yagami

I never said that nor did I mean that. But you are pointing out one of the huge problems with supplementation. Most people dont actually realize that minerals come in two forms alkaline and colloidal. Alkaline are basically unprocessed minerals you find in the ground. Colloidal minerals are the ones you get when a plant has processed the mineral. All colloidal really means is small. The reason why colloidal minerals are so much better is because the smaller the mineral the easier it is to absorb. When I said minerals earlier I was not referring to just any type of mineral. It's also a myth that eating minerals or vitamins or any other nutrition directly from a plant is better than taking that mineral out of the plant and selling it on the market. I even if there was a benefit you could never get enough from your plants because there are so many different things you need and in different concentrations so it wouldn't matter even if straight from a plant was better There is also the question of how is the mineral contained. Is the mineral contained in a tablet, gelcap or liquid form? All of these are processed differently and change the absorption rate of the mineral (which is all that really matters). When it comes to trying to figure out if you should get your nutrients from a plant or a supplement the concentration and absorption rate of that supplement is the only thing that matters. On the molecular level a calcium mineral is the same no matter where it comes from. These are the major reason why people try supplementation and get wildly different results even though that are taking the "same" thing. Another major issue is exactly what people take. For example calcium carbonate is a popular calcium supplement but it's mostly carbon with a small amount of calcium. Because it takes so much to separate the carbon from the calcium a lot of the calcium gets lost in the process and you dont get much of what little is in the supplement in the first place. All these factors combined are the reason why it seems to the layman that supplementation is a less consistent road to health. I hope I have answered your objection thoroughly.

The high fructose corn syrup stuff is over hyped I think. Think of it this way. If you cut yourself on purpose your body has systems in place to deal with the injury. Otherwise whenever we hurt ourselves we would never heal. The same goes for the processing of bad food. Our body has the ability to handle any negative stimuli up until it runs out of resources. Once the resources run out you end up with a chronic disease that cant be cured via drugs and it's not a bacteria or virus you can identify and kill. Your body just suddenly stops working correctly. This is why western medicine is so expensive and ineffective because they are trying to solve health problems with drugs when it is an issue of lack of nutrition. Most people think they are getting what they need via "eating the rainbow" of vegetables. It's a very misleading idea. The problem with this theory of nutrition is every plant even within it's own species will have different nutrient concentrations and variety. A carrot planted a foot away from another carrot are not the same. This is because the soil is different everywhere on the planet. When the planet was originally formed all the minerals in the soil were randomly thrown all over the place. So if you are a farmer and you farm the land for a few seasons you will have taken out everything the soil has to offer. So then you are left with nothing. This is why we invented fertilizer to make up the difference in MINERAL content in the soil. I bold mineral because none of this applies to vitamins amino acids or essential fatty acids. The big issue is that farmers are not nutritionist they are businessman. Farmers do not fertilize their plants for the optimum consumption for humans they fertilize their plants for the optimum consumption of the plant. Plants require significantly less variety and concentration of minerals to be healthy and strong. So western farmer follow something called the NPK philosophy. NPK stands for nitrogen phosphorus potasium. This philosophy basically allows farmers to put the bare minimum of what their plants need to grow into their crops. Essentially this is the best bang for their buck. They can put more into their plants but it's not cost efficient in most cases. This is not to say it never happens ever but in general farmers put the bare minimum of what is needed in their crops. Now you may be able to see why something like high fructose corn syrup is not the issue. Neither is soda or GMOs or any of these other things people freak out about. It's really about the fact that these little issues cause significant harm because of the lack of defenses our body have to protect itself. The only way to get what your body needs is not through eating all your vegetables. As I said you have no idea what you are getting when you eat your vegetables and neither does the farmer or anyone else. It's impossible to tell. You must supplement. P.S. I would still stay away from the stuff even if you have everything you need I supplement with youngevity. (not selling I promise) I just think they are the best there is.

My point still stands. Lets say it cost you 200 million dollars to be able to produce 2 kilowatts of free energy a second. Technically you are gaining energy but slowly and expensively. Also we cant assume what can or cannot exist in the future. Of course breaking the laws of physics is not at all likely but I wouldnt rule it out as impossible.

From what I have come to understand the real danger of drinking carbonated drinks isn't the huge amount of sugar you ingest. It's the fact carbonated drinks make your acidic stomach acid basic. This basically defeats the purpose of having a stomach by making it difficult to break down food because your stomach acid is now a lot closer to water. If you drink a soda within an hour before or after a meal you will basically forgo any nutrients you may have gotten from that meal. This is why drinking soda is linked to so many different chonic diseases because if you stop your body from consuming all types of nutrients you get all types of chronic diseases associated with nutrient deficiencies.

I dont think the sciences work on the exact same premise as if it would work someone would just build it and make a lot of money off of it. We currently have technology for teleportation and flying cars. Now we have only been able to teleport a few atoms across a room so that technology is just young. But for the flying cars thing it would be insanely expensive to implement the technology needed to actually have the technology be consumable. I suspect that if this zero point energy is real they are running into similar problems. Perhaps they can only get a very small amount of energy or it's so expensive it almost doesnt matter. Another thing to consider is governments do not want to solve our energy problem. Neither do the institutions that are currently in place "addressing" this issue. Nuclear energy is much cleaner and safer and more efficient than most people think but of course efficiency is not what the government is all about. The way I see it there are many possible reasons why this guy could be onto something but cant get much ground.

It's great to see when people change their point of view on things through a conversation.

The reason is pretty simple. There are people in your life or people you have heard of that you believe are experts in certain fields. Because of that you take their advice more seriously over others. In this case we believe Steph is more qualified to give a reading list on the topics he discusses on the show. That doesnt mean that because Steph is believed to be more qualified that that makes everyone else by default completely unqualified. I mean you wouldn't say to everyone here just put together a reading list on physics would you? Steph has proven to me at least that he can be trusted in his advice so im gonna pull the division of labor card on you and say I'll wait for him to come up with his list.

I think your question needs to be broken down a little. If you are asking whether machines will be more capable of following a set of ethical rules than I would say yes. A machine executes its code the same way every time. Humans have variance. If you are asking whether machines will be able to come up with better ethical theories in the future I would say yes to that as well. The only thing that separates us from machines is we dont have a full understanding how our brains and how new ideas come from nothing. What does a memory look like if you couple look at it under a microscope? We will one day figure this out and when we do we can program a computer to simulate this behavior. At that point machines can have emotions memories forgetfulness personalities and every that make a human a human. We will one day not be able to tell the difference. Will that make machines more ethical? I dont think so. But if you can program a machine to only focus on ethics as a human would I think they will be able to come up with more theories than a normal human as we have to cope with everyday life and have other things to worry about like eating sex and work.

I think there is a difference between accepting money from say a tax return and accepting money from a government program. In the case of the tax return it certainly is your money that you earned through your hard work. In the case of a government grant the amount of money you receive has absolutely nothing with how hard you worked to get that money. When I say how hard you worked im not referring to if you worked hard to get good grades. Im referring to how much value you bring to the world in exchange for money. Just like you bring a certain value to the world when you work and you get paid for that value. Because of this I would say it would be immoral to accept other peoples money for yourself. Maybe a very small portion of that money you will be receiving actually came directly from you the vast majority of the money did not come from you. Sometimes you cant avoid accepting government benefits like roads police ect. But in this case you would be choosing to take the money which puts this into a different moral category. I dont think the answer is as simple as accept the money because they stole from you first.

We're all about the free market here so it would seem that more money with this recommendation attached to it or more listeners asking about this would motivate him. There probably just isn't enough people who have expressed a desire for this as opposed to other projects he is working on. I'd like the reading list too but I like the truth about episodes more.

You can answer all what if questions this way. Imagine you are an entrepreneur in a free society and your challenge is to find solution to the lack of military defense. The first thing you would have to do is put in place extreme measurements to ensure if you ever went outside any of your strict guidelines you company would be seriously hurt or completely destroyed. You need these extreme consequences because what you are doing is so potentially extremely dangerous to society. For every possible scenario anyone comes up with you would have to put in a change in your policy to make sure that couldnt happen. If you are unable to make society feel safe enough with you your business will fail. This is the same for all these free society questions. Entrepreneurs will come up with solutions and they will have to come up with win win scenarios for everyone involved. To the degree there ia potential corruption will be the degree at which failsafes will have to be in place. Simple ask the person asking the question what would make them feel comfortable with paying for a service from a business in a free society. Make them work to figure out how they would solve the problem then (hopefully) they will see how every problem can be solved peacefully.

I really like that. This guy makes a lot of claims without any evidence to back it up. I could rebut every point he made here but I dont have the patience and I think you would be wasting your time as well to rebut this even if you could. Trying to convince people that capitalism is good for practical reasons will never work. You need to try to moral argument and if that doesn't work at least get him to agree to not hit his children and not imprint his ideals of socialism onto his children.

Im not saying that programming languages are good because they are popular exactly. It's like saying horses are good sources of transportation when the car hasn't been invented. It's not that the horse is good it's just what works for the more people at a particular point in time. I guess I really didn't get anything revolutionary out of his videos. As far as politics are concerned that comes from a lack of business sense in my opinion. If you are choosing to run your business in a way that isn't to your businesses benefit then that comes from a lack of understanding and you will suffer loses proportional to the severity of your mistake. If you are running your business for your benefit at the cost of your consumers we all know where that leads. It may take a while but the most efficient system wins in the end. His fight seems more difficult then getting people to stop hitting their children and I commend him for his efforts. It's almost like he is the Steph of technology and I hope he succeeds in makes our technology better. (Assuming his ideas are actually better). Time will tell.

Ok so what makes your decision to believe in one god over another god objective? If I believe in the Hindu god does that mean that that gods commandments are objectively good? And why are the commandments objective? You cant just claim because they are from god that means they are objective.

Im a technology guy and I feel like this guy really doesn't know what he's talking about. I dont understand what he means by politics in technology. There is no politics there is the free market of ideas. If you design a programming language that takes off it took off because enough people decided that the language fits their needs. People are constantly looking for ways to improve on technology and that includes thinking outside the box. If he has a new way of structuring technology then he needs to put in the work to make it a reality. Stop complaining that you have the answer but no one will listen. If there is any sector in the economy where there are the most free thinkers it's in technology. I can claim to be a genius but I still have to sell my ideas and that isn't going away. This applies to technology or any other product or idea you want to sell. This guy sounds like one of those guys that complains about capitalism but has never grown and taken a product to market. If this guys idea is really so great surely he can apply his theories into practice in the form of a product to prove his belief that technology is moving in the wrong direction. In the first video he gave an example of an alternative way of doing things but it sounded to me like he just described some software that anyone could code. Which again leads me to ask why not build write the software and bring it to market. Politics? I dont think so.

Yea I found the commercial pretty funny. Although I cant point to exactly why. It just makes me laugh.

Any thoughts on this? The down votes on this video on youtube are really high. Im not sure if they are really trying to entice men with this or a if they are trying to be as ridiculous as possible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTwzsV3I3OQ

In that case doesn't it make more sense to believe that the recent drop in bitcoin is due to the number of sellers increasing? I think we both can agree that businesses cant really hold bitcoins because of the risk. I mean not that they cant but I cant imagine holding onto them as any form of asset. And I think we can also agree that more and more major businesses are making it easy to buy their services with bitcoin. With that being the case it would seem to me that this would be the reason for the price decline. If we take your explanation of how the price of bitcoin is determined then what do you think would happen if more and more people entered into the marketplace asking to sell their bitcoins. It would seem to me that offers would be taken up over and over again asking for lower and lower prices. Eventually stopping when there are enough people willing to buy bitcoins at the offered price. This is what I mean by the success of bitcoin is why the price is falling now. The more people that enter with the intent of selling only the lower the price will go until there are more people buying then selling. You only seem to have further proven my point. Now this is of course all theory and I dont claim this to be fact but I haven't heard a better explanation yet. What do you think is the reason?

When you say the number of buyers and sellers would be equal are you saying that when the price goes down there are then more sellers than buyers?

Yes that's true but how would demand going down manifest itself. And my question was in regard to price fluctuations at any level. You didn't really answer how small fluctuations happen but lets say you did. How do large fluctuations occur? Are you saying that a large group of people could not act in one particular way which would result in a drop in price. If this is possible can you give an example of what this would look like?

How can you then explain the price of bitcoin going down at any level. If the price of bitcoin goes from $600 a coin to $599 a coin what is a possible cause for that?

We keep a tight grip on each other. It's not the state and their bombs that scare the people it's the people who scare the people. Even if this were true I dont think it would make much difference. It's not like we would get invaded because we could only retaliate with non nuclear force.

The reason bitcoin is down is simply supply and demand. The more people that accept bitcoin the more bitcoin will be sold. Bit coin is being accepted by businesses faster than it's being accepted by consumers. Businesses dont hold bit coins they sell their bitcoins immediately (for obvious reasons). They are essentially taking money out of the bitcoin system by doing this. The price of bitcoin will continue to fall as long as the rate of selling of bitcoin via businesses out paces the rate of buying by consumers. That's my theory anyway. Bitcoin is doing everything right this is just a natural consequence of businesses seeing more value in using bitcoin as a medium of exchange before consumers do. My recommendation would be to sell your bitcoins if you are holding onto them as an investment. There are groups out there dedicated to spreading bitcoin around the world and getting bitcoin accepted by as many businesses as possible. I dont see the tide turning anytime soon. But eventually bitcoin will gradually rise as people start buying more than is being sold. I doubt there will be another spike in price like there has been in the past.

Just wanted to post this link I ran into. I thought this was a great example of how the free market will pound you for treating people poorly. Who says we need the government when you can lose everything like this. http://thechive.com/2015/01/14/car-dealership-treats-pizza-guy-like-shit-receives-internets-wrath-16-photos/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Website_Click_FB&%3Futm_source=facebook&utm_content=PizzaCar

I've read some stuff on this and what I think is going on is because bitcoin is being accepted in so many places the number of people selling the coins vs buying has gone through the roof. Think about it this way business as going to trade much more volume than the typical consumer. These business aren't buying bitcoin they are accepting the bitcoin and then selling the coins immediately. This is putting downward pressure on the market are there are now more sellers than buyers. Essentially these businesses that now accept bitcoin are taking money out of the bitcoin market buy selling them so quickly. Essentially bitcoin is doing everything right. More and more people businesses and countries are interested in bitcoin and are accepting them. I dont think the low price is a problem at all. All this means is the current price of bitcoin is a reflection of it's widespread adoption. As the price of bitcoin goes down this will lower the barrier to entry for poorer countries to adobt. Once that's done this will probably cause more downward pressure as there will be new sellers(businesses) in the market selling the coin. Eventually the price will stabalize to reflect the number of people in the bitcoin market that are holding the coins as a store of value primarily. The price of bitcoin will begin to go up again when the amount of buyers (consumers) out number the amount of sellers (businesses). As it is now businesses are way ahead and will likely stay ahead for a little while as the drop in price for bitcoin has fallen so much many people will be scared out of the market im sure.