TheRobin

So the argument is that married couples who can't get any more food or living space will still give birth to children? Also he seems to equate econoic growth (which is wealth increase) with growth in the sense that "there are more people around", which have not muhc to do with each other, other than, that for peopel to have food, there needs to be an adequate economy.I don't know, maybe I'm missing something, but the whole argument seems embarassingly stupid.

oh, okay, thanks for the clarifictaion

As far as it's been explained to me by someone who's way more competent at the technical stuff than I ever will, this is not true. IF someone wants to secretely create a fraudulent blockchain, all they need is the hashpower but it doesn't need to be online, so no one would notice it. (I know too little about botnets to say how realitstic that is from that standpoint though). Unless you mean with "amassing" that they buy the necessary hardware openly for everyone to see, then I guess that is visible unless it's some weird black market ASIC stuff :)Also as I've been told, thanks to the network not being synchronsied the attacker would also only need 45%, not taht that's all too relevant, just thought I throw it out there, as I found it an interesting tidbit of info

hmm maybe this is a lagnauge barrier here (non-native english speaker myself), but I don't understand how you wanting to apologize and/or extend sympathies for her past is "arguing" or "confrontational". I mean, I see how it is very emotional and can be a bit unsettling if one is not used to share emotions openly, but it's still not arguing, is it?Also, since you want to do that for the benefit of your sister, how do you think she will react to that? Do you think it will help her in a way? From what you write I assume, that at least in the short term she won't be too happy about you bringing it up, but do you think it will be of value to her in the long run? Cause if so, you might just want to consider going through with it even if she gets angry at you for brining it up (as it's not primarily about you from what I understand). Then again, it's diffcult either way and I can't really give any good advice to be honest. I'm just trying to give some thoughts, but I have no idea what a good way to bring it up is or how to start this. But the more honest the better I think. Like you could preface it with explaining you want to talk about something importnat but that you are afraid of how that will go etc and see how she reacts to that and see where that leads and then decide afterwads whether you still want to bring up your past or whether you might want to do that later (or not at all, again, I don't know the situation or you relationship, so I can't really give any good advice I think).

I think a good start might be to really figure out why you did what you did. Especially considering the environment you grew up in. I mean if you're surroundedn by disfunctional people who hold on to irrational beliefs, that they use to basically justify whatever it is that they do and have zero empathy for even their own children, then it's hard to see how a child who grow up in that kind of environment could even theoretically come up emotionally healthy and emapthetic towards their little sibling.That's not to say that this excuses everything automtically, but I'd first and foremost focus on the abuse of the caregivers and their responsibilites (as in their responsibility in keeping your sister safe for instance, which includes the harm that's done by siblings).Also I'd distingush between having empathy (i.e. feeling sorry for what you did to your sister (and what was done to her by her uncle/mother) and being personally responsible for it and making amends. So an idea might be to start off saying how sorry you are, but maybe also include that you're still trying to figure out yourself what it is that let you to do these things, so taking on full responsibility and making amends might a bit too early here. As taking on the responsibility of others is just as unhelpful in making restitution as it is to not take on due responsibility.Anyway, it's a difficult journey ahead and I wish you the best of success abnd luck with it and hope that maybe helped give you some ideas.

it would really help a ton, that, if you want to inform people about these things, that you'd maybe include a link or two where the argument is made. Simply saying windows is a botnet and leave it at that is not really helpful, even if it's true.

it also means that you're asserions are backed by even less then, as there's not even a bad positive study, where we'd need to find arguments for it maybe being invalid cause the state messes things up (no doubt there ofc).And the ethical case is pretty straight forward. it being, that you can't control other people's property against their will, just cause you had an idea of how people can arrange materials in a certain fashion. So I fail to see, where your arguments still hold.

well call it what you want, as he said, no study ever found IP to be beneficial, if you're so certain, then what's the evidence? Also I don't know what you mean when you say he refuses to deal with the moral implications of it, as the whole anti IP comes out of the moral implications (which is clarified in the beginning of the first video and also in the article I linked)America also was the only one that lacked a lot of statist interference in the economy for the most part, if you just ignore that and claim a lot of good stuff comes simply from IP law then I think you're just picking the facts to suit your conclusion instead of the other way around.

I think in the second one, about halfway through he brings up all the empirical evidence that has to do with IP. I think you would find that intersting, since you argue that it is actually beneficial (to which there seem to be no evidence for but a lot against it).

First of all: Cool, I didn't know about the remake, but so looking forward to it now :)Second (and in regards to the game/sotry/interpretation) (obviously spoilers ahead): I think I'd add a little bit about it all being his personal escape fantasy. Before his adventure really starts and he gets thrown into this other world/future he gets swallowed by SIN iirc(which I would interpret as meaning he couldn't handle the abusive situation anymore). And somewhere close to the end, he finds out he's just a ghost/dead the whole time.So imo I would look at the whole storyline that happens in that world as either his internal dream (i.e. all being symbolic for his emotional struggle) and/or it all being his personal escape fantasy (in terms of, not being able to deal with the real situation so he creates and alternative world in which he's the hero and loved by people (and not powerless, helpless and un-cared for).But cool to see FFX being brought up I really enjoyed that game a ton, so thanks a lot for that alone

have you had a look at anything I linked btw, you seem to ignore that whole argument (and reasearch, which is quite in favour against any IP as it seems)?

you might want to check the debate Stef had with Stepahn Kinsella on that matter. As Stef too started out accepting IP as valid iirc. (I think that's the one I mean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3AuTrCq5ws) (start around 5 minutes, where Stef uses the exact same arguements you do)(also the short case against IP http://mises.org/daily/3682 in case you haven't read that one) also on the empirical side http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoSWC_6mDCk (at least from that research that's presented there your argument that IP leads to more innovation and profit seems not true)

Hey, thanks for sharing those. Found both very interesting to read, hope you had fun with the interviews

and that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you start considering all the stuff needed for transportation of every ingredient, including every factory that's making that, plus all the food that is being produced so the workers of each step in the process can eat, plus their clothes which they also need (which also have transportation ofc), plus....

if you start denying yourself a valid emotional experience you'll also do that to others and passiv aggressively lecture them about what they should or shouldn't feel (as I've seen you do in the chat for instance). So saying what you propose "works" is not true anyway. All you do is is create another blindspot that allows you to blame others for being the victims of abusers cause basically "they should just get over it".

I don't see how that's either true or relevant here. Things that are of value to people are not automatically economic goods (like I value sleeping out on Sundays, or going for walks in the sunlight, but neither are economic goods) though they are of value to me). A good talk with intersting people can be of high value, but it doesn't make the soundwaves or concepts used economic goods. Even if you pay to hear someone speak (say at conferences and such) to words and phrases and ideas don't become goods but you pay to hear them at a given time and place. I thought the emprical side is exactly the other way around and that an absence of IP laws and regulations led to more creativity and art being produced. (iirc Stef mentioned that lately on the Peter Schiff show). But I too don't see how that's relevant to whether it's fraud or not. and for 3. I think the only relevant question to ask in the whole debate seems to be: Is the claim of fraud legitimate? Just because the owner might not like other people copying his work (or covering it or modifying it and re-releasing it or whatever) does that give him/her the right to forcible interfere with such actions? And by what principle do you determine it? How long does he have the right do use force and why only that long? Theft is always wrong, your physical property doesn't expire some day and then other people can just take it if they want to, but you say yourself that IP should expire at some point, which is imo already a good indicator that it's not a valid ethical claim to make, but mere astethic preference of some people. Like, if I own an idea, then what would make me not own it after a few years?

I got 69% left, 31% right.

Hey everyone, Today someone told me about how Japan supposedly was where the US is at now (in terms of spending/GDP/tax-income ratio) 20 years ago (and is still hanging in there somehow). Does anyone know more about that (or can anyone recommend some good articles on that?The discussion originally was about how long it might take for the US to actually go into crisis-mode and his argument was that it will take at least another 20 years, cause Japan was alreay at the same point as the US is now 20 years ago and still exist without major deflation or crisis, so that's kind of why I'm curious about it, so if anyone that can help or point me to some good sources, I'd really appreciate that, thanks

strange guy, basically invents another realm of "truth" that requires "faith" and then scares you what horrible things happen if you lack this "truth" (oh, where did we hear that one before )

Just because the state practically forces copyright onto artists and producers doesn't mean it becomes immoral to share stuff. The other question would maybe also be, what if your not the guy who breaks the contract (assuming there is a valid one to beign with). What if your the 100th guy who makes a copy of a copy of a copy... would you stills ay it's immoral then?

How do you now that? (Not saying it's not true, just where do you get this kind of information from?)

Assassination and anarchy don't blend well? I'd say quite the opposite is true. Assassinations are by far the most cost-effective way to prevent warlords and evil gangs from taking over in a free society (should that even be necessary of course).The main benefit for evil people within statism is that they can avoid the consequences of their actions. So presidents get to start wars and invade other countries and know nothing will come back to hurt them. Assassinations make clear statement that it DOES come back almost the moment they'd want to start their invation/war. So imo the best prevention there is.But yeah, unless there's an understanding of the rthics of the situation, killing state officials is completely pointless for the most part, especially if it's not bound to any condition (like someone saying they're gonna kill the president (hey NSA ) IF he'd invade their country or so.. but "merely" assassinate them cause he's Pres)

Well, it sounds great in theory, but I assume this will (or can be) used as just another excuse to invade internet privacy

Yeah thanks Accutron, that's a lot of data you wrote down here. Helped me alot in clarifying some things, so thanks for taking the time

well if there can be by definition no equality (cause you can always find something not-equal) then how is this a problem if capitalism exactly? And how would not-getting an education be a result of capitalism anyway? and just by the way the poor (and even the blacks) were all a lot more educated (in terms of being literate for instance) in the 1900's before public education took over and forced people into schools (see John Taylor Gatto's research in that matter for instance). So if your problem is with education, then the state is pretty much the reason why people are uneducated these days and not free markets.