TheRobin

an (in my opinion) interesting interview I just found, where an IBM architect talks about bitcoin as an asset-register. What do you make of that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gERNbqUNMm4

Second version of that with four 4's (also this time it's a race rather then a fixed amount, as there seem to be a whole lot of numbers you can create with these), none the less, I had a fun 10 minutes (and got to 18). Enjoy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDulLVBtNkk

Wouldn't it be mostly determined by the avoidability of the one doing the homestading. I mean, IF there ever was a situation where literally homestading a piece of land would cause someone to starve as a result of that and they had no way to avoid that, then wouldn't that be immoral (always assuming that not homestading wouldn't mean the unavoidable death of the hometeader)? Just that, chances of that ever happeing are practically zero, given that people plan and foresee such things and adapt to them IF they're free to do so.

cool, ah yeah, the one with using numbers that are letters, indeed they shoudl've clarified this a bit better :)and yeah, I wouldn't have been able to do the 0's either (though I knew of the operation, I just didn't know it worked that way with the zero)

I never quite get why it's called the dual nature of the universe when it's about the particle/wave thing. I mean, what would be the logical reason, that those are mutually exclusive in the first place? And wouldn't it be more accurate to simply say that either one or both of these terms were not accurately enough defined beforehand, because now we have evidence that they're not mutually exlusive, so instead of mystifying the universe unnecessarily, why not go over our thoughts and concepts again and see if we can't make them fit reality by chaing them to a more accurate definition?

yeah square roots are allowed. (Can't do cube roots though for instance). Yes, symbols that don't have a number in them are allowed, even if it could be written using a number and mean the same thing mathematically.

Godfey Bloom pointing out that taxes are theft and the double standards of the EU politcians in the EU parlament. What do you make if that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBVFpYN0iNo

Cool, thanks for the replies, guys. And special thanks for the in depth explanation Bulbasaur

Ha, that's true Good point.I think you're right, I remember hearing that the criteria "must make me laugh" was quite highly rated for women who were looking for a partner, but I never heard anything like that from the male side.Hmm maybe IF that "humour makes me feel safe"-theory is somewhat accurate, I guess then as a male, you would kind of feel insulted if a woman would try to reassure you she's not going to hurt you (at least from a more primitive physically beating-up point ov view), as the male is usually considered to stronger one of the genders.

That was intersting I don't think the superhero thing is necessairly about being "the one" and wish fullfilment though. I think it might be more about some part of us knowing exactly that a lot of stuff be accept as true in fact isn't, while all the whiole surrounded by people who just want you to adapt to blind adherence to those lies anyway, combined with a yearning to break out of that shit and get something thats' actually real.

I'm not sure I can agree to this. I thought about the idea that women only want laughs and fun the last day and I tried to compare it to other friendships I had and what I personally enjoyed about it. And a central thing was, the ability to joke around with them and make each other laugh. So I wouldn't say that's something that only women enjoy. In general, I'd say that laughter and humour is one of those few universal things about being human that most of us like and really want and enjoy, furthermore I coulnd't think of a way to be close friends with someone that mostly lakcs any humour or ability to make jokes and make me laugh (and vice versa ofc). I mean, there has to be more than that to make a friendship, but none the less I think it's a very important part. Another thing that just came to mind is that humour also requires a level of safety with the other person, as humour is spontaneous most of the time and being spontaneous requires that one is able to realx in the other person's presence, which is only really possible if you feel safe, so its probably also kind of a communication that tells the other person "I feel safe with you, you're not a thread and I want to bring some joy to your life". Which are all necessary for any form or relationship imo.Or do you or did you ever have any friendships where you'd regularly hang out whole evenings and rarely ever laugh or make jokes and such?

so, to anyone who knows a bit more about trading and BTC, what is your take on the current falling of price on BTC? (As a total noob in these matters I can only imagine it looking something like this )

I thought I heard PUAs say their success rate doing this style was only around 10-20%. Or maybe I'm confusing things here.

Haha, yeah, first time in my life, where I find myself checking the value of something I bought every so often throughout the day Also the first time I invest money into something and I get more out of it in return (I originally just bought some BTC to have savings that aren't fiat money). But since this is the first time I do that kind of thing I'm a bit unsure how to best go about it. I already sold some portion of my bitcoins yesterday and traded some other smaller portion for Litecoins. Now I'm curious to see where BTC is going, as it just about came down from 700$ to like 550$ or so. Btw what is your take on Litecoin? do you think that after the Bitcoin rise people will start using Litecoins more as well (now that one Cryptocurrency has shown what it can do, I mean)? And are you getting some too, now that there still around 5-7$?

Well, Stef made the case with the evidence that was known, if you disagree, then the only way for this to be productive is actually adressing the claims and evidence that were used as their basis.

It can't be about judgement itself, cause telling you that it's bad to judge them is itself a judgement, so your friends don't seem to have a problem with judging people in and of itself, but (as it seems from what you tell me) only when it shows their negativ behaviour. And with negative I don't mean evil or bad, but as it would seem, they act in a way that will harm themselves in the long run and anyone who actually cares about them would point that out to them and talk with them about it. Also it depends of course on how you communicate your concerns. If you talk to them in an accusatory or authoritarian way I can get that they wouldn't like that. Also ofc, if you only talk to other people about your concerns but never openly to the people it actually concerns then that's not really helpful either and I could understand why your friends would find this annoying. I don't know from what you wrote how exactly all that happened and what your motivation was for speaking out and for the reasons to whom you decided to speak out about these things of course, so feel free to add more and/or use this as a starting point to learn more about your motivations and reasons behind your actions. I hope that was at least of some help

Hey guys, I accidentally stumbled upon this really neat math puzzle. Really enjoyed it a lot and I'd say it's certainly the hardest and most fun math puzzle I ever encountered (not that this necessarily means much though ) Anyway, I thought some people here might also enjoy it so there you go. Explanation is in the first 3:30 afterwards the solution(s) are presented, so be sure to stop (though the guy in the video will remind you too, so don't worry about keepng an eye on the timer) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoRB7FL02t4 Have fun and let me know how it went p.s. I solved all except for the ones and zeros. Though I regret giving up at that point, I'm sure sooner or later I MIGHT'VE figured out the ones at least

well I guess that's what you get when your atheism isn't the result of accepting reality via a well reasoned methodology, but merely the denial of other people's crazy ideas.

Have you gone thourgh Stef's "Introduction to Philosophy"-series yet? I think it would be the easiest way to figure out at least some of the basic premises about reality and such (and more importantly, the reasoning behind them) most people here hold.

haha yeah, since we can never be sure if something is really behaving like a particle or like a wave, we need a new governmental agency to regulate that of course, else those damn photons are just gonna run wild and chaos will certainly follow in it's path

I read the book, but I would say, approach it with the understanding that a lot of it is just the authors opinion (an author who's buddhistic and kind of the spiritual type). Meaning aside from some good science and intersting stories about the experiments there's also a lot of bullcrap ideas that really are of no relevance. Still it should give some insight as to what to expect, and for that I could recommend it. (Not that I ever took DMT or ayahuasca) p.s. in regards to the 12 hour timeframe: That's the first time I ever heard that. even for ayahuasca I thought it was a few hours at best (and if you take the DMT without any MAOI it usually lasts only a few minutes (see Adam Kokesh's videos for instance). As for it being useful: Well, I'm sure it can help a lot, but I also see a lot of people coming out of it with a kind of irrationally spiritual worldview as a result (plus ayahuasca is usually taken as a spiritual ceremony with some supernatural stuff that can sometime go along with that), and imo that's counterproductive again then. But if you have a good grasp on reasoning and reality that should probably not be a problem.

28% beliving in the NWO actually gives me a bit of hope (Feel free to imagine me with a tinfoil hat from now on, if you want ) But in general (and as a guy who believed some of the more weird ones at different points in my life as well): Some arguments are really convincing if you're not that schooled in critical thought and/or don't ever bother to google for rebuttals. Plus, if you have the bad luck of finding really bad/sophistry-heavy rebuttals when you start looking for counter-argument, it's very easy to assume there are no good ones. Like, for me, I just recently found a very good rebuttal to Stef's "Climate Change in 12 Minutes - the skeptic's case", that was very factual and logical and with barely any of the usual ad homs. (then again, as a layman, I can't really argue whether that means it's really true or not imo). But that was like the first good rebuttal after having stumbled over maybe 5 really bad ones, that were full of fallacies insults, personal attacks etc. So I can certainly sympathise with how difficult it can be to find good arguments or counterarguments even on the internet, when it comes to certain topics, which may or may not be part of why people believe certain rather strange-sounding theories.

if you toss out logic, whenver it suits your claims, then I don't see how you can go and try to debate with people. You're basically saying, that people should just accept the conclusions you derive from your emotions as objectively true and whenever they show that you're incorrect, you can reject them by saying it's not in accordance with your feelings. For the slap in the face metaphor: Yes, precisely, which is why it's so impotant do deal with whatever you had to go through as a kid so you don't project that out onto the world and call it reality. The only people who can still get away with slapping people in the face everyday are parents, sadly. And if that's how you grep up, then I'm truly sorry for that. And as Teabagger mentioned, you can basically talk to Stef anytime you want by calling into either the Wednesday or Sunday show, but in case you do, I'd recommend preparing your argument beforehand and make sure you communicate it as clearly and accurately as possible. But anyway, I don't really see that this discussion is going anywhere, so I'm gonna stop responding, feel free to write an answer though, I'm gonna read it.

ohhh, okay, I didn't read up on what the rice experiment actually was, I thought it still had something to do with the water/memory thing, thanks for the clarification

Well, again, simply saying "Stef doesn't see or realize these things" isn't an argument for them being true or false. If you can show the evidence and/or premises these conclusions are based on, then there'd be a ground on which some actual communication could take place, else it's really just you using ad hominems. Oh, sorry, jsut saw your second paragraph. Well, Kevin's response basically says what's falacious with these kinds of arguments. Saying: If other people don't give me what I want then I feel bad. Is not the same as them using violence against you. And it surely doesn't justify violence, but assuming it did, then that still doesn't mean your conclusion is valid, cause then everyone who's for the free market simply could say: If you want to take away my freedom to work and trade with whom I want and under what conditions I want, then I don't like that and therefore I can use violence to stop you. But basically it means that arguing morality from a subjective emotional standpoint doesn't work logically.