|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Solar panels for laptops, and CubeSats. Wait are you REALLY not making this up or are you trying to trick me?
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Wait are you REALLY not making this up or are you trying to trick me? Though my ways, like that of all statists, are cunning and fiendish in the service of my BIG GOVERNMENT masters, I assure you that no, I am not trying to trick you. They seriously think they'll be able to keep the distributed network alive in crappy, short-life satellites, and perform bitcoin transactions via radio, if/when civilization collapses. Now, you may say, "that sounds really dumb and poorly thought out." Congratulations, you've taken your first step towards understanding the mind of bitcoiners.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Though my ways, like that of all statists, are cunning and fiendish in the service of my BIG GOVERNMENT masters, I assure you that no, I am not trying to trick you. They seriously think they'll be able to keep the distributed network alive in crappy, short-life satellites, and perform bitcoin transactions via radio, if/when civilization collapses. Why would that be worthwhile for anyone. I mean at least you can actually hold gold in your hand/under your pillow/locked away in your bunker when the war of all against all kicks off, who's going to have time to fiddle around with satellite receivers and ham radios when you can just barter bullets for fresh water and so on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Why would that be worthwhile for anyone. It wouldn't!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Chwoka posted:How the gently caress would you use bitcoin in a post-apocalyptic situation? Are the power plants and the internet both still working? Simply exchange 50 gigabytes of data over ham radio to get your wallet set up! Make sure you remembered how to handle computing hashes by hand with a solar powered calculator before the apocalypse hit!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
That part's easy. I'm sure the hash difficulty will be very low when you're the only one doing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That part's easy. I'm sure the hash difficulty will be very low when you're the only one doing it. Yeah, the hashing difficulty will be easy, so the network will still process transactions every ten minutes (how efficient!). The issue is that you need everyone with whom you interact to have a working internet connection, and to maintain the network you also have to have at least one computer that does nothing but produce shitloads of waste heat from whatever limited supply of power you have available. It's the "why aren't more vendors accepting bitcoin" problem but way worse
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
The bitcoin discussion is immensely improved by having the bit-to-butt extension running.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yeah, the hashing difficulty will be easy, so the network will still process transactions every ten minutes (how efficient!). The issue is that you need everyone with whom you interact to have a working internet connection, and to maintain the network you also have to have at least one computer that does nothing but produce shitloads of waste heat from whatever limited supply of power you have available. I'm pretty sure that problem's in the wiki, which means it's essentially solved already.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Imagining the bedroom chat of Objectivist couples is very unpleasant to me. It got posted earlier in thread I think, begging that week old body odor and unchanged littler boxes be corrected and that oral sex better be selfish, dammit. But enough about Ayn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Well the "villains" of Atlus Shrugged are literally humanist philanthropists that wish only to devote their lives to helping the poor and downtrodden. If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about Ayn Rand I don't know what could. I think the final point to hammer home is that if brevity is the soul of wit and John Galt speaks for over 3 hours... Even in the generous standards of a universe that contains an infinite energy machine had still has a somewhat humanly recognizable society, anyone blabbering on for 3 whole hours has nothing useful to say. John Galt speaks if I have the number right roughly 33,000 words in the singular speech, for a common point of reference apparently the totality of Jesus' spoken word in the new testament gospels is about 41,000 words. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It got posted earlier in thread I think, begging that week old body odor and unchanged littler boxes be corrected and that oral sex better be selfish, dammit. *closes eyes* *sees images, opens eyes and tries to never close them again*
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The speech takes 198 minutes (3 hours, 18 minutes) to read aloud at a comfortable speaking speed: What in the flying gently caress? I know Atlas Shrugged is a huge book, but just that one speech takes THAT long to read/speak? The woman really was a goddamned sociopath. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:What in the flying gently caress? I know Atlas Shrugged is a huge book, but just that one speech takes THAT long to read/speak? The woman really was a goddamned sociopath. Its seventy pages in the first print. The speech is essentially two state of the unions spoken back to back about how loving great being a selfish prick is. It really is quite astounding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Also I just wanted to take this moment to thank everyone in this thread. With your help we have saved Jrodefeld from at least a half dozen bans or probations by keeping him contained in a single thread rather than spilling over into D&D in general. It is hard work, but in my heart I am certain the vaunted mods of D&D appreciate your sacrifice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Caros posted:Also I just wanted to take this moment to thank everyone in this thread. With your help we have saved Jrodefeld from at least a half dozen bans or probations by keeping him contained in a single thread rather than spilling over into D&D in general. It is hard work, but in my heart I am certain the vaunted mods of D&D appreciate your sacrifice. Well FINALLY  But seriously, I wonder if Jrod will
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Well FINALLY Clearly the survivors would no longer do business with the still smoking wreckage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
Caros posted:Its seventy pages in the first print. The speech is essentially two state of the unions spoken back to back about how loving great being a selfish prick is. It really is quite astounding. Dear sweet Vishnu..
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
Caros posted:Also I just wanted to take this moment to thank everyone in this thread. With your help we have saved Jrodefeld from at least a half dozen bans or probations by keeping him contained in a single thread rather than spilling over into D&D in general. It is hard work, but in my heart I am certain the vaunted mods of D&D appreciate your sacrifice. He should be banned for the anti-vax crap anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
Caros posted:Its seventy pages in the first print. The speech is essentially two state of the unions spoken back to back about how loving great being a selfish prick is. It really is quite astounding. Every time you hear some twee presidential asshat nominee* vows to bring back the apex of American political discourse by challenging his opponent to a series of Lincoln-Douglas debates, remember John Galt's speech, and realize what a tool they loving are. *Newt Gingrich.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 08:54
|
|
Christopher Hitchens did the best one line dismissive remark on Rand. quote:I don't think there's any need for essays advocating selfishness among human beings - I don't know what your impression has been, but some things require no further reinforcement. Although there is a long history of put-downs. Traditional conservatives, of course, disliked her the most. William Buckley posted:1000 pages of ideological fabulism. I had to flog myself to read it. Whitaker Chambers posted:From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber — go!” Sam Harris posted:Objectivism is basically autism rebranded. Hayek posted:We had a very brief exchange. She swelled in anger and spun away, remaining only long enough to say, ‘You are a compromiser.’ Rothbard posted:The Rand cult was concerned not with every man’s individuality, but only with Rand’s individuality, not with everyone’s right reason but only with Rand’s reason.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
So basically the natural end result of libertarianism there. Rothbard must've had himself in knots or been completely lacking self awareness to avoid the skull shattering irony there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
Reading about the objectivism cult is the best thing. Combine a philosophy that says all human desires, including aesthetic tastes, are a product of conscious or unconscious logical deduction from first principles with the conviction that any mistake is a deliberate immoral act of refusing to think, and you get an individualist cult that holds inquisitions and excommunicates people for disagreeing with the leader's taste in classical music. Anyway Matt Taibbi posted:In any case, during this same period Greenspan drew closer to Rand, who as self-appointed pope of the protocapitalist religion had become increasingly unhinged, prone to Galtian rants and banishments. One of her rages centered around Branden, a handsome and significantly younger psychotherapist Rand met when she was forty-four and Branden was nineteen. The two had an affair despite the fact that both were married; in a cultist echo of David Koresh/Branch Davidian sexual ethics, both spouses reportedly consented to the arrangement to keep the movement leader happy. Patrecia vs Ayn Rand in the mid-sixties  
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 11:21 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
Caros posted:Also I just wanted to take this moment to thank everyone in this thread. With your help we have saved Jrodefeld from at least a half dozen bans or probations by keeping him contained in a single thread rather than spilling over into D&D in general. It is hard work, but in my heart I am certain the vaunted mods of D&D appreciate your sacrifice. My God. What have we done? Is this the monster we've created? I don't know why he keeps coming back. I love being able to tell him that what he is saying is not something someone using logic and reason would say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Caros posted:Also I just wanted to take this moment to thank everyone in this thread. With your help we have saved Jrodefeld from at least a half dozen bans or probations by keeping him contained in a single thread rather than spilling over into D&D in general. It is hard work, but in my heart I am certain the vaunted mods of D&D appreciate your sacrifice. I wasn't around for that era of his posting, and almost* everything in his rap sheet requires archives to read, but judging by this:  His continued presence is solely due to mod clemency. *The exception being him barging into the gay marriage thread to start talking about State's Rights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I wasn't around for that era of his posting, and almost* everything in his rap sheet requires archives to read, but judging by this: Basically, you know how every time jrod gets backed into a corner where his position has become unequivocally loathsome or stupid, he goes away and then comes back with a million-word essay on an entirely new topic? Imagine each of those being a whole new thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Edit: I'm kind of thinking that Branden just shivered in her arms mumbling "it's so dusty."
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:*The exception being him barging into the gay marriage thread to start talking about State's Rights. I somehow missed that part of the marriage thread!  Holy poo poo he cited freep as a resource when people disagreed with his claim that the civil war wasn't about slavery and if LGBT activists really want to defend gay rights they should be advancing the cause of southern secession from the evil gay-hating federal government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I somehow missed that part of the marriage thread! Link this. I need to see.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:As far as Lincoln and the Civil War goes, I suggest a few resources: The  responses of other posters to were pretty hilariousAmused to Death posted:Oh my god, at first I was just going to laugh at mises links, but you actually linked to FreeRepublic, a board full of crazy, seething racists. I guess you didn't see the Freep thread a few below this to know what exactly we think of FreeRepublic. Tatum Girlparts posted:Guys he cited Freep as a source, he legitimately brought Free Republic as a source holy poo poo the looking glass is miles behind us. etc etc E: ahahaha he's mellowed in the three years since then, scan around near that link and you'll find him defending Rothbard's free baby market VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
HIs argument style hasn't changed in 3 years
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:HIs argument style hasn't changed in 3 years That's because he hasn't had an original thought since middle school.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:HIs argument style hasn't changed in 3 years Actually, I think it's gotten much wordier and far more trying to be "academcic." Looking at his posts, content-wise they're the same, but they're a lot easier to read since it isn't just the jumble of thoughts that he vomits up onto the thread. Who What Now posted:That's because he hasn't had an original thought since middle school. You think he was having original thoughts in middle-school? Remember, mommy was a libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
I promise you he will still defend it while saying "I don't agree with my avatar about many things." But what are those things? Certainly not apartheid or baby selling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
I wonder what he would say if we asked him what would be able to change his mind. I imagine most libertarians would know Bill Nye gave the right answer,even though they obviously ascribe to Ken Ham's response E: lol I always love seeing a poster get probated the minute after I refresh
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:He should be banned for the anti-vax crap anyway. I hope your being facetious. Banning someone for expressing an opinion is an act of intellectual cowardice and clearly anti free speech. People have differing opinions from you and you have to learn to deal with people on an adult level even when their views differ from yours. Anyway, I am slightly regretting even bringing up vaccinations, not because I don't feel I have some reasonable arguments, but because of the contentious nature of this subject it remains unlikely to be productive. But I'll just recap my position on vaccines. I am not opposed to vaccines. I don't feel they are the only, or event the best way to protect a society from the spread of infectious diseases. They are a tool, an invaluable tool, in the kit of the responsible doctor. Yet I adamantly oppose any mandatory vaccination laws merely for living within the United States. Rules mandating vaccinations regarding children who enroll in public schools are fine, as are private requirements for private schools and other voluntary gatherings of large groups of people. But mandatory injections by the State merely for the "privilege" of existing within the borders of an artificially partitioned geographical land mass is a totalitarian nightmare waiting to happen. I suppose I am an "anti-vaxer" and a lunatic simply for opposing violently coerced injections mandated by the State. Not even the most avid proponent of vaccinations should even contemplate such a violation of human rights. "The Greater Good" is frequently a slippery slope that leads inexorably to further infringements upon civil liberties. This is why I openly questioned whether or not you even consider peaceful and voluntary solutions to social problems or if you instinctively opt for violent coercion. I believe it is the latter. If your logic were to be followed through, then simply mandating vaccinations wouldn't be enough. If you wanted to be sure to reduce the spread of infectious disease you would further need to mandate people eat good nutrition and exercise to boost their immune systems. You would have to outlaw certain foods and mandate people take vitamins and mineral supplements. The question that is furthermore pertinent is why, in every small outbreak of infectious disease, are there so many cases of infectious against people who have already been vaccinated against the disease? In the recent Measles outbreak, the vast majority of people who caught the disease had already been vaccinated against it. This is true in other nations where similar diseases have broken out. If vaccines were so effective, why aren't they protecting the vaccinated populations against exposure to the illness? The purported reason to mandate a 100% compliance with all vaccinations is to prevent an epidemic. However, if the vaccine were highly effective, then a small percentage of un-vaccinated people would provide a negligible threat to the fully vaccinated masses. My comments were sparked by the reaction to what Rand Paul said. The media largely threw a fit and attacked him mercilessly. I am concerned that this sort of reaction creates a chilling effect on speech where a full debate on healthcare is not permitted. Here is a quote from a recent LA times article: quote:”You seem convinced that there’s a link between autism and vaccines. You didn’t actually say that--,” Arrington said. In my mind, Paul was speaking about correlation and not causation. Autism is something that shows up sometimes several years after birth, where a child is effectively normal and for some reason these symptoms just show up. There has been a huge increase in the numbers of Autistic children in the last thirty years. I accept and agree that there have been no scientific studies that have linked vaccination with autism. However, for people who are concerned about their children (and who aren't?), we need to not ridicule but to educate and have some compassion. We don't know why there has been such an alarming increase in cases of autism and, for that matter, of allergies and other detrimental health conditions. These deserve further study. And we should have more long term studies comparing the health of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people. Thus far none, to my knowledge, have been attempted. Rand Paul didn't imply causation. A medical doctor, of all people, ought to be given a chance to clarify his remarks before reporters crucify him for heresy. The last thing I'll say is that you have quite the nerve to feign such concern about preventing unnecessary deaths from infectious diseases while steadfastly supporting ideologies and policies that cause exponentially higher death rates. Measles, which is what this hysteria was prompted by, causes virtually NO deaths in any developed nation. The death rate from the seasonal flu is far higher than from Measles. I got Measles as a kid. I hardly remember it. I was sick for a few days and recovered quickly. Like Chicken Pox, once you get Measles, you gain a lifetime immunity from the disease naturally. In contrast, the vaccine confers only temporary immunity and requires frequent booster shots every couple of years. Are you clear about this? To say the hysteria is overblown would be an understatement. Personally I oppose the State because in the 20th century governments have killed some 270 million of their own citizens. I oppose acts of coercion because I am concerned for the well being of humanity. I am focused on stopping State military's from waging aggressive war, I am focused on releasing all people who are in prison for non-violent victim-less transgressions against the State's edicts. It is really a difference in priorities. The human body is incredibly complex. Every year we discover adverse health effects from eating certain foods, or taking certain drugs and we modify our behavior accordingly. We simply don't know the long term health effects of vaccinations over a few decades. This requires further study. Some people don't trust the pharmaceutical industry or the State for that matter and accordingly look upon vaccinations with skepticism. This distrust is not irrational. In a free society, there will exist competing methods of conferring immunity and in isolating and eliminating infectious disease and epidemics. Immunization, like I said, is and will continue to be a vital tool for the medical professional. On the market, we are likely to see much more rapid improvement in immunization technology, where the side effects are reduced or eliminated while the effectiveness is increased. The adjuvants used in vaccines may be replaced with potentially safer alternatives. When the State gives taxpayer money to a pharmaceutical contractor to create a vaccine, we should expect that the company producing the vaccine would have less incentive to create the most effective and safest product whereas under market conditions with free competition, pharmaceutical companies will compete on effectiveness and safety. Under such conditions, these companies will furthermore be able to persuade the holdouts to use the latest technologies to trigger an immunity to different infectious diseases. The safety concerns will be more thoroughly vetted and far more studies will be undertaken. Under the status quo, the untrustworthiness of big Pharma and the State alone will cause many to not get the advised immunizations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The last thing I'll say is that you have quite the nerve to feign such concern about preventing unnecessary deaths from infectious diseases while steadfastly supporting ideologies and policies that cause exponentially higher death rates. gently caress you, you goddamn hypocrite. You support policies that would leave millions to die of starvation and exposure and if you had your way that's exactly what would happen. You can feign concern all you want but that won't change the fact that you support actions that will result in direct deaths.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:gently caress you, you goddamn hypocrite. You support policies that would leave millions to die of starvation and exposure and if you had your way that's exactly what would happen. You can feign concern all you want but that won't change the fact that you support actions that will result in direct deaths. Laissez faire free market capitalism has actually been exhaustively vetted throughout the world and the facts are precisely the opposite of what you claim. Countries that liberalize markets, reduce State controls over the economy and defend private property and free economic transactions repeatedly witness dramatic increases in general prosperity and rising living standards. The applies to the poorest in such countries as well as the middle classes. To claim that this "doesn't count" because it is not full anarcho-capitalism is rather facetious. What you would have to say is that moving towards libertarian ideology provides more and more benefits in terms of prosperity and living standards yet at some point, instead of further cemented the gains, the trends dramatically reverse and we see millions "dying of starvation". But there is no evidence for this. How about you cite on example of an approximately free market economy with approximately libertarian policies where there are millions dying of starvation? This is an interesting bit of projection since we actually have historical evidence of such things having gone on in socialist, centrally planned societies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:31 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Laissez faire free market capitalism has actually been exhaustively vetted throughout the world and the facts are precisely the opposite of what you claim. Countries that liberalize markets, reduce State controls over the economy and defend private property and free economic transactions repeatedly witness dramatic increases in general prosperity and rising living standards. The applies to the poorest in such countries as well as the middle classes. That is obviously logically unfounded. There is no reason at all to suppose that because countries that accept basic rudaments of private property at the expense of total state control are more successful than those that don't, that that necessarily means that the state should not exist. That is not accurate. Economics is a technical area with technical and not moral answers. It can be readily demonstrated that a state - a bigger state than a minarchist one - is necessary for economic prosperity, putting aside moral questions relating to the benefit to individuals or groups. quote:But there is no evidence for this. How about you cite on example of an approximately free market economy with approximately libertarian policies where there are millions dying of starvation? Human history before states existed is the only time in history where 'libertarianism' ever existed; famine was commonplace then. Putting that aside, you have just made a non-falsifiable argument (meaning, it's invalid). However, you could make arguments about British India or Ireland. In the latter case a corporation, and not a state, controlled the fate of hundreds of millions for decades. When there was a famine people were permitted to die because there was no profit in helping them, but ample profit in exporting their agricultural goods to wealthy and well-fed countries. Was this moral and acceptable? The logic people used at the time was no different from yours. quote:This is an interesting bit of projection since we actually have historical evidence of such things having gone on in socialist, centrally planned societies. Socially planned how, and to what degree? You have made so many absurd assumptions, such as (a) central planning is ineffective equally throughout all areas of the economy (b) all central planning is alike (c) all historical evidence is directly applicable to the present. Jrod, you're a moron, but it's OK. Somewhere along the way you got brainwashed - it happens. Come down off the ledge buddy. You don't have to convert to full communism. Just the tip.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 00:25
|
|