ThomasDoubts

I'm not sure how effort is measured. Bill Gates didn't have to hunt wild game in the jungle to survive, and as a result he had the opportunity to tinker with electronics and computers or whatever. Both required a great deal of effort. I don't know how to compare the two. Some people prefer to be self sufficient in the wilderness somewhere. That requires a great deal of effort, but I don't know how to compare it to earning a biochemistry degree. These are different kinds of effort. I disagree that individuals have equal potential. I'm not even sure what equal potential means; potential to do what? A man with an IQ of 180 has more potential to be a computer scientist than a man with an IQ of 80. The same man with an IQ of 80, who happens to be 7'2" has more potential to play professional basketball than the man with an IQ of 180, who happens to be 4'10". Equal opportunity doesn't mean that these two men have an equal chance/potential/opportunity to play in the NBA or be a computer scientist. It just means that nobody will stop either from pursuing it. Without the patent system, which is fundementally about errecting barriers to competition, Bill Gates' father would have been less relevant. We might have had all the open-source technology much sooner, and he wouldn't have been as fantastically wealthy (not that that's necessarily a bad thing).

The truth about poverty is that it's relative. This is universally true; try replacing Brazil with any other country. What is the upper bound of poverty in Brazil? Who sets the thresholds for poverty, and what makes those thresholds appropriate? Do you know what level of income puts you in poverty? Do you know what level of income takes you out of poverty? I sure as hell don't. I fully appreciate how different my life might have been if I'd been born with HIV in some war-torn village hut in Africa. I can't build everyone a house for free without starving myself. All I can do is advocate the State not fucking with everyone's right to make a better life. Rigged die represent an inequality of opportunity. Inequalities of opportunity do exist, and I won't deny that. The solution is to either redistribute everything equally by force and continue to do so everytime equilibrium is broken, or allow entirely free exchange. Anything else is just a muddled mixture of the two.

I wouldn't regret anything you've done. I think she's much better off almost anywhere than locked in a cage. I have two immediate family members who were recently addicted to heroin; one had a son, spent a few weeks in rehab, and turned his life around and headed in a vaguely good direction (completely sober 2+ years). The other has spent 4 years in a cage. Most rehab facilities will tell you that heroin addicts have a 90% rate of relapse, roughly. For some people, a young child is the one thing they will move mountains for, in order to get/stay clean. For others, not so much. I think the priority is that she's not using heroin, while pregnant or otherwise, if she intends to be any mother at all. Of course this is kinda obvious, so here's why I brought it up: I like most of what Gabor Mate says about addiction, though I haven't read his books. I'd still consider him the best authority on addiction that's come to my attention. That could be something to look at, but maybe it's a bit tactless for a baby shower... Parenting resources are great, but it's all kinda secondary to me if she's doing (or does) permenent damage by using during her pregnancy. I'd offer some other tactless ideas for a baby shower, like questioning whether she's prepared to give an innocent child everything it deserves. I wonder if adoption might not be the best thing to pursue if she is in any way open to the possibility. We don't get to pick our parents, but if we did, I wouldn't pick this woman, from the little information you've provided. All that being said-- Kudos to you for caring, and acting. If she respects you, and your opinions/counsel, I guess the most important question is whether she's willing to put the child's best interest first, or not. If so, I'm sure that you've got plenty to offer her in the course of short conversation, in addition to any resources others here might suggest (I'm not really an expert on parenting resources). If she's not, you'd be looking for resources that demonstrate or focus on why SHE will be better off by being a good parent. I would be proud that I helped her avoid jail time; she has abbundant opportunity that she'd never have in a cage. Taking advantage of that opportunity on her own behalf, and on that of her child is the challenge. In that pursuit, good luck!

Is it entirely physically developed? So an eleven year old girl that's had her period is physically developed? I would argue not. I think you may have put your finger on it here. I guess what I'm getting at here are the "age of consent" and "age of majority" ideas. There seems to me to be no philosophical justification for either as they exist. Both imply that Hagrid comes at midnight at gives you powers you didn't have before midnight. It just seems like throwing darts and going with the number you hit. People develop at different times. Parents are responsible for their children. Why does that cease (legally) when the child turns 18 and not 17 and 3/4; and not 21; and not 16. It's a tad arbitrary. Would a stateless society recognize a 15 year old as an adult for all intents and purposes if they run away from home and declare themselves emancipated? I suppose some people would, and some people wouldn't; maybe that's how it ought to be, I dunno. As for the age of consent; the only fundemental change that occurs justifying an altered status is the ability to reproduce. The problem is; I'm uncomfortable with the position that an 11 year old can consent to sex with a 50 year old. As for the age of majority; there doesn't appear to be to be any fundemental change that occurs justifying an altered status. The only thing I can think of, is one making a public declaration of adulthood, and responsibility for one's actions. ie; everyone gets to pick when they emancipate themselves and enjoy the benefits and responsibilities thereof.

Because I (25) don't think it would be right for me to screw a consenting eleven year old, among other reasons. I'm not against considering people adults sooner, but I have difficulty understanding the conceptual distinction between child and adult. What makes you a member of one category or the other? Are you saying it's the ability to reproduce? I'm not sure I'm on board with that. Fundementally, that means "child" is just shorthand for "he/she can't make babies" and adult is shorthand for "he/she can make babies." Is that all there is to it? I wonder if the dichotomy isn't just an illusion. There are just humans, and some have been alive longer than others. Humans that haven't been around long don't know much, and can't do much. That changes as they learn.

I'm wondering how we should define "child." It might be a bit of an annoying question, but I think it's clearly a difficult thing to define. In the animal kingdom, I think we generally say an animal has reached adulthood when it's capable of reproduction. Obviously, I wouldn't call a eleven year old girl an adult because she began menstration. Likewise, I'm uncomfortable with an invisible Hagrid man coming at the stroke of midnight on your 16th or 18th or 21st birthday to stamp you with the official seal of adulthood. Would brain scans looking for a threshold level of maturity be the way to go? I don't know. Has Stefan ever offered a definition? How would you define the term "child." I'm having a hard time coming up with any criterion I'm satisfied with.

I try to point out things I can prove to be false. If you can convince someone to reject a held believe by proving it's falsehood, or proving that it isn't universally true, I can then explore infinite possibilities. When others reject my arguments, it's almost always because they have a different criterion by which they evaluate truth claims. I think it's generally too hard to prove things true, so I stick with proving things false. I find it so frustrating, what you pointed out; you can't reason someone out of a belief they weren't reasoned in to. When you say we ought to focus on the root epistemological disagreements, I think you're right. I think more often we would start a socratic dialogue with "How do you know what is true?" I wonder if it wouldn't be better to start it with "how do you know what is false?"

Yes, it's important to note that none of the conflicting views within the Austrian school are infalible. I also would like to see more focus from the Mises institute on the Bitcoin environment. I think a lot of the Austrian community is personally invested financially and emotionally in precious metals, which conflicts with Bitcoin. I like Zero Hedge, among others, for Bitcoin commentary. The quality isn't as high or consistent as the Mises institute but the volume and diversity of discussion is much greater.

Yes, but the flip side of your coin is equally important. Those who don't require high speed transactions have to subsidize your transaction speed at the expense of their purchasing power. Why would they want to do that? (I ended up using "your" and "you" a lot. I don't mean you personally, I'm just speaking as if you were such an individual as quoted above) I think the market will adjust to the diverse needs for transaction speed. Fed-Ex doesn't raise prices on everyone to ship everything faster. They offer different rates for different speeds. Health insurance companies have higher premiums for parachute test pilots than accountants. I think this is natural and just, and see no reason why Cryptocurrency mining would, or should be any different. Of course I'm no prophet, just my opinion. A deflationary currency would not incentivize mining with inflation obviously; it seems that paying a premium for speed would be the natural market solution. In competition with each other, an inflationary currency's appeal (or not) is you can have the collective socialize transaction speeds via inflation. All else equal, anyone that doesn't require high speed transactions has a disincentive to subsidize you, and leaves for your competitor who offers him an effective discount to accept slower transactions rather than a penalty. Should he suddenly require a high speed transaction, he can still pay for it, as he was doing either way before. Who/what determines what level of inflation is sufficient to provide the optimal solution? If you don't have enough inflation to properly incentivize miners, is there intervention to "help?" What if there is too much? This doesn't address fundemental issues. There is no incentive to hold an inflationary currency for a duration of time. If it were fundementally cheaper than competitors to transact with (which I have doubts about), value would still be largely stored elsewhere. I don't think an inflationary currency holds any natural competitive advantage. I believe the incentive/reward structure offered by deflationary money is superior: don't finance consumption with debt. Save for the future. I admit though, I fear I'm starting to tell you how markets ought to behave, rather than observing them. Experimental evidence would be far more valuable to the argument than my thoughts or theorizing.

I believe it's true that I cannot call inflation theft if one chooses it, so you're right to point that out. I also agree that someone should try out transparent and fixed (or fixed rate) inflationary currencies, if for no other reason than to satisfy my curiousity in watching the experiment unfold. I have to admit, I'm still stumbling on why someone might choose an inflationary money though, all else equal. It seems to me like choosing a car that leaks a quart of oil every 2 months, over an identical car that does not leak oil at all. The only conclusion I can come up with at the moment, is that debtors prefer inflation, and savers do not. I'm going to have to have a think on the implications of that... Good stuff, I appreciate your thoughts.

I think the issue here may largely be Mises vs. Rothbard on the definition of inflation/deflation. If this doesn't strike a chord, let me know. Mises: an increase in the quantity of money (in the broader sense of the term, so as to include fiduciary media as well), that is not offset by a corresponding increase in the need for money (again in the broader sense of the term), so that a fall in the objective exchange-value of money must occur. Rothbard: The process of issuing pseudo warehouse receipts or, more exactly, the process of issuing money beyond any increase in the stock of specie, may be called inflation. I subscribe to the latter but would alter it just a bit to accomodate cryptocurrencies. Lets start at the point where all Bitcoins have been mined. Would you agree that the trend would likely be a cycle gradual deflation(strictly, lost bitcoins) over time interrupted by brief spurts of inflation ("found" Bitcoins)? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but correct me if I'm wrong. Is it your position that as consumers adopt or reject money (cryptocurrencies), it will be reflected in the price of money, and will constitute, at least to a degree, inflation or deflation respectively? This, I think, would be Mises' argument, whereas Rothbard, I think, would make the case that inflation is simply an increase in the supply of monetary units. Mises' definition could permit fractional reserve banking without inflation, where-as Rothbard's position would be that fractional reserve banking is, by definition, inflationary. Is this addressing the disconnect at all, or am I in left field? First, we agree on the state of Macroeconomics. I consider most of Macro to be voodoo witch-doctor science. I guess my problem is this: What are the benefits of inflation? Given the choice between a currency worth more tomorrow, rather than less, why should I choose one worth less? Inflation seems to me to be a fundemental violation of property rights. It's akin to home-ownership in this way: I may buy a home in the US with cash, owning it free and clear. Do I really "own" my home and property if I'm subject to extortion?(commonly referred to as property taxes) I'm required to forfeit a sum of money every month in order to retain my own property. In the same way, in order to use money, must I forfeit purchasing power in the form of inflation? If I don't need to do so, why would I? I do agree wholeheartedly with your last point; transparency will reduce the effects of inflation/deflation.

Is is not a contradiction to support state programs and identify as Anarchist? Has Chomsky said, in a Stateless Society, he would use force or violence against anyone that doesn't comply with "his" society?

I'll join in by saying I raised my standards in relationships, and none of my existing relationships survived. I have very little interaction with people outside of work, or home, unless you count chatting up the people who work at places where I shop. I'm always on the lookout for new friends, but it's tough, and I don't go out and meet enough people to really expect any changes. I've not met any FDRers in reality, but I would be more than willing to do so (Md/DC/Va residents: let's meet, we could be friends ). For the moment, I'm really just living hand to mouth, trying to improve my standard of living (so I can attract some worthy females ) and working to more fully live my principals before I ask another to do the same.

Firstly, I will be referring to Bitcoins the application/currency, not Bitcoin the payment protocol. More importantly, I will be discussing them as one example of a deflationary currency, which in and of itself is preferable to an inflationary currency. Inflation is defined as an increases in the money supply, while deflation is defined as reductions in the money supply. In order for money to neither inflate, nor deflate, it must be a scarce resource that can neither gain, nor lose units in any manner (in addition to fulfilling other requirements of money). To my knowledge, no such resource exists. These are my basic premises, which you may or may not challenge. Bitcoins today are inflationary, and will remain so until they are lost at a faster rate than they are mined. At some point before they have all been mined, but not after, a deflationary trend will occur, without regard to price, and continue in perpetuity. It is possible, that by some means, lost coins could be recovered in the future and potentially result in inflation. This inflation would forever be limited by the upper bound of finite supply and would likely occur in brief flashes of time, as the technology which enables it is instantly capitalized on, and discounted by the market. As each new generation of encryption is employed, deflation is assured until the new encryption can be broken. Just as fiat currencies experience periods of deflation, they are by historical records, inflationary, and without upper bounds. Similarly, Bitcoins may well experience flashes of inflation, but by and large, would trend in a deflationary manner, quickly adjusting to shocks (too strong a word) of inflation. In trying to make the case that Bitcoins are deflationary, I'll try to summarize in this way; When all "coins" have been released, the upper bound of monetary units is inviolable. Surely it is easier to lose a private key, than it is to find one. The only means to find lost "coins" faster than they are lost, is to break the encryption, at which time markets rapidly respond, and bring back deflationary trends. Hopefully, I've made a decent case that Bitcoins, fully implented would be deflationary, as the most commonly accepted medium of exchange. I'd also like to make the case that deflationary money is preferable to inflationary money. Bitcoins may very well be overtaken by an altcoin (or something entirely different), but personally speaking, the altcoin would have to provide value that Bitcoins do not, and also be limited in supply, beyond human control. It's important to understand, I'm not making the case that Bitcoins will be the currency of humanity for the next 12 million years. -Money must be either inflationary or deflationary -It is preferable to have money that cannot be stolen over money that can be stolen. (As we know, Inflation=Theft) -Therefore deflationary money is preferable to inflationary money -Future money supply must either be determinable, or indeterminable -Determinable future money supply is information about the future, while indeterminable future money supply is a lack of information about the future. -To allocate resources, it is preferable to have information about the future supply of money. -Therefore a determinable money supply is preferable to an indeterminable money supply. If these two arguments hold, it must be true that the deflationary money is superior to inflationary money, and a determinable money supply is superior to an indeterminable money supply. Hereafter, I hope you can challenge these premises or conclusions; I'm a bit weary of fighting off too many consequentialist arguments. From this point on, understand that I'm not making any arguments. I will however describe/entertain a few effects of a deflationary currency for discussion. To start, I reject the deflationary spiral theories of economics; If you'd like to make that case, I'd be interested in the challenge of poking holes in it. I should have said this earlier, but I'll say it now; Price appreciation/depreciation of money does not, in my view, necessarily describe inflation/deflation. Bitcoins have not inflated because the price has gone up relative to any particular metric; the supply was provided and met with demand. If I buy 3 Bitcoins today, and in ten years I use them to buy a new house, who dare say they were inflated when I bought them? This point is one I expect might be contended and I'd also be interested in challenging the contentions. It's commonly argued that inflation is preferable because it helps people/governments get out of debt. This is at the expense of savers and lenders. Why is it preferable to incentivize debt financed consumption at the expense of production derived savings/lending? I don't think it is. A deflationary currency turns this on it's head. The incentive to delay consumption/gratification, rather than disincentivized savings, has the potential to drastically change the way we think about allocating resources. I think this would change the way we think about spending/saving and risk taking/credit/interest rates, and by extention, how we allocate another finite resource: time. I may be off base here, but I don't think it's too far fetched to say that a monetary system that encourages immediate gratification in "economic" matters, also trains us to an extent to expect/desire immediate gratification in all other matters of life. In order to maximize the purchasing power of an inflationary money, you must spend it as quickly as possible because it loses value over time. In order to maximize the purchasing power of a deflationary currency, you should spend it on your own most extravegant funeral . Of course this is tounge in cheek; the spending mechanism becomes such that you only spend money when you percieve the value you recieve to be greater than, or equal to, the slightly greater value your money would command in the future, rather than it's diminished value. In other words: If I don't buy it today, I won't be able to buy it tomorrow-> becomes -> If I don't buy it today, I can buy two tomorrow. To have a given unit of currency be worth more tomorrow, rather than less, and "governed" by mathematics with relative certainty represents a fundemental change. One earns a return by not consuming, rather than being required to take risk to avoid a loss. Having written a novel, I'll shut up now.

Wesley, I noticed you made note of it in a reply in your "Getting Started" thread, but I think one would be remiss to not mention the deflationary property anytime the advantages of Bitcoin (the application) are generally discussed. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but this property represents, what I believe to be, a profound change to the status quo. The incentive to delay consumption/gratification, rather than disincentivized savings, has the potential to drastically change the way we think about allocating resources. I think this would change the way we think about spending/saving and risk taking/credit/interest rates, and by extention, how we allocate our other finite resource: time. I may be off base here, but I don't think it's too far fetched to say that a monetary system that encourages immediate gratification in "economic" matters, also trains us to an extent to expect/desire immediate gratification in all other matters of life. To have a given unit of currency be worth more tomorrow, rather than less, and "governed" by mathematics with relative certainty is a fundemental change. One earns a return by not consuming, rather than being required to take risk to avoid a loss. What is the incentive to purchase a government bond if you needn't hedge inflation and preserve purchasing power? In my estimation, the ramifications of a mildly deflationary currency are very much underappreciated. Perhaps I could go into more detail on this point, but I think I'll make a thread on it in the next day or two, for debate and exploration. I hope I'm distracting from the intent of your post, but I think this is an important point that deserves to be made every time one talks about Bitcoin. What do you think?

My two cents: "Adie, what would you like to be able to do that you can't do right now?"... "Ok, here's how I can help you." Let her set her own goals, and reading, writing, math, science, history, economics, research, etc. will become obstacles to overcome in pursuit of some goal, rather than ends in and of themselves. A well rounded education is important because it allows you to do many things. I would say your job is to introduce and cultivate diverse interests and she'll pursue them because she wants to. If she enjoys cooking, for example, you can show how fractions, measurements, chemistry, biology, etc. are useful in cooking a great meal. You can introduce the scientific method by having cooking "experiments," where you have a control sample, and a few experimental samples where you test a specific independent variable (amount of sugar, time cooked, etc.) I would shy away from teaching all these things because she'll need them. Let her discover that she needs them in order to acheive a goal. This, I think, would provide greater enthusiasm, and ultimately, better learning. That said, I wouldn't be terribly concerned with a bit of structure, if for no other reason than to satisfy the state. If she begins to resists your program, remember that your program needs to change, not her behavior. She's the teacher, you're the student. Great job, she's a lucky lucky child!

Others will be able to offer you better advice and suggestions than I could, but I couldn't help but notice you left something out. What are your husband's thoughts or feelings about your atheism? Have you discussed it, or are you still in the closet, so to speak?

Hey y'all! I wanted to see if I couldn't start a little dialogue centered around Crowd Sourced Funding and a business plan/idea, for want of a better term, that occured to me. I'd like you to try and shoot holes in it, wherever possible. I think most of us are pretty familiar with the concept of crowd sourced funding; an entreprenuer makes a pitch in the public domain, requesting funds for research & development, or production, or marketing, etc. Certain levels of donations may earn you first rights to the product, discounts, public credit for funding, branded knick-knacks, etc. What I've been thinking about for the past day or so has to do with what I think is a new way to utilize this funding mechanism. The idea is to combine tenants of moral philosophy, venture capital, and trusts, by means of crowd souced funding. I've been trying to think of a good metaphor to describe it but I haven't got anything at the moment so hang with me as I try to explain in detail what I mean. Suppose I were to created a single bitcoin wallet into which contributions could be made. Suppose also, that the security of the wallet could be 99% guarranteed. The idea would be for the private key to broken into a few segments, and held by a few worthy individuals (5?). Much like nuclear launch codes, withdrawling funds would require simultaneous, unanimous consent, as no one individual would possess the private key in it's entirety. In addition, protections could be made in the event that one "key-holder" dies, becomes incapacitated, or otherwise is unable to provide his portion of the private key. I could talk at length about this but for the sake of initial discussion, assume the security and continuity of the wallet & keys was thoroughly addressed. Let us think of this bitcoin wallet as trust fund. Individuals may contribute to the fund at any point in time. They may make a one time donation, or regular donation, monthly, for example. The idea would be to create something akin to The Red Cross or The American Cancer Society. The sole directive for the funds would be the advancement of human freedom via entreprenuership and/or innovation. Of course, I wouldn't be much of a capitalist if I thought charity was an efficient means of allocating resources so the distribution of funds would be a bit different. Some of you may be familiar with the TV show Shark Tank, or for my Canadian friends, Dragon's Den, I believe. You can think of the fund's being distributed in a similar fashion. Suppose the bitcoin wallet were started today and began accepting donations. In bringing about it's inception, the "keyholder's" may agree that for the first 5 years, funds will be left untouched. Perhaps, 10 years, it doesn't really matter with regard to the concept. After generating a certain level of funds, portions would begin to be distributed. At regular intervals, maybe every 4 years, coinciding with election season in the US perhaps, funds would be made available to anyone on the planet. The idea would be that anyone could make a pitch to the public domain, via Youtube maybe, over a period of time; maybe a month or two. By some mechanism, the pitches would be narrowed down to a select few, maybe 12, for further evaluation. At that time, the 12 individuals would be invited to meet with this small group of "keyholder's" to have thier ideas/businesses/etc placed under a greater deal of scrutiny, and defended/explained/improved in a Q&A format. The terms of funding would be negotiated and settled, or elimination would then occur. Either by some means of public vote (maybe further donation to the fund, with message attached for vote), or "keyholder" concensus, a winner(s, 3?) would be selected. At that time, a fraction (1/3?) of the "trust fund" would be released to the winner(s) and the remainder left to gain purchasing power (we are talking bitcoin, right?) and accumulate/replenish funding. This continues in perpetuity. _____________________________________________________________________________ Who are these "keyholders" you might ask? They would be people of integrity and with credibility in the "liberty movement." They would be people with entrepreneurial experience. They would be executors of the trust, so to speak, rather than invested stakeholders. Dare I say, philosophers? (At least of the amateur variety) Should the need for replacement arise, all members will have veto power in selecting a replacement. What would this do/improve that isn't currently being done, you might ask? In theory, it would inspire and concentrate investment funds to entrepreneurs most capable of advancing human freedom.(Think entrepreneurship crossed with the Nobel Peace Prize, but not awarded to warring politicians) Because free is the natural state of being, only restricted by the State, it would, by definition, be challenging the State, though likely not in an outwardly and explicitly anarchic manner. If you believe in free markets and free people, are skeptical of political solutions to current affairs, and want to contribute something to advancing freedom, here is a mechanism to scale and direct monetary resources to free market solutions. It would also generate increased demand and interest in Bitcoin, and provide a platform of near universal access for individuals to pitch a product/service/business/etc to promote human freedom. Potential Pitfalls? First, nobody donates, and it never generates any real funds. I think this would be the greatest threat by far, because if it isn't addressed, there's nothing to go wrong, right? Inability to get 5 worthy people to sign on to the idea as keyholders. Co-op of "keyholdership" and intention through attrition or demonic possession. If it does nothing illegal, it might be made illegal to contribute/recieve funds. Instances where no "pitch" is of the quality deserving of funds, I suppose. Inability of keyholders to reach unanimous concensus. It may be more efficient, or comfortable to donate directly to the entrepreneur. Theft, or inability to retrieve funds, which would surely be insurable. _____________________________________________________________________________ Now if you've made it this far, I'd first like to say thanks for reading. If you aren't quite sure you understand, or think there are holes that need filled in, I'd love to answer any questions you might have. I tried to not go into any more detail than necessary to convey the concept, so hit me with your best questions. Would you contribute to such an "fund," and if not, why? (besides being poor like me , and assuming you trusted the "keyholders") Do you believe the idea is viable? Do you believe this idea would create value? What are the 3 worst things you could say about this idea?

All too common. It's pandemic. I know a guy who dropped a soda dispenser on his foot, broke his toe, and retired on full disability & retirement.

Thank you for your thoughts. I tend to agree. Behavior problem or otherwise, I'm always intrigued by deviation from the mean. Why is the mean preferrable? I see no reason why I should be concerned with a positive/negative diagnosis. I wouldn't charactorize my behavior as aspergerish; for one, I'm pretty outgoing, I think. I don't have a great deal of understanding with regard to asperger's, but it doesn't seem to be an issue to me until it becomes pretty close to autism, and certainly doesn't seem to be necessarily bad. It just occured to me too-- Sometimes I also have trouble maintaining eye contact, but this could be (very likely IMO) be due to my childhood experiences, rather than aspergers.

I've never heard this before but a few minutes of research seemed to suggest it's validity. Forgive me for going on a bit of a self-serving tangent, but I can't help it. I am a horrendous liar. If I try to lie, people either call me out on it immediately, or do the more polite thing and not react to it, although I think I can tell they don't believe the lie. I just can't express how hard I find it to lie in a convincing manner; when my mouth says something my mind believes to be untrue, I physically react to it as if my body is shouting "THAT'S NOT TRUE!" I haven't done enough research to be certain if this is true, but I've often heard the claim that the autistic community is overrepresented by left-handed people, which I happen to be. Also, not that I like to diagnose or label others as a general rule, but I have a cousin who I am almost certain has Asperger's. He was in special-ed(not the good kind of special) in elementary school, and finished with nearly a perfect score on the SAT's, and is now finishing up a double major in physics/computer science at a top university. He has terrible social skills, but a good deal of computing power, so to speak. Of course, none of this is conclusive, but it lends some evidence... I also have several close family members with dyslexia, which I've diagnosed to my satisfaction. Dyslexia is also linked to autism, as far as I understand. So I got thinking about myself and went looking for an Aspergers test, and found one here http://www.aspergerstestsite.com. Just to be clear in advance, I don't generally presume a great deal of credibility from these kinds of online tests, but I gave it a try anyhow. I scored a 35. The official criteria for Aspergers Syndrome is an AQ score greater than 32. According to statistical analysis, 26 – 31 Is a borderline score. 86% of people with this score can be correctly classified as having Aspergers Syndrome. Now, there are several possibilities. Maybe the test/statistical analysis is crap. Maybe my answers were biased by my mindset going into the test. Maybe I really do have Asperger's I don't think the diagnosis would be either good or bad; I would say it is what it is. I'm having trouble seeing any reason why I should pursue further evaluation. I like the way I think; it led me here and to sanity, right?

Thanks Wesley. I took your advice. It does make sense to me to use a vanity address to "funnel" funds periodically into cold storages wallet(s). Now I just have to think of something valuable to say/do Cheers

Hey guys, I've got a question for the more technically inclined/bitcoiners. I've been reading/researching vanity wallets a bit for the past day or so. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts or experiences to share about them. Is there a particular method, or resource you would recommend for generating them? Are there any security concerns specific to vanity wallets? What are the downsides to using such an address? I think I'd like a personalized public address to be kept in cold storage, periodically adding to it's balance, but I'm concerned I might do something stupid. Thanks in advance

87-13 right brained. I was stunned. I'm going to search for another test... I think it cared too much about me being left handed/footed/eyed.

Nice work! I liked The Torturer, in particular. I don't really have any advice for you, I just thought I'd say keep it up. I think it's a great idea, and well done. I don't know how different the UK might be, but I was thinking about the US and sports. I can't the count the number of kids I played sports with that hated doing it. Parental abuse was everywhere, though I wouldn't have called it abuse as a child. Perhaps kids' sporting events would make for a good setting or theme you could do a collection of. Also, it would have the added benefit that you would just blend in with other parents and avoid the pedophile/creeper confrontations. That would be my 2 cents as someone with an appreciation for, but no talent in art. I would also second Nathan's thoughts about black & white. I've always liked black & white photography, somehow the color can seem to be distracting. Keep it up!