st434u

Well they're still using bitcoin, just in very, very small amounts per transaction. For my view on bitcoin as money, read these threads: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38337-bitcoin-intrinsic-value-and-mises-regression-theorem/ and https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39541-bitcoin-fanatics-say-the-darnedest-things/

Other posters who have been around these forums for a while know of my negative views on bitcoin as a money. I haven't had time to think about the ramnifications of this, but I'm sure bitcoin enthusiasts will find it interesting and exciting, so I'm posting it. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nasdaq-s-bitcoin-plan-183125709.html More here: http://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/nasdaq-launches-enterprisewide-blockchain-technology-initiative-20150511-00485

Here I posted about my thoughts about him https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42279-good-debate-between-sam-harris-and-cenk-uygur/

Oh yeah, I wasn't endorsing the socialist who wrote the article.

I missed this when it first came out 3 years ago, but it was really interesting and a quick search didn't turn up anything, so I thought I'd post it: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/23/indiana-governor-signs-bill-allowing-citizens-to-use-deadly-force-against-police-officers-into-law/

Grunching: Nobody said Singapore was a perfect, pure private property society. It's still one of the free-est places on Earth, by comparison. Yes, the things you named are bad, but there are many more and worse things than that in almost every other land area of the World.

You shouldn't use "hispanic" to refer to a race. It isn't. It's a language or place of birth. Lots of "hispanics" are white. What you mean when you say hispanics is most likely mestizos. That is, people who are a mix of native american indians (mostly from central and south america) and europeans. While we're at it, I think it's also important to differentiate between blacks and mulattos. For example, Barack Obama is not black, he's a mulatto.

It's not easy, but a combination of functionality, absence of disease, and a full lifespan would be what I'm looking for in determining this. Well I agree. But someone can be healthier or less healthy for their age; in the same way that we can say that someone is a faster or slower runner given their age, or their sex, or their race, or their body fat %, etc; but not in the absolute, or when compared to the rest of the population at large. So, in your view, a 22 year old award winning athlete who all of a sudden collapses and dies of a heart attack during a warmup, was perfectly healthy, because his athletic performance was top-notch? I don't see health in this way. Health is a continuum that goes from alive to dead, with dead being the ultimate state of unhealthiness.

It depends on what you mean, and I don't know if I got it. Maybe if you ask me in another way, I'll be able to understand what you think I said, and then I can answer if that's what I meant or not. I'd say health is a lifeform living in a condition that is optimal, or close to it, biologically. The problem with this is that someone who is dead doesn't have any health care dollars spent on them.

I always thought it had something to do with the original internet domain for it being free to register. That, or a play on freedom ain't radio. Also, there was probably another show already called freedom radio.

No, sorry for the misunderstanding, I realize what I typed may not have been entirely clear. What I meant was that there is correlation between athletic performance/fitness/big muscles and health, but that those things don't necessarily cause health.

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that even if a couch potato becomes fit/muscular/athletic by forcing themselves to exercise, that doesn't necessarily mean they are now healthier than they were before. It just means they have the same type of bodies as those who are generally healthy. Athletes dropping dead all of a sudden, or developing cancer or other life threatening diseases is not uncommon. It happens less often than to the general population, but again, this might be selection bias. It doesn't in and of itself necessarily show causation, only correlation.

Here's the article I mentioned about the stolen cross, and what he thinks about it: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pope-confesses-he-stole-priests-cross-casket-n45856 quoting ---------------- "And immediately there came to mind the thief we all have inside ourselves" (...) Francis keeps the cross in a little pouch under his cassock, he said. "And whenever a bad thought comes to mind about someone, my hand goes here, always," he said, gesturing to his heart. "And I feel the grace, and that makes me feel better." ----------------

I don't think I could, because I myself would suffer from the same selection bias. That is, if I'm healthy I will feel like exercising, and if and when I am unhealthy I wouldn't. As I said above, I agree that forcing someone (or yourself) to not exercise when they want to is bad. What I'm dubious about is that exercise is greatly beneficial for the health of those people who feel they are too tired to exercise. Most people think of them as lazy, because they don't want to exercise (and most of the time they also see themselves that way). But I think their bodies might be telling them not to exercise for a reason. That's not to say they can't exercise. Obviously if a tiger is coming to get you and you're unarmed, you run, even if you could injure yourself while running. You can force someone to exercise even if it would damage their health to do it. And it could be that you still see many of the biological markers for health in those people, because now they're exercising, just like the healthy people are, who exercise because they feel like it. Again, I'm not saying that I know for a fact that the idea that exercise is wonderful for everybody is false, I'm just saying I don't know for a fact that it is true.

EDIT: I made a post, but I need to think more about this. I couldn't find how to delete posts in this version of the forums, so I used the edit function instead

I'm not so convinced that exercise is as beneficial for health as most people think. I think it could be that there is selection bias involved. That is, people who are healthy exercise more, because they feel like it, and those who are unhealthy exercise less, since they feel less drive to and are less able to exercise. I still think that exercise probably has some benefits for health, and if someone felt like exercising but they were kept locked in a dark room, that would clearly be bad for their health, but I'm still looking for evidence that supports the idea that exercise is greatly beneficial.

It doesn't emphasize the real problems with education, and is more concerned with talking about problems with the US education system as compared to other countries'. As if education worldwide was good. If you value knowledge, then you must value everybody's right to choose what to learn and what not to learn, and when. If you support forcing anybody to learn anything at any time, you're not pro-knowledge, you're pro-brainwashing. And while we're at it, pro-slavery, too.

http://www.ibtimes.com/pope-francis-not-paying-taxes-fair-wages-or-social-security-contributions-grave-sin-1823412 Also, not paying employees a "fair wage", that is a wage that is fair according to God (or the Pope, for that matter), is also one of the worst sins that can be committed. This is the same Pope that admits to stealing a cross that he still wears and carries with him to this day, and who constantly comes rushing at the defense of other thieves and murderers of all kinds, and in condemnation of those who would treat the criminals badly. Well, one thing you can say about Pope Francis is, he is consistent. He's consistently pro-theft, whether it's carried out by common thieves, by the State, or by himself. He is also consistent in claiming that it is not the thief, the robber or the murderer that commits the sin, but the one who dares to defend themselves against the criminal. Also, since the "fair wage" is to be set by the Pope himself, and not by the employer offering the job, it could be construed as a complex form of theft, which he also supports greatly. And of course he condemns resisting this form of theft also. Like I said elsewhere, worst Pope in our lifetimes without a doubt. I wish I could say it's the worst Pope ever, but I don't know enough about the history of the Papacy. I certainly find it hard to imagine that one could've been worse than this one.

Suppose in this island there was a supply of wild rice. As time went by, the two people living there learned to process it into white, dry rice. They also learned to farm it. Further imagine that at least one, or ideally both of the people in the island liked to consume rice. Because white, dry rice will store for a long time, it's conceivable that they could start using rice as money, to settle all exchanges, as a store of value, and unit of account. They both would know that if they trade whatever they have right now for rice, they can either consume the rice at any point in the future, or they can trade it back for something that the other person has in the future, but doesn't have right now. Your question of what they're supposed to do with the money is precisely what I was getting at in my first post in this thread. Money is supposed to be something you *can* consume, and/or employ in the production of other goods/services which in turn have consumption demand. It's not necessary that you yourself want to consume the money or the items produced with it, only that others in the economy want to, so that demand for it can be expected to continue for all foreseeable time.

Money can also act as a store of value. In trading current value for future value, it's conceivable that there could be money in use with only 2 people in an economy.

The minimum number is two. Obviously it wouldn't be zero-sum, as all trades happen only if both parties believe they are gaining something from the transaction. It's a gradual process, anyway. It's unlikely that an economy of just two people would develop money, because at that level, barter is quite efficient. The more people and more complexity you add to the economy, the more benefit is gained from adopting a common medium of exchange that others are already using for barter. However, -and this is where a lot of people get mistaken when thinking about money-, it's important to realize that money is not fundamentally different from barter, in the sense that money arises out of barter as a gradual process whereby in the barter exchanges, people start to favor some items over others for the purposes of bartering. In simple barter, you show what items you have to trade with, and the other person shows you what they have, and if both want what the other has up for trade, you negotiate on exchange ratios and maybe strike a deal. In complex barter, you may not only be looking for things you want to consume or employ in production yourself, but you may also be looking for things that you know for a fact others in particular will want, so you are thinking of trading these items away to those particular individuals. When you go from that level one step further, you are looking for things that you know are in demand by so many, that you're not necessarily thinking of trading them to anyone in particular, because you know that a lot of people want them and you won't have problems finding someone who does. At this level, and particularly if many of those individuals who demand these items are demanding them for the same reason you are, you are using money. Keep in mind that the only reason these items that have now become money have any value in the first place is because there are several people in the economy who want to consume them, and/or employ them in the production of something else. They provide the "core" demand for this item, and then the monetary demand (or bartering demand, if you will) is added on top of that. If at any point and for any reason, the core demand (also known as intrinsic value) is stripped from an item that is being used as a medium of exchange, the item may continue to circulate, until people realize that the core demand is gone, and what this means for the long-term value of the item, and then there will be a run to get rid of all that you have as fast as you can. The value tanks either to the point at which somebody will come up and start consuming them again (or employing them in the production of other goods/services which in turn have consumption demand), or it will go down to zero. If you believe money is something entirely different and detached from barter, that's how you get mislead into believing that currencies with no real intrinsic value can be a good form of money that will stand the test of time. They can't, and they won't.

I just think it shows problems in relationships if people want to pretend like they spent the time to handwrite a letter to someone when they didn't.

Oh, certainly. I wasn't criticizing the development of the technology.

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/28101741/judge-orders-gamblers-to-return-winnings-to-new-jersey-casino The Golden Nugget made a mistake and didn't shuffle the cards. Some of the clients realized this and played in a way that allowed them to win more easily. Since the Golden Nugget doesn't like to lose, they sued the clients. The judge ordered the clients to return all the money they had won. They can do this because of the "gambling regulations", that are supposed to be there to protect customers. Yeah, right.

Nowadays nobody takes the time to handwrite letters. Why would you? It takes a lot longer to handwrite a message than to type it. But it does show that you didn't copy-paste it or something. It also shows you took the time and care about that person enough to go through the trouble. But what if you really do want to copy-paste it? Or what if you just want to pretend like you took the time to handwrite something but you just typed it because it's easier and quicker? What if your own handwriting looks horrible and you want to make it look better, but still make it seem like you yourself wrote it? Not a problem, in comes hellobond to the rescue. This robot will fake your own handwriting style and manufacture whatever written messages you want, so that special someone will never suspect that you didn't actually take the time to handwrite it yourself. http://finance.yahoo.com/video/bond-robots-old-way-114700659.html If this isn't a sign of how sick most people are, I don't know what is.