What do you mean by artificially low? If OPEC had been charging below cost, they couldn't have kept it up for all these years. I can imagine a cartel keeping prices artificially high, but not artificially low.
If it's that close that it's difficult to count, does it really matter who wins?
Every election the candidates adjust their position in various issues in order to pickup different demographics of voters. Both of them compete by slicing up the American public based on different categories of group think, and picking a side on each issue. It's a like a complex game of Go where both competitors give up ground in some areas to take ground in others. And like in most Go games, the result is a near 50% split of captured area.
Given the above, if the wrong as far as you're considered candidate wins this term, it's not going to change anything in the long run, because next election, the game will start over, the issues divided between the candidates, and the result again will be a near 50/50 split. So in the end, it's a chaotic process, and regardless whether you accept the candidate who wins this term, you'll still have around a 50% chance of accepting or rejecting the next candidate who will win next term.
You've got to like the last sentence of the dailymail piece:
According to chapter 16, verse 4 of the Bible's book of Revelations, one of the signs that Armageddon is near will be an angel pouring a bowl into the rivers, turning them into blood.
The summary is incorrect. There is nothing in the article that says they aren't looking for the perp in the 5 km radius of the crime location. Why else would they only test men, unless the DNA sample has a Y chromosome and they were looking for the perp?
If they are looking for family, why are they only testing men? The only plausible reason I can think of is if the DNA they had on record had a Y chromosome. But in that case, they're trying to find the perp, not a relative.
What you don't understand is the rules of the game called the U.S. justice system. It's much like the game of chicken, the only way to win is to go full speed ahead and hope the other side runs out of energy or money first. It takes money to play the game right, and come out on top. And, in this case, Samsung just didn't have their foot pedal to the metal like Apple did.
The guy doesn't have to watch the whole video. He can shut it off after determining it is objectionable. Doesn't this make it a little less extreme than what people are saying here in the comments?
You need to be fully verified in both mtgox and dwolla (ie send them a copy of your id and a recent utility bill to both web sites). Also, to witdraw from mtgox, you have to wait 6 - 8 business days for the mtgox -> dwolla transfer and 2 -3 more days for the dwolla to your bank transfer. In addition to the 25 cents charge, there is a 0.55% fee that mtgox charges for each bitcoin transaction to both the sender and the receiver, so total cost would be 1.1% + 25 cents.
So given all that, these seems like kind of a better deal.
Probably due to customer returns from people not knowing what linux is and getting upset when they found out that windows wasn't on the machine that they bought.
In nearly every country in the world the same drugs in the US are also illegal there. Since this wasn't always so and these drugs were once legal, and in each and every country were then made illegal, then how can you argue that legalizing drugs works? How can you explain why the reasons all these countries chose to ban them wouldn't apply today?
This is clearly given as a special event for something that, believing it or not, we would still agree would be miraculous -if it occurred-, and the latter belief isn't necessary to understand that claiming earlier man considered most everything specially miraculous, that is, had not the distinctions between natural-order and not that "modern man" has, is false.
First, the above does not say much of anything in regards to your viewpoint from your earlier post:
Precisely the same things we would consider "miraculous" today, were the things being considered "miraculous" then.
I would agree with you in your later post that we would consider miraculous back then would also be considered miraculous today, but I find this a very rudimentary assertion.
For your second reference, for your point to hold -all- instances of it raining would be so noted, they are not. This is clearly given as a special event...
The premise that God can open windows in Heaven to cause the water to leak through and make rain is not disproven simply because it is written He did that one time for "a special event". In addition, your assertion that "-all- instances of it raining would be so noted" in order for my point to be true does not hold either. A simpler explanation would be that when further raining was mentioned, there was no reason to reiterate the how it rained, because it was already understood (that God opened a window in heaven and rain fell through from above). Or alternately, the explanation was forgotten about and discarded when the later part of the Bible was written and it rained again (ie. parts of the Bible are not canonical with other parts)
As regards to your assertion that the Bible is full of "obvious allegory", how are you so certain to know where the allegory ends and the testimony of observables begins. For example, here is another excerpt, about the tower of Babel, Genesis 11:
1: And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 2: And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3: And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. 4: And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 5: And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6: And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7: Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 8: So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9: Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
In this excerpt, the miracle is that God split up the language of an entire nation and scattered them around the earth. This would be an observable and would be considered a miracle, today or in early history. What is your stance on this, is it an allegory or testimony of observed events? Why not just a simple made up story to explain why people speak different languages? Where do you draw the line and how are you so sure you drew it correctly?
Quantum effects can cause absolutely anything materially to happen, just improbably so--and no, you do not know what this means causally "behind that".
I haven't heard of this effect of quantum effects before about being able to cause absolutely anything to happen. Where are you getting your information on this? All I know, admittedly little, but as a general idea, that quantum behavior can cause changes to the rules of causality as we understand it, but only in situations where we can't interact with it directly.
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8: And God called the firmament Heaven.
Genesis chapter 9:
11: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12: And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
So there is a "Heaven" in which water exists above. God can open and close windows within it to make it rain. Sounds like a pretty miraculous explanation for an event that by today's standard woudl be considered mundane.
Yes, I know transactions are visible through the block explorer. What it doesn't reveal is who owns each address, and many are used for only a couple transactions at most. In fact, if you ever really dealt with Mt Gox, you'd realize that they create a new address to send to every time you deposit money. So how are the Feds going to find out that this address belongs to the alpaca socks guy, or that one belongs to Mt Gox? In other words, how would they have any clue, from looking at a record of transactions, that indeed it went through Alpaca, and then Mt. Gox, vs. some other random chain of merchants and exchange?
All these sellers were outed by the feds simply buying some drugs with bitcoins and watching the bitcoin transactions through block explorer.
Citation? This sounds like some serious BS. First, TFA states the feds never revealed how they caught the suspects. Second, according to the TFA, the farmers market used at least 4 methods of payment, including paypal and western union, so there was no need to trace somebody through bitcoin. Third, if the Feds were tracing purchases through bitcoin, then how would they know when the bitcoin had changed ownership? If the bitcoins that were used to buy the drugs were then spent by the selling party on incense candles, and then spent again by a third party for a pair of Alpaca socks, before being changed to dollars, how would the Feds know who the original purchaser was?
Also Slashdot and Facebook have very different goals. Slashdot is a news site that gives us a place to share our bullshit opinions, which in turn attracts people here to read bullshit and leave behind some of their own. Facebook is there to suck information out of users and to present this in a consolidated form, with lines drawn between all aspects of a personal life.
Regardless of the goals, Slashdot has a lot more political and idealogical data on its users than Facebook, which would be a much greater indicator of who should be treated as suspicious persons. Heck, just being a member of a mostly liberal and fringe site like Slashdot is probably more reason for the government to place you in the "suspicious person" file than most anything you'd find on Facebook. Then you could go deeper down and look at comments made by someone, who's modding who, and who's reading what story, and you'd get quite an interesting psychological profile on someone.
What's the point in profiling MysteriousPreacher? Without some way of tracing it back to a person or other alter egos, what's there to gain?
I bet most users aren't hiding their IP address in any way when connecting to Slashdot and would be traceable. Even if you are using a proxy, all it takes in one time where you slip up and connect without it, and you're now traceable.
I'm not saying it's impossible to post on Slashdot and hide your identity, but I just think that most people aren't doing this, or there would be far more discussion about Tor and the like than there is now. It's just weird how so many people here spout anti-government and corporation rants, while, I'm assuming, not taking any steps to hide their identity, and then go on to espouse the dangers of liking LOLcat videos on Facebook for fear of the very same powers-that-be tracking and profiling them.
Isn't the Slashdot comment system a huge potential data mine for spying and profiling people as well? I mean with Facebook, you get to see things such as a persons favorite artists, their friends, whether they like mountain dew or not, etc. With the people actively logging in, commenting, moderating and meta-moderating in slashdot, you get to see their whole idealogy and opinion of various government and political ideas. Which of these two things would governments be more interested in?
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean by artificially low? If OPEC had been charging below cost, they couldn't have kept it up for all these years. I can imagine a cartel keeping prices artificially high, but not artificially low.
A stock market that crashes every few minutes sounds like an opportunity to me!
If it's that close that it's difficult to count, does it really matter who wins?
Every election the candidates adjust their position in various issues in order to pickup different demographics of voters. Both of them compete by slicing up the American public based on different categories of group think, and picking a side on each issue. It's a like a complex game of Go where both competitors give up ground in some areas to take ground in others. And like in most Go games, the result is a near 50% split of captured area.
Given the above, if the wrong as far as you're considered candidate wins this term, it's not going to change anything in the long run, because next election, the game will start over, the issues divided between the candidates, and the result again will be a near 50/50 split. So in the end, it's a chaotic process, and regardless whether you accept the candidate who wins this term, you'll still have around a 50% chance of accepting or rejecting the next candidate who will win next term.
You've got to like the last sentence of the dailymail piece:
According to chapter 16, verse 4 of the Bible's book of Revelations, one of the signs that Armageddon is near will be an angel pouring a bowl into the rivers, turning them into blood.
The summary is incorrect. There is nothing in the article that says they aren't looking for the perp in the 5 km radius of the crime location. Why else would they only test men, unless the DNA sample has a Y chromosome and they were looking for the perp?
If they are looking for family, why are they only testing men? The only plausible reason I can think of is if the DNA they had on record had a Y chromosome. But in that case, they're trying to find the perp, not a relative.
This may not be a ponzi scheme. pirateat40 seems to be still around: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101339.0
What you don't understand is the rules of the game called the U.S. justice system. It's much like the game of chicken, the only way to win is to go full speed ahead and hope the other side runs out of energy or money first. It takes money to play the game right, and come out on top. And, in this case, Samsung just didn't have their foot pedal to the metal like Apple did.
A space elevator cannot orbit what it's attached to. Otherwise, it's not in "orbit".
They said Space elevator. Space elevator "orbiting the moon" are your words. This link shows exactly what they are attempting to do: http://www.gizmag.com/lunar-elevator/23884/pictures#2
The guy doesn't have to watch the whole video. He can shut it off after determining it is objectionable. Doesn't this make it a little less extreme than what people are saying here in the comments?
You need to be fully verified in both mtgox and dwolla (ie send them a copy of your id and a recent utility bill to both web sites). Also, to witdraw from mtgox, you have to wait 6 - 8 business days for the mtgox -> dwolla transfer and 2 -3 more days for the dwolla to your bank transfer. In addition to the 25 cents charge, there is a 0.55% fee that mtgox charges for each bitcoin transaction to both the sender and the receiver, so total cost would be 1.1% + 25 cents.
So given all that, these seems like kind of a better deal.
Probably due to customer returns from people not knowing what linux is and getting upset when they found out that windows wasn't on the machine that they bought.
In nearly every country in the world the same drugs in the US are also illegal there. Since this wasn't always so and these drugs were once legal, and in each and every country were then made illegal, then how can you argue that legalizing drugs works? How can you explain why the reasons all these countries chose to ban them wouldn't apply today?
X? Drug dealing 101?
Prudent people don't go in for casual "hook ups" in a bar on a Friday night.
Exactly! Tuesday nights are ladies night.
Tell him to sign up for Google Voice. It'll convert SMS to email and its free. He can also send SMS for free, too, then.
Slashdot - News for Accountants, Taxation that matters
This is clearly given as a special event for something that, believing it or not, we would still agree would be miraculous -if it occurred-, and the latter belief isn't necessary to understand that claiming earlier man considered most everything specially miraculous, that is, had not the distinctions between natural-order and not that "modern man" has, is false.
First, the above does not say much of anything in regards to your viewpoint from your earlier post:
Precisely the same things we would consider "miraculous" today, were the things being considered "miraculous" then.
I would agree with you in your later post that we would consider miraculous back then would also be considered miraculous today, but I find this a very rudimentary assertion.
For your second reference, for your point to hold -all- instances of it raining would be so noted, they are not. This is clearly given as a special event...
The premise that God can open windows in Heaven to cause the water to leak through and make rain is not disproven simply because it is written He did that one time for "a special event". In addition, your assertion that "-all- instances of it raining would be so noted" in order for my point to be true does not hold either. A simpler explanation would be that when further raining was mentioned, there was no reason to reiterate the how it rained, because it was already understood (that God opened a window in heaven and rain fell through from above). Or alternately, the explanation was forgotten about and discarded when the later part of the Bible was written and it rained again (ie. parts of the Bible are not canonical with other parts)
As regards to your assertion that the Bible is full of "obvious allegory", how are you so certain to know where the allegory ends and the testimony of observables begins. For example, here is another excerpt, about the tower of Babel, Genesis 11:
1: And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2: And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3: And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4: And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5: And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6: And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7: Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8: So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9: Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
In this excerpt, the miracle is that God split up the language of an entire nation and scattered them around the earth. This would be an observable and would be considered a miracle, today or in early history. What is your stance on this, is it an allegory or testimony of observed events? Why not just a simple made up story to explain why people speak different languages? Where do you draw the line and how are you so sure you drew it correctly?
Quantum effects can cause absolutely anything materially to happen, just improbably so--and no, you do not know what this means causally "behind that".
I haven't heard of this effect of quantum effects before about being able to cause absolutely anything to happen. Where are you getting your information on this? All I know, admittedly little, but as a general idea, that quantum behavior can cause changes to the rules of causality as we understand it, but only in situations where we can't interact with it directly.
Genenis, chapter 1:
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8: And God called the firmament Heaven.
Genesis chapter 9:
11: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12: And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
So there is a "Heaven" in which water exists above. God can open and close windows within it to make it rain. Sounds like a pretty miraculous explanation for an event that by today's standard woudl be considered mundane.
Yes, I know transactions are visible through the block explorer. What it doesn't reveal is who owns each address, and many are used for only a couple transactions at most. In fact, if you ever really dealt with Mt Gox, you'd realize that they create a new address to send to every time you deposit money. So how are the Feds going to find out that this address belongs to the alpaca socks guy, or that one belongs to Mt Gox? In other words, how would they have any clue, from looking at a record of transactions, that indeed it went through Alpaca, and then Mt. Gox, vs. some other random chain of merchants and exchange?
All these sellers were outed by the feds simply buying some drugs with bitcoins and watching the bitcoin transactions through block explorer.
Citation? This sounds like some serious BS. First, TFA states the feds never revealed how they caught the suspects. Second, according to the TFA, the farmers market used at least 4 methods of payment, including paypal and western union, so there was no need to trace somebody through bitcoin. Third, if the Feds were tracing purchases through bitcoin, then how would they know when the bitcoin had changed ownership? If the bitcoins that were used to buy the drugs were then spent by the selling party on incense candles, and then spent again by a third party for a pair of Alpaca socks, before being changed to dollars, how would the Feds know who the original purchaser was?
Also Slashdot and Facebook have very different goals. Slashdot is a news site that gives us a place to share our bullshit opinions, which in turn attracts people here to read bullshit and leave behind some of their own. Facebook is there to suck information out of users and to present this in a consolidated form, with lines drawn between all aspects of a personal life.
Regardless of the goals, Slashdot has a lot more political and idealogical data on its users than Facebook, which would be a much greater indicator of who should be treated as suspicious persons. Heck, just being a member of a mostly liberal and fringe site like Slashdot is probably more reason for the government to place you in the "suspicious person" file than most anything you'd find on Facebook. Then you could go deeper down and look at comments made by someone, who's modding who, and who's reading what story, and you'd get quite an interesting psychological profile on someone.
What's the point in profiling MysteriousPreacher? Without some way of tracing it back to a person or other alter egos, what's there to gain?
I bet most users aren't hiding their IP address in any way when connecting to Slashdot and would be traceable. Even if you are using a proxy, all it takes in one time where you slip up and connect without it, and you're now traceable.
I'm not saying it's impossible to post on Slashdot and hide your identity, but I just think that most people aren't doing this, or there would be far more discussion about Tor and the like than there is now. It's just weird how so many people here spout anti-government and corporation rants, while, I'm assuming, not taking any steps to hide their identity, and then go on to espouse the dangers of liking LOLcat videos on Facebook for fear of the very same powers-that-be tracking and profiling them.
Isn't the Slashdot comment system a huge potential data mine for spying and profiling people as well? I mean with Facebook, you get to see things such as a persons favorite artists, their friends, whether they like mountain dew or not, etc. With the people actively logging in, commenting, moderating and meta-moderating in slashdot, you get to see their whole idealogy and opinion of various government and political ideas. Which of these two things would governments be more interested in?
It's the bag! You could put most anything in it and it'd work. Although you couldn't patent putting gravel in a bag.... or could you?