GregMerwe

Years ago I knew about this because I was interested in security conference videos. I will show you one hacker that is now a private investigator, he was pointing out these problems years ago and people were calling him paranoid. Here is some of his talks, they are at the HOPE conference. Steven Rambam, they are entertaining and one of them is 10 years old. and a more recent one I am not sure why the embedded videos are so large. The correct size should be 720x405

Modern women want men to put them first. They want men to chase them but not too much. They want men to have a social life and go to the gym or do sports but not too often. Being a good father I don't think is very high up on women's lists these days. I think dressing well and caring about appearance is higher up on the list for modern women.

Hi I would like to suggest two guests, hopefully they would accept an invitation but I have not communicated with them about this. 1) Neal Adams, to discuss his ideas around growing planets. You can view his videos related to this topic on a playlist on his youtube channel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams 2) Benton L. Bradberry author of The Myth of German Villainy. This would be a controversial discussion because he questions the mainstream view of the history around the second world war. https://www.amazon.com/Myth-German-Villainy-Benton-Bradberry/dp/1477231838 Thanks!

I always saw mgtow as men not wanting to get married and men not needing to live their lives focused on having a girl friend in the traditional sense. Mgtow can still have relationships with woman, even sexual relationships. I don't see why a mgtow could not even have children. There is the idea that marriage contract brings stability. This is questionable. There are many single moms and that is even encouraged these days. Yet when a man becomes a single dad he is seen as the person who abandoned the child even though he is probably having to pay for it. I always said I am mgtow until I find a woman that can put up with me and will be a good mother, then I will have too many children. You might say the MGTOW will negatively affect my chances of finding that right woman. The whole you have to be in the game to get any results. Because MGTOW promotes a negative attitude towards women, which will eventually distort the man's view point. I don't think mgtow are necessarily bitter against women. I think a lot of men in the movement have been burned from divorce and that is why there is a lot of that bitterness towards women. I do think though that the general ideas behind mgtow resonates a lot of with males from all countries and backgrounds. Japan is also facing a situation where men and women are not having children. I think this is a result of many factors not just mgtow. Technology has to play a part and that sex is easier to come by with online dating and prostitution is less taboo than it used to be. Women also played a part in driving the men away in these countries with increased standards and also they are working now, and they still require their men to earn more than them a lot of them time. Women want their men to go to the gym and have interesting hobbies. Which is perfectly reasonable. In the past men women didn't have those same expectations.

In some context being called crazy can be a positive. It is hip to be a bit crazy and come up with new ideas. In an argument to call someone crazy usually the person has nothing else to say and is just saying that because they are not wanting to hear anything else. If they keep repeating it like a crazy person, then you can see they are using it in that way. I don't think they are saying that you are actually crazy and should be admitted for your own safety.

I have worked in IT for 10 years. It depends on your current knowledge and how quickly you are able to pick things up. If you want to go down the support route which is what that other guy is doing. Most support jobs will be in an office and not from home. He probably has a job with an IT company that sells out of hours support and he potentially works on 100s of clients that only calls when they have issues, depending on the support contract of course. He is able to work from home because he does the night shift, usually the person would be placed at clients sites during the day. Although it is possible he is in a team of people that work remotely, as these days that can be more common. However a lot of issues still require hands on but not as much as the past. Even physical servers can be managed with ILO. A lot of companies are moving to datacenters with high security and permitting guests to work on issues all the time doesn't make sense. In terms of what to study. There are different routes, general support and operations, specialist, management, sales, procurement and so on. If you want to go in to general support and operations then you need to learn windows server and vmware and enterprise storage and the applications that enterprise and business use and how to deal with network printers and VC and so on. If you specialize you can then try get a job only upgrading exchange email server for example. I do know some programming however, never went in to development but have worked within development environments. I think being a developer is better than operations and support. The developers have more freedom have to deal with people less and they are better paid and more appreciated. Developers are considered closer to marketing than operations and support in terms of the value they bring to the company. Operations and support is seen as similar to facilities. In terms of the value that they bring to the company. There is a lot of resentment against ops and support in general from companies. They see it as an over priced expense and have had bad experiences in the past with poorly implemented systems. Similar to some artisan professions might experience i guess.

That is not the way homesteading works. The police station owns the toilet. The prisoner has not claim of ownership in that way. In a jail cell scenario anarcho capitalist ideals do not apply because the person is locked in a cage.

My opinion is that you should continue being a cop and put your libertarian ideals to work in the work place. Speak up when your boss demands quotas for victimless crimes. I have told police offices this who have asked this question on reddit before. I think though based on reports from libertarian police they end up hating it because they are forced to do things that they don't like to do, for whatever reason. I think there is probably only so much you could do and it will obviously shape you as well if you spend enough time doing it. I think this question would depend on what country, some regions the police are worse than others. In spite of the state control. I still think it is possible to help people and get what might be considered good results out of government jobs. I don't think that justifies the state though.

I do not entertain arguments against self ownership. I have had those discussion, fruitless to say the least. If one can not accept that they own themselves then one does not have any means to justify anything outside of slavery. To me it is beyond consideration to even contemplate anything less than self ownership. UPB makes sense because it is self evident. It basically says that certain ethical judgements are such because they are ethical judgements to begin with. This is quite a new and secular take on ethics. It does not say that you have to be ethical because of an impending sense of doom. It doesn't claim that ethics is egalitarian or that it is utilitarian. Like Rothbard on natural rights, it simply says that ethics is logical self evident in that a bad experience is a bad experience because it is a bad experience. There is nothing subjective about murder or rape or theft. It is what it is. The non aggression principle as popularly proposed by the libertarians and anarcho capitalists is not a demand or a request. It is a framework for the defense against disputes. It does not presuppose that people have to act or behave in a certain way. Only that certain actions and behaviours results in disputes that need mitigation, thus here is a framework to deal with such disputes.

I got hold of the audio book of this book and I realized while listening to it that the entire drug war might actually be the result of Harry J. Anslinger having a shitty experiences with people that had taken drugs, specifically his father figure being abusive. Millions of people lives affected in what is realy a domestic war, a war against the people of the same country. People that want to consume a substance that changes their state of mind that has not been approved by the authorities for consumption.

Affordable housing is a mistake. In terms of technological progress only the best quality and largest houses should be built. No one wants to live in a shipping container over a normal sized house. The problem the with the concept of affordable housing is that it can have negative effects on already low supply housing markets. In reality a lot of people in their 20s and 30s are living in house shares. When new houses come on to the market that are low quality and small and are given to specific people at a lower price. Those people who do no receive that house are negatively affected. The available housing stock is reduced because those houses could have gone on to the market. Houses are sold at the bottom end of the market that does not have any positive effect on reducing the price of housing outside of those programs. While if only high quality and large housing was built. People that can afford those houses will move up from already existing housing and those houses will be sold to other people moving up. When this happens enough you get social mobility in housing. The poor people then will be able to afford higher quality housing because the new low quality will be higher than affordable housing would be. Affordable housing programs help to reduce the quality of housing stock and push up prices in the non social housing sector due to reducing the supply. That was economic explanation and socially building lots of high density low quality housing has its own negative effects. Read/listen to some Thomas Sowell on that subject. Also watch Milton Friedman documentary free to choose, the episode cradle to grave about welfare and social housing.

New no planes documentary released. It is essentially a compilation of all the no planes theory related material. It still fails to point out the elephant in the room, missiles.

Of course refined carbon is going to have different chemical properties, often the fuels are made cleaner or made to appear cleaner and often made to be as efficient as possible economically. This does not necessarily mean that burning the refine fuels results in a primary by product of co2. I have seen the advanced combustion formula that some of the advanced fuel manufactures have come out with. I won't doubt that they have managed to make combustion cleaner, the point it that it is made cleaner because it is more co2 based. The common types of by products from combustion, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Dioxide, Lead and particulate matter, as well as other carcinogenic by products. CO2 in terms of its carcinogenic level is relatively low. Consider that humans exhale CO2, when thinkings about its relative carcinogenic level. The trick was to say that through the green house effect, which may still be a valid theory in of it self, the when co2 increases it leads to warming. Then equating increases in co2 with human carbon combustion as the primary source. Meanwhile volcanoes and other natural sources result in more co2 than carbon combustion of hydro carbons. I think aiming to have only co2 emitting during combustion of carbon based fuels is a good goal if your endeavour is to create cleaner air.

I do think that carbon burning activity could lead to climate changes and not necessarily warming. I think the west has already reduced pollution output or has peaked at their pollution output, although that remains to be seen, depending on population density growth. The peak was the height of the industrial revolution and the start of the synthetic industries. Looking at china now they relatively recently went through the same level of pollution that the west once went through. Although i do think because of population density china is far worse. In the west it was perfectly normal for factories to pollute in to rivers right in the heart of major cities. I have always said that if carbon burning activity has a negative effect on the planet it will come in a few ways. Affecting the earth through sink holes and earthquakes and instability and climate intensity or instability. Where the balance between the gases in the atmosphere goes out of proportion because of too much pollution leading to the climate instability and intensity. For example prolong drought, prolong cloud cover and rain and so on. I think any ice age would have to coincide with a lot of cloud cover. If the planets rotation is static as we think it is then prolong cloud cover would be the only catalyst for an ice age. Of course i stand to be corrected if anyone has any thoughts?

Well you don't burn methane in your car or your wood fire. Of course different fuels will have different by products. Even if you burn natural gas in a house the risk is carbon monoxide poisoning not co2 poisoning. That is why houses that use gas come with CO detectors. If you have a coal BBQ again it is CO that is at risk of causing death, that is why they say you should never bring a bbq inside your house after it is out or in your tent while you are sleeping. Particulate matter or smoke is essentially non reoxidised carbon molecules that did not rebound even with a single molecule of oxygen. This is why when your catalytic converter fails in your car you get a dirty smoke out the back, both CO and CO2 are invisible to humans naked eye. It is the particulate matter and CO that is cleaned by reoxidising the carbon molecules post combustion.