Wesley

The point of the meshnet is that it is P2P as much as possible. At a minimum this requires about 1 user per mile, which is very easy in a city environment. There is no central internet to shut down. Even if I get shut down, it is likely that the users around me can still broadcast without my connection, so it would require every member to be shut down in order to stop it.

Now this is something that is exciting that I would invest some money and time setting up a node. Though I have no idea if enough people are in my area to make it worthwhile. Cool story though. I also remember seeing a similar thing at a bitcoin conference where they were prototyping these credit cards that were slightly thicker, ran on solar power and could transmit bitcoins through a meshnet radius around them. Eventually, these transactions would make it to the internet and be broadcast to the blockchain. However, it creates a meshnet that would be even less likely to shut down than the current internet, and allow bitcoin trading to be very cheap and not require massive computer knowledge. Only one of these cards and access to the sun (or maybe just light). Found an article on it: http://www.coindesk.com/mycelium-promises-bitcoin-card-with-a-brain/ These are the kind of solutions that get me excited. When the state cannot control money because it is encrypted P2P. Now we can just do that with the internet itself. Sounds like fun.

Agreed, I had almost forgotten about this, but was excited at the time and excited when I saw it in my feed this morning.

I would venture to guess that image issues almost never originate in the self. It is others demeaning or making fun of you for your looks. There may be no "attractive level" that turns off those feelings of shaming, especially if they were originated by a caregiver.

It is very much not the goal to hold contrary or inconsistent beliefs. This was called Double Think in 1984 (Orwell) and is truly the showing of a broken mind. Holding the belief that War is Peace is fundamentally contradictory. (I heard this all over the place leading up to the Iraq war). It is better to be consistent and to apply consistency. However, the goal is not consistency for the sake of consistency. If you expand consistency and the idea no longer seems to hold, then that is a hint that you need a new theory, not that you should push consistency through until your old idea fits. The goal is the scientific method- consistency in approach and methodology. This leads to consistency with reality. Consistency with reality leads to truth.

I could be totally wrong, so feel free to tell me that I am, however I have a few ideas and would like to float my theories. Some may be more relevant than others, or it all could be bogus. Just let me know what, if anything, resonates. It sounds to me like you fear abandonment and being alone because of your mentioned issues with it. Thus, you would prefer to chose a cause over no cause. However, you are opening up to philosophy and realizing how alone you are and is a path toward reviving the true self. The only group you can think to join is the military, and you are doing your best to define it in innocuous terms like: "The objective facts of learning to defend yourself, primitive survival skills, being paid to life in another country, meeting others, and having said that you have experienced such a huge part of civilization, outweighs the biased and true opposition of it. The objective facts as stated, will always outweigh "what we think". If war was righteous, it would be the greatest thing ever... but it's all just a perspective, and if I handle myself well... I can be a force for good." However, in reality you will not be a force for good. Your self that you have tried to find will just become even more buried. Your true self that your false self desires to have you bury forever was about to come out. This will lead to a full erasure of the self. You will turn from an individual with thoughts and ideas into and tool to be used by your commanders. An erased self used to extinguish the selves of other. There is no righteousness in this. There is only sadness and pain. You say you view life as a slow suicide. Instead of asking why or trying to improve life, you are thinking of choosing a fast suicide. Either you will die, or your true self will be buried to the point of being unable to resurrect. However, these are not the only options in the world. The goal is to be happy, not to pick the best suicide. I am very sorry for what you are going through. This cannot be easy. I would very much advise you get help in trying to build up and discover your true self and to flourish as an individual rather than choosing the quick death of war or self-erasure.

My idea of you how alleviate the fear of rejection is to truly love and know yourself to the greatest extent you can. When you are a great and amazing person with goals and desires who you love spending time with, then you do not need to approval of others. However, reaching this form of self-actualization is not an easy process and takes a lot of work in self knowledge, likely some therapy, etc. I would say that trust is one of the basics of a relationship and that checking messages shows that you do not trust her (not as a fault of you, I would trust your instincts and question why you do not trust her). I would look intently at the relationship and it may be best to not continue with it without trust. I have no idea if it is possible to truly earn back trust in a relationship as it requires trust to be able to do this. I am so sorry you have to deal with this situation.

Couple quick thoughts. First, him saying "You're mentally ill. You should be instituted." means that he doesn't think you are mentally ill. You would never say something like this to someone who you actually thought was crazy, so it was certainly just manipulative to get you to question yourself without good argument. I am also very sorry that your parents had an uninterested response from what you were thinking. I also would say that you should start to realize that very few debates are actually about the facts. If you are interested, you should look at Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. The have done studies where they take an individual who is partisan (in the 2004 election) and gave them evidence against their candidate. Their brain feels fear or anxiety, they resolve that fear or anxiety, they then "choose" the response to reject the evidence, and then they get high which reinforces the original position. Scientifically, with many people, contrary evidence to a held partisan position just leads to reinforcing the original position. This is why it is not about facts. There is a psychological reason why China and government control seems better to them. Just as an aside, I think if you want others to be curious about your positions and why you acquired them a good place to start would be to be curious about the person you are debating with. Maybe it happened and wasn't recorded, but it seems you didn't ask your sibling about why these ideas were important to them, yet hoped they would ask you. The part with your parents was less excusable as they weren't there and had no idea what happened, so you would think they may ask what happened rather than listening only to your sibling's side.

Great article that helped me realize that I could ask my therapist the things that I really wanted to know. Besides this, you need to just try to be as in touch with yourself as you can. It kind of sucks, as this likely is part of what you are going to therapy for, but trust your instincts when you feel something. If you aren't quite sure what you are feeling then try to express that and see how the therapist reacts. If they dodge a question, then say how that made you feel. You should be able to quickly know what she is about if you are asking real questions about herself and expressing how you feel in response to those questions. Finally, it is all but guaranteed that your therapist won't be an anarchist atheist. These are not why you are going to see her though. I do not demand anarchist ideals from my doctor or my dentist. I am learning self knowledge, empathy, kindness, history, experiences, and anything else that would be relevant to gaining self knowledge and exploring my past. This is where my questions generally focused. Finally, you can always post your experience of a first encounter or something and there are several people who have experienced this situation in the past and may be able to help you sort through any ambivalence you may have. Final hint, people have asked questions about this kind of thing in the past, so it may help to look back at what issues they had and the advice that was given. Up to you as to whether that would help or not.

Haha, no problem. We all have our moments.

My Settings -> General Account Settings -> Profile Information -> Click on button labeled "Edit my About Me Page"

Hey Marco, I think it is good how you are beginning to explore the role your parents play in your interactions with your grandparents. The main questions seem to be around once he starts dying from the heart attack and acts like a defiant child. I think it is no coincidence that the minute you realize you are a victim is when your father collapses. This simultaneously tries to pull you away from realizing you are a victim and makes you instead try to save your father. This lead you to trying to care for and empathize with your father as a child instead of focusing on your negative experiences in the situation. You can tell that your desire is to save him. Yet his defiance seems to show that he does not want to be saved. Instead, it seems to me like attention as to what happened to you has been over-taken by your father being the victim of a heart attack. The defiance very much reminds me of times where kids have tried to get a parent's attention and when they succeed they turn to their sibling and stick out their tongue quick so the parent couldn't see, but the competitor could. My view is that you cannot save your father. He can only save himself when you express the problems you may have with the situation. That you do not like being the tool of appeasement to violent people. When you express this, then his response will tell you a lot. Sorry I went on a bit of a ramble there, hopefully some of that helped. Let me know!

This is the part that I do not get. I think in all of your posts I have read, you have demeaned someone (I think, definitely not able to prove it). You claim superior knowledge and then cannot explain it without leveling ad hominem what your position is or where I may be misunderstanding. If you think I misunderstand, then instead of explaining or asking for clarification of what I don't get, you talk about where you think the incapability of knowledge comes from. I think you very much need to analyze how you communicate with people. You may have great ideas, but attacking people turns them off. You seem to misunderstand my post. It wasn't a logical argument, but a parody of an interesting outside look of the situation. There is the obvious hypocrisy of you misunderstanding my post while claiming I misunderstood yours. Mine was a bit of a joke, you decided to throw out conclusions about why I might be mentally incapable of understanding because you think I am young or something. Finally, you have literally no idea what I know or what I do not know because you have not asked. drawing conclusions of mental incompetence is a rather ridiculous assumption to make for someone claiming to have perfect arguments. There is a strange laughability to the person who claims to have the perfect argument, only others cannot understand it.

Hmmmm... Argument is posted No one understands it Must be everyone else's fault of course, not the argument. After all, the argument was perfectly easy to understand. You guys need to have empathy with me who is posting my argument, while I continue to not understand how things look from your perspective. My argument makes perfect sense and is perfectly logical. Others don't make sense. After all, who else could perfectly use fallacious arguments from anti-authority to disprove known truths such as evolution or the earth being round!? (idk if this font has an interabang character)

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/36495-fdr-video-the-truth-about-george-zimmerman-and-trayvon-martin/#entry335961 MMD announced that we had over 10,000 new subscribers almost 2 weeks ago. As far as I can tell we have gained a couple thousand more since then even.

I do not need the right to free speech in order to say that. In fact, it is good that I do not as it does not exist. All I need are the rational rules that are provable of private property and the non-aggression principle. In fact, if I say things on your property, that is the only way that you get the ability to be a "grantor of rights" as for any reason you are allowed to kick others off of your private property. Even if nothing wrong was said but it was loud, or annoying, or I've already been over too long. On my own private property you have no right to control what I say as that would be a violation of the NAP and private property to aggress against me for what I say. These rules exist. Freedom of Speech exists in an anti-rational society that doesn't respect private property, doesn't believe in non-violent solutions to social problems, and has the ridiculous idea that a concept (the government) can own property. When you have this much irrationality, then you try to establish rules to live in an irrational environment like Freedom of Speech. Then they get broken, and new irrational rules are invented, and it all falls apart. The goal is to get rid of the rules that are not logically provable. If I am not allowed to remove you from my property for saying things that I do not like, then you can claim that Freedom of Speech supersedes these other logical ideas and we can discuss that. However, if you recognize that the NAP and private property are logical ideas that are all you need and allow the removal of someone from your property for saying something that is wrong, then you understand why it is an arbitrary rule that does not exist except for these irrational situations we live in now.

What is this third option you are presenting?

My mind is running through some scenarios with this universalized. Like: I asked her to have sex with me and she didn't comply, so I shot her. Her non-compliance made it justified. I pulled out my gun and asked if I could shoot him, and he didn't comply so I shot him. His non-compliance made it justified. I asked if I could shoot his family and burn down his house, but he didn't comply so I shot him. His non-compliance made it justified. Time to ask his wife now to see if she will comply with my demands. I'm sure they could get more absurd, but I will stop now.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/new-york-police-terrorism-pressure-cooker

Rise in violence 'linked to climate change'http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23538771 Isn't violence that doesn't include government decreasing substantially? It would make sense that as government increases in power (with the excuse of climate change) would result in more violence. Overall, this is obviously missing the point by coming up with a correlation and assuming causation.

I think this would go into the new issues app (top right corner) as a suggestion. I am sure this will be seen either way, but I think that is where they are trying to move issues and suggestions to not distract from the board and to clearly "list" what changes may need to be made.

Just a quick question. There seem to be issue and suggestion options. If I have multiple issues (or more likely multiple suggestions) should I try to seperate them into different "issues" or would you prefer ir to be combined into one? I don't think it would matter too much, but you may prefer one to the other. For instance, separation would make people be able to visit and maybe "vote" for the suggestions they think are more essential to work on first. However, this also could create a situation where it looks like there are a whole bunch of issues or suggestions when there aren't actually very many or just clutter the area unnecessarily.

Not that I am defending McDonalds, but this isn't exactly fair. They were talking about a $1 McDouble, not a $4.20 Big Mac (which you pointed out to credit). Also, this doesn't include the antinutrient content of peanuts (or legumes in general). I have no way to make a universal claim of any kind, but I have found that I cannot eat peanuts and maintain good health and I know of a couple of people who have much more serious reactions like allergies. I also do not have gluten in my diet in a McDouble, then there are lactose possibilities. Lots of things going on besides just the "accountant" idea that the body counts calories and a couple nutrients. Namely all of biochemistry.

I am glad someone brought up that rights do not exist. The right to free speech only exists because of the idea of "public property" which is a false and wrong idea. On my private property, iff you say things that offend me, I am allowed to kick you off of my property justly. There is no free speech, only non-agression and private property. Cruel and unusual punishment exists as a "protection" against the government monopoly provision of justice services. Same thing with search and seizure protections. These are bull and do not exist. All of these rights are broken daily and irrelevant. They do not exist. They are words on paper to make you feel safe and to distract you from true morality. When you concede that there are arbitrary rights based on things like government violence, public property, and other abhorations then that is when you run into the problem. It is inevitable in the paradigm that individuals make up whatever rights they want to when these rights are made up to begin with.

One of the first things you should do is deal with this instance before you move on to the future. Talk to your kid. Tell him you were so sorry for what you did. Ask him why he didn't want to do it. Try and empathize and see what is happening from his perspective. Be curious and ask, and apologize profusely for anything you did wrong. My first thoughts are that you were not curious as to why he wanted what he wanted or what he was avoiding. Instead of demanding obedience, ask him. If games or TV are more interesting, then you need to step up your conversation game in order to hold his interest. Maybe he was trying to avoid your yelling. Maybe he doesn't like this rule and doesn't see the point to it. Ask, be curious, treat him as someone with his own thoughts, wishes and desires that may be different from yours. Good luck!