Remain calm and collected, use yer skillz to trace their accounts and reveal their identities, then go to their moms' houses, DRAG THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS OUT OF THEIR BASEMENTS AND BASH THOSE LOSERZ IN THEIR BITCH ASS FACES!!!!
We all should have seen this coming, with silly questions like this being posted on slashdot. Slow nerd news day, I guess.
36 hours, jeez, that's a lot of time to set aside, or a long time to be so "altered." LSD seems plenty long enough, and has a well-established safety profile when used with care. DMT might be a bit too quick, like a drag race, but I'd think an Indy 500-type duration would be enough for most people, rather than going up to a whole 24 hour endurance race like LeMans.
Something producing a full-on LSD-like experience in say, 2-4 hours would be a huge hit, both with psychonauts and scientists. I think 8+ hours of a psychedelic experience can be extremely exhausting, and long enough to forget a lot of the desirable details. To each his own of course, and a marathon can produce an extreme feeling of accomplishment for those willing to endure it. I just think something more manageable could be more useful, and become more accepted.
Pseudoephedrine, what!? Knocking you out? Valium can keep you awake, or just fail to make you sleepy? I don't see how using a mildly stimulating decongestant would help, and Valium is a proven and somewhat available means to calm a bad trip. Inf fact, benzodiazepines are commonly given for bad trips because they both mitigate the associated anxiety and often induce drowsiness. Something faster/shorter acting like alprazolam or lorazepam can be pretty effective, though the longer action of Valium isn't necessarily a problem. I have no firsthand experience but a couple of years ago a friend used 2 mg of etizolam to fall asleep and effectively abort a trip after about 4 hours. Said he woke up clear headed and feeling rested 8 hours later.
The first 4 hours were fun, but after that it just got kind of tedious.
There were always rumors it was jacked up with speed or strychnine, but I never thought you could fit enough of either in blotter for that to be true.
While the strychnine thing was a myth (which was understood by the time I was into psychedelics), there are at least a handful of other active substances that can fit on a square of blotter and produce qualitatively similar effects. Some other psychedelics are active at sub-miligram dosages and have been around for decades, and some of them are somewhat commonly available now. They may be sold surreptitiously as "acid" or more openly and correctly named. LSD experiences are notoriously variable and unpredictable, even for experienced psychonauts, but in some cases bad trips, unusual durations (either long or short) and unexpected effects can probably be attributed to mislabeled substitutes.
Today's iPhones might not have cellular connectivity by 2027. Just a thought to ponder...
Duh, Skynet will have us all in the dark long before then, so of course! I mean, with the implants and whatnot we'll forget cellular anyway, but you know.
Okay, how about paper-weighted instead of bricked? I mean, you can still use an OG iphone to do some stuff, but they are best and most commonly used as paper weights now, or so I must surmise. Or would you like to argue against the relevance of paper in 2017?
If a 2G-only smartphone can't connect to 2G anymore, it is "effectively bricked," if not outright, 100%, truly, completely and entirely bricked.
I'm curious to see what comes of this, and whether there is legal fallout. I wonder this because StraightTalk is still selling "unlimited" plans that explicitly state you will drop to 2G once you reach 5GB in your 30 day period. So since January 1 they have effectively been selling something that doesn't exist, for their customers on AT&T's network. I use ST (beginning to shop around again now) and definitely bought a service card after 1/1/2017 that clearly specified 2G service rather than throttling or "2G like" speed.
Only if Ivey marked the cards, which he didn't. This is little different than an opposing poker player having a a tell and you exploiting it.
Advantage plays like edge sorting (what they did), card counting, exploiting a weak dealer's screw-ups, etc. are not illegal. They'll get you tossed once the house catches on, but I don't see how Ivey should be subject to any civil penalty here. His lawyer is right. that utilizing your own visual acuity in combination with your knowledge of the game shouldn't expose you to civil or criminal liability, even if it pisses off the casinos. If they don't like it they should fix their games, or cut you off.
But he knowingly used marked cards and it could be assumed that he knew the other players were unaware of this. He could not possibly believe that the other players knowingly consented to playing against him with cards that only he knew were marked. The implicit understanding in the game is that the cards are not marked. Isn't that some form of fraud?
Not exactly. Those cards do not meet the definition of "marked" cards because they had not been altered in any way and in fact met the casino's specifications even after being used. Ivey did not mark them, nor did anyone else, neither a player nor a conspiring dealer. Wasn't this mini-baccarat, where players never touch the cards? This was simply "advantage" play, which is not illegal. Exploiting a flaw in the game is not illegal, though of course the house can give you the boot for any reason, if they so desire. The shocking part is that a court would side with the casino despite them knowingly allowing a flaw into play and allowing players to rack up substantial winnings without cutting them off.
What I'd like to know is how did his partner get sent to jail for an MGM gambling debt? Anyone know? While looking for the answer, I did come across this interesting article about advantage players, that there are many, that the casinos know of them and don't call them cheaters because what they are doing is legal.
I'm not sure exactly what Cheung Yin Sun did to get locked up, but you could go to jail in relation to a gambling debt if you intentionally misstated something to secure credit, if it can be demonstrated that you never intended to repay the debt when you incurred it, or if you committed wire fraud.
Anyway, casinos will have you arrested if you are cheating, and will definitely still 86 you if they think you are using any sort of legal "system" to take their money. It seem silly that they can ban legal players, as if the law is on their side as well as the odds, but that's what pros have to deal with - you beat them until they get sick of losing and take their ball and go home. That makes it difficult to be a pro gambler unless you limit yourself to poker and beating other gamblers.
Great link by the way, I hadn't seen that particular article - very good read.
Only half the people will agree with you, casinos are a shady business to begin with. What I don't understand is the other players, I would never agree to play with someone who wanted to alter things.
You haven't played much poker then. Players often make quirky requests that don't run afoul of any rules, whether out of superstition, to create side bets, or just to give other players something extra to think about. A buddy of mine played a cash game with noted player Phil Hellmuth once, and Hellmuth never stopped talking or suggesting all sorts of things, for hours. This is more common when playing with acquaintances but not unheard of at random cash games, while tournaments allow fewer shenanigans.
And I suppose you don't spend much time in a Vegas poker room if you aren't already into shady business.
Did you hear that great big whooshing sound? Yeah, that. That was the sound of "training rounds" going right over your head.
Or more likely right through your head. Which is easy to do because it's apparently empty.
What does it sound like when someone doesn't understand that most people only read the headline and don't bother with the whole summary, let alone the freaking article? Please tell us.
Sorry we destroyed all of you infrastructure, orphaned your children, and created a dangerous power vacuum when we killed your leader and obliterated your entire government. But hey, here's some nice foreign plants that will overrun those struggling crops that you can't irrigate anymore. You're welcome.
Because it way, way more likely to produce bullets that jam guns or don't fire at all than to help the environment in any significant way.
No one is suggesting they just start stuffing seeds down the muzzles of rifles. There is no reason future bullets made of something other than heavy metals would necessarily jam or fail to fire. I seriously doubt you have tried what's being proposed, so you are talking out of your ass.
As long as Satoshi still controls the first million bitcoins I fear it cannot be taken seriously as the creator has the power to single handily effect the market. No bank or government is going to back something where 1 individual has set themselves up with such disruptive power.
6% of the market (and dropping) is not that much of a concern. And it has been argued that Satoshi does not in fact hold that much.
If you want to compare BTC to traditional currencies, maybe the strongest, most accepted, and most stable one is not the best one to choose. Besides, if widespread sale of goods was conducted in BTC, and it were utilized the same way as USD, the fluctuations would not be a daily concern the same way they are if you are only looking at exchange rates.
I understand that BC is not a "widely accepted" currency and odds are that you have to cash-in eventually, but the point of Bitcoin is to become an alternate way to ease the trade of goods and services, and it should be used like that. Trying to convert it into "real" money misses the point completely. I think that if people have bitcoins, they should use them only to replace conventional currency in their transactions, not to try to convert them.
It is especially useful for people in parts of the world where access to traditional banks and payment systems is poor. Much like the Hawala system in Muslim countries, BTC is a quick, reliable way for people working or living abroad to send money home to family members.
Example: you're Somali, working abroad for a construction company. You would have a hard time opening a bank account in many foreign countries, but you can visit a hawala broker and have money in your wife's hands in a couple of days. BTC works for that, too, and lots of people use it that way, whether on their own or indirectly. Converting it to other currencies is not missing anything, as it is well suited to transferring money internationally. Not sure why you think people should only use certain currencies in certain ways.
And the second it dropped below $900, people started buying and pushed it to $975... Look up "Profit Taking" "Rebound" and "Correction" to see why this happens and how it happens in stocks and other investments all the time. Essentially, a lot of people had sell orders at $1100 that started a dip. A lot of day traders dumped when it dipped causing a big drop. But a lot had buy orders if it went below $900, and that floor caused the day traders to jump in and push it up further.
When I first glanced at the headline I thought there was something major going on, since if Slashdot were reporting on bitcoin value it must be serious. Nope, of course not, just a correction that was bound to come sooner than later. It's still going strong, and while it will continue to be a wild ride, I can't see it really "crashing" any time soon, no matter what the OP suggests. I got back in months ago at $800ish, took profit at $975, and rebought again at $890. Big swings, as we've always seen, but not unexpected.
So if I'm elected as a single parent you punish my kids by halving their immediate family's maximum wealth?
Your kids can still keep 100% of the money that they earn for themselves. If they are individually destitute, having access to a parent with $10m is no "punishment".
But with just me they'd have access to only $10 mil maximum inheritance, while kids of two parents in the White House would potentially inherit twice as much. That's just not fair. This is a stupid discussion anyway, not going to happen.
Do you have any indication at all that Obama intends on defying the Electoral College's decision? Yes, he's trying to leave a few poison pills for Trump, but he's still President until January 21st, and thus enjoys the full powers bequeathed to him by the Constitution and by Congressional statute. If he wishes to use those powers to fuck around with Trump, well, then history will be the judge.
He's already signed a new lease in the same town. You don't do that unless you plan on moving.
Slashdot Mirror
Remain calm and collected, use yer skillz to trace their accounts and reveal their identities, then go to their moms' houses, DRAG THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS OUT OF THEIR BASEMENTS AND BASH THOSE LOSERZ IN THEIR BITCH ASS FACES!!!!
We all should have seen this coming, with silly questions like this being posted on slashdot. Slow nerd news day, I guess.
Piss off you fucking cunts!!!!
Very well then, good day, sir.
36 hours, jeez, that's a lot of time to set aside, or a long time to be so "altered." LSD seems plenty long enough, and has a well-established safety profile when used with care. DMT might be a bit too quick, like a drag race, but I'd think an Indy 500-type duration would be enough for most people, rather than going up to a whole 24 hour endurance race like LeMans.
Something producing a full-on LSD-like experience in say, 2-4 hours would be a huge hit, both with psychonauts and scientists. I think 8+ hours of a psychedelic experience can be extremely exhausting, and long enough to forget a lot of the desirable details. To each his own of course, and a marathon can produce an extreme feeling of accomplishment for those willing to endure it. I just think something more manageable could be more useful, and become more accepted.
Pseudoephedrine, what!? Knocking you out? Valium can keep you awake, or just fail to make you sleepy? I don't see how using a mildly stimulating decongestant would help, and Valium is a proven and somewhat available means to calm a bad trip. Inf fact, benzodiazepines are commonly given for bad trips because they both mitigate the associated anxiety and often induce drowsiness. Something faster/shorter acting like alprazolam or lorazepam can be pretty effective, though the longer action of Valium isn't necessarily a problem. I have no firsthand experience but a couple of years ago a friend used 2 mg of etizolam to fall asleep and effectively abort a trip after about 4 hours. Said he woke up clear headed and feeling rested 8 hours later.
The first 4 hours were fun, but after that it just got kind of tedious.
There were always rumors it was jacked up with speed or strychnine, but I never thought you could fit enough of either in blotter for that to be true.
While the strychnine thing was a myth (which was understood by the time I was into psychedelics), there are at least a handful of other active substances that can fit on a square of blotter and produce qualitatively similar effects. Some other psychedelics are active at sub-miligram dosages and have been around for decades, and some of them are somewhat commonly available now. They may be sold surreptitiously as "acid" or more openly and correctly named. LSD experiences are notoriously variable and unpredictable, even for experienced psychonauts, but in some cases bad trips, unusual durations (either long or short) and unexpected effects can probably be attributed to mislabeled substitutes.
Today's iPhones might not have cellular connectivity by 2027. Just a thought to ponder...
Duh, Skynet will have us all in the dark long before then, so of course! I mean, with the implants and whatnot we'll forget cellular anyway, but you know.
Okay, how about paper-weighted instead of bricked? I mean, you can still use an OG iphone to do some stuff, but they are best and most commonly used as paper weights now, or so I must surmise. Or would you like to argue against the relevance of paper in 2017?
If a 2G-only smartphone can't connect to 2G anymore, it is "effectively bricked," if not outright, 100%, truly, completely and entirely bricked.
I'm curious to see what comes of this, and whether there is legal fallout. I wonder this because StraightTalk is still selling "unlimited" plans that explicitly state you will drop to 2G once you reach 5GB in your 30 day period. So since January 1 they have effectively been selling something that doesn't exist, for their customers on AT&T's network. I use ST (beginning to shop around again now) and definitely bought a service card after 1/1/2017 that clearly specified 2G service rather than throttling or "2G like" speed.
Only if Ivey marked the cards, which he didn't. This is little different than an opposing poker player having a a tell and you exploiting it.
Advantage plays like edge sorting (what they did), card counting, exploiting a weak dealer's screw-ups, etc. are not illegal. They'll get you tossed once the house catches on, but I don't see how Ivey should be subject to any civil penalty here. His lawyer is right. that utilizing your own visual acuity in combination with your knowledge of the game shouldn't expose you to civil or criminal liability, even if it pisses off the casinos. If they don't like it they should fix their games, or cut you off.
But he knowingly used marked cards and it could be assumed that he knew the other players were unaware of this. He could not possibly believe that the other players knowingly consented to playing against him with cards that only he knew were marked. The implicit understanding in the game is that the cards are not marked. Isn't that some form of fraud?
Not exactly. Those cards do not meet the definition of "marked" cards because they had not been altered in any way and in fact met the casino's specifications even after being used. Ivey did not mark them, nor did anyone else, neither a player nor a conspiring dealer. Wasn't this mini-baccarat, where players never touch the cards? This was simply "advantage" play, which is not illegal. Exploiting a flaw in the game is not illegal, though of course the house can give you the boot for any reason, if they so desire. The shocking part is that a court would side with the casino despite them knowingly allowing a flaw into play and allowing players to rack up substantial winnings without cutting them off.
What I'd like to know is how did his partner get sent to jail for an MGM gambling debt? Anyone know? While looking for the answer, I did come across this interesting article about advantage players, that there are many, that the casinos know of them and don't call them cheaters because what they are doing is legal.
I'm not sure exactly what Cheung Yin Sun did to get locked up, but you could go to jail in relation to a gambling debt if you intentionally misstated something to secure credit, if it can be demonstrated that you never intended to repay the debt when you incurred it, or if you committed wire fraud.
Anyway, casinos will have you arrested if you are cheating, and will definitely still 86 you if they think you are using any sort of legal "system" to take their money. It seem silly that they can ban legal players, as if the law is on their side as well as the odds, but that's what pros have to deal with - you beat them until they get sick of losing and take their ball and go home. That makes it difficult to be a pro gambler unless you limit yourself to poker and beating other gamblers.
Great link by the way, I hadn't seen that particular article - very good read.
Only half the people will agree with you, casinos are a shady business to begin with. What I don't understand is the other players, I would never agree to play with someone who wanted to alter things.
You haven't played much poker then. Players often make quirky requests that don't run afoul of any rules, whether out of superstition, to create side bets, or just to give other players something extra to think about. A buddy of mine played a cash game with noted player Phil Hellmuth once, and Hellmuth never stopped talking or suggesting all sorts of things, for hours. This is more common when playing with acquaintances but not unheard of at random cash games, while tournaments allow fewer shenanigans.
And I suppose you don't spend much time in a Vegas poker room if you aren't already into shady business.
Did you hear that great big whooshing sound? Yeah, that. That was the sound of "training rounds" going right over your head.
Or more likely right through your head. Which is easy to do because it's apparently empty.
What does it sound like when someone doesn't understand that most people only read the headline and don't bother with the whole summary, let alone the freaking article? Please tell us.
Some people in this world really do need shooting though
In three Southern states, "He needed killin'" is still a valid defense for murder.
couldn't we just not shoot people?
SHUT UP, HIPPIE!
Sorry we destroyed all of you infrastructure, orphaned your children, and created a dangerous power vacuum when we killed your leader and obliterated your entire government. But hey, here's some nice foreign plants that will overrun those struggling crops that you can't irrigate anymore. You're welcome.
Because it way, way more likely to produce bullets that jam guns or don't fire at all than to help the environment in any significant way.
No one is suggesting they just start stuffing seeds down the muzzles of rifles. There is no reason future bullets made of something other than heavy metals would necessarily jam or fail to fire. I seriously doubt you have tried what's being proposed, so you are talking out of your ass.
As long as Satoshi still controls the first million bitcoins I fear it cannot be taken seriously as the creator has the power to single handily effect the market. No bank or government is going to back something where 1 individual has set themselves up with such disruptive power.
6% of the market (and dropping) is not that much of a concern. And it has been argued that Satoshi does not in fact hold that much.
If you want to compare BTC to traditional currencies, maybe the strongest, most accepted, and most stable one is not the best one to choose. Besides, if widespread sale of goods was conducted in BTC, and it were utilized the same way as USD, the fluctuations would not be a daily concern the same way they are if you are only looking at exchange rates.
I understand that BC is not a "widely accepted" currency and odds are that you have to cash-in eventually, but the point of Bitcoin is to become an alternate way to ease the trade of goods and services, and it should be used like that. Trying to convert it into "real" money misses the point completely. I think that if people have bitcoins, they should use them only to replace conventional currency in their transactions, not to try to convert them.
It is especially useful for people in parts of the world where access to traditional banks and payment systems is poor. Much like the Hawala system in Muslim countries, BTC is a quick, reliable way for people working or living abroad to send money home to family members.
Example: you're Somali, working abroad for a construction company. You would have a hard time opening a bank account in many foreign countries, but you can visit a hawala broker and have money in your wife's hands in a couple of days. BTC works for that, too, and lots of people use it that way, whether on their own or indirectly. Converting it to other currencies is not missing anything, as it is well suited to transferring money internationally. Not sure why you think people should only use certain currencies in certain ways.
I'm really kicking myself for not speculating another $10k into BTC when it was down around $225.
Hah! I remember the first time it hit $20. I sold 5 BTC and thought I was a genius!
And the second it dropped below $900, people started buying and pushed it to $975... Look up "Profit Taking" "Rebound" and "Correction" to see why this happens and how it happens in stocks and other investments all the time. Essentially, a lot of people had sell orders at $1100 that started a dip. A lot of day traders dumped when it dipped causing a big drop. But a lot had buy orders if it went below $900, and that floor caused the day traders to jump in and push it up further.
When I first glanced at the headline I thought there was something major going on, since if Slashdot were reporting on bitcoin value it must be serious. Nope, of course not, just a correction that was bound to come sooner than later. It's still going strong, and while it will continue to be a wild ride, I can't see it really "crashing" any time soon, no matter what the OP suggests. I got back in months ago at $800ish, took profit at $975, and rebought again at $890. Big swings, as we've always seen, but not unexpected.
"Accidental leak?" That results in free advertising, see above for example.
So if I'm elected as a single parent you punish my kids by halving their immediate family's maximum wealth?
Your kids can still keep 100% of the money that they earn for themselves. If they are individually destitute, having access to a parent with $10m is no "punishment".
But with just me they'd have access to only $10 mil maximum inheritance, while kids of two parents in the White House would potentially inherit twice as much. That's just not fair. This is a stupid discussion anyway, not going to happen.
Do you have any indication at all that Obama intends on defying the Electoral College's decision? Yes, he's trying to leave a few poison pills for Trump, but he's still President until January 21st, and thus enjoys the full powers bequeathed to him by the Constitution and by Congressional statute. If he wishes to use those powers to fuck around with Trump, well, then history will be the judge.
He's already signed a new lease in the same town. You don't do that unless you plan on moving.