MrCapitalism

That would be an unnecessary complication. If money doesn't have a purpose for exchanges between 2 people, then it has no purpose in facilitating exchanges in the future. If one party holds money until a later date when he trades it for goods, what is the 2nd person going to do with that money? They can only spend it trading with one person, which is who gave it to them in the first place. And they can only get in exchange the goods provided by the first person, which are the exact same good he used to get the money in the first place. (which brings up a good point, why did you give him the money in the first place??) You're probably right in real world situations. Barter can still function beyond just 2 people, and the point at which using money becomes more efficient than barter depends on a lot of variables. Praxeologically, the minimum number of people to facilitate money remains 3.

I say the minimum number is 3. Money serves no purpose with one person, as there is no trade. With 2 people, all trades represent a coincidence of 'wants' between both parties. No medium of exchange is required, as all trades are direct. A third person is required at a minimum to create a situation of "double coincidence of wants" which can be solved by a "medium of exchange." The medium of exchange is the origin of money (Austrian theory of trade and money)

MMX, thanks for you addition, I think you're absolutely correct. I chastised him for denying her agency and then proceeded to deny his agency (or failed to mention it.) Thanks for pointing it out. I don't know what to say to this.

I don't have much to add to this thread, other than to mention that I've probably spent half of the last 2 days reading the entries in this blog. The content is incredible.. very "Babelfish" I highly recommend it. Thank you for the link MMX.

Notice how you've denied her agency in this situation? She's not a damsel in distress, and you're not her knight in shining armor. If she becomes single that is either by her choice, or the choice of her boyfriend. Regardless, the only reason she isn't single right now is because she is making a choice not to be. She had her experience with you and still hasn't dumped her boyfriend. She's used her sexuality to insert you into a stable orbit. Your situation as I see it right now: 1.) Demand respect for yourself. 2.) Get laid. ....choose one of the above.

I think you're right in regards to the recycled footage being cut in. It's probably for a dramatic effect. The reality of weapons testing is most likely too boring for widespread consumption. I'm not sure what you mean by 'report.' Are you talking about the sounds of explosion and cannon fire? I imagine the original footage was filmed without a sound channel, and expect all of the sounds in these videos to be added later for dramatic effect. They may have even added the sounds at the Lookout Mountain Secret Studio in the 50's - 60's for all we know.

Yes, and you posted some awesome stuff.. thanks for sharing. I especially like the video of the Nuclear cannon.. very cool. Here's some information from Wikipedia. If the footage is fake, then of course this is all false. I find these threads which question the narrative of something usually end up informative. Since others are discussing the physics of fission reactions, I think it would be interesting to explore the Cinematic production angle. The doubter's claim is that nuclear weapons do not work. However, ample video and photographic evidence exists of their detonation, with the implied conclusion that this footage is falsified. The mushroom clouds are special effects made by Hollywood. Okay, lets examine the technological state of special effects at the time of production. Here's a montage for "The War of the Worlds", produced in 1953, the same year as the posted Grable test. Seems pretty obvious that Hollywood just wasn't capable of pulling that off at the time. Hell, I even tried to find a recent example of a nuke going off on screen to compare to this "falsified footage" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxkamWaya8k 55 years of technological innovation and experience and the best the can do is make a totally believable mushroom cloud. The shock wave is inferior, and the blast damage is obviously computer generated or scale mockups.

My post is going to be "misogynistic" in the classical sense.. but here it is. Philosophy will never overcome Briffault's law/ the female imperative. No increase in price can compensate for a supply shortage, prices serve to allocate and signal, not to create in themselves. This is merely inflation in the dating market. Inflation is a stupid solution. You arguments, while logically correct, I think lack voluntarism. If it is given that there is no negotiable way to increase the quantity of women, then all solutions focus on allocating the ones currently involved with philosophy. This leads to your three outcomes: compete, resign, or switch to a substitute product. All of these answers are framed in terms of a prisoner's dilemma. I think there is a better fourth solution. As men, we are sexual servants to females. Our job is to conquer and provide for the benefit of women, who are ultimately in control of society. Human history revolves around expendable men creating a habitat which is safe for women, who only then join the men in large quantities, thus greatly changing the structure of society. The skewed gender ratio in philosophy is an indicator that it is currently too dangerous for many of them to partake. In this realm the danger is not physical but emotional. Philosophy is currently more rewarding to men than it is to women, and the ratio is the result. The solutions offered neglect the greatest strengths of men, which is to work together instead of against each other to accomplish a task. I argue that a wider perspective needs to be taken. We need to cooperate to overcome the challenges which face philosophy so that it can be safe, and productive enough, for women to exploit for their own purposes. Like everything else, when it is acceptable enough for women, the gender ratios will balance. This doesn't mean, "make Freedomain Radio women friendly!" The demand for gender equality only arrives after the environment and benefits have been provided by expendable males. The demand for inclusion is merely an acknowledgement of previous success, that philosophy is finally acceptable enough for women to demand a part. Tell me what you think of this idea.

Oops my bad, didn't even see Alan had beat me to it...

I finally found the video which exactly describes this problem! I can't get the link to work, but your question is answered at 23:25

If you're an atheist, why are you going to church? Who asked you to hold this bible study, and why did you accept?

My initial reaction is, "I don't care." I felt nothing watching this ad. Maybe because I don't buy into her celebrity status. I checked her out once while boarding a plane and had no idea who she was. When I realized it I didn't care, just looked like a pretty girl to me. Her acting is terrible in this Ad, emotionless and bland. I don't find her ass attractive. But I guess a lot of people like her, this ad must be for them. And fundamentally I don't relate to this commercial. I have unlimited data with Sprint, have had unlimited data for almost a decade...

I think you're missing the dissimilar effects of price inflation. If the government is borrowing more money in part to pay his 4%, then this process is removing money from other uses and transferring it to your friend. This has no change in the total money supply, and negligible price inflation. If the government is creating new money in part to pay his 4% gain, then this inflation (of the monetary kind) will result in a change in prices. However, as a holder of government debt, he's going to be receiving this new money first before general prices have changed to reflect it's existence. Thus, his profit is the difference between the current amount of money in existence, and the new inflated quantity transferred to him by the mature bond.

I think the technical term for this behavior is "Bitch Shield."

Here's how I would want this problem to be solved: If a person, or group of people, can present proof that they are the legitimate private owners of a piece of government property, then I would want their property rights restored. If the claim can be made by multiple people (such as multiple descendants of a deceased owner) then I think those claimants should be given simultaneous ownership of the property. If their ownership conflicts with the current user of the property, then I think the rightful owners and the user should find an acceptable agreement on how to proceed. If nobody can establish ownership, then I believe the current user should be given operational control, and the ownership should be issued to the former applicable government constituents in the form of shares of ownership.

I fly for a living. I currently fly as a co-pilot for a United States regional airline. Actually I imagined that the military route was much more difficult. Another argument against flying in the military was my belief in how stringent the selection process was. By the time I decided that I wanted to fly (20) I had already wasted a lot of time at college. I imagined that flying in the military involved at least entering as an officer, and then somehow managing to be selected for flight training... which I've heard is one of the most competitive programs to get into. Military aviation just wasn't something I was interested in doing, and I was sure wasn't interested in me. EDIT: The civilian route has fewer barriers to entry, but makes up for it with the long term struggle. My canned response is, "I found a bank stupid enough to lend me to money for flight training," and that's literally how easy it was to get started. Of course this was 2006-7 and I think the financial institutions have learned how well those loans perform, and I can't imagine it's very good. This route could be a struggle, but I've learned some lessons and am basically living a minimalist lifestyle to support my flying habit. I think the key for me is to manage expectations. I have friends who are making double what I make right out of school, and I have other friends that are in dire financial straights.. so I really can't complain too much about where I am. Especially when I actually enjoy being at work (as opposed to the sacrifices in my personal life). You didn't mention so I thought I'd ask, what type of flying do you do for the military? No need to name a specific type of equipment or service if you don't want, but just to get an understanding of the type of mission you perform. Fixed wing? Helo? Transport? AAR? AWACS?

Welcome! I'm a civilian pilot myself. Of course I've been asked a lot why I didn't go the military route. My decision partly has to do with the ethical issues you're facing right now.

Out of your entire family, it sounds like the people who want the marriage the most are her parents. Is that a fair assessment, and has this pressure increased since they found out she was pregnant (if they know)? EDIT: My posts have been simple questions only so I thought I'd add some content to this one. It's almost 2015. There's no reason you shouldn't get a paternity test before you agree to be named as the father. Please get one even though you know with absolute certainty what the result will be. It's terribly important and needs to be a widespread social practice.

So what are her arguments for getting married?

Was this an intentional pregnancy on your part?

Could perhaps be being used for black projects.

Hi, Is this what being "humble to mother nature" looks like?

Does this argument apply to plants?