, one by one, kicking the previous community out.)  This goes on until the safe spacers can reach a communal majority, which pushes the now incompatible minority out almost entirely.  With that minority gone, there can be no more meaningful conversation, as the truth is real and reality is no bueno for the safe spacer.  Naturally, the community can simply reject the safe spacer rather than compromise, which forces the safe spacer to seek elsewhere for their desire; I've seen this happen many times in our Meta subforum, where users complain about there being a lack of control and other users yelling at them for being such wimps   Not seeing a whole lot of this on the national level, at least not in the west, in fact it's probably closer to the safe space tipping point than it ever has been (heck, it's tipping as we speak.)

When it comes to sites like this one, the dominant force is in transfer of information rather than sharing of community, and to properly transfer information dictates freedom of speech, so safe spacers will always be locked out (assuming the net remains free, of course; odds are, safe spacers would sooner shut this site down than try to be a part of it.)  I feel that it is normal to accept both community quality and freedom of action and thought as important to a thriving organization, and I believe that people naturally notice and favour one over the other at varying degrees of magnitude, which creates these imbalances in priorities and organizational make up; this necessitates some mix of the two types of people to maintain a healthy organization, so as not to dip too far into either realm.  A safe space is not a healthy organization, it is an organization comprised of dysfunction, which purposefully seeks to eliminate the transfer of information on any meaningful level so as to stop that which causes them discomfort, the discomfort they need to feel to make anything better (thus, instead of a cooperation between the two types, the elimination of one entirely, essentially any form of extremism or "far" ideologies on the left/right spectrum); this dictates total control over the community's behaviour, a situation which breeds corruption as the community organizers, such as the politicians, the website owners, and so forth, see a way to profit from this control: at this point, the community gets into a dangerous predicament where the organizers attempt to control the community for the organizer's gain, rather than the community's gain, and that profitability rises the more "safe" (i.e. sheltered) their safe space is, which worsens the conditions of those individuals participating in the corrupted community as it further separates them from what's real, preventing them from seeing the nature of their relationship with the organizer.  It is as true for any nation as it is for any social site as it is for any family home and should be treated for what it is: social cancer.

http://www.returnofkings.com/36915/what-humans-can-learn-from-the-mice-utopia-experiment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM

Pretty insightful to what's going on with the world; the YouTube comments contain some interesting discussion as well, particularly the link between this and mgtow/feminism over here in the west.

There aren't any.  You've got the SJW Bernie, and you've got the power-hungry criminal Hillary; neither of them care much for democracy, in fact both of them would love more central control.  I believe Bernie has offered to spend, what, a trillion, two trillion, on fixing the infrastructure--where the fuck is he going to get that money from?  He's going to take it from people like you and me.  Why, then, if we want the infrastructure to be fixed so badly, are we not doing it ourselves?  After all, doing it ourselves would be the most democratic approach to it--why wait for Bernie to magically come up with trillions to pull it off?  Therein lies the crux: it's not about democracy, it's about more power.  The more control of the economy the central government has, the less control of the economy the nation in general has, i.e. the less control you personally have.  This is what lack of economic education does to you, it's what it does to Bernie, it's what it does to his supporters.  There is no one who supports any of these people who also understands the implications of their support (which is probably why they're so willing to have someone else rule for them, but if you're too ignorant to even select your own rulers correctly, it kinda breaks the whole point of having a democracy.)

Anyway, I don't see how Hillary's supposed to lead the nation behind bars, so why anyone is even bothering listening to her is beyond me.  I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of her voters were cucks.  My dad was one (now divorced), he said he'd vote for her, specifically because she's a woman and "wouldn't it be cool to have a woman president"; he's also said I'm a misogynist because I didn't believe that women were paid less than men for the same job (still don't, and now it's well known to be a myth.)  Eugh; just saying, these people are real, and no amount of facts will make them change their minds.  As far as I am able to determine, Hillary cares only about power acquisition, nothing more and nothing less.  Power-hungry people will only seek more power; Hillary will most certainly do everything in her power to gain more of it, even after she gets the election.  She won't stop until we're all bowed before her, and if that means violence against the population, so be it; they got plenty of militarized police units to pull off something big.

Democracy is the last thing you'll find in these people.  "Democrat" is just an identifier.  The true democratic leaders are those you listen to and follow on your own accord, because you want to, not because "oh no, what if that other guy gets into office, I don't want him in charge, therefore I will vote for the lesser evil," and then wind up ignoring anyway (up until the point that you can't, of course.)

FLCL

You can learn from this website: http://drawabox.com/

Yes, it's all made on the computer with a graphics tablet

This definition looks good to me

This sentence in itself is in relation with the technological divide between the generations.  What difference does it make if I get my knowledge from a computer or a book?  There isn't one, this is a stupid desire; moms and dads should educate themselves some on this matter, esp. in regards to the idea that the only purpose of a computer is to be entertained.  I was once denied, in my teens, of using the family PC to write an essay, never given a real reason why I couldn't, and was instructed instead to go to the library instead to write it.  The power cord to the PC was even hidden to ensure I couldn't use it (though I did find another cord elsewhere in the house, not like they're apple products or anything.)  So I used the fucking computers at the library to write my essay lol it's like, why did my time need to be wasted like this?  With all the time I spent in getting from and to the library, I could've spent in writing a better essay.

And it's not like the older generations were safe from the phenomenon either; vehicles revolutionized the world when they came about, fucking everyone owns a car nowadays, it's considered a staple of human life: no car, no transportation, you're fucked.  Not to mention all the other vehicles which make life easier.  Were they writing articles back then about how that technology was taking over that generation?  Were they writing articles about the machines making work infinitely easier and "oh no, how are all these people going to find work now that the piston has taken over the labor of twenty men?"  Now that I think about it, I'm sure this did happen, and I'm sure it will be ignored because "wow, new contemporary world that man's never experienced before never ever ever!!"  And I'm sure the responses were the same: people freaking out, saying "what would happen if the world as we know it ends and there's no more cars, how will you get by then, that's why everyone should keep a horse and buggy just in case."  Nobody thinks this anymore, esp. not after being raised around cars and being very much used to their existence.  So why do they say it about computers?  Simply put, because it's new, because the later generations weren't raised around it and the younger generations were, so while the younger generations see and exploit the incredible potential for a computer to ease one's life, the older generations will perpetually prefer the methods which they understand and are comfortable with than to put in the effort to use something which can make their lives potentially worse (if you've ever known someone who has a hard time figuring out how to copy and paste a file, you know what I mean.)  It's a dichotomy as old as civilization itself.

In a hundred years there will be some new technology that makes it so you never need to move a single muscle to get anything done, and the older generation will complain about it, claim it will lead to muscle dysfunction, claim it's taking over the lives of our younger folk and how can we get them to use the old trusted technologies again like good ol' brawn, and think about all the jobs we'll lose when we don't need to exert much effort to accomplish the same task, how are we going to feed and house all these people who can't find work; meanwhile, the younger generations will find ways to use it to their advantage, for their minds are still fresh, not bogged down by experience--of course, the downside being, lack of experience, and the more of that they get the more they turn into the older generation.  Anyway, point is, there's nothing new under the sun and certainly nothing new in this article.  The day someone comes up with a way to fix our "addiction" with plumbing, refrigerators, chairs, cars & planes & trains, comfortable clothing and phones, that's when you ought to listen to what they have to say about contemporary technology: just make sure their "solution" doesn't involve leaving your "earthly incarnation" to meet some celestial god-turtle on a distant planet.

Available for work!

That the image is a computer wallpaper is irrelevant; the cost stems from the work hours required to produce the image, which varies depending on what the image is: simple images could take less than an hour, complex images could take a whole week.