Wesley
-
Posts
1,297 -
Joined
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by Wesley
-
-
That is terrible. Unfortunately the justice system is set up that the state is who you have to go to for recourse.
I would evaluate how much money you are talking and what the odds are of you winning the case (a lawyer should give you a rough assessment in a free consultation) and then decide if it is worth the hassle and expense to sue him or not.
I am really sorry that you are in this situation.
-
BBW - Big Beached Whales.. just joshing
Great idea Mishelle!
However, BCF should definitely be added, just so that everyone knows the term!
2 more additions- great idea Mischelle so I can join xelent's club.
Also, I would be happy to contribute however possible if needed in order to join Kevin's club.
-
I am glad you would like to invest in Liquid Science. I am investing everything I have, but resources are Low, no internet being on of them. I was thinking of some Liquid Science Development (LSD) Last night while thinking of the scientific method. I was wondering how the scientific method might apply to LSD?
If I am not mistaken here is the Scientific Method...
1. Formulation of a question...
2. Hypothesis...
3. Prediction...
4. Testing...
5. Analysis...
Might Testing and Analysis (4 and 5) below be left out in LSD, as LSD is ONLY Fiction so we wouldn't Physically Test or do Analysis, we could theorise but not physically test, so it is safe to use, so long as it is Defined as LSD...A doctor or engeneer wouldn't take any LSD and Apply it to a Patient or a Bridge because they would be betting someone's life on it. So Any-time a Grey Swan or White Swan is using LSD in a problem, quantum mechanics being an Example any LSD should be defined as LSD.
Liquid science is so creative and free because there are no real expectations and it is Safe to use. The More Creative and Flexable the Better the LSD. There is no Right or Wrong as their is in SSD.
If using this structure of the 3 systems of Science. The closer the GSD is to the LSD the greater the SSD...the further away the GSD from the LSD the Less the SSD. So the more creative the LSD and more Responsive the GSD towards it, the greater the Progress and Growth for the SSD. Did I make sense?
LSD is only brain storming so no one can get hurt with the ideas...they are Only Imagination and Creativity, they are not physically real until they penetrate the SSD.
SSD - Error is not Expected...no or little free thinking, as current understanding is protected and followed.
GSD - Error is sometimes Expected...Freeer Thinking is allowed and Testing is careful performed. It is Cautious as Harm can happen if the LSD is not Good...but you don't know till you try
LSD - Error is Almost always Expected...Free Thinking is allowed as there is no Testing therefore no Harm...this is the Science of Fiction.
So Physicists can say to other Physicists..."Hey check out some of this LSD, what do you think?" Again it Must be defined as LSD
I won't be able to reply as fast as most because I have no internet, but I will continue to think (Invest) in this and Pepin Thank You
I feel like I could replace the term "LSD" with the colloquial term "bullshit" and it would make more sense to people.
It is attaching the word science to bullshitting and pretending it now has the credibility of science.
-
APA
ANA
DRO
TGOA
FOO
DeFOO
OT - (Do people use that or did I make that up?)
I am sure there are others, but I will have to think on this.
Also, should we define terms that are used? Like DRO means Dispute Resolution Organization. Reader thinks, "OK, now what the hell does that mean?"
Just a thought.
-
I would first like to preface this by saying that it is a relatively advanced discussion of bitcoin. If you do not understand the basics of what bitcoin is, then it will likely not make much sense to you. For the absolute basics on the bitcoin currency app, feel free to read my Bitcoin: Getting Started thread. If you understand everything in there and want to research and move to the next level, this post will provide my initial thoughts and then this thread will hopefully develop from there.
Explaining a New Technology Using Bad, Old Terms
It is one of the banes of any new technology that you have to explain it in terms of something that already exists.
As many of you have figured out by the terms used around bitcoin, about none of them actually apply to bitcoin.
For instance, bitcoin is not a coin.
You don’t have a wallet full of coins.
You don’t even send coins really.
Bitcoin is a store of value that is cryptographically embedded on a distributed ledger. This ledger uses Proof-of-Work (POW) to verify and confirm transactions. Bitcoin is just numbers that move around on the ledger. They can only be spent when a mathematical signature says the coin is now located at a new place in the ledger. Simple, right?
Not at all! Bitcoin makes no sense to people who are new to the idea. Even using “old” terms, bitcoin is still confusing and leads to many people criticizing it according to old standards which do not apply to bitcoin. It makes things very difficult to explain. Thus, all of these old terms that do not apply exactly need to be used in order to analogize bitcoin with our existing ideas about money.
The TWO Meanings of Bitcoin
This brings me to the bitcoin name itself. The truth is that Bitcoin the network is just a distributed proof-of work protocol. On top of this, we have the application called bitcoin that is used as a exchange of value system.
What This Means
Bitcoin the network will very quickly have a lot built on top of it.
Think about the internet. You have TCP/IP as the base protocol. On top of this, you have built the HTTP protocol. On top of this, you have many browsers that you use which bring these complexities to the "user" level. On top of this, you have the various apps and plug-ins which bring things down to an "individualized" level.
Bitcoin is exactly the same. In fact, several years from now, very few will know what bitcoin is but they will use it- or a derivative- every day (similar to how few know what TCP/IP is, but use it every day).
The Next Layer
There are a few companies popping up that are trying to build the next layer. Mastercoin is one that is just starting. It would allow titles of property, assets, stocks, bonds, etc to have registered ownership titles in a distributed system. It would also allow anyone to make their own “coins” for a project or for themselves in order to parse out value, or stake in a project or company.
I am not aware of others, but I am sure that a few may exist and the next couple years will see a lot of development in this area.
Beyond That
There are many places where bitcoin could go, but in time there will be many layers of apps on top of the system that the technical knowledge you currently need to use bitcoin will be silly and obsolete for the average user. Things will become second-nature and basic exchanges will happen instantly without much thought.
Advantages of Bitcoin Revisited
Thus, besides the many, many advantages of lessened counterparty risk and lessened third party risk and lessened overhead and lessened centralization and increased anonymity and more that bitcoin the current realization of bitcoin the currency provides, these things can be applied in the future to all assets, transactions, interactions and more.
The limits are only in the imaginations of entrepreneurs as to where bitcoin can go.
This post as a bit shorter as I do not know as much about the topic as it is new, and that it introduces a lot of new topics and ideas even to people who are potentially familiar with bitcoin the currency. If you have any questions, trouble, additions, or edits, feel free to ask them and I will try to respond as best I can.
Also, if you want to see another post or topic about bitcoin, you can PM me or add it below and I will research or put something together- especially if I think others would benefit from the post.
Thanks for reading!
-
I'm new around here, is this a troll thread? Think about the true, original meaning of Christmas....The Winter Solstice.
Are you saying that fasle institutions fail and the fact that religion endures speaks to its veracity? I'd submit that statism is a false institution based on lies that has only expanded its power in recent history.
e Yer has posted several threads regarding his belief in absurdities.
-
I generally say that staying is fine if you need to as long as you understand why you are doing it and that you keep working on yourself during this time. Giving up your future career and life because of them would be just them screwing with your life into the future is at least how I justified it in the past.
However, if you are not a dependent on your parents, there is a pretty good chance that you would qualify for need-based financial aid. You may wish to look into this as the cost/benefit of a defoo may not be as much on the cost side (in terms of financial support) as you think it is.
Obviously there is a lot of emotional stuff during this time which can be very difficult. You should speak with a therapist about things and you ay need to take a break for a couple months from school in order to get yourself on track money-wise or emotional-wise so that you are able to focus on school again. This wouldn't be terrible and could be a better investment than school into future productivity.
I am very sorry that you are in this situation. It is really not a fun place to be where you feel like you HAVE to stay or your future is shot or something. I am so sorry.
-
My solution for relatively cheap security would be this:
1. Every household gets a gun that is legal in the jurisdiction
2. Every household gets training how to use the gun and safety precautions
2a. This includes things like "dont shoot at a burglar when your neighbor is beyond him" and "avoid shooting unless you are in danger"
3. Everyone gets a safe and lock and training on how to keep the gun away from young kids.
4. People register their phone numbers in some sort of system. This allows you to call the number and leave a message or text. That is then broadcast to all other numbers in the area.
4a. If you are being burglarized, you text the number and within 1 minute, 5 of your neighbors can be at your house with their guns unlike how long it takes the police to get there
4b. There would be drills and protocols for this obviously, as well as maybe some neighborhood alarms that are attached to the number? possibly
5. Everyone in the neighborhood has parties and talks to each other.
5a. Best strategy is that they know what you look like, who is in your family, meet the dog, what your activities are so that they will generally know if something is awry
5b. This will also lead to some asking questions of random people to ask who they are. In a casual sense if they name dropped someone they could get directions or something.
Something like this would be how I would organize things and it wouldn't require massive fees to an external company. There would be upfront costs of the gun and training and safe, small dues that would maintain the telephone line, and you even could add a little bit to the dues to reward the first 4 people who get up and to the house in question in a crisis where the hotline is dialed so that getting up and helping out the neighbors is encouraged.
If there aren't crises for a while and the amount starts to pile up, you could consider subsidizing these protection services for new entrants into the neighborhood.
If I lived in a neighborhood and could put something together, this is how I would organize it.
-
What other pre-crimes would you not allow? Is it just alcohol you are concerned with? Are you ready to micromanage every aspect of driving for the sake of security? How would your model will be more profitable than your competitor who is not interested in pre-crime, and thus has lower costs/tariffs?
this could be a contract matter
if the contract says, don't drive with x or < alcohol level, and the person does drive with x or < alcohol level, then the contract has been violated.
if people prefer to buy licences to drive on roads without such contracts, ok, if that's the market.
I prefer wasted people to not be on my private property and I prefer wasted people to not be in the malls I shop at or the roads I drive on either. It is not a crime if they do not cause harm to anyone, and they can get drunk on their property, but it is not "precrime" for me to want to not associate with drunk people or not let them on the road that I own.
Just like my private property or mall I own, if I can't tell then I don't really care. If they are acting up or anything then I can kick them out if I want to and it is perfectly acceptable for private property to do so.
-
Perhaps it's a special case for condos, but who owns the hallway between me and my neighbour? what about the driveway that leads to the building? "WE" own it, collectively.
Have you heard of "mutual driveways", when two (or more) neighbouring properties share (ie collectively own) an access road?
How is that different from a street? So, analogy does stand.
And this further makes me wonder... perhaps, you cant leave a country, but you sure can leave a city...
Any contract as to where you live (condo, apartment, etc) is entered into voluntarily. Any contract where you live politically has no contract and is forced on you by the arbitrary whims of the men with guns who claim legitimacy by some swath of voters (who the do not even have a contract with and proceed to break all "election promises.")
Also, For living privately I have the option to live in the woods or own my house or something. I do not have the option to not be a part of a political state. Choosing "none of the above" is illegal according the the UN. Thus, I never get the option to be free and be on my own, but only to move to another farm.
-
I think this poll somewhat reflects active forum users. I wonder how things would change if it would record the average podcast listener or the average YouTube subscriber.
-
I think one more point against IP is the limited duration. An idea becomes your property for a couple years, or 50 years after your death (or something) depending on the type of IP. However, this means it isn't actually property. If it was, it should be able to stay your property and the property of your children from now until the end of time. The idea that you magically one day lose your property rights show that IP is a false invention rather than an accurate description of reality.
-
The answer is it was still a crime and he is still therefore a criminal. The person doing the stealing knew he did not own the phone and did not ask the owner if he could have it or make an exchange for it. The intent was to deprive him of his property. The fact that the owner forgave him doesn't change this, even if it alters the consequences for the criminal. (like not pursuing legal action against him)
If I choose to not exercise property rights over my cell phone then I should be able to do so. The forgiveness could be a claim on my part that right before the guy took it, I didn't want it and it had reverted to unowned property. He then had taken it and claimed ownership over it.
This is similar to the idea that a group of people could get together and join a commune if they want to where people constantly "steal" from each other, but since none of them are exercising their property rights it is not theft.
-
Not to mention that Bitcoin the distributed ledger is of immense value even if bitcoin the unit of account somehow could be made worthless.
-
If it does and I complain then I am a victim and if I can prove that they cause me harm, then there will be a crime.
Back on topic, even now if someone takes a dime from me at work then I won't care because it isn't worth it and I will not complain that a crime has taken place.
Thus, for practical purposes at least a crime has not taken place.
-
As the marijuana activists say, "no victim, no crime."
-
Interesting... I'm not suggesting that "Having an idea is immoral" at all. I am saying that stealing the product of a persons ideas, is immoral. I don't understand how, in my example, a comedy album isn't a tangible product being stolen. I would suggest shooting a child for stealing a candy bar, is immoral as well though. To me, copying property, that someone is selling, for free, is stealing, it just falls into the realm of petty theft. Violence seems like an incorrect response. Does this mean I disagree with UPB?
I'll listen to it today and find out I guess.
There is proportional force. I can take the CD or restrain the child until his parents come or something like that. This would be like that guy who when you say a word slightly wrong and then they blow up and go on a 10 minute rant about the failing of society. Only applied to life and death so not the best example, but you get the idea- proportionality.
The album itself is tangible. If I take a CD from you then you no longer have it. If I copy some data and transfer it to my computer, then your data is still perfectly in tact. It is like me pointing my "copy ray" at your shirt and making a new one for me. I have not taken your shirt but actually created a new one in a sense.
Saying that me copying your shirt is petty theft is incorrect as I have taken absolutely nothing from anyone.
-
There are 7 categories in UPB:
1. It is good (universally preferable and enforceable through violence, such as “don’t murder”).2. It is aesthetically positive (universally preferable but not enforceable through violence, such as“politeness” and “being on time”).3. It is personally positive (neither universally preferable nor enforceable, such a predilection foreating ice cream).4. It is neutral, or has no ethical or aesthetic content, such as running for a bus.5. It is personally negative (predilection for not eating ice cream).6. It is aesthetically negative (“rudeness” and “being late”).7. It is evil (universally proscribed) (“rape”).
(Page 64 of UPB I just copied this from)
[Tongue- In Cheek Edit: OH NO! I think I just violated IP!]
"Having an idea is immoral" falls apart in any kind of logical framework. There is no objective difference between idea that someone else thought of first and ideas that no one else has thought of, thus the statement that "some ideas are immoral to have" wouldn't hold up. Ideas also cannot fit into the idea of property as my gaining an idea does not take it from you. Thus, violating "IP" does not fall under the universal good or universal evil of UPB. These categories allow force to enforce and this makes sense that we would not want to use force to enforce IP.
It could be in the categories of Aesthetically Negative Actions (ANA) or Aesthetically Positive Actions (APA). You may say that "People who download music for free are sleazy and I wouldn't hang out with them, but I do not think that they should be punished through force." This is not a question of morals then, but a question of virtue and aesthetics.
Even then, there are complications as almost every person who uses language, music, art, etc is using 99.99% work stolen from others and that last small percent is their own original cherry on top.
Cheating is somewhat different as being in a relationship assumes that there was some sort of contract. You would apply some sort of contract law or apply rules of fraud to the contract. I do not know exactly where this would fit as I am not the biggest expert on the subject, but I think that it would not be immoral, but aesthetically negative and should reflect on the reputation of the person who broke the contract.
I would highly recommend reading the book or listening to it as it is free. I do know that you cannot consider something immoral and then not allow force to prevent it. If that is the case, then either it is immoral and force can be allowed (thus not immoral to use self defense) or it is not immoral and thus immoral to aggress against them for doing it.
The position of "it is immoral to download a song but more immoral to throw them in jail for it" cannot stand under UPB. So that at least needs to change.
-
I think Wesley would agree that your posts can be easily misinterpreted and misunderstood
I am not going to affirm or deny this. I would only like to express my preference that opinions as to what I probably think are not asserted for me. Feel free to speak for yourself, but I would rather not be dragged into something I may or may not agree with.
-
I think it is impossible to recognise that people (myself included) do not vote for him to be a leader, but rather to manage a city, which we chose to live in.
I am actually posing this as a question - is a mayor of a city a politician? Is a superintendent at an appartment complex a politician? What would be a difference?
This, to me, feels like one of those really uncomfortable situations where someone doesn't know the difference between rape and love-making and asks to have it explained.
The difference between a politician and a building manager is the same as the difference between a rapist and a lover.
-
I already said that using violence to protect it would be immoral. If someone is in a long term monogamous relationship, cheating on their partner is immoral... but it doesn't give their partner the right to hit or kill them. So, I guess I just disagree with this definition of immoral. White lies are immoral, but they don't justify the use of force. If someone tries to sell a cd, piece of software, film, or book, those are products, and stealing them, or copying them for free use, is immoral. It's just not an excuse to get violent. Louis CK recently self distributed two comedy albums online for 5 dollars each. No evil distributors, corporate owned media, etc. were involved in these productions.
He promised never to go after anyone who steals the product, using the law. Still, the man has been working on his craft for 30 years, and these cd's were not six months worth of work, they were the culmination of overwhelming effort for decades. If you downloaded it for free, instead of paying the five dollars, that was an immoral act. It would be more immoral to jail you for it, which is why he is uninterested in doing so... but it's still wrong to steal a crafted product.
You may want to look into the differences between APA and UPB.
-
Using violence to enforce IP as law, is immoral... That said, let me give you a perfect example of why IP is property, and stealing it is immoral.
A brand new band, writes it's first hit song. They're playing it in clubs with one or two hundred people, and just barely starting to scrape out a living for themselves. U2 hears the song, and covers it instantly. The only place the writers of the song are mentioned (if at all), is in the liner notes, or at the bottom of U2's hit music video "information" on youtube. Now... They didn't write a hit song, it will never get on the radio, and people will always assume their band, is the one covering U2. U2 stole their property, and possibly their livelihood, simply by listening to it. "Just write another hit song", may sound good in theory, but how many one hit wonders have there been? Some pretty good artists, only have a couple in them, if they lose the first one, they won't have the money to support themselves writing the second.
Software, music, art, and film, are all very easy to copy. It is immoral to do so, without the artists permission.
No matter what the intellectual property claim is, the idea that you can make one invention or one song and then sit back on the proceeds from that exchange is exactly why intellectual property was invented- to stifle competition and protect the existing wealthy.
Second, a one-hit band or small band that gets covered by U2 would do wonders for their sales and people's awareness to them. Not to mention that from the internet there would be viral campaigns showing their song being released first and in order to not support the scumbags U2 (for the example).
Immoral means that it is ok to use force in defense of it. If you steal my car or my wallet, I am allowed to use a gun to try to get it back. (May not be recommended, but it would be defensive). If you "steal" an idea, it is not taking the idea from them and it would be terrible to use force in "defense" of something that wasn't even taken from the original owner. The fact that you would point a gun at someone for taking your car but not for listening to your song is great evidence that having an idea that someone happened to have before is not immoral.
-
This is one of those instances where I would have preferred people to search the boards and read old threads so that everything doesn't need to be rehashed... again....
IP is not property because if I "take" a shirt from you, then you no longer have a shirt. If I "take" an idea from you, then you still have the idea. I have not prevented your access to the information.
Ideas have value, but this does not make them property.
I can prevent access to ideas through encryption or trade secrets, but if someone makes Coke in the exact same recipe then Coca-Cola has no right to use force against them to take their money for doing so. It was Coca-Cola's responsibility to make their formula secret.
The idea that me coming up with an idea similar to someone else's or finding an idea which does not prevent others to have access to the idea as being worthy of violence being used against me is a reprehensible idea.
-
Point is, I don't know how to set this up without it being just the cliches I hear about my son sitting around watching TV all day while the rest of society thinks he should be in a classroom. However, I will have to write out and organize my and my wife's role in our son's education, I just need to establish what that will be based on what we have
You don't need to "set this up" or "write out and organize my and my wife's role in our son's educations" or "establish what that will be based on" and occasionally your son may sit and watch TV, but you can negotiate about how long and what you want to watch together- or to switch between shows.
All you do is treat your son like a person and take an interest in all of the things that he is interested in. From there, you can help him lean things by helping him to get his hands on more resources than he knows how to find.
Does he watch a TV show of TMNT? This you could talk to him about the morality of what is going on in the show and whether the bad guy was actually bad for what he was doing and how else they could have solved the problem other than what they did. You could take him to the nearest zoo or park and try to find turtles. Go to a library or research online about turtles so that he knows how turtles actually act. Create a role-play scenario where you do a DnD-like puzzle where you try and fight bad guys as the TMNT. Maybe even get a pet turtle that he could take care of.
I am sure there are many, many more ways that learning and skills can develop from this or any other interest he may take. The point is to be interested in his interests and then negotiate and explore what is interesting to him. It is not about making a plan, but about being present as a person with preferences and interested in your child having fun with learning and learning the things that he is interested in.
If there is one skill above all others that would be the best for your child, it would be to be able to effectively negotiate.
Insurance Problem - Who is responsible and why?
in Miscellaneous
Posted
They may, you would have to look at the contract.
However, I also know that the odds of them getting an all-star legal team and finding a way to use the justice system to make you pay more money in lawyer fees than the trust fund is worth is much higher than it was with your stepfather.
Explore the options, get a free consult from a lawyer. If you don't listen to anything else I say, I would say that a free consult to explore options is good advice.