RuralRon

I have a small amount of namecoin that I wish to dump and am looking for a good exchange to do it. If it turns out the overhead of using an exchange to convert namecoin to bitcoin is not cost effective I will try to accomplish the exchange by soliciting willing individuals. That is my immediate motivation, but I need to decide on a good exchange to sign up with anyway, looking towards the future. With that in mind, what exchange(s) do you use and why?

I've mentioned this before but it's been awhile, and this is the first time doing so on the forum I believe. My preferred way to listen to podcasts is audio only via rss feeds I play in iTunes. I listen to almost every podcast FDR publishes and occasionally a video. I have noticed a considerably large variation of audio levels in the podcasts published over the last year to 16 months. The differences are pretty easy to notice. "Normal" levels can be heard on any podcast where Stefan is the guest speaker (Peter Schiff for example). I consider the audio level of those podcasts to be normal because it is very very close to 4 or 5 other podcasts I listen to regularly. Has anyone else noticed this? Why do you suppose the levels are so low on so many of the FDR podcasts?

I can't believe nobody has posted a comment about this. Thanks OtherOtie, kudos to you for bringing this very encouraging clip to my attention Kokesh mentions something about asbergers giving people "special powers", but aside from that comment I find this video very encouraging. For such a young guy in a state funded public school to shove that hypocrisy in their face is gratifying to hear about. However I worry if he will be forcibly quieted before he can escape the prison he has no choice in attending, or if his peers will silence him through ostracism because he's smarter than most. The kid may have a mighty hard road to navigate, speaking truth to power in that setting. I find it encouraging for the same reasons Darwin recognized at the end. And I hope being a special needs child may afford him some latitude and give him an edge in his favour.

Has anyone ever heard of the Kahn Academy? Why would parent's ever homeschool without this exceptional tool of the Internet? https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jQQjbq0gMmE

Alot has happened with Invictus since November last year, and it's quite exciting. The BitShares website is going through a metamorphis as I write this. Their forum is quite active. Daniel Larimer really has his act together when he discusses BitCoin and BitShares. His solid arguments against bitcoin are based on the fact bitcoin as a company is not profitable and he makes an excellent claim it therefore is not sustainable. He explains the flaws in the terminology and metaphores used to describe BitCoin while giving high praise and credit to the distributed model of the blockchain pioneered by it. Larimer is interviewed by Michael Dean in this fantastic 90 minute podcast where they address what BitShares are and all of the issues it was invented to solve. A month ago I bought 6 namecoins and was planning on using some of them to obtain .bit domain names. All I was waiting for was a group decision on the first domain name to be registered. After that name was chosen 5 weeks later I went back to obtain the .bit domain and discovered Micheal Dean and the chief developer of MeowBit have abandoned Namecoin for the architectures under the BitShares umbrella. After a couple of weeks of research into BitShares I decided Namecoin will probably not last much longer in part b/c it doesn't solve the problem of domain squating. BitCoin probably won't be going away anytime soon but I believe the writting is on the wall about it's long term prospects. There are some great videos about BitShares on youtube that delve into the details of the BitShares business model. If you want a thorough overview of the foundation and basis of the BitShare approach listen to Michael Dean's podcast. One thing I have been concerned about since starting my study of BitCoin back in March is that it is no longer economically feasible for the average person to mine BitCoins. The money required to do so is pushing the resources required into the realm of big business and that kindof scares me.

Thanks for the replies folks. Curiosity satisfied about reputation. And the warning points, are they too voted on by donators or does fall upon moderators? I presume warning points are based on violations of the forum rules right?

I notice in the lower right corner of every post is a number in a square shaded field, often it is 0 in a dark gray field. Occasionally they are not zero in which case they appear in a green shaded field. Are these the basis of member's reputation score? Is that set manually or automatically? I've searched the board for an answer to this and even emailed Michael for clarification a few days ago but so far I have no answers. I welcome enlightenment from anyone that may have the answer about this.

Who is the intended audience for this? It starts off quite well, but it gets a bit weak near "rational ignorance". I don't see anything here I disagree with, but it is rather long winded (I tend to be that way myself). Kindof hard to critique without knowing what you're trying to accomplish with the piece and who it's target audience is. IMO the salient points are found in the very first paragraph. The examples in the second paragraph are also good. You make valid points throughout, but they lack the punch of the first portion up to rational ignorance. Hope that is useful feedback.

And you'd be wise to remain so Sal. All bets are off when it comes to the legal system; it's a crap shoot. I fully agree with Cobra on the (lack of) value of this as a defensive tactic. However, as I tried to explain and I believe Mishelle has indicated, this has more to do with personal conviction and statement of who we are and how we choose to live. I no longer believe it has any positive value in our corrupt and unjust legal system. If you're leaning towards doing this I recommend serious research and soul searching before you take this step.

Yes, I did miss that, but I'd have to say not necessarily. The truth of the claim isn't in making it, but rather the actions that stem from it. Your point is that such claims are only a response, but if you act 100% as a sovreign then you are, no matter what the government does to you. That may not be a very wise course of action to take, but you would be demonstrating your sovreignty and your integrity; nobody could acuse you of hypocrisy regarding the claim. WRT your hypothetical, I disagree. In order to stay under the state's radar the alien would observe how incongruent your actions are: you pay taxes but talk to your friends about why you shouldn't have to, and you do a great many things you object to because you're affraid. Not so sure the alien would see the cloaked threat to your safety if they're only examining your actions and your words. Larken Rose's talk at the Free Your Mind conference (Aliens & Volcano Gods) springs to mind. According to Benjamin Franklin those that value safety more than freedom deserve neither, but since he was a statist and statists don't actually value freedom (for everyone) his statement is questionable. My response would be how free are you when you're dead? But if you happen to be a leader of a great hoard of followers your death might spark major changes, and that might have been your objective and the statement wouldn't apply. I see much talk here justifying compliance for self preservation, for no obligations under threat. I do get it, but it's still hypocritical behavior and that always bothers me, in myself or anyone else, irrespective of any exceptions that excuse it.

I did this back in '07 also. There's a great deal of info about this online, much is unreliable. Rather than describe some aspect or write an essay of my experience with this, which you may not need or want to know, just ask me whatever you like in a PM & I'll answer any questions you may have. It's not a step you should take without serious research and conviction, and you need to be prepared for the potential consequences. In reply to dsayers, your last paragraph describes a very rational perspective of hindsight. Unfortunately the process by which you arrived at it more often than not must be experienced to fully integrate. I have finally come to the conclusion in the last 6 - 8 months there are safer, more effective tactics & strategies in resisting than such declarations accomplish. However, embarking down that path does feel like a trip to Galt's Gulch initially, and the feeling of freedom is exhilarating. Taking that path is a true test of one's metal. Every human must decide for themselves what constitutes freedom and what price they are willing to pay for it. It may not be feasible to accurately weigh all the trade-offs in such a decision, but it's important to try, and try hard. Take for example the path Stefan has chosen for he & his family. He too has "declared his strong opposition" to the state, and thus has painted a target on his back and that of his family, including his daughter. His courage should not be undervalued. Has he gone far enough or too far? Only he can say. And he believes he's making the right choices for his daughter also, but she is too young to weigh in yet. I for one am very glad he has made the choice to stand, be vocal, be proactive and fight for morality without the certainty of knowing what the future has in store. That's real courage, just like declaring sovereignty. Can't you see, the government makes that claim by it's very existence? The question is, how will you defend your claim to the contrary? If we truly are our own masters we need to act like it, and declaring it is being consistent with that. I do recognize that under the threat of the government's power people don't have a moral obligation to do so. What a person does in such circumstances cannot be universalized or put in a box of right or wrong. I need to stop. Too long winded as it is.

All contributors have excellent points. I am currently processing my own dysfunction as it relates to my upbringing. My father was similar to the OP's, though it doesn't sound like to the same degree. Yet lately I've been noticing my sensitivity and anger when I'm unable to accomplish things, (i.e. stumbling, dropping things, technology that won't cooperate) as in your bolt loosening example. I used to think that becoming conscious of why my behavior is the way it is was the remedy to the behavior. I know now that's only the first step, which is what most of the posts above have expressed. Being fully conscious of the why must be deep and experienced emotionally. Understanding it intellectually is not enough for change to occur. But honestly I'm in the midst of the process, and I have no definitive solutions. My passive nature was recently pointed out to me, and now that I'm aware of that it contributes even more to the anger when my attempts to influence my environment fail. I'm not in control of it as much as I want to be, and I'm trying to figure out how passivity plays into it. I never thought of myself as being very passive and since this characteristic was pointed out to me (actually by Stefan) I have asked my closest friends if they see that characteristic. None do, but I know Stef is not wrong. But understanding cases where I fail to take initiative, or why I fail to see opportunities for initiating action to prevent something (i.e. control the future) are where I'm still blocked. Part of my cognitive dissonance stems from knowing that we all experience things that could have been avoided if we had foresight. But, and this seems extremely apropos to the OP, when is it a reasonable expectation to anticipate a future situation based on empirical knowledge vs. unreasonable (and therefore pardonable) due to a lack of it? What does it take to rise above your conditioning? What is the "click", the epiphany that frees your mind from it's behavioral trap? What is the essential essence of such a change in behavior, the nature of the turning point?

Now I'm intrigued, so please help me to understand. Perhaps it's just late and the fog will clear tomorrow. I'm familiar with Stef's podcast(s) where he explains what a terrible defense that is in the context of raising children. It's an often cited refrain from parents and Stef lays that to waste. I fully understand those examples, but I'm having some trouble applying it in this conversation. And I'm not so sure it's universal either. If it is you're presenting me an opportunity to grow here. If not I am providing one to you. So the question is, is that ever a reasonable sentence to use? It parses properly, the grammar is correct and yes, there are legitimate cases where it is morally OK to say that as a defense. Here's one Stefan cites from time to time: Would you hold a doctor morally responsible for causing his patients to die due to infections he caused because he didn't wash his hands between patients? If the Dr. did that now yes, but not if he did so in the 1600's or before knowledge of germs became known. Stef uses several other examples to illustrate that people should only be held accountable for their actions if they are aware (or it is reasonable for them to be aware) of the consequences of their actions. You can't say, "here are the 5 rules to the game", then declare your opponent lost the game for violating rule number 6. But this has got my mind in a pretzel knot: What instant detection are you referring to? Is it possible my knowledge is incomplete, due to my own subconscious self protective behaviors which although I'm unaware of them I am still responsible for? Care to take another stab at an explanation?

Thanks Kevin, for everything you're doing to help FDR and the world through it!

Any reason not to display the number of results found from the search query? As a web developer I know that's pretty easy. Perhaps you don't find it aesthetically pleasing or very useful? I can't argue against subjective claims like those. The reason I mentioned it was I used this wonderful new website you put together to draft a message to a friend of mine about peaceful parenting. I wanted to say how many podcasts FDR explicitly has on that subject. I will use it again on various subjects and would like to see how many podcasts match the query. It seems like a reasonable, typical and somewhat useful piece of information about a query result. Hopefully Kevin will agree. Either way, I'll say it again, great work

It does sound a bit insensitive, since you don't know my circumstances. I understand your reservation about the phrase, but isn't it jumping to conclusions without having very much empirical information about my circumstances? I'll give you credit for challenging me in a respectful manor. I am being honest about the guilt. It's not easy weighing the tradeoffs of life when you think about things deeply. If I had stayed in the city I would have better means to contribute monetarily, but it wasn't until I left the city that I discovered FDR. The guy that called into the show yesterday from Vancouver (who moved to Paraguay) portrayed the very same dilemma. I had a ton of empathy for that guy. If Stefan did I don't think he conveyed it to the audience.

And I indeed do, which I explained in my OP. Whether one should feel guilty is separate from whether they should feel sad. I myself feel both, since I haven't provided any monetary compensation for the value I receive. I feel sad b/c I believe it is a worthy effort to contribute to, to help improve the world and I'm not helping to support the expense of doing so. I assuage my guilt by telling myself I'm providing free advertisement to the show and promoting the causes of peaceful parenting, voluntarism and self knowledge. For some that might exonerate them from guilt. I put myself "on the line" and expose myself to ridicule etc. when I argue for these principles, not just online but in the relationships I have in the local community. Is it reasonable to ask Stefan if he prefers that people in desperate financial circumstances would stop logging in here or downloading / disseminating the info and insights received here? Based on purely black and white empirical evidence he might say so, bye bye. If he asked me to I would. But that would seem to be a rather cold response if he did, IMO. It may not be much in the eyes of many here but it's the best I can do with my current circumstances, which I'm trying to change, but that's not easy and won't happen in the short term.

Hello everyone, I just wanted to post a comment about this podcast. I think it was good for Stef, good for the caller and good for the audience, which of course includes me. The whole dollar donation thing. I'm glad Stef is comfortable discussing his discontent and rationale about small donations. I really get it. I struggle to make enough just to put gas in the car and pay the utility bill each month. And although I simply cannot make a monthly commitment to help the show monetarily (I'm well below the poverty line and get no gov. subsidies), I do help as best as I can by evangelizing the show often, almost every day. This podcast has also convicted me to find a way to contribute monetarily. It may not be much but each day that ends with change in my pocket I will put in a coin bank and whatever is in it at the end of every month will be donated to FDR. That commitment starts today. Youtube / podcast download volume. I presume this is measured by number of downloads not volume (bandwidth / bytes), as one video is worth many more (audio only) podcasts in terms of download (size) volume. It also costs alot more for video in terms of FDR overhead. There are several items to discuss here: 1) Why video? I understand some people prefer video over audio, but I myself feel it's a bit of a waste to click on a youtube video and have a static image delivered while I listen to audio. It's equally a waste to see Stef pacing in front of a camera. I myself do not use youtube for content such as FDR, Corbett Report or Gnostic Media or similar info sources. Occasionally I may seek out a video from such sources if the audio that I do listen to makes it compelling to do so. I put little stock in youtube comments and prefer dedicated forums. 2) Size of youtube audience vs. size of podcast audience. This is probably the only justifiable reason IMO to do video (for most but not all topics), to take advantage of the monumentally large youtube audience. And I guess the dissatisfaction of static image "videos" I expressed above warrants releasing actual video of *something*, even if it's just Stefan waltzing around a stage or pacing in front of a camera. So the question to ask is, do the costs justify the audience reached? I can't answer that but apparently Stefan & Michael believe they do. I would be interested in more details concerning this, and believe Stef should paint a clearer picture to listeners (and especially donators) so they understand the basis for the costs and benefits of youtube / video over audio only podcasts. I'm not saying there's no benefit to video, but what criteria is used to decide whether to produce an audio only or video podcast? Do the facial expressions of Stefan during the call in shows add that much value to the message? For me and my experience with the live shows I'd have to answer no. 3) Where is the On Truth documentary? Apparently the studio was a higher priority than finishing this project. I haven't heard much about the documentary in quite awhile. I wonder why that is. Interestingly I noticed the same delays in the release of the documentary on the Federal Reserve that James Corbett was so focused on which now appears to be stalled. This is not a criticism, merely a question. I doubt I'm the only one to have it. So what's your perspective on this?

The complexity increases rapidly based on the number of questions asked, if the flowchart has to take into account contradictions of Q99 with question Q78, assuming of course that Q99 & Q78 are related. How many permutations like that would be required? The scope of the questions would need to be rather large it seems, to address the wide range of personal perspectives on statism. Larken has been into this subject for a long time, so perhaps he as derived some "essential" questions that focus on the fallacies of statism and believes the number of variables, although large, can be managed to produce an effective process. Quite an interesting and ambitious project. He should first focus on the flowchart, and secondarily the presentation issues which only serve to keep people's interest but otherwise don't contribute to the goal of the process. That's not to say the presentation has no influence on the effectiveness, only that it isn't the primary embodiment / heart of the algorithm.

I actually believe his energies with FDR are proportioned fairly well. Although at times I wish he would dismiss callers that haven't thought through the issues they bring up, those may be the very ones that might serve as ambassadors to deeper more responsible thinking so that one day the public at large will see the wisdom shown here. I know that sounds overly optimistic. Perhaps so. But I am extremely grateful for the opportunities I've had to have insightful conversations with Stefan. Were those perfect conversations? There's always room for improvement, and I wish Stef's ego would relax more to give others a chance to express themselves, but the capacity for compassion that man has brings me to tears sometimes. At others I'm shouting at the top of my lungs to stop interrupting at let them speak! Another observation I have, which I find quite prevalent at FDR in general, is how rigid Stefan and many here cling to empirical evidence as though evidence is proof. I've posted on that topic before and am quite sensitive to both faith based arguments and those involving inflexible and closed minded empiricism. The scientific method is a fantastic tool which relies on meticulous devotion to details and the gathering of empirical evidence, but imagination, curiosity and open mindedness toward the unknown are equally important tools in the arsenal of human progress IMHO. The progress killer of humanity is ego that leaves no room for the later and denies a huge part of the human condition. It seems to be in opposition to love that unites people. I heard a physicist say that all choices boil down to a choice between fear and love. An overbearing ego is an expression of insecurity and thus fear. But without any ego there is no sense of self. Without fear our species would have been extinct long ago. Without love we're so much less than human. It takes big egos to attempt to tackle big dreams, and Stefan appears to be up to the challenge of changing the world through philosophy.

Wow Tyler, that was harsh and brutally honest, but your analysis is spot on it seems to me. I myself could stand to hear that message more often.

I often experience a milder form of what you describe and it makes it difficult to get to sleep. My first impression raises the question, how did your wife come into your life, and how did you allow your emotions to take priority over your otherwise dominant cerebral activity? You must have been capable of being "out of your mind" so to speak, or be emotionally present enough with her to captivate her interest. Could you possibly stir that emotion and passion again and train yourself to therefore focus more on emotions to balance the thinking? Hey, I could be way off base here, this is just my gut reaction. After all, I'm just another guy on the Internet...

I haven't visited this conversation in quite awhile, but have read all the posts and thank everyone for contributing. Some really excelent points raised here. I watched all the videos referenced except the very last one, but the shorter video by Alfie Kohn said nothing I disagree with. I particularly liked the comments and sharp focus dsayers brought to bear on Xeeg's contributions, which seem to overlook the means by which the public education system has the funds to exist. Xeeg does raise some good points regarding contradictions in the Larken Rose material related to Hellen Keller though. But to single out that aspect of the convo doesn't do justice to the other contributions made which deal with many of the crtical problems inherrent in society's views on schooling and education. Thanks to all who participated.

Thanks scn for your well thought out & articulated reply. As I said in my opening paragraph I am interested in Stef's analysis of the moral issue contained herein. He is the defacto leader of the philosophy expressed here and I respect his experience in thinking through these moral issues. He has a clarity of thought I have not achieved. That's not to say he can't make a mistake or that I do not take responsibility for thinking through these issues myself. That's why I'm posting here to be sure, and the more that contribute to this discussion the better I can understand every aspect of the topic. Unfortunately I don't expect he'll weigh in on this conversation, though as you pointed out it really does drill down to very important moral matters. And I'll cut Stef some slack, as it's not difficult to see the demand on his time is quite heavy, and skimming these forums to participate is not likely even on his radar any longer. Perhaps another caller will make another attempt to raise the issue and have the right personality to get Stef to respond more deeply and with the level of respect the topic deserves. We'll see over time if others contribute to this, and I sincerely hope they will, and perhaps a fruitful discussion it will become.

awesome job guys, simple and fast, clean interface. I'd like to see the number of podcasts that match the query somewhere on the page, but I can't think of any other additions. I like the ability to sort the columns, that way I can find the shorter podcasts or those that will fit on a CD. I also like that you included the original posting date. All in all great work, congrads!