Wesley

Well, if projects like Ethereum are successful and have altcoins built with turing complete programming languages, different systems will actually be able to implement sets of laws within code and people can choose which rules they want to abide by and participate within that system. I forsee a large amount of experimentation in this sort at this time and will be excited to see what results from it. PS. For anyone who doesn't know what turing completeness is, it came from a computer scientist named Turing who listed a couple commands that would be needed and if those existed then you are able to accomplish anything. Almost every programming language you can name is a turing complete language. However, within a cryptographic structure and blockchain-enabled system like that of bitcoin it allows things like systems of rules, smart contracts and property, digital autonomous corporations, and many other possibilities that have not even been imagined.

I don't think it is possible to mess up a piece of art, especially one that has personal value. Regardless, I do think this piece has meaning to me. Traveling through shadows in a valley feels to me like a large journey of self knowledge (going deep to explore what is in the shadows) in order to reach the area of light, aka enlightenment. This may not be exactly what you intended, but I still very much enjoy it. Thanks for making this piece and please make more!

Just in case you didn't notice, you should take a gander at the low bar of the page and click on the MeetUp link in order to start/join any meetups in neighboring cities. If you already did this, then pretend I didn't say anything!

It probably doesn't matter to your argument, I just wanted to say that this isn't exactly true. Positive Reinforcement: Give someone something they want for doing an action. ie: Here is a tax break for supporting our political campaign. Negative Reinforcement: Take something negative away (or the threat of something negative away) for doing an action. ie: I will take away a giant increase on taxes for your firm since you supported our political campaign. Positive Punishment: Add something negative to discourage the behavior. ie: Since you supported my opponent, I am going to raise the taxes for your business Negative Punishment: Take away something positive in order to discourage the behavior. ie: Since you supported my opponent, I am going to take away the subsidy from you that the other businesses in your industry enjoy. Here is a chart from wiki if that helps more: The vocab terms at the bottom here are the most helpful in discussing this topic, I think.

I mean, there are new people who just found the show today....

Time to go boot up my torrent seed for anyone who can't go that long without their fix.

FDR 440 - Sunday Call In Show (10/1/2006) 2:04:19 The Morality of Flashlights http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_440_Call_In_Oct_1_2006.mp3 Just in case anyone cares for Stef's opinion on the question from 8 years ago.

Good luck, dude.

Oh no! We can't be having the brains of the operation getting dumber!

Oh, whoops. I guess I missed it.

The mining pool is more powerful than the top several hundred supercomputers combined. I think you do not understand the meaning of the word "specialize" in this context nor understand the costs associated with competing with an entire network. Finally, the blockchain is at best pseudo-anonymous. Regardless, the idea that people can exchange money for goods and services doesn't make money a problem and is the point of it. "Gun-running" only exists because of state bull-shit and the dollar will be used for the foreseeable future in the vast majority of criminal activities. I am going to recommend again that you start with an understanding of the basics, like what a blockchain is, what proof of work is, what the cryptography behind bitcoin is, what vulnerabilities exist in bitcoin and what the actual odds or likelihood of those things happening are. So far, all of your concerns show that you do not understand the basics or what fixes or checks are in place to prevent such things from happening. There are a lot of free and easily accessible resources available out there for understanding these concepts. I would be happy to explain concepts or clarify things, but these broad assertions without understanding the basics are rather tiresome.

There is no supervisory human. It is a cryptographic idea called Proof-of-Work. There is a maximum number of bitcoins and it could never be raised. Besides further reviewing bitcoin concepts, I also think you have some work to do on what a money is and how goods are priced in it. Again, you seem to not understand the basics and are already trying to jump to long-term consequences. I encourage you to spend some significant time with the basics first and make sure you understand those thoroughly, and then try to apply them to complex and future possibilities.

I can tell you have no idea what bitcoin is or why it is unique. I have a Bitcoin: Getting Started thread in my signature. Once you kind of have an idea what it even is, I will be happy to answer more specific questions.

Why is this distinction important to you?

I am not sure what you are referring to. If you mean that you feel that human nature can be circumvented by math and algorithm, then it already has been. 2+2=4 no matter what anyone else says or does. If you mean something else, then I would be interested to have it explained more so I can understand what you mean.

http://www.euronews.com/newswires/2447060-pope-francis-asks-forgiveness-for-priests-who-abused-children/

I would just like to provide a quick update that it is April 9th and the world's population seems to be relatively stable and no massive disease is spreading and killing billions of people.

For all of the old stuff, people should also use the torrent links on the podcasts page. That is a great way to spread out the bandwidth costs onto people's already existing internet plans and doesn't cost additional.

Projection is very much not understanding. It is specifically not even knowing about the other entity, and just projecting your own stuff onto them.

Ok.... If we continue going around in circles I will not want to continue posting here as it will only frustrate me. You seem to pick out small bits of my posts and address them while skimming over the main points and content. I have pointed this out a few times and would like to point it out again.

"I think I understand my dog" does not mean "I love my dog" I think I understand Hitler" does not mean "I love Hitler" You also are saying that I cannot love a frog, but if it was a pet then I could. What magically changes about an entity when it becomes a pet? There is a lot of ambiguity entering here and it is making me more confused rather than less confused.

So your argument now is that nobody can understand anything to a high level that they do not experience themselves? By this argument I could understand nothing except myself and no one could every understand me. If you say that something can be close to my experience and still count, then where is the arbitrary dividing line? Frogs and I both eat and breathe. Are you saying I can love a pet dog but I can't love a pet frog?

Well, not exactly because I don't think it is on the right track. I have always been partial to how Stef defines love. Love is the involuntary response to virtue. Understanding I would consider to be a possible and small component of what is necessary in order to recognize and respond with love to virtue. As I showed above, there are many possibilities where one could understand things, in actual or theoretical terms and it does not necessitate love. I was only trying to show you that understanding was not the right path. In fact, a torturer or manipulator can fully understand you and your motivations in order to use them against you and may not even be capable of love, just as another example.

Your definition, as it stands, includes them. Your definition needs to be changed in order to correct it.