Now my username and password are in the apache
 logs...
I hope rusty doesn't steal all my bitcoins with this information. 
Humvns is a direct rip off of Real Humans...
 Even the names are the same.
Real Humans will always be the original though. 
Hay! At least he was in a stable relationship.
 I guess he couldn't reign in his desires... poor guy getting saddled with this... but if the shoe fits... nailed it!
That's the mane thing.
You can beat the wrap, but you can't beat the ride. 
Hopefully he has to give those kids aids $
 
Guys, I meant helpers... lol...
 I heard Jarrad got thin due to his helpers (not aids like the disease --- lol)...
Maybe those helpers were a little bit too young to be 'helping' in that way though. 
In your interest... how old are you holly?
 You should probably be taking extra folic acid to help prevent chances of down syndrome in a woman your age.
Also, out of interest... have you had the baby checked for downs or other disorders? Is that standard now days?
What would you do if there are problems?
Seriously though, all the best. 
Cromwell's law is irrelevant.
 Easily avoided by dealing in log probabilities... which would have to be +/-inf to have priors of 0 or 1.
Secondly... when people say no, impossible, all or always... that's because they are using natural language, and if you could develop a human brain capable of understanding natural language... you would realise they mean very close to zero or one probability... not actually zero or one...
Finally... moore's law is clearly not an exponential curve... practically no natural data matches any functional curve perfectly... but in reality it matches an exponential curve plus some noise (ie, "almost")... maybe... but the S curve is also exponential in the early stages... and again... practically... every real life growth curve is an S curve... not an exponential curve. 
You sound like a child who's just heard his dog
 has died "You're lying. You don't know anything"... wah wah wah...
Learn how to process natural language... and stop treating it like mathematics to be cast into absolutes...
Nobody's priors are actually zero or one... they are 10^-40 or 1-10^-40... probably closer to 10^-15 and 1-10^-15.
You know why? Because if they actually see and experience the thing they don't believe in... they will believe in it... meaning they didn't really have priors of one or zero... they just said it that way... cause they weren't expressing mathematically the actual probabilities represented by their neurons... they were expressing how the feel... using words... imprecisely... ambiguously.
Truth is... no one even knows their own priors... they can only guess at them... it's the most ridiculous argument ever.
And cromwells law is wrong... that's just mathematics, and can't be as expressive as natural language... it's all just gossip anyway. Cromwell is hand waving.
LOL --- you so stupid. 
Dude... it's NOT an exponential...
 It's "almost" a fucking exponential... Are those dots all on the exponential line? No... they are just pretty close...
You don't understand curve fitting at all...
And you saying "absolutely and unequivocally" means your priors are absolute, and therefore not subject to change through any means... so, by your own logic, you must be wrong.
Get a grip.
Also... there really are no unbound exponentials in nature... p<1e-6. 
Still waiting on your critique of the free market$
 
What's with dirty slavs claiming to be white?
 You're practically a fucking gyppo...
You got some serious white envy going on.... you wanna be white like bruce jenner wants to be a woman... you can try and look the part... but no one really takes you seriously. 
That's why we anesthetize them first.
 Animals are like women... if they're not conscious, then they aren't saying no by running away... so it's automatically consent. 
Is that a fact?
 Steady state would be any pattern that eventually repeats... so, for a finite world, if you see the same pattern as before, you've reached a steady state.
For it not to hit a steady state, you could do it on an infinite world... if it continued to expand... but in a finite world it would have to be chaotic... and then it would still have a steady state... but that might have extremely large periods...
So... are you sure? 
How would that kill you?
 Was he attempting to electroplate his balls? Was he holding a high voltage power source while dipping his balls in some gold something solution?
Could this be achieved another way? Say gold particles in suspension sprayed on your balls so that the solution evaporated leaving just the gold? Just asking... you know... for a friend. 
Explains why this guy plead guilty to huffing
 paint?
Also explains his frown... 
But with free money people could buy more
 delicious meat. 
Dude... you just don't understand economics...
 It's quite simple as that...
If you could make everyone wealthier... they are going to engage in more of the things they like... if they like eating meat... you're only going to encourage meat eating.
Slavery goes against the free market... because it imposes externalities on people. So, that's a bad argument.
Now... if you wanted to include animals as economic agents... then yes... we impose externalities on them...
IMHO... too fucking bad... the rights of animals is vanishingly small compared to humans. I'm anthropocentric... deal with it.
If you want to diminish meat eating... you can tax it... or you could subsidise vegetarians... but your stupidity is absolutely worthless whatever goals you're trying to achieve. 
No... you provably do not understand markets...
 You can't see that there is utility in it for every (human) actor in the system.
If I don't care about where it came from, but enjoy the tastes and benefits from meat... Then it has utility for me... and I will spend up to that much utility to obtain it... whether I raise and slaughter it myself... or if I can offer someone more utility than they doing that themselves costs them...
Markets exist anyway... no matter what you do... unless you're in a VR... then it doesn't matter, cause then your end goal is met... but we aren't... so they do.
And if we give everyone enough 'money' (like it could change the above facts --- in fact, if I had enough money, I probably would farm my own meat)... then however that applies to farming meat applies equally to farming grain and vegetables.
Seriously... you don't want to accept economics... so shut the fuck up about it... you can't understand incentives (utility gain) and disincentives (disutility / cost) so you have nothing to add. 
I've been eating sushi since the late 90s...
 So... haven't noticed it being something new... no. 
You chose a bad example with 1/0...
 The limit of x = 0+ is +infinity, and x = 0- is -infinity... even the limit is discontinuous... so... undefined or NaN or whatever... yes.
So, any N not zero N/0 is undefined.
The only interesting case is 0/0, where you could use L'Hopital's rule... otherwise, you're SOL for anything else. 
If anyone can define Z meaningfully, it would be
 you...
To me... Z would mean possibly any, all, some, none or even sets of ranges of the numbers in the range [-inf, +inf] (not sure I used the right brackets to indicate including... It's been a while since I did maths).
Not sure how much more useful that is than undefined though.
Of course, you would probably solve the grand unified theory of physics... those pesky singularities won't be a problem anymore.
Hmmmm... the only useful property I can think of is that 1/Z = 0? Hmmmm... maybe it can only be +inf or -inf or something? 
No, the limit of x/x as x-> 0 IS 1
 No argument...
limit of y/x as x -> 0 if y(x=0)=0 IS y'(x).
but x/x and y/x are both undefined at y=x=0.
I don't see any problem with L'Hospital's rule. 
Okay, right... 0/0 is undefined...
 but if you had a function that was 3x/x... it's limit is still 3 as x approaches zero...
But L'Hospitals rules doesn't define 0/0... the derivative of 0 is 0, so L'Hospitals rule applied to 0/0 is 0/0 or still undefined.
So... no... it doesn't solve 0/0... what it does solve is functions that are otherwise continuous at 0... except that both parts go to zero... often that actually is the value at that point in physical systems... it's just you hadn't used the right maths. 
You've just failed to describe it mathematically..
 Not maths failing to describe it... but you failing to describe it with a particular tool...all you've proven is your incompetence with that tool. 
The 'gradient' of a hill becomes undefined...
 which is why it no longer has a gradient and becomes a cliff... with a height... with no defined gradient...
You can measure the 'slope' in radians though... and you will find that it always has a slope... 90o is just fine in maths... though the tangient becomes undefined in this case!
So... no... it's not a problem with maths... it's a problem of you choosing how to model nature... Because in reality... hills only have a gradient in some very simplified model... and cliffs exist in the same way... it's all made of little points of mass and energy interacting mostly via the electromagnetic force after all... there's no such regularity except for your model strawman that you note is broken by design.
As for computers... if you asked for N/0... you should bloody well should get an error or exception or at least NaN as a result... this doesn't crash your computer either... the computer is still running fine doing exactly what it should... just not what you wanted it to do... but that's your fault for not knowing that dividing by zero is 'undefined' mathematically and makes no sense in any context.
Computers don't do what you mean them to do... they do what you tell them to do... no matter how advanced AI gets... it's always going to have this problem... as long as it doesn't perfectly know what you mean when you tell it something... and given that people often mean different things when they say the same thing... this problem is unsolvable in principal... but you can get closer to it in aggregate... but if someone ever asks it, how many apples per person if I shared 5 apples between zero people... it's going to tell you, one way or the other, that you question makes no sense... that there is no answer... you're an idiot... or any number of apples, it doesn't matter, and five left over. 
Damn you're so retarded...
 Private business 'creating' money is totally different, and has totally different effects than the government just spending money into existence. Every asset created has a liability... it's balanced money creation.
And bankers don't decide the value of anything except the trades they are involved in... ie... the value of the CDS and such... and furthermore... in an as-if* free market, they would have been punished (by the market) for getting them so horrendously wrong instead of being rewarded for it with bail outs.
As for your divide by zero theory... fucking hell... it's undefined... end of fucking story... how many square meters of land on earth does each person have when there are zero people? There is no number that makes sense in that context... it's simply not defined...
Your infatuation with proving that maths is 'wrong' just means that nothing you say has any basis in logic or reality in general.
*: I'm calling a market that is regulated to account for externalities, limited information and competition, such that it creates the same outcomes as a free market the as-if-free market... to clear up a discussion I had with MI over this. 
No... it's not about businesses carrying debt etc
 the bankruptcy or the dissolution of those businesses is the punishment.... rather... not even a punishment... they're just removed from the market for being idiots... or at best... for being 'wrong'.
They should have been removed from the market for exactly the reason you state (not emotional reasons though)... to change the incentives for the next bank... and especially those that run them and made the decisions that lead to that problem.
And yeah... they don't gamble like you think they do... they don't maximise expected profits... oddly enough that's a sure fire way to failure in any risk taking situation... it's not enough to maximise expected profits (the arithmetic mean of outcomes times their probabilities)... it is a necessary condition for a given bet to have value, but not sufficient... instead you must maximise expected growth (the geometric means of the outcomes, including total value you hold outside the bet, to the power of the probability of the outcome)... which always makes you bet less than maximum expected return would suggest...
Going to zero is ruin... which is why you maximise expected growth, not profit... the former you never go to zero (mathematically... not practically... cause fixed costs)... the former you always go to zero in a series of bad bets... so, going to zero and removing the companies that do so is 'good enough'... the bailouts just amplify the pain... bankruptcy and nationalisation were the correct answer. 
Nothing to do with emotion...
 This is the exact purpose of the market... to make more of the things that are successful (in terms of providing social surplus) and less of the things that aren't... so removing failures from the market is what makes it efficient.
Well... read the bit above on expected growth vs expected value first...
Then... if the company is in the business of making 100% bets on coin flips with 'good' returns... reasonable investors will know that the value of that company is actually zero... and those that don't will find out at some point. All such ventures end in ruin.
As for an individual... setting up a company... investing a fraction of his total value in it... and having that company make a 3:1 bet on a coinflip once before dissolving the company... it's exactly the same as him making a coinflip with a fraction of his value... and is the right thing to do... but why does he need a company to do it? And if a company is using just a fraction of their value... then they are again a viable company... Why set up all these companies knowing half will fail and half will be worth triple? Also... why not?
So... no... your scenario isn't important... what's important is that companies that are reckless and fail are removed (from private control)... and that's good enough. 
Although I think the as-if-free market is
 emotionally satisfying too...
I've said it before... every time people complain about the 'free market' it's almost always because of an uncorrected deviation from the free market... externalities, bad information, competition.
Because the (ideal) free market increases everyone's utility without diminishing anyone's utility... utility is what makes you feel good... so free market outcomes are emotionally satisfying... and are intuitively democratically fair...
The only other complaint is wealth distribution... covered by the second welfare theorem of the free market... BI and wealth taxes. 
Of course it is...
 The companies were bankrupt... they had no right existing in private hands... normally insolvency and all that side of things takes care of that... but... the banks were claiming they were critical infrastructure of the modern economy... like some positive externality or something... they should have been handed over to the government to maintain that critical infrastructure... sell off what it could, pay creditors, etc... find that core critical infrastructure... see how it breaks the assumptions of the free market... and either run it, regulate it, or subsidise it.
Banks would have the choice... find a way to continue to exist... go normal insolvency or insolvency via nationalisation.
Free money for failure just incentivises failure... that's why the whole thing was such a scam. 
A lot of people use the word free market when they
 mean the laissez fare market... or no government intervention... I mean free market in the sense of microeconomics (you can do a microecon fundamentals course online)... which means the government has a role in identifying how the market deviates from the assumptions of the free market and correcting for them... and in wealth redistribution...
Ayn Rand and all those others did not seem to understand micro-economics... that externalities need to be corrected for... both positive and negative and corrected through subsidies and taxes... that natural monopolies exist (and probably have to be subsidised on a per unit basis)... that there is a role for nationalising critical infrastructure (normally things that are both positive externalities and natural monopolies)... etc...
Are roads generally privately owned in the US? What do the objectivists and co say about that one? That's a good example of critical infrastructure with positive externalities and natural monopolies.
Then they completely miss the second welfare theorem suggesting they think that any efficient outcome is as good as any other... ie, they would have everyone starve if one person could have a holodeck to wank in... rather than everyone be comfortable but dude get's no holodeck... Ie, they think it's okay for the poor to starve because 'free market (TM)'... whereas the second welfare theorem states that we can bring about efficient allocations where they don't.
So, free market isn't laissez fare market... and as-if-free market is a government corrected market to bring about free market like outcomes and is definitely not a laissez fare market and recognises there is a role for government intervention... furthermore... I think you'll find most economists think more like this than Ayn Rand's poorly thought out philosophy. 
Any microeconomics course...
 Any modern professor teaching this course will first go over the free market and its assumptions... well... they'll build to that by covering utility, then free trade and supply and demand and proving that the free market is optimal under the assumptions of the free market...
Then they go into each deviation of the free market and how the market is suboptimal and how it can be corrected... If those corrections aren't an endorsement of government intervention I have no idea what is.
So... standard mainstream microeconomics actually... not some popular, but ultimately incompatible and wrong, fringe philosophy like objectivism... what is now called neoclassical marginalist welfare economics.
I am literally saying and pointing you to any introduction to microeconomics fundamentals course... though one with a bit a maths is preferred over one that uses graphics like supply and demand curves - though they are ultimately the same, the maths adds more rigour - and there's no understanding like derivation from first principles.
So.. I dunno... which economists would agree that the free-est market is a hands off market except for a very particular and limited set of government interventions? Adam Smith, Milton Friedman... many others... most mainstream economists. 
Mitlon Friedman on public goods and monopoly
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#Public_goods_and_monopoly
Just one example...
He also supported a BI paid via a progressive tax with negative rates at the bottom end. 
The free market exactly is a model under ideal 
 conditions... it is the model used in welfare economics...
There are only two fundamental theorems of welfare economics... the first is that a free market, under the assumptions of the free market (which we can correct for in non-ideal markets) leads to efficient outcome where everyone is better off and no one is worse off.
The second second theorem of welfare economics says that we can enact lumps sum transfers (ie, wealth redistribution) to bring about any particular efficient outcome!
You can call it the free corrected market or whatever... I'm not sure what economists call it... but the idea is that it is free market like after correcting the assumptions through regulation...
And... like requiring a courts and other things that markets do not provide... wealth redistribution yes... requires intervention that the free market would otherwise NOT provide... which is kind of the point.
I've never said the free market is self bootstrapping or anything like that.
Every neoclassical marginalist welfare economist agrees with the fundamental theorems... and it is clear to all that the second one requires government intervention... and it is clear to all that correcting for the assumptions generally requires government intervention too... none of this is controversial.
It all comes directly from the free market model... so... I call it the free market... welfare economists basically argue for these interventions to bring about free market like behaviour... if you want to be pedantic... call it the corrected to be free market like with wealth redistribution market... or as-if-free market.
You don't even here Randians saying they want to abolish courts and use private means to settle contract disputes... so, in reality... to create free markets requires government intervention... and wealth redistribution is not incompatible with free market outcomes - it is the second welfare theorem after all!
I mean... seriously... if you doubt me... just do a short fundamentals to microecon course... and see if you're still arguing along the lines that it's not a free market if the government is intervening... you'll actually realise the opposite... but you'll see which regulations are useful and which ones make the situation worse.
So... there is the ideal perfect free market model... and there's everything else to bring about free market outcomes... and that's it.
Arguing it's not a free market because it requires government intervention really doesn't make sense unless you've got this insane prior that says free markets have no government intervention. 
Let me give you an example...
 One of the assumptions of the free market is no externalities... ie, everyone effected by a transaction is willingly involved in the transaction. Markets must be adjusted for externalities to be free markets... (they can't be ideal free markets because ideal free markets have no externalities by definitions... but real markets do... so you adjust them... then they are free markets, no?).
You can see that murder breaks the no externality assumption... because someone's utility is being affected in a way they didn't choose (and negatively)... so you can't have a free market where people are allowed to murder... only by regulating against murder can we have a free market like outcome... or, put short... a free market requires government regulation against murder.
Euthanasia on the other hand is exactly the same action and outcome, EXCEPT that those affected by the transaction have willingly chosen to be in the transaction... So, it's NOT a free market if the government regulates against euthanasia... BUT ONLY because the intervention goes against the free market (now the government is the negative externality affecting people's free choice to die). So... a free market requires no prohibition of euthanasia.
Same physical acts... but requiring different regulations... if the intent (and it should be) is to bring about a free market. 
No... a mixed economy is something else...
 Adam smith advocated FREE MARKETS... Which means he advocated VERY SPECIFIC REGULATIONS on ACTUAL MARKETS.
A mixed economy could allow murder and prohibit euthenasia... but it certainly isn't a free market.
A mixed economy could fix the price of bread, but not tax pollution... which certainly isn't a free market.
No... it's not a matter of mixed economy... A free market is bought about by VERY SPECIFIC REGULATION... and mixed market doesn't describe this. 
The problem you have is that TV has taught you
 a false prior that a free market has no government intervention... this is simply FALSE... you have to throw this nonsense away.
In the ideal free market it's impossible to say murder someone or steal from them... it's in the assumptions... so no regulation is required... but to make a practical free market you have to create conditions that approximate those assumptions through regulations...
Other regulations are not compatible with the free market.
Adam smith was calling for REGULATION... like no slavery... His free market model doesn't suggest a free for all, privateers dueling it out to steal each others land and loot and driving men into battle under the command of slavers etc... Adam smith said a free market requires a certain environment, so it requires certain regulation... never once never did it say no regulation. That's some USA USA USA T-Party bullshit meme that regulations are anti-free market... no --- free market is CERTAIN regulations.
It certainly isn't mixed economy... Mixed economy is like the government owning the post office and outlawing the private delivery of letters... it's not free market... The government can of course run a post office (public good, technical monopoly)... but others must be free to compete with it to be a free market.
Mixed economy is something else.
A practical free market is a regulated market... end of. 
I know...
 I've been doing the same... and economics is really poorly covered by wikipedia... everywhere I look is confusion of terms...
For example, the laissez fare market is the free market... because laissez fare proponents call it that...
Last time I looked up the effects of tariffs on wikipedia and the information was a complete mess... there were two incompatible graphs of the situation... one was right... the other was nonsense...
Anyway... By free market I am referring to the ideal free market model used in Neoclassical Marginalist Welfare microeconomics. 
On one hand, the ideal... where the assumptions cannot be broken... and on the other hand... the practical free market... where the assumptions are made true via deliberate government intervention.
Government intervention that approximates the outcomes of the assumptions is free market... government intervention that breaks the assumptions or moves the market away from free market outcomes under the assumptions is anti-free market.
As the lecturer said... for the welfare theorems... breaking these we call market failures... the welfare theorems no longer hold... and whenever the market fails, it is because the assumptions have been violated... whenever the assumptions are violated... the market fails... every single time.
I don't think you'll find what you are looking for outside of a fundamentals of microecon course or book... but it's the mainstream economic view. 
If you have a few spare hour a week...
 Why not do an intro course? Then we'll be 99% on the same page I imagine.
It's like four hours a week absolute tops for 12 weeks or so.
It will totally change the way you view the world... and for the better.
You'll see a just how much bullshit flies around when people are screaming free market to justify breaking the very assumptions of the free market! (As laissez faire proponents often do -- say "We don't need labels on our medicines... the free market will sort that out!", when having complete information is one of the assumptions of the free market... it's anti-free market to not have useful labelling -- Nothing in the free market model suggests it brings about its own assumptions... it's not self creating or bootstrapping or self correcting in favour of its own assumptions - quite the opposite in fact). 
Well... you got the four assumptions wrong...
perfect information
no externalities
perfect competition
rational actors
Your claim that such things are incredibly complex just doesn't make sense... the laws to bring these about are simple... you just haven't been shown the proofs.
Convincing entrenched interests to enact those laws is complex... but what laws are required is really really really fucking simple.
perfect information is corrected through laws against false advertising, fraud and where necessary requiring disclosure of certain details before sale.
Externalities are corrected through pigouvian taxes and subsidies... simples... the difficult part is the political will to implement... who wants to tax the oil industry?
Imperfect competition is corrected through laws against collusion and with subsidies... Again the solution is mathematically straight forward... it's the politics that are difficult.
Don't even need to bother... This has little effect and is mostly a mathematical requirement for analysis.
I mean... you say the required regulations are incredibly complex... but each of the possible problems with the market has a well known and well examined solution that are covered well enough in any intro course that you should know them.
If everybody knew the possible problems with the market, and the rectifications to it... there would be no controversy... the government would just enact them and they'd be done... but because people are ignorant... and not correcting the market often benefits the wealthy... you've been made to think this is all so very complex when it isn't/ 
Because externalities are not the majority of 
 the market...
Negative ones are usually easily identified because someone is being harmed by someone else's activity...
Positive ones are harder to identify, but there are usually interest groups... but convincing the government to subsidise them can be harder...
However... the government setting the price on 1% of the market is clearly favourable to them setting the price on 100% of the market... when 99% of the time the market is perfectly capable of setting the prices.
And... yeah... there's going to be some inefficiency... the point is to minimise it... get the 1% that is the problem (externalities) 90% correct... and you're practically done. 
If the rich suffer the consequences of those
 negative externalities... and they have political connections... then those externalities will most likely be adjusted... these are the easier ones to deal with I think.
I imagine it gets much harder when the wealthy and politically connected don't have to suffer the externalties... and only the poor and marginalised do... then there is much less will to change.
The problem here is that you're just throwing your hands up and saying too hard... or making it a choice between either not fixing externalities or price setting the entire market... no... just price set externalities... that's enough. 
The Welfare economics page has the most 
 relevant information...
The other two are more background information... neoclassical describes how it fits into the historical and modern understanding of economics, and marginalist is how we derive and observe utility... where we get our concepts of value... but welfare economics is the destination.
So, the free market model of welfare economics... is the model we should strive to make actual markets like... because this maximises well-being (in the sense of the fundamental theorems of welfare economics). 
Again...
 the first paragraph of that does exactly describe free markets... no government intervention in price setting, creating barriers to entry, creating monopolies and all that...
Actually... that's pretty accurate... it means definitely certainly not certain government interventions..
What it doesn't go into is the assumptions the free market is based on... and that government regulation in these areas does not make it a non-free market or 'regulated' market... they are actually necessary to create a free market.
Having laws against fraud does not turn free market into a regulated market... though it is government regulation... it is not setting prices or creating barriers to entry.
That doesn't mean there's not a role for governments... adjusting for externalities is not price setting... except on goods which aren't private... which the free market doesn't deal with because it's an assumption they don't exist... so government providing parks and roads or taxing air pollution... all quite compatible with a free market... under certain conditions. 
True...
 but we have no other option...
What you going to do? Yell at the sun for shining too bright? Scream at the tide for coming in?
It's probably the biggest insight you can have on free market economics... that someone has to actually set the price on externalities.
This is the number one role of governments in free markets... to estimate and dictate the taxes and subsidies on externalities... or set quotas say on fishing, logging, pollution... or find ways to privatise the public goods.
But correcting for externalities is the role of government in free markets.
because free markets CANNOT DO THIS! 
Yes it is... very difficult...
 command economies have traditionally had problems with surpluses and shortages...
and incorrect evaluation of externalities will create over and under production of those...
but it's the best we can do... so that is what we have to do... a free market with imperfectly evaluated and taxed (or subsidised) externalities will over or under produce those goods and externalities.... and there's not much you can do but continue to revise and improve.
The result is going to be a lot better than trying to command the price of everything in the market... and conversely, a lot better than not setting the price on externalities at all. 
One more example...
 Minimum wage is NOT free market... it is centrally planned price fixing... it is clearly not free market... No one, who would otherwise be willing, can legally take a job below that amount... It's distortionary. It's a result of thinking mixed economy is a solution... no... it's not.
Basic Income and Wealth Tax though ARE free market... because they are the implementation of the lump sum transfers of the second welfare theorem... they don't disrupt or distort any economic activity.
So, minimum wage is 'bad'... and only necessary because we refuse to do what is free market and 'good'...
And you can see the effects... minimum wage was raised... and now there are McDonalds with no servers... they all got replaced by machines... and the workers who were laid off are now all worse off... BI and Wealth tax would have left the workers with enough money that they didn't require a minimum wage... and could negotiate freely to work for wages they were comfortable with on an individual level. 
Of course it changes people's motivations and
 actions... what you have to understand that there isn't a single optimal outcome... but instead an infinite number of efficient outcomes... an efficient outcome means everyone is better off and (I missed this earlier and it is the actual theorem) that no one can be made better off without someone else being made worse off.
The actual first welfare theorem states that a free market will reach an efficient allocation... where no one can be made better off without someone being made worse off.
Distortionary means the market is distorted from a pareto optimal equilibrium... Someone could be made better off without making anyone else worse off except for the existence of the distortion... The first welfare theorem is violated.
Someone would be better off without anyone being worse off if they were allowed to work for less than minimum wage... so, it's a distortion from an efficient allocation of resources.
Same if we subsidise something that doesn't need it... I dunno, something stupid... say icecream is subsidised... the government will pay 100% for your icecream... this is distortionary... great if you love icecream... but there's a cost, the overproduction of icecream creates a dead weight loss... and removing that dead weight loss (ie, letting the market handle icecream)... means people can be made better off without others being made worse off.
Wealth Tax and BI are effective lump sum transfers... they do make some people better off by making others worse off (explicitly, the second welfare theorem is the converse of the first)... but then the market finds a new and different equilibrium where no one can be made better off without someone being worse off... so the market is optimal again... and not distorted... the final outcome is still on the line (or surface or whatever of all possible outcomes) of the pareto optimal efficient outcomes... We just shifted the starting allocations to bring about a different efficient outcome. 
Yeah... they are ongoing... of course...
 the are still effective lump sum transfers...
There's no distortionary dead weight loss associated with them... the icecream subsidy does cause a dead weight loss... and is therefore not pareto optimal... the market reaches an equilibrium... but one where people could be made better off without anyone being made worse off... so it's distortionary and Wealth tax and BI are not. 
On maximising returns example...
 Suppose you had your last* $100, and I said we can play a game of heads and tails... heads I win, I keep your $100... tails you win $220... seems like a winning bet, should you take it?
The expected value of the bet is $110... so it's good, no?
The answer is NO... let's look at expected growth instead... 0^0.5*220^0.5 = $14... that's actually what you can expect to walk away with...
And to make the example crystal clear... let's say you had to play again until you either lost or reached the $10M jackpot and bankrupted me? You'd have to win... (I think?) 14 times in a row... (actually... I think the odd situation here is that it's a bad bet for both parties!).
Lets say you only bet 10% of your bankroll... Of the $100 you only bet $10... giving you the following expected growth 90^0.5*122^0.5 = $104.79.... this is a bet worth taking for a man with only $100 to his name!
The exact fraction of your bankroll to bet for binomial serial bets is given by the kelly formula...
The only thing that bothers me is why I never knew this in all my years doing engineering and dealing with probabilities and risk etc... it wasn't until I looked at finance (though it has it's roots in shannon's information theory!)... I bet it's covered in first year commerce and business classes though.
*: Truly Last... there's some philosophical shit gamblers get into here about future expected income, etc. 
Note that by betting 10% of your bankroll...
 given an infinite number of bets and allowing infinitely divisible dollars... you will always take the $10M and never be ruined.
Whereas, maximising expected return does leave some finite probability of obtaining the $10M, the probability of ruin is nearly one... and without an exit value (ie, play forever) ruin is guaranteed. 
Yes... but life is just a long series of bets
 anyway... you can't escape the iteration... even if you're only betting once... so, you always maximise expected growth (at the riskiest) over expected value. 
Talking about stop iterating...
 The all or nothing bet clearly goes to zero... and the fraction clearly never does... but... let's say a 1c bet minimum.... at the kelly maximum you have probability of P of going to that proportion P of your current bankroll before you make the next dollar or whatever... so for $100 start, and 1c bet minimum... that's 0.01% chance you would lose that $100... if you were betting at the maximum (proven above is greater than 1.04 growth per bet)... but when you bet less than this... like 1/2 or 1/4 the maximum... the proportion goes with the square of that... so, betting 1/4 kelly with $100 would give you 1 in 160k chance of losing! 
On Deal or No Deal...
 It's a pretty interesting game from a gambling perspective...
Assuming statistics are true... and we can't play the game 'on a case by case' basis and psychically pick the $1M or whatever cause math and themodynamics don't real...
If you analyse the game, the only real decision you get to make is to accept the bank offer or not...
From an expected value point of view, you would never take the deal... this is obvious because the banker would never rationally (unless he get's value from ratings or something else) offer more than the current boards expected value... he's always well within his own kelly margins too, naturally... and you see this in the game... he starts off low balling, maybe 2/3rds of the value... and towards the end offers maybe 90% of the board value...
BUT... if you're not already a millionaire... there is a point in fact where you should take the offer, because it has a higher expected growth than the board... even though it has a lower expected value.
So, let's say you're trane and you got $1 to your name... but you're on deal or no deal... and the board has an expected value of $20k or so, with 20 boxes remaining and one of them has 1c in it... and he offers you $100... you really should take the $100.
If you do a bit of maths you can work out for a given board and offer how much net worth you would need to turn down the offer.
Most people on their should probably take offers they didn't. 
Either it's advertiser sponsered...
 or you know you're on the losing side of a bet with video gambling of any form... unless you own the gambling machine. 
You might need to have $0... I haven't done the
 maths in years. 
It's funded... and is worth exactly... the future
 expected payments from the guy taking the home loan... no matter how many times they sell it... or borrow against it... whatever... it doesn't matter... it is actually backed by that original 'promise'.
Creating money literally on the government's say so... without such backing will have greater direct and proportional effects on inflation that money created out of loans.
The banks aren't pulling magic... and I've said before... get people to loan you money... and loan it out at better interest... and you are part of the banking system without all the economies of scale.
The problem was bailing them out... when they made those bad bets they should have ceased to exist as private companies... The game of flipping coins I talked about below changes significantly if someone is willing to cover your losses every time you are ruined... and this does no one any good.
Banks would be a lot more cautious if they had to bear the consequences of their bad decisions. 
Dude... I could write an IOU to you for $62
 trillion now... and swap it with you for an IOU of yours for $62 trillion.... and we would just doubled the impact that had... okay?
You see... all that money creation isn't directly inflationary because each step along the way the liabilities and assets balance out... even with fractional reserve, swaps and tricks and all that shit that multiply money are still backed by promises all back down the line... the belief in the fact that tomorrow people will be able to pay for the things we let them have yesterday... In the manner in which they are inflationary... the effects tend to balance... higher inflation rates means higher loan rates...
It's a totally different thing if the government were to mint a $62 trillion dollar coin and give everyone in the country $310k a year... if you don't think that would have a direct and negative effect on the price of bread... you're just... fucked. 
You're right... of course... but...
 the wealthy don't have a lot of their value tied up in dollars... so while you are redistributing wealth... you're not exactly taking it (proportionally) from the wealthy...
Which is why I keep saying that a BI is a good idea... but government budgets should (approximately) balance... so the money has to come from somewhere... and if we're redistributing wealth... let's be honest about it and tax wealth directly... a pure wealth tax.
The problem with trane is that he won't even acknowledge that all the other dollars go down in value a little bit. (indexation he will now scream... quite oblivious of the howling error he has made). 
Yeah... you're right...
 Inflation hurts savers and lenders, and benefits investors and borrows... It's a tax on holding dollars... it's not a good thing or a smart way to redistribute wealth.
The solution to BI isn't so much money creation that we have to deal with large amounts of inflation... the solution is to budget it... which means taxes... and wealth tax is (in my opinion) the absolute best option when the goal is to redistribute wealth! Not saying other adjustments won't be needed... but the economy is naturally trickle up... we need a reasonable mechanism to take wealth from the top and turn it into representative demand at the bottom... then I spend my BI on McDonald's run by robot workers and we're all better off for it even without my McDonalds job!
And, yes... inflation exists... so BI should be indexed to it (which it would automatically be if it was just a straight per capita payout of a percentage of the net wealth)... so should minimum wages (though BI should replace that) and pensions and all sorts of things... but indexation isn't a solution to something that creates inflation (as an unbalanced BI would!)... inflation exists, so we use indexes... but we don't want to be creating inflation arbitrarily, without control. 
There's still some way to go...
 Hinton, in around 2006 or so... developed a kind of neural network that allowed it to generate images as well as classify them...
At least with the mnist data set: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/adi/index.htm
This is useful, because it helps visualise what the network is 'seeing'...
Now... mnist is a really simple dataset and you don't need many tricks to get it to work... but when dealing with natural images, to save space in the network... layers of neural networks that were all basically the same but looked for local features at different levels... say, at the lowest level edges and colour gradients, and at the higher levels, maybe eyes and at higher levels still maybe it's a dog at some location... These are called convolutional networks because each layer consists of cells of the same network... like a compound eye.
Now... they've been trying to generate images from convolutional networks for quite some time with not so great results... getting gaussian blurs instead of sharp natural images... then they got that working... and some success here and there... but still, given a picture of a bus, it would generate what it thought was an ostrich but was clearly still a bus!
This is the first time something long range sensible seems to be coming from a network trying to generate natural images.
I think hinton may have included pose information... he says the current convolutional techniques (called maxpooling) throw away this information... say relative intensity (think lighting) and rotation or scaling transformation information... so, instead of having different detectors for an eye at different angles... you have one eye... but rotated... and if it lines up with a mouth that's rotated by about the same amount in the right location... and another eye in the right location given the rotations and scaling etc... it's a face...
So... I think that's what this network is doing... they've added hinton's pose 'priors'... trained it (noting its performance as a classifier) and now generating images from it...
BUT... when you ask it to imagine a particular thing, like banana, ant, screw, etc... it doesn't show you a banana, or an ant or a screw... it still only shows you an image with all sorts of things you would expect in an image with the right label... but all over the place... but ideally it would show you one item... and all the ways it can vary and still be that item... like in the mnist examples...
So, this might be a problem with the training set... or what they've trained it on (like, it probably isn't trained to separate the item from it's background)... and kept hold of that information during reconstruction... or maybe there's still more work to do in how we do convolution... if the 'pose' information is sufficient or optimal... I don't know...
The end goal would be realistic looking images or even video that describe a scene given in natural language... So, they've still got someway to go... but this is a huge leap at the same time... and I'm just waiting on the announcement to confirm that this is using something than other than maxpooling convolution (I expect some variant of hinton's pose idea). 
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
That depends on their training set.
Pretty trippy stuff... I think this shows that there has been a few more breakthroughs in ANNs and computer vision since last time we looked.
Specifically, I'm betting that this particular ANN has pose information encoded as a kind of prior in the pooling layers... something hinton was working on.
Previous efforts of backpropagating the desired class to the input picture resulted in images that were barely differentiable from the original pictures... but now you can clearly see that class backpropagated to their images look 'kind of like' the things you would expect (ie, it's clearly bananas).
Also, this is the first computer generated art I've been truly impressed with... everything else has been procedural or something and can sometimes do art in particular 'styles'... but man... this is like imagination.
Yeah... hinton's really only working on one aspect
 and not general ai...
Though a general ai system will require what comes out of that work.
Put it this way... ANNs come from work trying to understand the visual cortex... but it's pretty much the same as hearing... it works the same way... hell... it works with NLP... and then motor skills... well the same general architecture can be used by a robot to 'learn' how to place blocks together.
So, without reading the book... I'm pretty confident current ANNs will be part of the system that we come to call AI... like, for example, the neural turing machines that are coming along... that have memory and can manipulate it. 
It's funny... in my final year at uni... we had
 two electives... ANNs which are like general function approximators or AI which is normally about planning... Seems to me that the both need to be combined... so, I think he's probably right about NNs not being the solution... but still a necessary part of it.
For example that atari playing machine had a neural network interpreting the screen and predicted the value of the moves and generate moves according to that, and Q learning algorithm was used to evaluate the actual move value to backpropagate the move value error to the network.
So, definitely, broader AI algorithms, A* and such will be used... but the actual interpretation or modelling of reality such that these algorithms can interface with it will be done by neural networks. 
Yeah, I agree...
 A simulation of a human brain would be nice... though it would take a lot of processing power...
but to actually get to AI, we should be looking at the mechanisms involved... like building a plane and not a bird.
Of course, hinton's nets are inspired by biology... but they only attempt to capture the essence of the functions neurons perform, rather than trying to simulate hundreds of neurotransmitters and hormonal effects, etc... the majority of which are probably accidents of evolution, rather than optimal in any particular sense. 
Link to 'paper'...
 http://googleresearch.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/inceptionism-going-deeper-into-neu
ral.html
A few days ago an image was leaked. So, I think they had to rush the publication, which is why it doesn't have much technical details on the network they used...
Whatever they've done it's something fundamental... there was a big problem with so called adversarial images that really didn't look like the thing the network thought that it was, with 99.9% confidence... they seem to have overcome that... though they are clearly someway to go before they generate realistic looking images... I have confidence they are not far from it.
With computer vision solved, and an understanding of how to manipulate objects to achieve goals... well... we're edging ever closer to the AI robot apocalypse. 
He's definitely a smart dude...
 And today he is getting to paid to work on computer vision... so he got there in the end, and firstly by proving his ideas on both simpler and more economically useful problems.
Hinton will be remembered in the log files of the singularity as one of its more significant creators. 
I misread Hawkins as Hinton...
 Hinton co-invented back prop and has been in academia most of his time.
Anyway... I just watched: http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_hawkins_on_how_brain_science_will_change_computing
?language=en#t-884589
I don't see any conflict here between his approach and hinton's... neural networks are everything he talks about...
for example... memory... Restricted Boltzmann Machines and their extended form Deep Belief Networks are forms of content associative memory... Hinton's turned them into recursive DBNs to recall, predict and generate sequences of actions like different styles of walking...
Certainly NNs are predictive... in the ways he talked about...
First we start with static images... and classify and label them... then we can 'imagine' images from the labels... then we have movies, predict movement, label it... maybe even describe it... and then perhaps even create videos from description of them.
And the stuff about how the brain is mostly homogenous... directly points at stuff like NN architectures...
Once again... I think we'll build a motor cortex out of NNs, a visual cortex, an audio and NLP cortex, intuitive/emotional cortex and a high level planning cortex... all out of NNs... that cross communicate to drive and respond to each other... then we'll have something like the generic intelligent machine/robot that can solve general tasks for us... like... 'build a house or make money on the stock market'. 
Seriously... how cool is this?
 http://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPX0SCl7OzWilt9LnuQliattX4OUCj_8EP65_cTVnBmS
1jnYgsGQAieQUc1VQWdgQ/photo/AF1QipOlM1yfMIV0guS4bV9OHIvPmdZcCngCUqpMiS9U?key=aVB
xWjhwSzg2RjJWLWRuVFBBZEN1d205bUdEMnhB 
I think this is the approach that will get there
 I mean, they've already demonstrated the ability for image networks and NLP networks to share the same high level states... So, given a picture you generate a state in a high level layer, and then project down through an NLP network to get a description of it...
And, the converse, given an NLP description generate a high level state, from that generate a hash that can be used to look up pictures that match that description.
Now that more realistic images are being generated from high level states... you probably will be able to provide an NLP description of an image... then fully generate an imagined image from that description... probably all the way up to "no butt-like protuberances... no dogs"... though I don't think "butt-like protuberances" are part of the imagenet dataset... so, we still got some way to go. 
Aggravated Sexual Obese and Leaving the Scene 
 of an auto-felatio... are still about the funniest things I have ever heard in my life... they will forever crack me up... pure genius trolling. 
Fair enough...
 but should transexuals get paid materinity leave?
Also, can they use the women's showers? Though I don't think it's worth losing your equipment for that... what about pre-op transexuals? Should I use the ladies changeroom if I identify as female?
As a lesbian trapped in a man's body these issues are important to me. 
Usual problems with meth whores...
 plus I'm broke and need to get a job...
Life just sucks... but no shotgun mouthwash yet...
Sorry to disappoint. 
Actually... if the freeloaders took over a biofilm
 then the biofilm would dissipate, so he says biofilms can't exist... but that only destroys one biofilm... and it would release bacterium into the environment that couldn't make biofilms... so they would eventually be outcompeted by bacterium that do make biofilms... because making biofilms is better... so that's where the mistake is...
Also, you trying to relate statics with economics is just crazy... firstly about a month ago you were arguing that statics don't even real cause omg distributive load is confusing... now you're arguing economics don't real because you can imagine a zero load truss?
Seriously... maths must be specific to the domain you are applying it too... you can't take a harmonic oscillator and say that's prices for ya... if you're doing economics, you do economics... not statics or something else. 
It's mostly just high level curve fitting and 
 hyperplane separation... and we call that learning... clearly it's not the full picture of conciousness or anything... but hey... it's useful in all sorts of practical ways we can use today. 
Yeah, LA is pretty important for ML...
 You could do a separate course on just LA I suppose, to get a good grounding in it...
Some of the most successful large scale ML algorithms really only use dot products... but a lot of the tricky optimisers use more LA... matrix inverses.. outer products... then eigen vectors and other stuff...
I'd probably recommend doing an LA course first... then dive into the ML course... or at least try and do them simultaneously perhaps... but you really can't do the more advanced ML without it.
Also, hope you're reasonably good at calculus... at least enough to be able to follow the chain rule. 
Vectors are like arrays and Matrices are like
 spreadsheets... and tensors are like multidimensional spreadsheets...
Then pretty much you start defining different operators on them... mostly different ways to multiply matrices and vectors...
Consider... if you have to vectors of the same length you could sum the pairwise product of each element... you get a scalar (single value) or, you could create a matrix where each row was one of the vectors multiplied by one of the elements in the other vector... and that's just vectors...
I don't think there's that many operations to be fair though... basic LA is like only inner product, outer product and cross product... then the rules for how they can be applied... cause they're not all transitive (A.B != B.A)... and then inverses and eigenvectors and some other stuff...
Slight possibility you might do some vector calculus too...
Though I think we nearly did two years worth of it in undergraduate engineering... so there's got to be a bit more stuff I forget since then.
Normally for me is working out whether it's the dot product or cross product I want...
Yeah... that course will probably have you all set up for ML... then it'll just be the calc that will get you. 
yeah, you're right... wrong term.. thx $
 
One day there's going to be military drone swarms.
 Operators will be able to view the battle scene from any angle... AI will pick out humans on the battlefield, perhaps even armed ones or something... operators will just select all the targets and the swarm of drones will descend and waste like three bullets per target and everyone's dead. 
I didn't look at your code...
 So, I'm guessing here... but is it possible you were looking for <page> tags on the start of a line... and maybe not all <page> tags in the original file are at the start of the line?
Check that... looks exactly like what your code is doing... now you have to check the input file... or update your code to deal with this... or just not worry about it... it's an unexpected feature... splits file into files with N or slightly more pages... 
Yeah... if I'm right... and I usually am...
 then you have messed up your text tag processing too... at the least you're doing is mashing several text fields into the same page... but possibly getting partials or worse oddities in there...
You probably want to add everything into the page buffer and not just the text fields... that would mitigate it a bit...
But really I think the problem is assuming that the tags start on newlines. 
Could you try this on the input.xml file
 grep "^.+?<page>" wiki.xml
I think that says start of a line, followed by at least one character, lazily followed by <page>. Not sure if you need shell escaping at all. 
The flaw is your severe lack of economic knowledge
 Indexing completely misses the point of the free market... that people get to set their own prices... AND that prices change as supply and demand changes...
For example... computers are very large things that take up entire buildings and require a small full time staff to operate and there might be a market for up to 5 of them world wide... therefore, we shall index the price of 1 computer at $10M forever! I mean, that's reasonable... that's what people are paying for them now... therefore they'll always pay that much.
No... until you at least complete a micro-econ course, you are speaking out of your ass. 
Of course that's the effect of indexing...
 You're trying to say everything should stay constant compared to the index... otherwise, how is it an index?
How much is a loaf of bread today is meant to be the same as a loaf of bread tomorrow, right? Well... then same with computers... or maybe the opposite where a shortage of something would send the prices high, but you want it to stay the same...
You expect wages to be indexed too... which means constant... in a world where the value of different jobs actually changes...
It simply cannot be done... you can't even begin to model this. 
No, it wasn't a 'success'...
 Any more than holding a gaping wound shut stems bleeding... still much better to not have the hole in you.
In fact, indexation fed the inflation... exactly what I'm saying would happen... and sent it into triple digits...
Although the index did enable certain transactions that wouldn't have been possible under the pressure of inflation without an index... it made that inflation worse... and was an extra headache to be accounted for in these transactions.
Having said that... there are many things which it makes sense to index... tax brackets, minimum wage, social security... but you don't want your inflation to be so high that you are factoring it in when choosing between taking a bus and a taxi. 
Yes... that's true...
 So, wouldn't it be possible to read the file line by line and, on the fly, gather up the contents between the page tags and process them?
Kind of like somewhere between SAX and DOM?
Skip the intermediate step of splitting the file altogether? 
Slight problem of bias there...
 As a straight white privileged male... it is clear to me that we don't have enough power and we really should have more because women, coloureds and gays really don't posses the agency to provide for themselves... and thus need straight white land owners to lead them.
I've experienced... it happens... you should believe what I say.
Anyway... the irony is that you're not a woman in tech... and the real honest answer I believe is that the majority of women simply aren't interested in tech... though the women I've met in IT have all been very good at it... it's not generally what women chose.
Given that we can't expect half of the people who want to sit in front of a computer 16 hours a day going through lines and lines of tedious code to be female... why do we expect them to have half the jobs doing that? 
Expecting equal outcomes implies that women
 are just as interested in programming as men are... I don't think that's true... I believe there are intrinsic gender biases... men and women are generally interested in different things... and there's nothing wrong with this... as long as people are given equal opportunities to pursue their desires, equal outcomes aren't necessary.
Girls tend to prefer playing with dolls, and boys tend to prefer to play with trucks... this is inbuilt, and not a result of social conditioning... it is true for children, and that likely affects their outcomes into adulthood.
Secondly, why is all this equality of outcome only focused on high paying, well respected industries? Why don't we see the same push from feminists to have equal numbers of men and women in garbage collection or as builder labourers? Not cushy enough for ya?
Finally... if there was a wage difference between men and women in the workforce, for the same output... the market would punish those that didn't take on women... they would be paying more the same output and would be out competed by those that didn't have that unnecessary cost. 
That 30% is a payment for convenience...
 The business doesn't have to do as much work going through all the applicants and the applicants don't have to do as much work finding a job... Despite MDC's complaints, they provide a service, and they get paid for that service... and the cost is shared somewhat between the employer and employee, but they get their value back by the efficiencies the brokers produce...
So, no... there is no distortion here...
And again... if women could be provided at 77% of the cost of men AND produce the same output... they would be hired ahead of men... 30% borker tax included.
As for your other argument... I guess... I just don't understand why more men don't wear bras and high heels... I mean... far less than 10% of men wear these... but nearly all women do... it must be systemic bias in our culture oppressing men and telling them what to wear.
Men have always been more technical minded... and women more socially minded... in general...
Why aren't we focused on making sure there are as many female mechanics as male? Why aren't women pushing for more men in nursing?
It's not this way because women want to be working in these fields are excluded... it's because they don't want to be doing this type of work...
It's always some gender studies hippy idiots who complaining that this is a problem... yet they won't start with themselves by reading through Don Knuth's Algorithms... No... it's the menz oppressing them... not their own interests... they themselves understand a little of politics but basically zero about science. 
But they aren't...
 Going to a broker to get your employee is like going to a real estate agent to get your house. 
Modern businesses delegate decision making
 downwards... that's because it is more efficient for a hundred middle managers to be making the decisions than the CEO making hundreds of middle level decisions...
If it was more efficient the other way around... it would be the other way around...
Again... that 30% is the cost of efficiently getting access to a larger number of potential employees... you no longer require every potential job opening to be known by a friend who just happens to know the right candidate... etc... it doesn't scale... so the broker is more efficient...
And NONE of this invalidates the fact that if there were EQUALLY productive women available at 77% of the PRICE that they would get the jobs ahead of the men who cost more.
It's not like MS hires the employees for Google... that would be stupid... there is indirection yes... but this indirection creates efficiencies not diminishes them. 
There's nothing command about it...
 Everyone is there of their own free will, performing their duties as per their terms of employment or contract for whatever incentives they receive...
The fact that companies are made up of specialisation, delegation and hierarchical structures doesn't mean they are command economies by a very long shot... they are this way because they tend to be more competitive than individuals... but all parts of it are free market.
And if your job is on the line, choosing which supplier you're going to get your particular widget from, you're going to take getting the right widget for the right price seriously... Just because the billionaire owner of the company you are working for and choosing to buy that widget for isn't actually making that decision isn't likely to make it worse... if anything... it's going to be better nine times out of ten or more.
I don't know where you're getting your line of reasoning... it makes sense. 
It's nothing like a command economy...
 You have your terms confused at the very least...
This is free market straight up... midmanA and midmanB are competing for the higherman's utility... it's exactly capitalism. 
In command economies...
 A central bureaucracy sets the prices of everything... The government literally defines what the price of bread will be and you get in trouble if you try to buy or sell bread at a different price.
In terms of behaviour, everyone is just following their utilities in both systems... because following your utility is the universal truth no matter the market structure... And utility can come from political power and favours just as much as easily as it does from dollars.
The difference is that in command economies you get punished for not performing your duties... there is compulsion... not participation due to your own free will... You don't just get fired... you get sent to prison... or worse. 
Not even the bureaucrats are required to work
 at the DMV... Everyone there is there by free choice... the free market assigns work EVEN IN the fucking DMV.
The DMV isn't communist russia...
Although they are more like a monopoly, in that you can't get your license and other stuff from anyone else... hence the poor service...
But most government service jobs are filled by the free market.
You're fucking crazy or just economically illiterate... maybe you should do a micro-econ course, huh? Clear up that fuzzy thinking of yours. 
Retarded fuckhead...
 The DMV isn't free market... for sure... clearly... their 'products' are priced by command... and there are no alternative places to get a driver's license, for example...
BUT EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE DMV IS FREE MARKET!
The DMV are competing with every other company to obtain labour... They can't just point a gun at your head and tell you are going to work at the DMV for $25k/yr and be happy with it or off to the gulag with you.
But just because big companies are also hierarchical like the DMV... doesn't make their decisions or anything they do a command market or command market like. 
Put some stats in your outer loops
 so you can get a feel for the time it will take to complete...
You've been whining about this forever...
Also, you should add state save/restore functionality at some point... this would have saved you several headaches already. 
You could split the file...
 Read it line by line... buffering the contents between pages... getting the title or whatever to make the filename, and spit out the buffer to a file...
OR you could try something more ambitious and do something like SAX parsing... ie, event driven parsing... instead of reading in the whole file, you have callbacks for page, title, text or whatever tags... and process the files line by line still.
The difference between SAX and DOM parsing is that DOM parsers require reading in the whole document before any processing occurs... and SAX parsers fire off callback events for different tags... You have to rethink your architecture to accommodate this... but the end result is normally way faster and less memory intensive.
Just something to think about. 
I meant checkpoints...
 Like save the state every hour or so... so you can restore after a failure and continue processing from where you left off. 
Of course, if you can find a less memory
 intensive algorithm, go with it...
but sometimes... and it does happen... sometimes you have to drop back to using disk instead of ram... though you're going to pay a 1000x or similar time penalty.
Good luck. 
Nash in Equilibrium $
That's all.
Does anyone else think Nash was recruited by the
 CIA?
I think they would have found is mathematical brilliance very useful to their work and recruited him secretly to help them...
Then he started blabbing about the work he was doing, a very dangerous move with these dirty tricksters.
I imagine they then probably drugged him to induce psychosis and then covered their tracks so everything he tried to show people just looked like he was losing the plot... but he really did work for them and use those drop points, etc.
So, the CIA ended up fucking up one of the greatest mathematical minds of this century... causing untold losses to our world and society. 
The difference was that Turing's trial was public,
 whilst I think Nash was probably poisoned and punked into looking like a schizo to cover up whatever operation he was involved in.
That game theory maths and other maths he had would have been invaluable to CIA style operations... couldn't let that information get out, no matter what. 
I'll think of something $
 
I might be in the gutter
 but I'm looking at the stars. 
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead $
 
Yeah... money should be free and worth nothing.
 Consider that money is a social phenomenon... and you are anti-social... therefore your concepts of money are wrong... because you cannot and do not have the interests of the neurotypicals in mind.
BTC proves that you do not need government or fed or full faith thereof or any others such nonsense to create money with value... so... why don't you go and create free money for everyone yourself and see if it has any value.
You can't, because you don't understand economics... You get your cause and effect backwards... you think that economists create scarcity, and physicists make the sky blue. 
Physics isn't economics... but in neither case do
 the theories alter reality...
Price is related to UTILITY and SCARCITY... scarcity alone doesn't create value... nor utility alone... air is the most valuable thing in existence to humans... but it doesn't cost because it isn't scarce... I can't think of anything scarce but without utility... something you would not want to have around, despite it being very rare... anyway... scarcity without utility would also have no value.
So, you cannot have a useful but abundant money... like so abundant (true non-scarcity) that you could have as much as you wanted at any time you wanted it... no one would need to trade to obtain it... and the whole point of money is to be a social lubricant in trades... it's the abstract side of a trade, so that you don't have to match up somoeone wanting your dozen eggs and are willing to trade it for their two pints of milk...
And... if you're going to write of the majority of people in your plans to change the world for the better... you're fucked from the start... we don't want your theories, because, by your definitions.. they are useless to us.
Go create your own freak money you can use with the rest of your non-neurotypical idiots... oh... the problem is, you want to trade with us... you want our stuff... our food, our clothing, our houses... you want to buy it with money... but you want that money for free... which means you want our things for free... and for that, I say go fuck yourself.
Your ideas have no use in society. Oh look, I just figured what is scarce and without value... your ideas. 
Dude... people farm for money, not for fun...
 farming IS big business... small farms are worth millions... and they still stress over the pennies in their finances even though they'll spend more than my house on one harvester thingy...
No... they don't do it for 'fun'... if you want to say that we'll all be better off without money, so let's just create so much of it that no-one would ever want to work... please go away... neurotypicals don't want your kind... go off into the forest and breed with yourself.
Your plan is literally to give everyone so much money that it would be worthless... if you don't like money, just go live without it... but if you got nothing to trade with anyone, don't be upset when they don't trade with you. 
Indexing is just admission of failure...
 No VRs for me...
Whatever, loony. 
You're contradicting yourself...
 You can't buy a house for $200 today... but you used to be able to... inflation is a fact... and we aren't scared of big numbers... $1M for a cup of coffee... it will happen, even in the US... that's not a problem...
Problem is when you get paid $500 for a day's work today, and have to pay $20k for a cup of coffee tomorrow... hyper inflation is a problem... and indexing is a failure... because the index will inflate... indexing is a band-aid, not a solution.
The problem with you is, you expect a millionaire would still give a blowjob for a $20... because otherwise it would be 'greedy' and 'mean'... no, people set their own prices... as it should be... and how much money they have, and how much money other people have all affect the price of bread.
Indexing cannot help with this. 
I assume you've implemented drop-below in python,
 right?
Have you made it 'easy' to implement functions in python yet? Created a standard way to import libraries, for example?
BTW... I can see that drop-below is clearly some sort of function applied to all the pixels... but what does it do exactly? 
The thing is... while I think it's 'cute' and all
 I'm not sure you have a good theory or understanding exactly of language design...
What is it trying to be... a query language?
SQL, btw, is a (mostly) a declarative language... is that what this is?
Is it a functional language? Ie, does it even have functions?
Is it going to be turing complete? Can you implement drop-below purely in mumblelang? Or anything for that matter? Or is it just a wrapper around ways to call python?
Can you implement fibonacci in it?
Do you want to make it turing complete? 
See... this is absolutely correct...
 BECAUSE drugs are forced outside of the free market by law, they are by definition, black market goods... black market goods don't have the backing of the legal system... so only criminals can supply them... and their only recourse for bad trades is violence.
But bikers form gangs, the same reason that businessmen form companies... there are efficiencies to be gained by working together and specialisation of roles... N people working together in different roles are more productive than N people working independently.
Every single time you have problems with the market, it is because it is not a free market... in this case, the law creates black markets... where a free market would cause far less problems for everyone.
And for my argument with MI about free vs regulated markets... the drug market is a regulated market... but it clearly isn't a free market... so regulated to be (as close as possible, or like) free markets are the clear optimum economic solution... in every case. 
Ripple will likely fail...
 centralised crypto solutions go quite a bit against the grain...
Also, they own like 90% of the ripples... it's like a premined altcoin scheme.
Then there's the fact that they are having some regulatory troubles too...
The whole point of decentralised coins is that there is no central point of attack to shut them down or control them... ripple can never become a major international currency, because some government will eventually try and control them if they become "too" successful. 
I can't find that claim... I guess though they are
 saying they intend to only own half.
http://www.ripplelabs.com/xrp-distribution/
You can see here, they created all the coins, so straight off the bat they owned all of them... Right now, the only own 2/3rds of them...
That's absolutely huge amount if they ever plan on becoming a major currency... I mean... they want to own half the ripple economy... and expect to have any impact? Laughable.
That's not the only problem with ripple... that's actually one of the smaller problems with it... they think they can do distributed exchange with it (their major use case actually)... but that actually has all sorts of counterparty risks... in fact... chains of unknown third party counterparty risk...
No one in the crypto world seems to take them seriously... except for naive speculators...
Still... have fun with it, but don't bet the house. 
Well, your inability to understand it has little
 effect on its value.
Money doesn't need to be 'backed' by anything... it just has to be a means of exchange.
Money is:
 - a unit of account (check)
 - a store of value (check)
 - a means of exchange (check)
The idea that money itself has to have its own utility outside of being money is as outdated as the idea that value is the amount of work you put into something. 
Yeah and no...
 I mean... gold started off with people valuing it... and it has the other components... so, you can see why something with value can become money...
But... something without value can become money too... as soon as anyone places any value and that is recognised... it gets value... so... the creators and the early guys thought it had value... and it did amongst them... and others see that it has value... as long as they believe someone else will value it.. it will have value to them too.
As far as utility goes... that's really the key... there is nothing besides cryptocoins (and bitcoin being the leader) that allow you to transfer value pseudonymously across the internet with no counterparty risk, no intermediaries and no gatekeepers... that's huge utility... and value (price) is really utility divided by scarcity... so, bitcoin has value and is therefore useful as money... internet money!
Whatsapp must have utility... isn't it a video chat program with encryption or something? 
You do know that gold is highly overvalued
 relative to its industrial purposes, right?
Ummm... yes... network effects are huge... they also tend towards monopolies... like, what's facebook's competitor? Google Circles?
Oh... it's an encryption plugin for jabber? Again, network effects... but you can't see the utility in that?
So, those things are different... they are useful no? facebook is def useful... at least people think so... so is whatsapp I presume? Hell... k5 is useful too... all utility.
But bitcoin has network effects for sure... there can be only one! And it's useful... it has utility for the reasons I mentioned before... as a tool to transfer value... and that doesn't matter on the price of a bitcoin... it was true when 10c bought you a thousand bitcoin as it is today... and that in itself is utility and gives it value... the network effects merely amplify this utility... then there are the miriad of derivative uses of bitcoins... smart assets and such...
people have been looking for a solution for internet money since basically forever... bitcoin enables that. 
This is called the network effect...
 Where every extra unit increases the value of all other units... ie, every additional facebook user increases the utility of facebook to the current users... yes... currency is the same.
These are called network effects, and they create or tend towards monopolies. Which is why facebook is a virtual monopoly... and why I said there can really only be one cryptocoin... and it will probably be bitcoin... the more users, the more utility it has... as more people are willing to trade with it... the more valuable it becomes etc... 
Yeah... gold is definitely money in some sense...
 but it's value is way more than the fact that it can be used in electronics and looks pretty... actually... it has a lot of useful features that make it reasonable money... and so it is worth much more than it's other uses alone would make it.
However, things don't have to have intrinsic value to be money... you can't transfer a few cents worth of gold across the internet without third party brokers and other complications. 
Yeah... I am familiar with e-gold...
 That centralisation / regulation problem can be a real bitch... and I think that's what BTC has solved.
Bitcoin can't be regulated out of existence... no matter what... although certain regulations could have a major effect on its price, acceptance and value... it can't actually be taken away by governments (for a reasonably sophisticated user).
All it takes is 1 person to value it above zero... combined with the network effect, and it has real value... that's all it takes... I'm surprised you would think it has to be backed by anything. 
M'Lady
 /tips fedora
I bet they call you a 'gentleman' too...
LOL...
Are you paying them? If so, they are whores... no matter what you call them... and they probably think less of you for being so condescending too. 
You'd do fine...
 You just keep working, post issues, and review and merge patches. You don't really have to assign work tasks, make project proposals and budgets, draw up gantt charts, and all the other things you normally have to do in a commercial setting... people will find their own itches to scratch, and leave the results for you to merge upstream into your code at your leisure... it's mostly self organising.
I don't know how you'd monetize it if you don't make it open source... it would probably never become a standard if you keep it locked up, no users, no money... unless you can find application specific niches that you can sell to industry... but then you need sales and stuff like that... it'd be very competitive and a hard slog working against larger software house's offerings.
If you do open source it... monetize the surrounding things... support, specialised or prioritised development... contract to businesses that use it. As a consultant who created it... you could demand big bucks!
Everyone thinks their code is crappy and is embarrassed by it... on the whole, most code is crappy to some extent anyway... but don't be shy... it actually does stuff that people might find useful!! Functional code beats beautiful code anyday.
4&5 are valid reasons to open source.
If you can't tell already... I think you should open source it... possibly sell support and development requests... put it on github... It's a huge plus in terms of getting work in general too... nothing like being able point to a github project and saying "That's me! I built that!"... even if nothing comes of it, it will open doors for you. 
go on...
 but I vote for sig removal technology next. 
You got a point...
 There's always assumptions... and "smoothing" isn't a hack... it's a legit way to estimate generalisation to your out-of-training-set data. If you knew about bias and variance this would make sense to you.
The one legit point you got is that he should probably escape punctuation... like use &colon and &amps... in some way that is recoverable. 
Your escaping seems good...
 But you lose the & escape character when you generate your words... ideally, it should remain... no?
words = [w for w in re.split('[^a-z0-9&_']',text.lower().replace('
',' ')) if w]
Not tested... not sure if & is special in regex... you could escape it, if necessary. 
Dude...
 Why don't you first try to get it into the app market... maybe even for free... for the first few downloads...
Then up your price to 99c... I bet you'd see a hundred fold decrease in downloads... but that doesn't matter... because you've increased your revenue...
If you get sales... increase your price to $1.99... you'll get less sales... but maybe greater revenue... maybe not... if not... you got to decrease your price... but if you do make more profit... increase the price again... it will take a few months to find the optimal price point... 
If you just jump in at 29.99 or even a dollar more than all your other competitors... you might not make single sale.
Anyway... the only real way to tell is to suck and see... or try it and measure... just like code profiling... and seeing what your delta-revenue over delta-price is and maximising appropriately... of course, you can only do that with point samples over time... but ffs... release something first --- whatever revenue you do get you can put towards more development.
Oh... did you check the number of downloads for those apps to get an idea how much each are making... ie, not just taking the price as an indication, but demand at those prices? If the 99c ones are selling thousands, but the $4.99 selling only dozens... well... you get the idea. 
LOL --- missed that this was Del... good one $
 
It's been that way for so many years...
 Now, I see why artists used macs in the day and that's carried on to today I guess... also some strange set of nerds use to love it too, cause it was ahead of windows in many esoteric ways... before linux was a thing... and no one really did open source anyway.
and the iPhone was quite an evolutionary leap too...
But compared to Android... as a free (either or price and freedom) or low cost software / app developer... you would be suicidal to go with Apple in any way. And the fact that you are just now realising that, is telling how slow you are.
I think there's big money in porting successful apps to Apple though... or if you got big sponsors supporting you...
But on your own, no, apple is a walled garden... fuck em... so get your software working on android...
I know you probably won't ship it... fuck, most software I write non-commercially is never 'shipped'... it's just stuff for me...
But... why the fuck not aim at that? And seriously, you really can afford to release it bugs and all! Perfect is the enemy of good! 
dolphinse.cx was available from a link on the
 original goatse.cx page.
Ummmm... so, I was told...
For science... 
Dude... I'm an engineer who got 100% in first year
 statics and dimensional analysis...
and I ain't got no idea what you're going on about here.
I wonder how all those bridges continue to stand up if the people who built them clearly got their maths so wrong.
It must be circular logic hey... the bridges stand up because their maths is correct... and their maths is correct because the bridges stand up... therefore the maths is wrong, and bridges don't really stand up at all... hmmm...
Do you think we could build better bridges if we just dropped the maths and used natural language instead?
Ohhhh kaaayyyy then.
/me backs away slowly. 
OMG... static engineering (aka civil engineering) 
 is like some of the oldest, most tested, well understood engineering in existence today...
It's all based on a very simple premise: things that stay still do so because the sum of the forces sum to zero, and the sum of the moments sum to zero.
Everything else follows from there... force and moment have dimensions - relating mass, length and time to each other... and both sides of the equations have to have the same dimensions... or otherwise they wouldn't be EQUAL now, would they?
And all your whining can be resolved with the above in mind.
Jesus... thank god you're not important in any way... stick to the ancient greek shit... modern maths/physics/engineering is not for you. Apparently you think bridges stay up because they are well tested... rather than designed that way. What a fucking retard. 
Dude... what are the units of force?
 I'll tell you... it's kg.m/(s^2)...
sum of forces equals zero... so, whatever you do... you have to make sure your units match.
It's not the maths that is wrong... and the steps follow the rules of inference from a set of axioms... It's the natural language expression of that maths (physics really)... that you are failing on. 
Dude.... if you look /carefully/ you would notice
 that w is in kN/m.... it's a distributed loading... measured in how many kilo Newtons it applies per meter... like a rod... the longer the rod... the more kilo newtons applied...
So, you don't even have to care about the units of force, cause they made it easy for you upfront...
So, you actually start with Newtons per Meter... and you want to end up with Newtons... so you multiply by meters... and you have the correct answer (well... units, at least).
Why is this so fucking hard for you?
You really think engineers are using mathematics to build all these things we have in modern life... on a false basis? That just somehow happens to work?
Fuck you're a special kind of crazy dude. 
If you have, say... a rod... which has a certain
 weight... you could express that 'density' (in a gravity well, mind you) as force per meter... no? Well... that's what they've given you... so, you multiply it by the length of that rod and you have total force of that rod.
Call it what you like... distributed load to me would be F/m... not F... but there you go... and a distributed load (w = F/m) times a length... is w.m = F/m*m = F...
Why are you so dense? 
Jesus... this is where natural language is just
 fucked up... I said 'density'... not density... I didn't mean like actual density... I was trying to think of an analogy.
Okay... lets consider a one dimensional rod... it's not really one dimensional... but so fucking close as not to matter... and so we're going to measure it in one dimension only... but it could be made of different materials... say, balsa wood... or iron... or lead... or nuetronium say... okay? got that?
So... this rod... for a given length... is going to have a certain weight... right?
If you want to think about it... it's going to have a certain weight... PER METER of the rod...
If the rod was 1m long... and it weighed x... then 5 meter long rod, would weigh 5x... right?
Okay... now... if it weighs x kg per meter... and is in a gravitational well of 9.8m/(s^2)... then it would produce a load of 9.8x kg.m/(s^2)m or 9.8x N/m... wouldn't it...
That's a /distributed load... because the load is distributed along the length of that rod! As opposed to say a lead ball on a string... which would produce a point load... And here, they've given you w in kN/m... in other words, under gravity... that beam (or whatever it is) exerts a force... per meter length of that beam!
So, clearly... the longer the rod or beam or distributed load... the greater the force, or simply load, it would apply to whatever was holding it up.
So... it's not about how much force it would take to 'break' it... cause the rod could be of infinite strength... it doesn't matter... (not until you get more complicated scenarios where how much materials bend start to matter in these calculations... at this point, you can assume an infinitely strong, unbendable beam)... it's just how much the damn thing weighs per unit length of that beam... and therefore how much force it exerts per unit length of that beam... times that by the length... and clearly you get total force, or load, from (or on... whatever) that beam.
Does this make sense yet?
There's no trickery going on here... and nothing wrong with the maths... but maybe something wrong with the natural language expression of that math... and certainly your understanding of it. 
Dude... the forces in the tension wires have to
 balance the force in the beam (normally we call them beams... not rods)...
The BEAM WEIGHS (or carries a load on top of it, that IT distributes along it such that it distributes force) a certain amount PER METER of BEAM...
So, whatever that weight is... it must be supported by the tension in the wires... now... the tension in the wires is at an angle, so only some of the tension from the wire is holding the beam UP... but it also pulls to the side... and that has to balance elsewhere... in another tension wire, perhaps... sometimes into the wall the beam is attached to...
but the distributed load is the load distributed along that BEAM... and the tension in the wire must counteract that in such a way that all the forces (and moments) sum to zero.
Are you so thick that you're still not getting it...
Here's a hint... if it involves, mathematics... it's probably you that has it wrong... not the thousands upon thousands of engineers who all covered this in their first 3 months of their engineering course.
And as an extension or corrollary... if it is a field that involves maths, say physics, engineering, computer science or economics... you are probably the one who is wrong... m'kay?
Have I simplified this enough for you?
Cause you're going to be absolutely fucked trying to work out the moment on a fixed joint holding a beam that acts as a distributed load... Moment is Newton-meters... the distributed load is Newtons per meter... and it will involve 'complicated' calculations such as integration that I think are just going to break your mind entirely if you're stuck at this level. 
I must admit, I was reading the problem backwards.
 It's not my fucking homework... I aced this shit back in the day... 
Often you have a distributed load and you are working out the tension in the cables... in this case, you know the maximum tension in the cables, a safety factor, and are trying to work out the maximum distributed load the bridge can take.
That's fair enough... just the other way around to what I described.
You can think of distributed load as say, putting sandbags on the beam... the beam will also distribute the load from a car or person across it anyway... the distributed load would also depend on the weight of the beam too... clearly.
The reason they use distributed load is that point loads could still break the bridge... take the maximum load distributed across the 9 meters of the bridge, and put it all on one end (approx 45kN) as a point load, and the force might exceed 20kN of one of the individual cables...
My only mistake is working from w to F, whereas the actual problem goes from F to w... same fucking thing...
If you can't even conceptualise a distributed load as, say, a set of sandbags... or even just sand... then you are pretty fucked... it's not that complicated.
And, there are tricks in this question, that enable you to simplify the problem down to looking at each 1m section individually... You can do the calculation for point loads too... though, the choice of 1m sections pretty much means point loads up to the maximum distributed load end up with the same value, just different units.
Got it yet?
Like I said... if you're struggling here... just try and work out the moment on the joint of a horizontal beam supported at only one end with a distributed load across the beam.
I find it hard you would question that engineers can't calculate those values, then measure the forces in real life and see that they are the same... as if engineers don't use these calculations to build real bridges, knowing what the forces are before they actually build the real bridge. 
for distributed load... think sand...
 on a one dimensional beam... whatever you're on about... you can think of it like that...
If you can't work out when to multiply or divide... that's your problem...
It's like complaining F = ma or F/m = a or F/a = m... and saying sometimes you mulitply or sometimes you divide... no shit fucker... make sure you're doing the right thing at the right time.
Problem is with you... as usual. 
Here's something else to think about...
 Double the dimensions of the bridge... in length and height... keep the same number of wires, and the same max tension in the wires... how does this affect your maximum distributed load?
I'll tell you right now... without even thinking about it... the max distributed load is halved... why? If you double the width and height, you've kept all the angles the same, so each wire now supports twice the width... it supports exactly the same load, but that load is now spread out over twice the length... so the distributed load (in Newtons PER meter) must have halved... because the number of meters has doubled, and the total load over each section stays the same.
Distributed load is just like pouring level amounts of sand along the beam... the total force due to the sand, divided by the total length... You can of course have a distributed load across an area too... like pouring sand onto a floor of a building... then you get Newtons per square meter... or kg per meter per square second.
If you were clever... you could also work out the compressive/tensile load along the beam... in it's various parts... caused by the wires horizontal force that must sum to zero along the beam.
If I haven't made the meaning of distributed load clear to you by now, you really gots no hope in this subject... don't worry... plenty of people don't get it. They become linguists, for example. 
You might notice that it's not the maths that is 
 inconsistent, arbitrary or ambiguous... it is the NATURAL LANGUAGE EXPRESSION of that maths that seems to have the ambiguity problem.
You should rejoice! Ambiguity is what you wanted, right? When he says distributed... does he mean the weight distributed along the length (division)... or the total weight of the partial weight distributed along the length (multiplication).
Hooray... fantastic that ambiguity... right?
But the maths... no... any first year engineering student could work backwards from the maths to determine the meaning of the terms in context... but not a linguist... no, they flounder... cause the ambiguity they so longed for fucks them over again. 
Did list comprehension gain you anything
 especially in terms of performance? 
Yep. You can never really tell until you try it. $
 
Yeah... glad you got a solution...
 Also, wonder if you could have used list comprehension... I don't know if it would have been faster or not...
so, instead of:
for item in biginputlist:
 object = dosomething(item)
 bigoutputlist.append(object)
do something like:
bigoutputlist = [dosomething(item) for item in biginputlist]
Just out of interest, how do they compare speed wise... if you're doing something like that? 
I have a hunch this will be fast
 and a lot less complicated...
though always fun to play with different data structures... 
I'm not sure it does...
 considering you can add if clauses.
for example:
[x for x in y if x>0]
but I bet they still have a faster implementation than for/append. 
Prince of Perth Psychic Event
So, in the very early hours of last night, I clicked a facebook link (I think) about the prince of perth.
I thought it mildy amusing... in fact, was going to post the link, but it was time to sleep, and all that...
So, this morning I went out and got myself a pastie, and on the walk was seriously wondering that I would meet the dude... like I wouldn't be surprised if he jumped out at me and said, "Hi procrasti... what's up?"...
Well... long story short, he dropped one of my girls off to me today... we talked about hemp used in ford cars, I told him yes, but they still used plastics... etc... from what I'd read on reddit... I told him I read about it him that day... then... he started talking about psychic stuff... pretty much straight out...
So... wtf k5, seriously, what the fuck is going on? Could some baysian statistician please explain the likelihood of such a seemingly improbable odds event occurring, say how many days per such event could you naturally expect? Is there trickery going on? Was he an imposter? Is someone using information from my internet connection? My computer compromised? Facebook super AI?
Is HollyHopDrive Stalking Me??? I'm a little bit fearful of the sort of power such internet warriors can hold...
Is this a setup?
Or... genuine psychic, telepathic network, synchronous, satanic like greater magic...
Dude was well cool anyway...
Girl is super sweet... but can't keep her... I guess TRP advice would just be to tell her that she's just one of my 'plates' (lifting term... very clever) and eat her up... but every meal makes you dependent... so anyway... options were probably, to keep stoning, fuck girl, or post on k5 about weird events.... there you go... I'mma get a coffee.
She's got some great tunes... and she did bring the prince for me? Right? Out of a town like 1M or so...
That's the facts as I experienced them.
Hold on... EVEN IF he knows me...
 Someone placed a link to his reddit story in a comment, in a facebook meme, from a facebook meme channel... that I read, noticed and I clicked on, and read fitjer, thought it was amusing and interesting... thought I might meet the guy (as in sensed that I would)... didn't mention anything to anyone... then met the guy that night...
Just like that?
If it's not psychic the implications are even scarier... that I'm socially controlled to that extent?... Like a Darren Brown mind trick... I know most write these things off as 'coincidence'... but that word just means happening at the same time... which is a tautology... It seems a long way from pure noise... aka chance. 
s/fitjer/further/
 that's an odd one... 
I mean something like Levayan Satanism...
 Or rather, disallowing the assumptions of God or supernatural... paranormal is okay, it's just reality that is not experienced often or hard to explain... Magic is just 'technology' that we don't fully understand... not that it can't be understood.
So, physics, chemistry, economics, law, medicine... etc... they are all satanic in their way... not in the sense of evil, or even mythological as the accuser... just in terms of building models based on what we can observe and affect... ruling out supernatural, but accepting what is real might not be as simple as you might expect.
I don't know this dude... and it appeared it was random he talked to the girl he bought round that day... how would anyone knew I read about him anyway? It's just very strange. 
As for the implanted memory scenario...
 Sure... but I prefer hypothesis that are testable. 
Depends on the day...
 but I wasn't stoned when it happened... I was quite sober.
What does what drugs I take alter what verifiably happens in reality... the only thing drugs could alter would be either my subjective experience, or how I express those experiences... maybe what I tend to attract?
Like the Free Market thing... saying to legalise crack... doesn't mean I'm actually on crack... that's just a way to dismiss my words... and I still contend that it's not the words I use, what I say or how I say it... it's that people shut off from such topics and want to find an easy way to dismiss the ideas... ie, dude's on drugs, dude is crazy... etc... rather than spend the energy understanding the Free Market... which everyone knows is the source of all our troubles really, right? 
Well... I don't know...
 Are you negatively affecting someone's utility in a way they didn't chose... in a way that has more than them just losing out to opportunities you took from them fair and square?
I don't know actually know the exact mathematical precise statement about all this... no...
But yeah... when I say Free Market... I do in fact mean perfectly regulated... according to the free market model... yes.
It's usually pretty easy to tell who is harming who, isn't it? Sure, I guess it must get messy sometimes... no reason to throw the whole concept away...
Still... do you have any examples where who has what rights and who is impinging on whom might not be straightforward? Just to give me something to think about? 
Okay...
 It all comes down to the free market...
If you are voluntarily, willingly part of a transaction that affects no one who isn't part of the transaction, and they all know what they are getting out of the transaction... that is the ideal situation... That is a pure free market transaction.
Everything else you mentioned can be studied in terms of affects on utility... and the market outcomes always have less 'social surplus' than the above, free market, situation.
Clearly punching someone on their nose negatively affects their utility against their will... it's the simplest scenario... we should punish those who do it... such that... the utility they would derive from punching you is no longer the first choice... ie, apply a disutility on the perpetrator, in proportion to the harm done, their desire to do it, and other calculations like how likely they are to get caught... ie, a short prison sentence or misdemeanor charge or something.
Well... what about punching the air in front of their face... again... you can't directly map that to utility... but we can empathise with people... and we know it's going to be a negative utility on you... it's actually assault if you feel threatened... (some places, assault is just the threat, while battery is the actual physical violence)... either way... the same rules as above apply, you aren't willingly part of a transaction that has a negative utility on you... so, we should impose a negative utility on those who produce negative externalities...
So... the free model isn't just what happens when anyone does what they want... it's an ideal situation and a model for how to correct all the deviations from it! The above examples are both negative externalities... and negative externalities are overproduced by the market... and need to be taxed to bring about socially optimum production levels (some times, people need a punch to the face!).
Again... pollution from fossil fuels... a direct example of a negative externality... people's utility are negatively altered in a transaction (production of pollution, or the good that produces the pollution) that you did not chose to be part... and the answer, in these cases, is always the same... tax negative externalities... pigovian taxes specifically... taxes on pollution from cars, or factories, or anything... it is always the same...
One problem is estimating how much that tax should be... there are ways around it... but a good guess is better than nothing anyway... and in principle there is an exact optimum tax, which is equivalent to what you would have to pay everyone to be affected by the pollution (or neg extern) for them to chose to let you pollute... it's hard to let 'market forces' decide this... but there are ways... or close estimates.
The other cool thing is... once you do the maths... you see that you don't even have to pay those who didn't chose it... you just have to tax the one producing it... and that's all it takes to reduce negative externalities such that the goods production is now socially optimal levels.
There are mostly political problems with this though... carbon taxes, cap and trade... etc... are quintessentially free market... in that they return lassiez fairre market production levels to socially optimal free market levels.
It is no less free market to impose taxes on negative externalities than it would be to say that criminalising murder goes against the free market! Markets need regulation to be free markets!
So, what I'm saying is... that neoclassical marginalist welfare economics, the free market model, and studying all the possible variations of it... we do in fact know what the best regulations are required to bring about free market like production levels... regulations that minimise dead weight loss... loss in utility from real markets compared to the ideal free market. and it is less complex than you think. The economists already know the solutions... the problems are political.
As far as 'eminent domain' goes... It's clearly not a free market transaction... and I'd like to hear some more justifications for it... though I have an alternative that makes the whole thing moot anyway... It's a free feature of wealth tax. 
Yeah true...
 they both suffer from the problem that other people have to estimate your utility... and if they could do it perfectly, there would be no issue at all... an no issue with command economies either... dear leader would know what bread is worth to you, and what wheat is to the baker, and what fertilizer and diesel are worth to the farmer...
So, they aren't idea... but with things like negative externalities... there is no other way (that we know of) to enable people to make these kinds of deals... in a perfect world you would know how much pollution you would tolerate at a given price and we could trade it... but that's difficult and expensive in it's own way... so, the short cut --- letting politicians decide what clean air is worth for us is the best solution we have.
The thing with eminent domain is, why do we force people to sell at a price they may not want to? I'd like to see the arguments in favour of this before I say much more...
But the main difference between the two, is that we can't turn the atmosphere into a private good... by it's nature it is a public good... and so requires government intervention... because there is no way to make it private. 
No hold on though...
 One is a correction to the market to make it free market like... ie, correct taxes bring negative externalities in line with free market production levels... as if you were being paid for them.
They aren't ideal in that other people are still estimating your utility... and you don't get a chance to decide... and you don't even get rewarded (directly)... but it's the closest thing you can do with a public good to make it like a free market.
Eminent domain, not so much... 
The point is... that for /every/ deviation from a 
 free market... economists already know what the the fix is to bring it back in line with a free market.
What more could you want?
It's not that complicated because the possible deviations are limited by the assumptions of the free market! Markets only fail when one of the assumptions is violated... and there are only four assumptions! It's the opposite of complex. 
It's the /best/ fix we have to bring 'the market'
 back in line with the 'free market'...
Yes... it requires an estimate... and I already pointed out that that is a limitation of the solution... I pointed it out before you did, in fact... but that's not a hidden flaw in the theory... that's a well known problem.
However, it is VERY DIFFERENT to eminent domain problem... in that the first one corrects the market to make it free market like... whilst eminent domain does no such thing.
I consider making adjustments to the market to bring them in line with free market outcomes to be as close as is possible to our ability to implement free markets.
It's as free market as physics allows... therefore it is free market... because it behaves exactly the same. With the one caveat that the estimation for the taxation of negative externalities be accurate.
On the other hand... cap and trade is a solution to the estimation problem! If we estimate how much we can produce with little effect on the environment... we can place a cap at that amount and allow producers to trade --- this nearly eliminates the utility estimation problem!... However, the government has to estimate the cap! So, it's not without problems... but if those estimations are accurate... the outcome is identical to free market production levels! We've turned a public good into a private good through cap and trade or taxation!
A failure of the market has been removed... and the outcome is equivalent to a free market... I think it's fair to call that a free market. 
Maybe you want to assign ownership to the air,
 and make sure you get paid when someone else's air pollutes your air...
Good luck with that.
I don't know what problem you got... because the solution really is as close to free market as physics allows...
Your post just proves you have an aversion to thought. 
You are of course right...
 in that estimating other people's utility is hard... almost impossible... and that's why command economies fail and market economies work.
The problem here is that there really is no other solution... public goods (which means that everything is an externality) have the problem that the costs (or benefits) are not priced in by the market... So, we have to fall back to estimations of other people's utility.
However, mathematically, we can show, that if those estimations are correct, we get the same result as a free market.
The problem is identifying where there are divergences from the free market, and knowing the solution to bring the market back in line with the free market... It's not complex from a theoretical point of view... There are only four assumptions... plus the private/public good problem... and that's it... you cover those bases, and the rest is fairly easy.
You really only have to worry about externalities, non-excludability, imperfect information, and imperfect competition... that's all you have to correct for... it's not like you have to go back to first principles and dissect every type of business operation to determine how it uniquely interacts with the economy... you just have to identify if it suffers from that small set of problems... and attempt to correct it with taxation or subsidies... or laws regarding certain disclosure or against fraud.
About the only problem that remains is the estimation problem... but those estimations are a very small fraction of the overall market... so, we use estimations because we have no other solutions!
I don't know what you expect to do about that... and I don't see the problem as being as complex as you do, because I think spotting externalities, and public goods problem is fairly straight forward, on the whole? Don't you?
The estimations are hard though... I'll give you that... pollution seems fairly straight forward by comparison... how many tonnes of CO2 do you want to put in the atmosphere... cap it at that and trade it... and everything is pretty simple from there on in...
Though judging the positive externalities of education (ie, how much should we subsidise education)... is a reasonably difficult problem... I'll grant you that again.
The only thing I can say with certainty though, is that the error (dead weight loss compared to free market) diminishes at the square of the error of the estimation... so a reasonable estimation is orders of magnitude better than none.
The problem is that there is no known solution to these problems... what can you do? Just ignore it and pretend there is no problem - as proponents of laissez faire do? No! I think the solution is simply to estimate as well as we possibly can... and accept that pragmatic approach that a good estimate is better than nothing... and do what we can to improve our estimates.
It's not like you're bringing a better model to the table here... you don't have a better solution... you're just saying "it's hard" and throwing your hands in the air... I'm saying "It's hard, but we must do the best we can". 
Maybe you're right... I don't know...
 Laissez faire is what most people mean when they say 'free market'... which is really hands off, and trust in the market to bring about the ideal situations, even in the face of externalities et al... which I think is absurd.
The free market model is the ideal... yes... when all goods are private, no externalities, perfect competition, perfect information and rational actors...
Then there were all the market failures... where, because those assumptions are violated... the market produces inferior allocations... and we see what regulations can be used to bring about free market like allocations... and they do have estimation this flaw... and I can't think of a way around that... and nor has anyone else, as far as I can tell... maybe they are the best that can be done?
So... I guess I've been calling all solutions (even with their estimation problems) free market solutions.. because they bring about free market allocations (given perfect estimations)... maybe there is a correct term for these markets... and I don't know it... I'll have to find out. 
Nothing is beyond statistics... it's mathematical 
 laws...
In Bayesian terms... if it is operating outside of 'chance'... then that would simply mean that the variables are conditioned on other variables not yet accounted for.
There is no such thing as magic, beyond simply that we don't understand how it works... yet. 
No one really sets their priors at 0 or 1...
 really should be represented on a sigmoid... from -inf, +inf
well... smoothing hacks account for that yes... that's their purpose...
And I don't have prior of 1 that magic does not exist... I have a prior close to 1 that magic does exist... magic is just that which we do not yet understand... plenty of that about...
but clearly things go better when things stop being magic... that's the realm of science. 
I don't think people's priors are that close to
 one...
If a dragon turned up outside someone's house and started talking to them... it wouldn't take many people that long to just accept the dragon... even though ten minutes earlier they would deny they could even exist... ie, people's priors are actually pretty flexible in when presented with evidence (even if they're mislead, or form wrong conclusions).
The problem with the sigmoid is that off in the tail ends of it... the derivatives do approach zero... so changes based on derivatives update very slowly... ie, 0.999... does equal 1... it's a problem... but in neural networks we already have answers to these problems (various types of regularisation)... no doubt our actual minds have evolved far more flexibility than artificial ones.
Anyway, I said I do believe in 'magic' anyway... 
So... they're model was accurate within
 their measurement capabilities... and although they had an alternative model... they had no need for it, or a way to distinguish it from the one they were using... right up until they had the measuring capability... and the evidence was so far in favour of the current model that it became the dominant / accepted one?
So... being a practical person... how would you suggest that they have proceeded otherwise? By accepting any and all other models that made no more predictions than they were able to distinguish at the time?
It's not like they didn't also improve their measurements at the same time... contrary to your statement otherwise.
The question is also in knowing where to look... and where do you find that information from?  
How would you /know/ that the heliocentric model
 was more 'powerful'? a priori.
How do you know what priors are 'wrong'? a priori.
Especially when you can keep making predictions on the 'less powerful'/'wrong' model? 
Not everything... just closed systems...
 earth is an open system... so obeys the laws of thermodynamics of non-equilibrium systems... ie, chaos.
To me, it's just one of those things that shows that our minds probably operate with a certain amount of communal telepathy... thought influences reality... we know this in as much as thoughts lead to speech which leads to action... but maybe more directly... or possibly through other people... like telepathic networks. 
I don't know about proof...
 A long way from proving anything... problem with matrix theories is you can't know... so, kind of untestable...
I think it's proof that mind's aren't as independent as, say, psychology might assume. Maybe?
Then again, I've seen some pretty weird things in my time... could be more than just human... so, maybe the substrate is bendable on a more fundamental level... like in the matrix. 
The EMDrive? Real? Reactionless drive? Quantum Virtual Particle Accelerator?
So, what's with the EMDrive? Is this a real reactionless drive? Is it breaking the laws of conservation of momentum? What's your guess what's going on?
Is this going to be another faster than light neutrino event, or the real deal?
It's huge news if this thing really works... inter-stellar travel, asteroid mining, flying cars, the works...
It's also claimed that it warps space like an alcubierre drive... now that would be really crazy... Alpha Centari for breakfast in the morning, back home by tea. Well... such a hyperspace bypass might take a few decades or so to build... but after that.
Is it going to Uranus? $
 
EMDrive
 http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/
http://science.slashdot.org/story/15/05/01/1929200/new-test-supports-nasas-contr
oversial-em-drive
What you're describing is the alcubierre drive, and some tests suggest that the EMDrive may be an alcubierre drive!!
This is on the level of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... but experiments for once are showing results... it's like after years of being laughed at by scientists, it seemed an over-unity, free energy device works (it's not, don't worry)... you have to come up with physics that explains the observations... cause it clearly works like that, despite what your pet theory says.
On the other hand... people had been using crystal (lumps of germainium a thin needle was placed upon in different places until it worked!) radios for years before people came up with the theories necessary to understand the semiconductor diode! Ie, if it works and we don't understand... we do recognise it, and we'll use it, and eventually we may even understand it, and unlock a lot more along the way too. 
Ummmm.... no....
 They don't think it's heat... heat would either be in the form of convection from contact with air, or from (mostly) infrared radiation in the form of photons...
Now, the effect is something like 1000 times stronger than would be predicted from the emission of photons... so, it's not that...
And, they just tested it in a vacuum, so it's not convection...
AND, the microwaves don't exit the cavity anyway.
So, it really seems to be violating physics... at least the basic models... but there's no accepted theory at the moment how it works. I'm not even sure where we're at with superconductors atm either.
Yeah, the Orion is pretty amazing... I always thought they should build one... but nuclear ban treaties and shit fucked that one up... and not so small nuclear explosions either... The Orion works better as you make it bigger too.
But the orion's just old skool physics with big nuclear explosions... this emdrive is mad. 
No... I don't think anyone can claim to know how
 it works at this point...
I think the next step will be to stick one on a small satellite, put it into space, and see if it produces real delta-v... would go a long way to proving it...
Rather than put it on a space station that has real life people depending on it and can't afford for anything to go wrong.
Once it's scaled up to something serious, and produces serious thrust... I guess either we'll work out the mechanism and come up with some good guesses on what its effects might be on people... or people will stand too close to it... and if nothing significant happens, we won't know of any long term side effects until they become apparent... you know... how we find out about most hazards... people start dying. 
Well... all our theory so far points that the guy 
 is right... that there has to be a propellant...
So, if there isn't a propellant, then that's because we're applying 'classical' laws... in the sense, that we're looking at it from a Newtonian point of view, when it's really a Quantum or Relativistic phenomenon...
Even then... I don't think effect was widely predicted by either of the other realms... if at all.
Though we found the effect before the theory... that's often the way it goes... but the guy who built it must have had some insight... I know they falsified one guys theories (a similar drive), but I don't think they've falsified the inventor of this one... but there is doubt that it's correct... lol... strange huh?
I think it's just like the diode effect... or magnetism even... the effect was known a long time before good theory was widely accepted for it... I think it will be like that... science is a kind of magic after all... trying to find and explain things we can't.
In 100 years 'everyone' will know that microwaves in a resonant chamber accelerate the 10e-9 virtual particles that have a bias in their spin that in a certain resonant frequency accelerates them unidirectionally before they are annihilated creating virtual momentum that distorts the local space time and appears as classical 'thrust' to an outside observer... or something similar... but it's limited by Trane's External Quantum Thrust Efficiency Ratio.
The cool thing, if it's an alcubierre drive... there may be no acceleration felt by those using it... You could accelerate at 50G and feel nothing.
Whatever it is, I so hope it's not a mistake in the experiment. It's huge news if the effect is real. 
I dunno... aren't dilithium crystals in the warp
 core?
I always thought they were a power source, so they'd be the power generator, like nukes... in which case they'd go outside, to generate energy to feed into the microwave resonator... but I think the cannon is that they actually produce the effect... maybe they're a high source of these biased virtual particles? in which case they'd go inside the resonator... maybe they release energy too... so, I'm not 100% sure if they go in the chamber or not... sorry...
I dunny know the laws of roddenberry physics captain. 
Whatever is causing the force
 working out how it works is going to give us some cool insights... momentum to quantum foam, or warping space time... or even something a little more mundane... still so very cool if it's real. 
Yeah...
 I know at least that cassimir forces are well accepted physics now... even used in some mems thingy I think...
And that gravity one is a spinning charged superconducting disc or something... gravitomagnetic affects were measured... (not change in gravity itself, but something akin to magnetic force coming from moving charges... but with gravity... supposedly... I don't know...)... not sure where that stands at the moment.
As for it being an alcubierre drive... apparently they ran a michelson-morley interferometer type experiment inside the chamber or something like that... and measured results that were compatible with it being an alcubierre drive... supposedly... It's mentioned on the nasa page and on the alcubierre drive wiki page, you'll find a link to the interferometer emdrive experiment in the see also links... don't think you can rule it out just yet. 
I don't know...
 My friend Maxim Polyakov theorised that maybe particles could be made up of 5 quarks, instead of 2 or 3... and did the maths, predicted the pentaquark, designed an experiment, and showed that it existed... So... you have to do something like that...
You have an idea... does the maths check out? ie, does it fit within the standard model, or doesn't it... either way... you have to make some predictions... how they would behave, how you would create them... what they would look like... etc... then design an experiment to test the predictions... then run the experiment and look at your data...
Who knows... maybe particles with imaginary charge behave differently to normally charged particles in a microwave cavity thing... maybe they accelerate and don't recombine? I have no idea... the maths is beyond me... but maybe not for you. 
Don't forget the poll!!! %%% $$$ (text)
 Missing option: UrAnas  
Properly adjusted for time at work...
 (hopefully including time seeking work too, I guess) women earn almost identical amounts to men...
This is a stupid topic... equal opportunities, not equal outcomes... anything else is just buying into SJW bullshit...
There's no reason to expect as many male nurses as female, nor as many female engineers as male... or anything you can think of where there is a imbalance... as long as the job is filled by those with the best skills for that job, what the fuck does it matter what you have between your legs, or more, what your skin colour is, what religion you are... and for the given job, how good you are socially, how good you are technically, how much you can lift... why do we expect the genders to fall equally along those lines?
As long as opportunities are equal, it should be good... requiring equal outcomes is a distortion. 
It doesn't even matter... as long as she had the
 same opportunities as a man.
Now, the name on the paper thing seems like a kind of discrimination... but was the discrimination based on gender, on contribution, another factor or just luck... you can't take anecdotal evidence like that and extrapolate it entirely... only if you measured this could you find out if it was purely discrimination based on gender... in which case it would be a violation of opportunity.
Whether women earn as much as men is completely irrelevant... if they were cheaper than men for the same output... they would be hired more often than men by the market. 
old joke, well executed...
 Alright... I know... it's ocd or something...
but that's actually what we economists call rational utility...
just in case anyone thought otherwise.
Still... well done. 
Thanks for mentioning me again...
 I reply to anyone... but you're obsessed.
Thanks for sucking my k5 horsecock.
Toodles. 
It's a UK company, and over there they are all
 Hard Bodied Beach Gods compared to the average UKian.
Even the chick. 
You should be allowed to smoke in a park though $
 
You know ants are cooperating by default...
 One nest works as a single organism in many ways... As the nest is generally the level on which reproduction occurs.
Generally workers don't reproduce... their only function is to serve the nest... so it's kind of a cooperation... maybe like the way cells in our body 'cooperate'.
Being independent decision makers, individual ants can also be analysed using utility theory... clearly workers don't make money, and get little reward for the work they do, no extra food... and there's no reproductive benefits either... but evolution has shaped their utility functions such that they operate in the best interests of the nest, rather than themselves. 
No, ants often do that...
 You only noticed it after you saw the doco. There's a name for that effect.
but if one ant is making progress... the other ant doesn't need to help him... if there's a big juicy bug or something though... they'll work together for that. 
Yeah, I'm lying about ants...
 I've never seen ants cooperating to drag a spider or snail to their hole...
I'm just making it up to trick...
Good catch. 
The standford econ professor laughed
 at the whole concept of splitting monopolies up... He said it's what governments try and do, but the end result is always the same... they just reform after time.
Now, I'm a a bit fuzzy on this, but the solution seemed to be to per customer serviced subsidies given to the provider... I wasn't sure if this was to be paid only to the monopoly's competitors or to everyone... and it still seemed very costly (large DWLs)... 
Is there a case for maybe nationalising monopolies? Could the government provide an at cost service but left others free to compete? 
No, I really don't think so...
 I don't think anyone holds large reserves of cash, do they? I mean even cash equivilents you might call money...
If you had said that wealth attracts wealth... then we might have had a conversation on our hands...
Still... not all things become monopolies... it's not in the nature of the free market that monopolies shall arise... it's a certain set of conditions, such as barriers to entry, network effects, large upfront costs with small per customer costs...
I see these as two seperate problems. 
No, wealth is more than money and equivilents...
 MS Windows IP isn't money... optic fiber isn't money... facebook customers aren't money... these things are nothing like money... but are part of a companies wealth (which should be reflected in the stock market).
but anyway... I figure by now you mean wealth.
yeah... you can't point at monopolies as proof that markets tend to monopolies though... especially then point out all the special conditions that enable them.
technological leads also tend towards monopolies... patents are short term granted monopolies to spur innovation though, and I agree with that idea... so, I'm not sure where I stand on the discriminatory cross licencing situation...
Walmart seems to be a monopoly too? Is it really? It would be interesting to work out why it is...
and I don't think a profit maximising company should be forced to pay anything more than market wages (that doesn't exclude min wages, btw... some people just aren't employable)...
Anyway... while I don't beleive that the free market in general tends to monopolies... I do beleive that wealth tends towards wealth... which is why I say wealth tax and basic income... though income tax would have to be adjusted too... 
The distinction is important
 especially regarding the wealth tax / basic income debate because... you can print money, but you can't print wealth. 
You can print money by putting bigger numbers on
 it...
That's nothing at all like any form of IP... each work is individual and not fungible... I don't even know how many MOPIs there are in a Lord of the Rings... and the whole thing is just so different as to be an absurd argument.
You can't just add lines of random words and expect to have created wealth... but with money it's about that simple really.
Are you being obtuse, or do you really beleive they are the same thing?
As for widgets... and factories 'printing' them... that's because widgets have their own utility... print a billion widgets and society is about a billion widgets better off... but money has NO (or very little) utility EXCEPT for its value as money (medium of exchange, unit of account, store of value, standard of deffered payment), so printing billion dollar notes doesn't make the country a billion dollars richer each time... because money has utility as a whole system... the best you can do is redistribute who holds money (affecting debtors and lenders too).
You got to get the equivilence distinction out of your head if you want to think of this stuff seriously... wealth can be valued in terms of and traded for money... but in general, they are two very distinct concepts. 
$250 USD... I'll stop posting until May's stats
 are out...
There you go... obviously it has utility to me... but only cause I like to get concepts across... it's not about posting stats... surely you get that's a joke, right?
Okay... fine... but then he was all like... well you can print wealth too... obviously not really looking at how these are fundamentally different...
You know... yeah, I might sound a bit pedantic and such... but I want other people to understand this stuff for a few different reasons... but to sum up, it's a damn good argument against prohibition and I think it's time we implemented something like a wealth tax and basic income... and I think if you're going to advocate stuff like that, you better understand the fundamentals.
So, yeah, I did know he meant wealth... but I wanted it stated explicitly... and then we still see that there is a confusion there.
Fundamentally though, you can't print wealth... you might be able to create money out of thin air, but you can't create wealth out of thin air... it's something trane has fundamentally wrong with his approach.
Although budgets don't have to balance exactly, and governments can afford a large amount of debt... the fact is that at some points debts really do matter... so these things have to balance in the long run... if not through deliberate action, through harsh economic reality impossing itself.
Also, remember he was replying to a question I asked of Hacker Cracker... cause that dude is quite smart on econ if I recall correctly... and I wanted to know his thoughts on monopolies... to which LR came back with all this 'wealth' attracts 'wealth' stuff... which does happen, but I think is an orthogonal problem to monopolies, and I don't think monopolies are the natural end product of a free market... I just think they exist under certain conditions.
My appologies for trying to be precise in my understanding of the world. 
It was money...
 and the whole package is what gave it value...
so, not as simple as just printing money...
put it this way... the total USD value people sold the money for would have been roughly equal if he had printed $1 bills or $1B bills. 
Yeah... all that is true... as far as it goes...
 His 'money' probably had some sort of value purely as a curiosity....
I'm not saying making new currencies can't add value... you know how much I'm into bitcoin... that's a new currency that creates value... and has value... it is created value...
What I'm saying is, that for an existing currency, adding more of that currency has little effect on the overall valuation of the entire pool of that money... so, all the USD have a market cap (say, in terms of gold you could buy with it)... and if you multiplied all the USD by 10... or dumped 9 times that amount into the economy... the entire sum of all the money would still buy you only the same amount of gold...
If every USD was suddenly 10 USD... everyone would be exactly where they are now, but bread would cost $10 instead of $1... this should be almost trivially obvious to anyone.
So, BTC is new, and creates value, and has created wealth of sorts... but it's market cap in total isn't really altered all that much by how much of it exists... 
3600 Bitcoin a day are created...
 You can say whatever you like about how they are created... that the total number is fixed or whatever... but we are making 3600 BTC every day that didn't exist the day before...
And the entire BTC market isn't magically worth 3600 BTC more everyday... the entire market cap of BTC changes on the laws of supply and demand... so the value of creating these BTC really comes by slightly devaluing all other BTC (say 3600/12M roughly)...
You can print money, but you can't print wealth... it's not that hard to understand, surely? 
No, a free market cannot even have monopolies
 as defined... an otherwise free market without perfect competition is not a free market...
but a lot of people tend to think that monopolies are the natural end result of all capitalism... as if just one dude would end up owning literally everything on earth... and I don't think the market works that way... I think monopolies are the result of a confluence of a very specific set of circumstances, not a natural end state.
You see them crop up where there are high entry costs, low and decreasing per unit costs and network effects... so power, water, gas, telephone, internet... but not so much with wheat, barley and sugar...
wealth concentration is something very different... I think it occurs wherever there is rent seeking... but even with highly concentrated wealth, you can't extract the kind of money (utility) you can from a monopoly... as long as there is real competition, that's all you need to keep it in check... monopolies are just really awful compared to free markets... but there are solutions... it's just that solutions sound crazy to the layman... just as crazy as breaking them up sound to an economist.
I mean... lets say comcast is a monopoly... and the solution would be to continue to let them charge what they like, but the government will ALSO give them an extra $1000 a year for every customer they have... sounds crazy right? but if that turns out to have the lowest dead weight loss... then that is the right thing to do.
but these are technical questions, and I was hoping someone who knew more than me would help... for my own understanding...
Yeah... so if I'm going to spout on about a thing I should really try and understand it as best I can... so, I'm not just blindly running around saying free money for everyone, challenges, debts don't matter, give everyone a billion dollars and the world will be right... cause I'm pretty sure it don't work that way. 
Yeah... I think I discussed all of that above...
 The only thing is about IP laws... yes... they are temporary monopolies... I think copywrite and patent law are great things... but the whole point is temporary monopolies... 25 years is plenty of time to extract your value... at that point it should be public domain...
There should be all sorts of remixing of songs that were new when I was a child... all part of the public domain, free to build on top of... all for the advancement of the arts and sciences... but money (wealth lol) does what it does and circumvents these systems for its own ends. 
Yep... would be much better, right? $
 
Well... this is the basic income site... so this 
 is where I preach, learn and teach... (joke, but with truth).
HackerCracker is actually way smarter than me on economics... which is why I asked him the question... but if others are going to jump in with their sage advice... I might have to argue some more points along the way.
Now, you're right that monopolies are NOT failures of the FREE MARKET... they are failures of THE MARKET... and markets fail by not being FREE markets... get it? And monopolies are rather egregious failures of the market, in that we lose a lot of the normal social surplass that a free market generates.
So, economists don't really study FREE markets as such... they are mostly interested in market failures... like monopolies... We study free markets in as much as we PROVE they are the optimal form of market... then we study markets to see how they DIFFER from FREE markets (and they are always worse)... then we look at what can be done to a market to make bring it closer to a FREE a market... and we look at the resulting dead weight losses (loss of social surplass compared to a free market)...
Now, here's the problem with economics... laymen think they have a fucking clue about the topic... that's probably the biggest problem with the whole subject.... idiots will say, look how good breaking up these monopolies worked... we should do more of that... and the answer is just fucking wrong...
Sure, short term situation is better than having a monopoly... and there is no arguing that... but it requires messy, industry specific regulations, enforcement... and the tendency is for the monopoly to reform anyway... and those regulations are costly, and innovation is lost compared to a better solution and because there is more dead weight loss than the better solution.
And the better solution is to subsidise the industry as a whole!!! Which means we are going to have the government pay monopolists for their services beyond what they are already getting out of the market ---- which sounds fucked to your ears, right? ---- BUT we are also going to pay that to anyone capable of supplying the service... so it will increase competition... and this overcomes the effects of the monopoly as competition forms...
Now, this might sound counterintuitive to you... but that is the reason why we use mathematics, and not intuition... because sometimes the counterintuitive answer is the correct answer...
The result being, that if AT&T and it's competitors (such that they existed) had been subsidised on a per unit supplied basis --- you would have had all those benefits you mention and more... mathematically because that generates the most social surplass... There would have been no need for possibly innovation stifling regulation, and no fear of the monopoly reforming... and so on and so on.
Now, the main reason I started this thread... is that it still sounds counterintuitive to me... like it did at the time... but the maths seemed to check out... I just haven't studied it enough to change that to an intuition... so I am check with HC on that... okay? 
Dude,,, I'm not arguing /for/ monopolies...
 I'm acknowledging their existence, and looking what is the best thing to do in the presence of monopolies.
Claiming that 'monopolies are anticapitalist' is just meaningless in terms of free market neoclassical marginalist welfare economics... producing socially optimal outcomes and minimising DWLs are what we care about... not political soundbites and cheering.
Now, "all kinds" of subsidies are clearly wrong... and maybe that was the problem... specifically you pay 'per unit' subsidies only... say a subsidy for every customer connected, a subsidy for every phone call made... not... here's $30M lump sum to appease you... that kind of subsidy doesn't do shit!
Now, when you talk about granted monopolies, like you said... you advocated subsidies... and that's all good too... there are other solutions to that... but I'm not even talking about that case... can analyse it separately.
For all people cry about 'necessity', at some point it doesn't make sense to run one cable 500km to service one person, no matter what you say.
Just in general... it makes sense for the government to provide per unit subsidies.
Okay... check this... imagine we decided that MS really was a monopoly in the desktop space in 1990... The government could pay $20 to anyone who supplied an OS on a desktop for sale... Now... the effect from MS would have been to LOWER their prices and INCREASE the quantity supplied... and imagine RedHat was getting $20 for every one of their installs too!!!
Now, for you to say my maths is right, but the reality is wrong is to imply that the theory must be incorrect... that's a bold claim, really... 
I probably shouldn't have called you an idiot
 either... I'm just saying there's a huge problem with lack of economic knowledge... which means people instinctively do the wrong things... or let governments and media owners sell them the wrong 'solutions'... and it's cause everyone thinks it's obvious.
If the maths doesn't match reality... something must be going on... I simply think the wrong subsidies... or wrong amounts of the right subsidies...
If you claim the model is wrong... do you have any idea how hard that would be to demonstrate... to find the flaw in the model? I mean... I've been searching for quite some time... what's the magic trick?
I mean, mathematically explain AT&Ts behaviour GIVEN the levels and types of subsides they were given... do we see prices and quantities that match our models or not?
There has to be something more going on besides company costs and profits and consumer resources and choices, right?
Now, the last thing I can think of... were you all just being greedy? Expecting fiber to the house before telephones were even working well? Do just prefer the illusion of choice, coke vs pepsi, but at the (real and hidden) cost of a decade or more for fiber to reach you if what blaster says is true?
Viva la Free Market*!!
*:Not available in stores. 
Utility isn't just selfish self interest...
 So, it's not that... it's certainly not 'irrational' with respect to the free market definition of rationality... I really don't believe in anything beyond business costs and revenue, consumer resources and choice, and government intervention.
You'd have to pull a variable out of hyperspace to add something to the model here.
If the government nationalises a monopoly... that has certain outcomes too...
My assumption, at this stage, is that reality actually does match the models... but the optimum government interventions weren't taken... and furthermore... that while breaking the monopolies up may have been an improvement over the status quo, it was a sub-optimal one. 
Here's what I'm talking about...
 http://youtu.be/u47TdJzRAWk
It sounds crazy, but the maths checks out. You see, the fact is that this seems really counter-intuitive, but really is the correct answer...
Just a quick recap... the free market is the market with restrictions... the free market is optimal (in some sense of social utility surplass)... while the market is just everyone maximising their utility, no one cares about social surplas, only their own utility... so monopolies occur in the market, but we can bring about free market like outcomes by subsidising them... woah! dude!
I think there are a few caveats... that the government has to estimate a chunk of utility... that problem shows up in a lot of the fixes to the market... no one really has a solution to that, as far as I can tell... what we do know is that a good guess is way better than nothing. 
Also would have to really look at the DWL
 of this solution... cause the subsidy is effective DWL... and also where the social surplus falls (to the consumer or the monopoly)... but that's not as important...
This just means you get the optimal social output... the same price and quantity that a free market would produce... and I'm still not 100% sure that's equal to the minimum DWL, but it might be... and that subsidy still has to come from somewhere... a tax on something else... 
So, monopolies are never as efficient as free markets... but sometimes are the best a market can do. It doesn't make sense to run a dozen different parallel water pipes through a town.
Also, looking at it now, I see it has nothing to do with competition... but you subsidise those as well...
This is very different to my idea above of just subsidising the competition... which probably wouldn't work, despite the intuitive appeal. 
Seriously dude...
 I got a better grasp on this subject than you do... so it looks like the educating I have to do is educating you.
Of course all wealth has a market value... You can of course sell all of those things (well, facebook customers was an odd one) for money... but that's not what I was saying.
Where you're wrong is that money is something more than just wealth, it is a:
 - medium of exchange
 - a unit of account
 - a store of value, and
 - often (but not always) a standard method of deferred payment
You can't just trade meters of optic fiber... or lines of Windows IP...
So, while most forms of wealth have a market value for an equivilent in say dollars... they really aren't money at all. 
No, wealth is the right term...
 Because wealth goes beyond assets... in economics, wealth goes beyond things that an accountant would consider... though in laymans terms, you might say something is an asset that wasn't strictly one... say, having good friends.
Though assets are a good example of wealth... and you're otherwise correct, generally speaking. 
Post office is a good example of what I'm talking
 about...
Though not sure why the post office would be a monopoly... though I think of it more as an essential service or critical infrastructure... a free market approach wouldn't get letters to places that are uneconomical to deliver too... but the value of having a system (in terms of positive externalities) makes it worth while for the government to provide. 
If it is its own reward... that means utility $
 
Because mathematical functions only return a
 single value...
Trane is just fucking retarded... this is so fucking stupid it makes my head hurt but laugh at the same time.
So, the sqrt function is defined as only returning the principle or positive root...
Now, we usually write y = +/-sqrt(x) in math equations... but only if we know the result could be positive or negative... sometimes it simply can't be negative... but there you go... and it really is a shorthand for...
y = sqrt(x), OR
y = -sqrt(x)...
It's a shorthand for saying there are two possible values of y...
but Trane... being a fucking retard in literally everything... has written AND... that doesn't make any fucking sense even from a logical point of view... y = 2 AND y = -2 is fucking stupid... but y = 2 OR y = -2 is clearly okay... whatsmore is that using OR would make the LOGIC work... rather than just pretending maths doesn't exist and doing regexp string substitutions.
ie... 
y = plusmorminus(sqrt(4)), gives
y = 2 OR -2
y == -2, becomes
(2 OR -2) == -2
(2 == -2 OR -2 == -2)
(FALSE OR TRUE)
TRUE
Do it his way with AND and you get
y = 2 AND -2
y == -2
(2 AND -2) == -2
(2 == -2 AND -2 == -2)
(FALSE AND TRUE)
FALSE
So, the magic of regexps is that you can substitute anything you like at anytime... just as I can write 2+2=5, but that doesn't make it so.
I'll bet he puts up the same thing in another day or two... completely forgetting all of this... fucking troll or retard? 
The reason we use utility... along with the
 rest of the free market model is that it says (mathematically) that we should be able to do whatever we want, as long as we aren't harming anyone else.
I can't beleive you (or anyone with half a brain, okay maybe not you) would want to argue against this result.
Now, when you COMPLETELY READ MILL... and have finished his treaty on Utilitarianism AND On Liberty... you will see that he is saying that the ascetic does not do anything for SOCIETY... His utility TO OTHERS is basically Nil.
But, it must have utility to the ascetic, otherwise he wouldn't do it... You will have to finish On Liberty to see that he implies this... No man knows what is best for a man but himself.
If you read the quotes you quoted earlier, it says: "The utilitarian morality does recognise in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others...". Get it? IT DOES FUCKING RECOGNISE... IE, it EXPLAINS IT... not... Yeah it happens, but it has nothing to do with this theory, we can't understand this type of behaviour but we don't like it... it says it fucking does recognise.
Now, why the fuck you would want to bash on Mill is beyond me... On Liberty and The Free Market are about the ONLY reasons I can see to Legalise Crack, Meth and Heroin...
The current state of affairs is ANTI-free market... Because drugged up workers aren't efficient workers... they are people (people who use the wrong drugs) who might question the status quo and rock the boat... Using drugs benefits no one but the drug user!!!
And you know what? In a Free Market, or under Mill's theory of Utility... that's fucking fine! If it benefits no one but the one chosing... it benefits society!!! As long as you aren't harming others... Cause it's up to the individual what his utility is... The prohibitionists have no right to save you from yourself... They can warn you... but they have no right to stop you.*
But ONLY under utility theory do we have a good philisophical basis for this.
To argue otherwise... well... you'd probably have to come up with a philosophy that no one agrees with... something stupid... something like trying to define sqrt(4) == -2... which is wrong... by definition... sorry that you hate definitions... but you should have done work on the plus OR minus operator instead!
*: THIS IS SO FUCKING CLEAR IN MILL YOU WOULD HAVE TO EITHER BE BRAIN DAMAGED OR COMMENTING ON IT WITHOUT COMPLETING IT FIRST TO MISUNDERSTAND IT. 
Well... Mill would thank you for your opinion...
 take it under consideration, and then tell you to kindly go mind your own business.
Me too... except... it would be hard to cut down on something I haven't used in a decade. 
I FUCKING LOVE COCAINE!!!!!!111!!1!11!ONE!!!!
 I know...
But taken seriously by who? I don't think anyone here is not reading my comments because of my style.
I like this style of writing too... I mean, I've written so many hundreds of pages of technical documents in my time... so dry, proper sentences... no elipses... this is for fun... and I kind of like the yelling / ranting tone... I think I caught it a bit off of CTS... It's a good philosophy for random online forums.
It's a good tone for when you just can't get through to some fucking retard... and you're also conveying your frustration at that fact.
Though I notice people on Reddit are more shocked by it... like they think I really am some uptight, angry, frustrated fuck... when really I just like writing like that for effect... I also think it's kind of funny in it's own way too... of course the mods step in too, wanting to make the place as 'friendly', ie banal, as possible.
Besides stats prove tdillo swears more than I do... though I know you mean more than just that. 
I don't really remember talking too much about
 macro...
But I think to deny micro is fucking insane...
Yet, I am SO hoping for a decent argument against it that isn't based in ignorance... but maybe fractures somewhere with it.
So... I mean... let's say you were arguing that 2+2=4 to a crowd of morons that just stubornly refuse to get that... how would you come across?
So, the real problem is, how do you tell fact from fiction? I dunno... study? Do you trust the economics department or the marketing department more? Style over content to these morons then... so, maybe 2+2=5, could we agree though that it's maybe a bit smaller, like 4.9 or something... I dunno? plusorminus 0.9 perhaps? 
Jesus Christ Man... That's Insane
 Why are you corrupting the holy sqrt function with this discusting barbarity?
what is 4*sqrt(4) to be?
Can you do my examples above? With a plusorminus and a plusandminus? Is it that capable? 
As long as you know you're program is wrong...
 It's a pretty cool example.
Difference is Trane doesn't know he's wrong... he's trying to prove -2 == 2 remember...
would be cool if you can do sqrt, plusorminus and plusandminus... 
if or is +, then and is *? $
 
I think I see what you're doing now...
 It's not an or, and it's not an and... it's more like a list you can do aggregates on... so your equal function has returned that the statement is 50% true across your all cases... normal case would be either 0% or 100%, but if one in five matched, it would be 20% true...
That's fine... I suppose... it is what it is...
Where the formal logic approach would return either 100% or 0% true across all cases... depending on whether you were doing an or (boolean addition) or an and (boolean multiplication).
It's easy of course to turn your value into a boolean and/or function... "and" is true if the truth value is 100% else false, while "or" is false if the truth value is 0% else true. 
Yeah.... so it's a (normalised) weighted set
 I figured you could do that too...
I could see that being useful to something like baysian networks... 
Given you have an infinite label space...
 very sparse vectors.
I added the 'normalised' in brackets... cause it seems you automatically normalise results. 
As cool as sparse matrices are...
 You know they're already built into scipy, right?
Though labelled vectors (and matrices) are interesting...
Any thought on the ordering of the replies-to matrix yet? 
Yeah... it's a cute language... I don't know much
 in terms of your domain...
Though I notice that languages either try to be turing complete (like anything from proceedural, functional or declarative)... or provably not turing complete (mostly data definition languages, like yaml or json)... I'm not sure where you fit on this line.
If you do a lot of vector and matrix operations, numpy and scipy might be interesting to you.
Well... I guess you have a way to define operators in python too... so, you could always write a program to find the optimal ordering? 
Well... if the user can import their own python
 functions then it's turing complete because python is turing complete... even though the operators you've added so far might not enable turing complete calculations.
The reason it is usually important to make sure your language is not turing complete is so you can make proofs about it, like knowing that reading a data file will complete. If it's turing complete, you can't prove that... it could loop forever. 
Well... is that a problem you need a full turing
 language for or not?
I don't think query languages are TC in general, are they? I'm not 100% sure...
Though they may chew through a ridiculous amount of resources, they always complete, don't they? I'm thinking SQL, for example.
Then again, if you can't solve the reply-to ordering problem in your language, you have to ask yourself if it's the type of problem you want your langauge to solve, or do you explicitly drop down to imported functions?
If you can't do branching, recursion, or iteration, you don't have a TC language.
Though, if people can import functions, they will almost certainly find a way to extend your language to be TC anyway. 
Let Gay People be Gay...
 It doesn't affect anyone else... there's no negative externalities...
Why is everyone so concerned with the concerns of other people that don't concern them?
This is a really bad human instinct we have to learn to get over.
This is the core of the free market. 
Your gay marriage is ruining the sanctity of my
 fourth marriage. 
Your code is no better in any way...
 You have to come up with all the alternative spellings BEFORE your program will recognise them... EXACTLY the same as mumble's code... If he added bilchcoin to his list of words, it would find that too.
I mean, you (and I mean specifically you, cause you're stupid) can't write a program to find alternatives to bitcoin automatically... you could tell it bilchcoin is also bitcoin, yes... but it would fail completely to recognise $hitcoin as a synonym...
For that, you would need a higher level of AI than you'll ever be capable of writing. Remove the log from thyne own eyes... 
Why don't you go ahead and do that...
 while mumble writes a terse and useful little language that actually gets the job done today.
You know... free market... you get to do what you want to do... and mumble gets to do what mumble wants to do.
The main difference between the two approaches, of course, is that his approach is working right now, returning results, and making people happy (providing utility). 
My Bitcoin will be worth something? $
 
Governments will keep infrastructure running...
 More or less no matter what...
My house will still likely be my house... for example...
I'm not anticipating the apocolypse... just an economic crash that will leave many people unemployed and in financial ruin. 
What's wrong with a Free Market?
 Yeah, sure... post a diary if you like...
Of course, the question is specifically what is wrong with FREE MARKETS... not the US financial system, or US capitalism, or US markets in general...
It's just that you're teh kind of idiot that doesn't know what a Free Market is, and equates it with whatever fox news tells you it is... then attacks something that isn't a free market as being the problem with free markets...
Like if I asked what is wrong with Socialism, you might answer that Stalin's Gulags were inhumane... and you'd be right they were inhumane... but wtf does that have to do with Socialism?
But give it a go... I'll let you know if you're that type of an idiot... I'll just wait for you to prove it first. 
How come I out-mania MDC?
 I don't think I mention that word that often. 
I think you need another level here...
 Like a new module that imports both of these and adds your new function or class.
You almost certainly need a new module, one way or the other... your other option is to move the required function or classes to another module and import that into these two...
Either way, new module, almost definitely.
PS: Have you put any thought into the matrix ordering, to get the numbers to go along the diagonals? I can't remember the formal name for this. 
Even if they aren't python modules...
 and are modules in your language...
The problem is generally the same with circular dependencies... create a new module that the two circular modules import instead.
I got no idea about how your language rules work with modules importing modules though... that's your problem.
The matrix thing I mentioned here: https://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2015/4/24/7393/79913/36#36
It's probably not exactly like I described... but something very similar. 
https and autoformat hey
 http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2015/4/24/7393/79913/36#36 
Get over it mumble...
 I can't even remember your real name... Garry was it?
You haven't said anything that controversial here, have you?
You seem like a nice guy all around... You're name's already on the internet... they just don't you're also mumble...
It is pretty cool by all accounts, like you could show us the table generation scripts...
Oh dude... I got such a great idea... can you urlize them? So, you can have a link with an encoded script that outputs a table on demand?
Anyway, personally I think you could go public with little repercussions... I don't think I'd say the same for me. 
This doesn't change April's standings...
 Total Word Count wasn't officially part of that months stats...
But I know there might be work to do for next month...
W h a t c o u n t s a s w o r d s h e r e w i t h y o u r n e w s c r i p t s a n y w a y ? ? ? I ' m j u s t a s k i n g , f o r a f r i e n d . . . Y o u k n o w ?
W h a t c o u n t s a s w o r d s h e r e w i t h y o u r n e w s c r i p t s a n y w a y ? ? ? I ' m j u s t a s k i n g , f o r a f r i e n d . . . Y o u k n o w ?
W h a t c o u n t s a s w o r d s h e r e w i t h y o u r n e w s c r i p t s a n y w a y ? ? ? I ' m j u s t a s k i n g , f o r a f r i e n d . . . Y o u k n o w ?
W h a t c o u n t s a s w o r d s h e r e w i t h y o u r n e w s c r i p t s a n y w a y ? ? ? I ' m j u s t a s k i n g , f o r a f r i e n d . . . Y o u k n o w ? 
T h a t ' s  g o o d  t o  k n o w . . .
 I should back up a lot more of my arguments with reference to other works... So I should add a lot more quotes, too:
Quotation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the Wikipedia policy on quoting, see Wikipedia's Manual of Style. For the Wikipedia essay, see Wikipedia:Quotations.
This article is about quoting text. For information about the punctuation mark, see Quotation mark. For the non-English usage, see Quotation mark, non-English usage. For market data relating to a security or commodity, see Financial quote. For the price of a service, see Sales quote.
A quotation is the repetition of one expression as part of another one, particularly when the quoted expression is well-known or explicitly attributed by citation to its original source, and it is indicated by (punctuated with) quotation marks.
A quotation can also refer to the repeated use of units of any other form of expression, especially parts of artistic works: elements of a painting, scenes from a movie or sections from a musical composition.
Contents [hide] 
1 Misquotations
2 Reasons for using quotations
3 Common quotation sources
4 Quotations and the Internet
5 United Kingdom copyright law
6 See also
7 References
Misquotations[edit]
Many quotations are routinely incorrect or attributed to the wrong authors, and quotations from obscure or unknown writers are often attributed to far more famous writers. Examples of this are Winston Churchill, to whom many political quotations of uncertain origin are attributed, and Oscar Wilde, to whom anonymous humorous quotations are sometimes attributed.[1]
Deliberate misquotation is also common, though this often goes unnoticed, usually because the misquotation is better known or because the misquotation better fits a situation. For example, the Star Trek catchphrase "Beam me up, Scotty" did not appear in that form in the original series--likewise, the famous Dirty Harry quotation "Are you feeling lucky, punk?" is a rewording of the original dialogue: "You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?" Humphrey Bogart's character Rick in Casablanca never said "Play it again, Sam." The actual expression is "Play it, Sam." Darth Vader in Star Wars IV (for Blu-ray) says "No, I am your father" which George Lucas re-worded from the original expression "Luke, I am your father" from the original version of the film.
Reasons for using quotations[edit]
Quotations are used for a variety of reasons: to illuminate the meaning or to support the arguments of the work in which it is being quoted, to provide direct information about the work being quoted (whether in order to discuss it, positively or negatively), to pay homage to the original work or author, to make the user of the quotation seem well-read, and/or to comply with copyright law. Quotations are also commonly printed as a means of inspiration and to invoke philosophical thoughts from the reader.
Common quotation sources[edit]
Famous quotations are frequently collected in books that are sometimes called quotation dictionaries or treasuries. Of these, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations, The Yale Book of Quotations and The MacMillan Book of Proverbs, Maxims, and Famous Phrases are considered among the most reliable and comprehensive sources. Diaries and calendars often include quotations for entertainment or inspirational purposes, and small, dedicated sections in newspapers and weekly magazines--with recent quotations by leading personalities on current topics--have also become commonplace.
Quotations and the Internet[edit]
Chiefly a text medium in the beginning, the World Wide Web gave rise to any number of personal quotation collections that continue to flourish, even though very few of them seem to facilitate accurate information or correct citation. On June 27, 2003, a sister project of the Wikimedia Foundation called Wikiquote was created as a free online encyclopedia of quotations in every language and it is now the biggest single quotation collection in the world.[citation needed]
The increase of written means of informal communication brought about by the Internet has produced the practice of using quotations as personal flags, as in one's own signature block. This is most commonly seen in email messages and Usenet posts, while it is almost never seen in blog posts. Quotations are also popular as a user's personal message, a line under the user's nickname in some Instant Messaging clients (and here they often go uncited). In all these cases, quotations are usually included to give a glimpse of the user's personality, to make a statement of their beliefs, or to spread views and ideas.
The sheer bulk of online quotations, combined with more efficient search engines, has effectively made the Internet the world's quotation storehouse, encompassing an unprecedented number of easily obtainable quotations. Though matters of accuracy still remain, features such as Amazon.com's Search Inside the Book and Google Book Search may serve to alleviate such concerns.
United Kingdom copyright law[edit]
Section 30(1) of the United Kingdom Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (apparently in transposition of Article 5(3)(d) of the EU Copyright Directive on quotations) allows fair dealing with a copyrighted work for the purpose of criticism or review, provided that it is accompanied by sufficient acknowledgement.
 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation 
People often ask what I do on K5, I say one word
 WINNING. 
When you've met all the deliverables $
 
So, we can now get a stat
 of how many comments generated per diary... like averaged over how many a diaries a person makes...
So, you'd see I get 40 comments per diary on average...
And mirko gets 1 pity comment, on average? 
You should do total words published
 that's probably the one true metric! 
Here's something that will get you thinking...
 I was going to say that you should put procrasti first in any list that is unordered... especially if I'm the one throwing down perfectly good money to contribute to this... and being the overall winner of k5.
BUT... look, you've got a sparse matrix... and there's something you can do with such a matrix, that is kind of interesting...
Make the interesting numbers lay along the diagonal as much as possible... or rather, find an ordering that does so.
So, you could weight each entry in the matrix by a multiplier, that is highest at the top left, and decreases downwards and outwards... but is still highest along the diagonal... do a elementwise multiplication, sum the lot and then find the ordering that maximises (or minimises the negative of) that sum.
What you'll get, in one dimension... is a kind of clustering, where those nearby each other in the ordering are those that talk mostly to each other... 
My dear ugly, fat, age shaming, slut,
 And how old are you exactly my dear?
Didn't think so.
And you proved no point, unfortunately, except that you can't handle the mean streets of K5, and that you go off crying to the patriarchy if anyone dare utter the B word around t you. 
You know you can create a function that takes a 
 string and operates on it... why do you want to alter the string class?
I guess you got two options... extend the string class with your own class with the added method...
Or define a standalone class, and assign it as a method to the string objects you want to operate on...
But I'd probably just have a string utility function that I called seperately... it doesn't add much in the way of encapsulation to extend the basic class... so a standalone function would do, no? 
Fuck the drug abusing women...
 What the fuck are you doing for them? Nothing... Do you do charity, do you go and meet with them? I spend a LOT of time in the company of poor homeless drug addicted girls... and they all seem to love me anyway.
Actually, that girl is fully aware of her photo's being published... She knows what I write about her and others here...
If you can use your feminist theory to explain why she spent an hour sucking my cock... I'd love to hear it.
I got another girl here right now... Fresh out of nine months jail... telling me she loves me... I don't feel that strongly towards her... but I'll give her a place to crash for a few days and avoid the streets a bit longer... why not?
I must be a real asshole to get those kind of responses.
And what's your obsession with age? You think my words are wise beyond my years? You obsessed with slightly older men than yourself? Or you just getting rattled over your own age and projecting onto others as usual?
I know the feminist type... you're too much of coward to use words in your defence... instead you appeal to men for help (what a nice fellow that tdillo is, hey?).
Weak. 
Hey... I'll put you in contact with her...
 actually... If you'd like.
How does that sit with you, miss dirty stopout?
You going to tell her something she doesn't know? Are you going to 'save' her?
Maybe the pics weren't as good as the ones she used to advertise, but they were alright, I doubt they hurt her.
Do, you know her name? No... you don't.
You're literally making someone a victim of a situation they are not a victim in... and femenists thrive on victimhood... but victimhood relies on weakness... you are weak... or worse, you feign it for your own benefit... even better, you are the victim of her actions.
You do understand, that the second set of photo's I took of her... with her knowledge that they would be posted here... okay?
I swear guys, I was this close making a deepthroat porno... 
and even worse than be a victim of her actions...
 would be that you want to convince her and others that they are victims too. 
And seriously...
 could you be gargling my cock more hungrily? going back through my comment histories and diaries... omg...
Seriously, I'm so fucking hard right now... It's fucking orgasmic to know I got such a devoted little follower. 
That's what your mum said $
 
Free Market Utility is the same as Mill's Utility
 A free market that allows negative externalities, theft, fraud, deception, etc... isn't a free market. You claiming otherwise goes directly against the four assumptions of free markets.
Mill appeals to the greatest utility to everyone by allowing anyone do whatever they want unless it harms another.
The Free Market appeals to the greatest utility to everyone by allowing anyone to do whatever they want unless it harms another.
Can you spot the difference? 
You see... if you had actually studied...
 what the free market is, versus, what the market is... instead of closing your eyes and shouting it down out of instinct... you would find that I, and economic theory, agree with your statements completely... the free market needs regulation...
Without regulation, we could have slavery, but that wouldn't be a free market, because slavery means someone is a party to a transaction against their free will... so laws are required to enforce this.
And the same with Mill's utility... He's appealing to people's good nature... and murder is certainly within some people's utility, but it infringes on other people's against their FREE WILL (read On Liberty, and see why I emphasise these words).
They are exactly the same thing... you should be free to do as you wish... EXCEPT FOR the FOUR ASSUMPTIONS of the free market... which means REGULATION is a necessity in FREE MARKETS and I have never argued otherwise. 
Well... obviously you would have an easier time 
 understanding this stuff if you had studied it... you have a model in your head of what the free market is... but you've gotten that from vested interests from television 'economists', 'bankers' and 'businessmen'. You've recognised that they are lying to you for their own selfish reasons... but you've bought in on their definition of 'free market'... which, surprise, surprise, isn't the one taught by economists.
To say regulations infringe on free markets is a fucking joke, because economists study how markets fail all the fucking time... and they fail by not being FREE markets... so the economists advocate regulation that makes MARKETS into FREE markets.
And if you had a decent understanding of what I mean by free markets, the one taught in intro to micro econ... you would see that all your hedges or alternatives are SUBSETS of free markets... your ideas are FREE markets, but FREE markets are more than just your ideas.
And the simplest way to explain it to a wilful layman... is that in a free market, you can do what you want IF you aren't HARMING ANYONE, or LYING, or CHEATING, or HIDING RELAVENT INFORMATION, or STEALING, or USING VIOLENCE or THREAT of VIOLENCE... or POLLUTING or CAUSING A DISTURBANCE... or by PRICE FIXING, COLLUDING, or running MONOPOLIES...
You know... things that I'm sure even you consider to be REASONABLE... and that behaviour of businesses that actually piss you off, is almost always because they are doing one of these things... ie, operating OUTSIDE of the FREE MARKET. 
Everything is a market (well, not quite, but)...
 It doesn't require the quid pro quo part... giving something away is definitely a market activity... also a free market activity... stealing is also market activity... though it is not free market activity.
Trade is the market activity of exchange... and charging zero is still quid pro quo... in the terms that the person who receives the good still has to choose it.
And you're reading Mill wrong... he doesn't acknowledge motivations or behaviours outside of utility... you still thinking of utility in terms of obvious benefit... like dollars.
The ascetic is following his utility... So is my little model agent that only takes water and a ration and gives away his left overs.
The problem Mill is trying to show you, is similar to the agents I write about below... people that say the 'best' or true 'good' in society is the one that takes the least and gives the most, and we should all be like this... Mill says No... that's not 'good', utility is the actual 'good'... be an ascetic IF YOU LIKE... even go so far as to ADVOCATE that lifestyle, if you like... but don't FORCE people to be ascetics... that goes against utility... and would be a harm. 
What about a gift market?
 Where's the buyers and sellers there?
Investopedia isn't so much economics as business... it's definitions are more business definitions.
Look... if it makes an ascetic happy to be an ascetic, Mill would never advocate stopping him... that IS his utility... it would decrease the greatest happiness... Some people are even happy to see ascetics... so there's that... he shouldn't be forced to be a clown to make others happy.
You haven't completed reading On Liberty if you think Mill would advocate the doctor killing. 
It is wasted, in the sense it's no good to anyone
 There's no argument there... unless it is what the ascetic chooses to do... Mill would never ban someone from being an ascetic... because it is in their own utility... but there's no real point to it...
That's what he is saying.
Dude... don't read the first paragraph and try and tell me what his works are about. 
At the end of the day, utility theory says that 
 whatever an agent does, was what the agent considered to have the highest acheivable utility at the time...
That applies to ANY DECISION MAKING AGENT! And you can model any decision making process with utility.
What Mill's argues is that we are free-est when are able to persue our own utility for whatever reason... as long as we don't harm others.
So, utility is neither good or bad in itself... If it's in my utility to murder my new friend so I can steal his wallet... then that is what I would do... but that is clearly not good... and the question we ask is why is that not good... and from a pure utilitarian point of view, is because it goes against the utility of my murdered friend... Assuming, of course, that being murdered wasn't his desire or request.
There is nothing outside of utility actually... because it is the basis for all action... and so, by maximising our freedom of action, we maximise everyone's utility.
If you can't see the utility in feeding a homeless person, or cleaning a park, or secretely donating to the orphans home... that is not a problem with utility, it is a problem with your understanding of what utility is. It's not about money, it's not about being selfish, it's not about seeing other people suffer... it's simply doing what we most want to do. 
No, agent's don't NEED utility to operate...
 You can make decisions based on any process you like... Economists don't beleive people THINK in terms of utility at all...
It's just that every decision making agent CAN be modelled as a utility maximiser.
It's an equivelence... one that becomes useful, because maximising utility means maximising freedom of choice... it maximises the OPTIONS open to a decision making agent... it maximises what they can DO. In accordance to THEIR OWN decision making process... what they MOST want to do, is the things we should let them do... as long as it harms no others!
And Mill does exactly the same thing... but Mill didn't have the mathematical description of utility that became available with decision making theory... he didn't even really have a good theory of utility like modern neo-classical marginalist welfare economists do today either...
Mill IS the NATURAL LANGUAGE EXPRESSION of the exact same utility theory used by economists. Down ot the fact that whilst human behaviour isn't a matter of maximising utility... it is EQUIVILENT to it. 
Every decision making agent can be modelled as...
 Is MATHEMATICALLY defined... 
> is just gossip.
I stopped reading right there...
You may as well say, You can prove a negative... saying otherwise is just gossip.
I can't continue going past such drivel.
You would claim that the programs you write can do more than a Turing machine... saying otherwise is just gossip.
You can go fuck yourself if you think I'm going to read past absolute bullshit idiocy like that... 
Yeah... I did have a great example showing why the model is useful... but seriously, fuck you. If mathematics is no good here... I'm wasting my time completely. 
Your actions at a given point in time are well
 defined...
You can't both smoke crack and not smoke crack at the same time... So, the x axis is the action, and the y axis is the utility... for a given action, there is a utility... and it's maximum at the action you took... there is no multiple return value problem... it's a normal mathematical function.
You wan't its usefulness... I'll express it in a theoretical mini-world...
Let's imagine a world with a bunch of agents... they need some things to live, and use other things just for enjoyment... let's, for argument sake, assume there's a big machine that produces what they want... and I know you'r going to hate this part, but lets limit what the machine can produce... so the agents are limited to say 3 actions per day... but they have to drink a unit each day, and eat something each day, but are otherwise free to do what they want.
Let's define some goods they can get from the producing machine: ['water', 'ration', 'burger', 'sodapop', 'crack cocaine']... furthermore, they have two actions they can perform on other agents: ['give', 'take']... where give gives another agent an item, and take removes an item from another agent... the other agent has no say in that... they're either given an item, or they have it taken from them.
We can make other rules... to have the agents die from old age, thirst, starvation, crack overdose... and they also reproduce... they might reproduce a litle faster if they are happy... and say burgers, sodapop and crack make them happy... or fat... maybe they get addicted to crack... whatever... it doesn't matter... for now, we can ignore all these rules... but you can imagine a world where they exist too.
Now, you get to build the agents with whatever decision making process you like... you can use natural langauge... complicated rules based on thrist, hunger and happiness... genetic algorithms maybe... it doesn't matter an ounce what their actual decision making process is...
Now... let's look at some different behaviours and analyse them... and look at how different people might be like these agents... and then maybe we can decide some 'laws' governing this society, and why we would ban certain behaviours, or encourage others.
Let's start with the selfless, health focussed agent... let's say, a health focused agent choses water and a ration everyday... and either an extra water or ration that he gives away that he doesn't need, seems a pretty healthy lifestyle... he doesn't get too fat... and he's helping society out too.
Then maybe a middle ground agent... he likes to have a ration, a burger, and water... he doesn't give or take from anyone.
Maybe a slightly less healthy agent... usually choses two burgers and a sodapop... also doesn't give or take from anyone.
Then maybe a hedonist agent... choses a burger, a sodapop, and crack cocaine... doesn't give or take from anyone.
A junkie theif agent... choses 3 crack cocaines a day, and if he needs food or water, attempts to take them from other agents... sometimes an agent gives him a ration or water, but he'll just take whenever he needs from some other agent.
Now, we can look at the laws of our society... and, let's say you have CTS or a prohibitionist mindset... Maybe you're like the selfless health nut... you take only water and ration and often give away some of that as well... Then you look at the set of items and various behaviours, and say... hmmm... we need water and food to survive... but burgers and sodapop can do that too... though, they're a little unhealthy, but not that unhealthy... but crack cocaine serves no purpose at all... it just makes agents high without feeding them and so many junkies just get crack cocaine... and they start stealing from other agents for food and water... crack cocaine is the problem... let's ban it.
Do, you see, that's how people think... Water and rations are good enough for me... hell, I even enjoy a good burger now and again, I'm no puritan, but who the hell needs crack?
But now, let's look at it from a utility point of view...
Despite having other decision processes... we can map an EQUIVILENT (it would always make the same decision) decision process onto them (without changing their actual decision process)... Such that whatever an agent chose to do, it would have the highest utility in our decision making process...
So, you can see... as soon as you ban crack... you MUST HAVE decreased the UTILITY gained by the agents that would have chosen it... Because that was their maximum utiilty when they chose it... but now they're stuck with something they wouldn't have chosen if they had the option... so their utility must now be lower than it was previously.
Okay... so, utility theory says you shouldn't ban crack... we can't ban crack without lowering gross utility in our society, but what about the actions, give and take?
When an agent gives something to another agent, that agent gets an unchosen benefit... it gets an item it may or may not want, but it doesn't hurt the agent to get the item, worst case scenario, they can give it away... the receiving agent doesn't lose utility... there's no harm in giving.
But if an agent takes something from another agent, the other agent gets a loss it didn't chose... the other agent loses utility against it's own will... an agent has now harmed another agent... there is a loss of utility (at least definitely from a pareto perspective... an agent has been made worse off against his will).
So, from a utilitarian point of view... studying this mini-world example, we can see, that if we want to maximise the agent's utility overall... we ONLY ban the 'take' action... we don't allow agents to take from others without consent... That's the only thing that decreases other agents utility.
Whereas, there will always be puritans, holier than thous, those who know best, goodie two shoes types, and more generally, those who don't see why others would enjoy something they do not, who would ban crack from society, possibly even soda and burgers... from a utility point of view, the state should limit itself to only banning agent's from taking from one another... it is the only thing that can decrease utility... everything else MUST increase it... therefore everything else must be allowed.
THAT'S WHY WE STUDY UTILITY... This is why it is useful. 
Also, you are wrong about the if/else returning
 more than one value...
Think in terms of a functional programming language with no side effects... it doesn't matter if/else or anything you inside a function in such a language... for a given input, it ALWAYS returns the same output...
This is true for turing machines in general... it's just that often we allow 'inputs' from outside of the function parameters... say data in a network buffer, or even a randomness pool... it's properly part of the input space... and turing machines are deterministic... so you can't get around it with if/else or anything else, for that matter, that can run on a turing machine.
Utility comes from there... if at any point in time you have to make a decision, amongst a set of mutally exclusive options... and you have a preference for some options more than others... so you have an ordered set of options... then you can map numbers onto them, such that the more prefered an option is, the higher the utility... and you chose the one with the highest utility is equivilent to taking the option you most prefered.
You take that option away, you will chose the next most prefered item, but that must have a lower utility for you than the option than the one you really wanted.
There is no sqrt(x) problem here. 
But you're an idiot and not doing maths $
 
No... math does not work that way either...
 sqrt(4) == -2.0 is FALSE in MATHEMATICS.
That's all there is to it.
+/- function might work a bit differently... 
[sic]
 http://grammarist.com/spelling/model/
http://grammarist.com/spelling/maximise-or-maximize/ 
The model recognises people do things that appear
 to be a sacrifice...
Why?
Because it has utility to them...
He's just saying that sacrifice itself isn't a good...
You know, in contrast to like how others, especially religious leaders or politicians, might say we should sacrifice for our common good...
Utility theory explains why people would do that... because it's in their utility... but it says that self sacrifice itself isn't a good that we should aspire to.
I've read Mill like 5 times or more over the last two decades... maybe you should FINISH it first before trying to preach to me what it is saying. 
I don't think Mill advocates killing the one to
 save five...
It would be perfectly reasonable if we made assumptions about utility, like that all lives were of equal utility... then yes, kill the one to save the many and all that... good.
When you get into On Liberty, you will see the way he says that know man knows what is best for himself but himself, to show that you can't do that... in modern economic terms, that means you can't compare utilities.
The one they are killing, could be the happiest person in the world, and the five saved always have been and would always be miserable... killing the happiest guy doesn't help with your end goal at all. 
no man knows what is best for himself but himself
 That was just an embarrising typo. 
Come back to me when you've finished On Liberty...
 You'd be like you're preaching 1984 as a good model for society because everyone is happy and they're made to exercise well and everyone's pleased with the government and the telescreenes aer cool and everything because you're only half way through the fucking book.
And yes... the same utility Mill says, and the same utility in Free Market economics resulint in what helps the greatest number be happy... they're the same fucking thing. 
Free market is prescriptive too...
 It isn't saying do what you want... I've said that before... it doesnn't describe how people actually act either... it advocates certain actions...
Markets are the reality, you want descriptive models of these... and Free markets are particularly good markets... so economists proscribe them.
I think you can extend the idea you have of markets to include anything (any transaction) that results in a change of utilities (for one or more agents)... that's how you have externalities, say with noise or air pollution... not a free market, but a market nonetheless.
You can see then, that gift markets are a subset of free markets,.. assuming you're gifting goods and not toxic waste. 
Actually, gift markets are inneficient compared to
 free markets...
But they are compatible with... at worst case scenario they represent positive externalities (say anonymously given gifts to unknown recipients)... and are under produced compared to a free market, and maybe should be subsidised... but you begin to see problems with that, a subsidised gift market... it's no longer really a gift market.
I think it works quite well where everyone knows each other... a close family, friends, social groups... because those gifts are remembered... so rewards flow anyway... completely anonomous gifting you are doing for 'it's own reward'.... 
As long as a gift has a postive utility
 for the recipient, gift giving is a good thing...
but yeah, it could put a burden on the recipient, and actually have a negative utility... it could effectively be a negative externality, like gifting toxic waste.
I'm sure trane would agree with me, if he knew what free markets were, and understood the concept of utility... but he doesn't, so he instinctively argues with me, rather than educating himself. 
Huh?... TIL James Mill is John Start Mill's Father
 Interesting...
Marx coined the term capitalism... and he is right... there's a propensity for capital to contentrate... to become rent seekers...
Socialism has a rational basis... that the people should own the means of production... but...
Communism (as in Soviet style communism) throws out the baby with the bath water. There's no need for central planning and state control... these systems have huge inneficiencies... The average politician or price setter can't determine the utility for everyone else... that stuff is best left to supply and demand.
A Free Market, with wealth redistribution, has all the benefits of both systems... you basically say, wealth is really owned by everyone, but we nominally let people control it for their own benefit... but we'll use tax to redistribute from the most wealthy to the poorest, and let normal free market system decide what to produce and who gets it otherwise. 
So James thought something was worth the work you
 put into making it... his son clearly didn't think so, I think... and it's pretty clear you can put a lot of effort to waste, so today we see that something is worth what you get out of it... or what you would trade it for. 
Sorry Sye... I can't really make sense of this $
 
The answer is pretty obvious...
 There should be a cap on the amount of CO2 and other gasses that a volcano can put out a year, and that should be traded in a free market.
Otherwise, the government should decide on the disutility of the volcano and tax it accordingly, ie a pigovian tax on volcano emissions.
Economics means supply and demand... and there's currently an oversupply of volcanoes in chile at the moment because the untaxed negative externalities are not represented in the price of volcanoes.
This is the difference between the unregulated and the free market... Chile lets an unregulated market overproduce volcanoes until they are literally spilling out into the streets, no matter what damage they do to other businesses, because they aren't willing to put in the kind of regulation that leads to the optimal levels of free market volcano production.
Why people don't understand this stuff is beyond me.
Apparently the same problem is happening in Yellowstone, because people just love to have their free geothermic geyser distraction entertainment, and the whole time not willing to pay the cost of an erupting super caldera. Well... demand means supply, so you really bought this on yourself america. 
Yeah... the old projections showed something like
 total destruction of two thirds of the US... nuclear winter type conditions throughout the northern hemisphere for several years... and not such a great outlook for the southern hemisphere either...
And that was just the tip?
Man... that's going to be a fun one for whoever get's to witness that event.
It seems to me to be beyond the scale of our current engineering to do anything about... is there any hope we could slowly release the pressure on it? I don't think so... It's just a big nasty zit that's gonna burst one day and we're going to have to survive on through it or go extinct trying.
If only magma had utility... we would tap that till it was nearly exhausted like it was californian groundwater. 
Volcanoes erupt because it is their utility...
 we know this, because they erupted...
Which is why you have to either tax or fine them to lower their eruption utility...
Providing them a basic income is basically subsidising them... they'll erupt all day long and never get a real job.
This is why so many unemployed people in south america right now. 
If they really were geniuses
 they would have won the monthly k5 stats...
Like I did...
QED. 
If you can't pursue your happiness peacefully
 and nonviolently, right now, with everything you got going for you, you deserve to be thrown in a cell, locked up and have the key thrown away...
You don't need basic income to do that... look at the bullshit responsibility free life you're living now, and you dare complain?
What a fucking selfish little cunt you are... you're exactly the wrong spokesperson for the UBI cause because even if you have good intentions, you have the appearance of a conflict of interest, exactly because you want free money to do shit.
Every time you open your mouth on the subject, you discredit it. 
You really want that first place trophy
 You're such a loser. 
Says the guy that always corrects his mistakes
 and posts corrections to his mistakes in his corrections...
I'd say clearly you love posting mistakes no matter what.
you can call what I've done to you rape, but it was more like psychological domination, and you loved it, and you know it... you're not fooling anyone with that story. 
You got delusions boy...
 There's no reason to be making typos to correct... except the obvious.
I don't stalk women... I can barely evade them... 
The funny thing is, you're so fucking gay for
 pussy that you would make up false allegations against actual men in the hope that some woman somewhere thinks you're some kind of hero and fuck you for it, classic femanized beta white knight behaviour... but they mostly fuck the guys you're obviously jealous of... that's why you don't get laid.
Fine... Meth Tits could possibly set me up for that... what with the hacking of the facebook account and what not... but that was on her request... I was just surprised that I broke in... and then you know... you do what you do... but I got that recorded a conversation between us where she thanks me for getting into her account and helping her out... now, only problem is... damn... that pregnant chick, I can't remember her k5 nickname, crack momma?... stole the SD card from my phone that held the recording... I don't think Meth Tits has it in for me that bad... that she'd be willing to make a thing about it...
Crack Momma pretty much insinuated if I took her back to the room and fucked her she would give me back my data cards... but she was making me feel used... You can't let people treat you that way.
As for Meth Tits... some random turned up on my facebook account, and I was pretty sure it was her with someone else's account... that was weird.
Anyway... one of the missing girl's turned up, and she's really lovely, but I think she's in love with me, and I'm really not sure what to do... 
And I can't rape you
 cause you keep gagging for it. 
No... You have seriously misunderstood me...
 I ALWAYS meant it in this way...
You have ALWAYS put your blinkers on and shouted meanness... You coloured my version with your derogatory terms... I tried to explain how general the idea is... but you reject it... out of some misguided principle.
I say utility, but you say selfish egotist...
I knew Mill before I new micro-econ properly... and his ideas of Free Will and Utility are exactly the same ideas now expressed with mathematical certainty in the concepts behind modern Free Market theory... it's not Free as in do as you want, it's Free as in Mill's theories of the rightful limits of the state to limit people's freedoms... free to do what you desire, as long as you aren't harming others... 
For one... if any of those things occur, 
 ITS NOT A FREE MARKET --- by definition, no lying, theft, fraud... whatever... that's just MARKETs but no way FREE MARKET... and you know this.
And Mill's utility theory is in no way conflict of you doing those things... I say utility, and you say meanness... I say cleaning a park for the enjoyment of others is utility, and you say, no it isn't because utility is meanness... but it's not m'kay?
What you've basically done here is have an emotional breakdown, and thrown a tantrum... you were all pro mill and his 'version' of utility, until I pointed out that it's the same as free market utility... which you blame for your lot and call it meanness... so instead you've rejected mill entirely on that biased basis and have decided to not even finish reading his work.
I knew your reaction when I previewed the last comment... I really should have attacked Mill myself so you could throw it in my face how his version of utility is right and mine was wrong, until you worked it out yourself that they were the same thing... but I don't have the patience... you're far too predictable. 
Anthropic Global Climate Change p>0.95
 Easily.... big changes in CO2 in the atmosphere --> physicsy stuff --> big changes in climate...
That's going to be expensive... one way or the other...
Really need to cap emissions... and trade that cap...
At the same time, go nuclear as much as possible. Get the 4th or 5th gen nuke reactors up and running as soon as possible... get your reprocessing skills up!
Oil is artificially priced too cheap, and nuclear artificially priced too high... reverse that... when you take the real costs of the two, nuclear wins.
But... there are tipping points in chaotic systems, where once you are beyond a certain point, you cause irreversible phase shifts... and we don't want that happening.
OTOH, a scientist friend and I were discussing GW, and he said, for sure it's man made... but if we hadn't done it, we would have been due for an iceage about now anyway... So, maybe that was the illuminati's plan all along, to save the world from a catastrophic ice age, and the gossip we hear is just their way of getting us to turn the anti-ice-age machine off.
Still... we should probably turn it down now, sooner rather than later... even by your argument... it is still an experiment being run on this planet on a global scale for which the outcomes are at best uncertain and seemingly extreme.
We need to shift to realistic zero emission energy sources... and the only thing that truly fits that bill is nuclear. 
What part of wait for a counteroffer
 didn't you understand?
You can't just dump down a price for something people were getting for free and expect them to jump on it...
Think of it as a bid/ask spread... 24c on the bid side, $100 on the ask side... price discovery takes time...
Doesn't help that you have an internal value of $0.00 attached to it...
Maybe start small... ask for $1 for each bit of new functionality... build your market... build up rapport with your customers.
Give away some stuff to be a market leader... but make up for it in volume. 
Well... in fairness... you got to look at it from 
 everybody else's point of view... what are they getting out of it, what's it really worth to them... I doubt it's worth $100 to anyone here...
and the other thing is, it's kind of like poker... it's clear that stats has utility to you, as trane pointed out... it would take money to stop you working on stats... that doesn't matter so much... you could still get paid for it too... but you already broadcast the fact to everyone, so why would they pay you? It's a fair free trade.
so... somewhere between you being paid not to produce stats, and other people paying you what it's worth to them to have stats... you have a price to produce stats at... it's a tiny bit complicated by the public good nature of the stats... so free rider problem... but no one here is in a situation to subsidise you for this... still, you should be able to eek out a little more scratch than 24c, no?
That's why selling lotteries and prediction side markets could have been good, but you'd get in trouble. 
Everything has a price...
 but you can't afford it. 
So, that takes a utf string and encodes it into
 ascii while ignoring errors... but I think it returns a byte array... which is the b... I think that's just showing the encoding u"something" for a unicode string...
I mostly use Python 2... and only ever dealt with this getting unicoded responses from other websites and shoving them into ascii encoded varchar databases... I really fixed the wrong problem, and shouldn't have converted everything to ascii... but I'm lazy.
alright though... so... I'm not a 100% sure how that thing differs from a string... if you print it, it doesn't look like that, right... the r's and n's are converted into newlines, right?
If not... maybe just throw it to the str function (whatever it is).
if you just want the words out of it, a default split will probably give you what you want. 
.encode('ascii', 'ignore').decode('ascii')
 or try default decode...
I bet that will work...
but why are you downgrading to ascii in the first place? 
Talking of Bitcoin...
 Girl sleeping on the couch opened up a bag of chocolate money... they're all bitcoin's... big gold chocolate covered in yellow foil bitcoin money with all the symbols and veritas in numbers and everything.
I wonder if you tried selling them for a bitcoin each! RICH I TELL YOU RICH!!! Invest in chocolate bitcoin futures!
Who set that one up? She shouldn't have that information! Coincidence, fate, a sign? 
Typical...
 Just cause you can't win the K5 stats fair and square, you want to change the rules... and find other ways you can win...
It's not overall percentages, or replies vs top comments or such bullshit, it's whoever makes the biggest number of all wins...
What's the biggest individual specific number? 304... therefore I win, and you get some consolation prizes...
Just deal with it... and try harder next month. 
Don't be a sore loser...
 Second place is quite an achievement. Not quite as much as first place, but better than anything else. What you getting so upset about? 
I'm pretty sure everyone takes K5 stats seriously
 and acknowledges my greatness. 
Seriously, it's about time you get over it...
 Stat's don't lie... I clearly win K5, argument over. 
Why not just count full stops as sentences?
 ...? Hey? .... ? 
paradigm shattered
 Though, I expect you might have to put either more effort into marketing, or price yourself more appropriately in the market...
Definitely a strong opening, let's wait for the counteroffer. 
I'll put up $0.24AUD...
 to open the bidding...
Maybe you could crowdsource it.
Like I said, more marketing... create a diary about it, get a buzz going... align interests, network more, sex the deal up a bit... 
That's not how you haggle
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n3LL338aGA 
Poor Grasshoper, you have much to learn...
 in the ways of business. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
I told you I'd be winning either way.
But you could charge everyone who wants in on the competition...
Wow... here's an idea... run a bitcoin lottery... I dunno... $5 a ticket or something... and the winner (which would probably be me) gets 80% of the collection, and you get the rest.
You really want to get interesting... run a predictions market on who would be the winner of each month's stats... people can place bets for against different users... and you take 5% of the winnings... and pay out 80% of that to the winner.
But, probably best avoid the US if you do that... Not too sure of Australian law either... oh well... tor + bitcoin it is then. 
The old "offer you can't refuse" market.
 Needs to be backed by a credible threat of force though...
I got his name, age, address, driver's licence number and photos for you... for the right price...
You can start with glitterbombing him, and work your way up to burning his house down and breaking his limbs and providing other incentives to produce!
It's a free market after all. 
Begging? No...
 Just making an offer...
It would probably just be cheaper to pay mumble his $100 to make a stats list that doesn't include me so you can win for once.
I think betraying mumble with his secret information would be worth quite a bit more than that... especially if you're going to break his legs with it... he's been a good friend to me here, and that's not very nice... so maybe, $10k or something.
I know you probably can't afford money like that, so it's either $100 to mumble, or get a job in London and come back when you can afford it. 
You just let a perfect opportunity to monetize go 
 by...
$150 name removal service...
But call it administrative costs... You don't want to end up like that guy that ran the naked ex-gf revenge pics site and got done for extortion charging girls to have their pics removed.
Holly now knows she's lost k5 and she's trying to remove that fact from the internet... but we all know how well that works. 
You don't get off the ratings, you get off
 on me. 
IAWTD $
 
Also, it's a good month to look back on last
 month's stats and how I won K5.
I'd like to make an honorary shoutout to our old skool comrads who we've lost along the way, CTS, LilDebbie, Holly, trhurler, mindpixel, trane and kitten... may they all RIP... and we can have maybe a minute's silence for the day they missed me winning the monthly K5 stats. 
It really isn't your husbands, is it?
 I mean, you're trying to say that between the lines, but you can't get yourself to type it out.
Oh wow... that's just crazy...
Do you have a black baby daddy and a white husband? That's gonna be real hard to explain.
All the best. 
Just to break down this limerick for those who
 can't see it... this is basically holly telling everyone how she came to cheat on her husband...
The man from Bombay clearly represents her hard working provider husband, leveraging certain racial sterotypes for this effect, who has gone on a long business trip, represented by him sailing off to china... unfortunately the poor guy is married, ie, tied to the tiller, to some sex-hungry hairy ape beast, which is how holly sees herself, a sex-starved gorilla... and her husband is so far away in china, that she's fucked someone else and gotten pregnant.
It's actually a very good limerick, because it kind of works on a few several levels, most of them just absurd and silly, like all good limericks... but once you work out the characters, you can see the human side of this unfolding tragedy, hidden in a quirky little ditty.
Now, I'm not so much of an artist that I do often wonder where these subtexts come from. Was this one obvious to all who read it, or did I just pick it up... Is this what 'Holly' wanted to tell us? Did she know what she wrote? Or did she just think it funny and absurd in her mind when she wrote it? Like her subconcious is screaming out to us? WHAT DO I DO? Or did she deliberately encode this meaning... I actually don't think so. 
I just want to point out that holly also blames
 her husband for the state of affairs... it's his fault he's so bloody far of in china... he should have been there for her, to fuck her, not for his bloody business, out working as a provider for her.
This is how feminists reward their providers' gentleman... beware the feminist agenda. 
As a Rank 1 Kuron, I think it's fair to say
 that the stats prove me right and that you all sux.
Thanks again to everyone involved, mumble for compiling the stats, rusty for hosting our beloved site, mum and dad for raising me right, god, the free market and the jews for controlling mainstream media and forcing everyone to come to me for the truth.
Good night and god bless. 
I think any reasonable person reading the stats 
 would clearly conclude that I won...
I don't know how you can refute simple numbers like that.
Don't you provide p-values with your results? Do you even science? 
I knew you'd try and make up something like that..
 but 304 >>> 38, therefore clearly comment numbers are more important than diary numbers.
You can't argue against the maths here.
You're still a Rank 1 Kuron though, just the second place Rank 1 Kuron... I mean, you should still be happy with that, right?
Congratulations on the hard work... it's paid off... now you're finally the number 2 Kuron overall. 
So few recognise my brilliance
 on reddit...
It's a big pool, but it's full of retards, it's drowning in them. 
You should ask for money before releasing stats
 Everybody already knows how I won K5... but they might be willing to pay next month to find if I win again, and by how much... but not me, I'll be winning either way.
So, I dunno... get yourself a little stats fund going... don't go running around printing stats just cause someone asks you too... then go around with cap in hand... money talks baby.
Gotta make those satoshis sing, so streamline your business models, shatter today's paradigms and synergise your core competencies proactively... get with the program. 
Yeah, that would be privatising it...
 Currently by publishing it for everyone, he's creating a public good... which the free market doesn't reward... though people benefit from it... if he publishes on a pay per view or viewer basis... it becomes a private good and the free market will price it properly (maybe zero).
The reason it is currently free is because mumble would do it for less... but a small group of others benefit from it even though they didn't have to pay for it.
Except of course all the 'information wants to be free' crowd, who don't respect other people's ownership over their creations. Modulo the 'limited time' copywrite debacle.
So, yeah, you look for possible side markets. 
The effect probably goes to zero with macroscopic 
 objects... like the uncertainty in the position of a cricket ball...
I can accept that the universe works like that... that things are in unknowable (random probabilistic) mixture of states, not until we observe them, but until something interacts with them and forces them to collapse to one state or another.
What is weird about the bells experiment, is that when you measure one particle, you know the value of the other immediately, like it was always that way (because speed of light's not a barrier), but the experiment shows there is no hidden variable... they weren't like that until you measured... it seems odd to me... is that right?
I'm really not a physicist either.
As for the afshar experiment, I still don't understand why you can't infer both the interference pattern and the particle path... it's not like the interference pattern or the grating could alter a photon's path through the lens such that it could change which detector it falls upon (am I really wrong with this?) and at the same time I can't understand how the grating doesn't imply an interference patten.
This would be an experiment worth numerically simulating... 
So, the superposition of random walks has
 a different probability distribution to all possible random walks?
That's interesting... yeah, I can handle macrorealism being false... I still think the effect goes to zero for large objects though... it's not like the moon is going anywhere soon.
OTOH, if reality really does depend on concious observers... maybe the moon is only there cause so many of us believe it is...
Can you design an experiment to test that hypothesis? 
This is easily the main cause of problems in
 society... not acknowledging that everybody's utility is different... if you don't do drugs, for example, it's very hard to understand why someone else would...
the free market is about maximising everyone's utility, by allowing them to maximally follow their own utility, without causing harm to others... when you go against the free market, you do things like ban other people from their own choices, and this always ends up in loss of utility for someone...
Basically, the idea of not stopping someone from their enjoyment - where it doesn't cause unpaid negative externalities - always ends up with lower economic outcomes for everyone... even after considering the loss of utility of those who aren't allowed their enjoyment, there are even larger costs to society over all, in terms of wasted justice system resources, and the creation of black markets and the rise of those who would service them.
We are all poorer for this human instinct to control others, to make them live the life we would want to live, rather than just living the life we want to, and letting others live their lives as they want. 
I'm not sure how this is relevant...
 You can't point at a female CEO and say it's sexism because she doesn't earn the same as some other male CEO... VERY FEW PEOPLE earn anything like a CEO in the first place...
What you really need to look at is say either the income distribution or wealth distribution of men vs women over the entire population and see how well those curves fit... if you wanted equality of outcome for wealth or income.
What you find is that men are more represented in the tails of the distribution... there are more wealthier men than women... but there are far more poorer men than women on average too... I don't see feminists fighting to be in their place instead.
Then you have the problem that men are expected to support their women... or rather, women generally only get excited for men who are higher socially than themselves... so generally richer and earn more money... and men share their wealth with women more... and then backed up by the courts where women get half their men's property and a free paycheck for many years... just for fucking a guy.
So, complaining that some dumb bitch who manages to pretend to be a CEO for a while deserves to be the highest paid of all CEOs doesn't make sense when you are turning a blind eye to the sort of female privileges that are experienced by 99% of the female population. 
agile full stack dev ops 
 is basically what I'm going to advertise myself as... and take any work I can get. 
money flows on the critical path
 and why would I want to blame others for my mistakes? 
It's not your husbands, is it?? $
 
There are no women on the internet.
 You can't fuck over the internet... so women have no power here. Your pussy means nothing, so stop waving it around like your a victim.
So, yeah 40... and I've never slayed so much pussy... especially in the last few years... Age isn't as drastic for men as it is for you women... we age like wine, you age like milk... the best you can make of an old woman is mouldy cheese.
So, hey... you go live in your little feminist crypto mysandrist victimhood fantasy, and I'll fuck girls in their 20s. 
There's nothing quite like fucking 
 a girl with with scarred wrists... 
You know there are like energy forces out there...
 and when you say something like that, you put out an energy that can resonate, and you bring a reality possibly closer to it that might not have occurred if you didn't.
I doubt it would ever happen, but in the worst case scenario some girl does decide to off herself, it's unlikely I would have been the cause of that... she obviously had her own issues.
So, if you really are thinking about killing yourself just because you don't have me... don't do it, if you can't handle the pain just add me to ignore.
I always thought you were like 50 or something... I'm surprised you're still fertile? How old were you when you got on K5? Though you always wrote like you were 12, I just thought that was cause you were retarded... but an old woman like you can't go around pretending she's 21 anymore... in either case... it's a huge downhill plunge for a girl your age now.
All you got to do now is secure your husband's income and you're all set... you can still fuck the pool boy... if you can find one in england.
And stop obsessing over me... it's creepy as fuck. 
I don't really know about that...
 I'm not going out of my way to save people... sometimes you make some progress, and sometimes you fall back...
I do see everything as a free market exchange... they wouldn't be spending time with me if they didn't want to be there... and the truth must follow that the converse is true, that I'm spending time with people because they bring value to me.
You see, just people maximising utility... leads to the best outcomes for everyone.
It's just coincidentally Procrasti's Home for Wayward Young Sluts.
But I see less of street geologist now... and I've been working on the three way with her and meth tits like forever, and I'm just not seeing it come together like it should have... man, meth tits is getting old now... I think 30 next week... that's what 3 years does to a woman... she's near the end of her peak attractiveness in her mid 20s... and then they're thirty...
So much for being true genuine 18yo Number 1 prostitute in whole of nation when you're thirty... who'd have saw that one coming?
I'm going to have help some other poor young things and move things in the direction I want sooner...
I fucked up with madam bigs... I don't know... Like post coital cuddling and we're both about ready to go to bed anyway, and I think we should get meth... and then it just went downhill... I'd had enough meth to fuck her for several hours yet anyway... it was stupid... and things just devolved from there... anyway, I saw her last week, complaining about her sore feet, how far she'd walked in the last 24, that she needed a job for food... I got her a pastie... anyway, she was onto the phone with a guy and talking nice... and she's not talking to the guy that she swears at all the time... Girls like her are able to find support when they need it... So, I think things for her are marginally better?
Now, the odd thing is, she's always at the right place at the right time... in a city my size, that's reasonably unlikely... and it's always like that with the people I know... I feel like I create them in some sense... or are they sent?
Either way, the fucked up thing is, I think I'm psychically linked to them anyway... and verbal communication just get's in the way... but you still got to play that game too... it's like dare you think of them and they'll appear... but never dare mention their names.
Street geologist is shacked up with someone I think... when I asked her if she has a boyfriend now she giggles like a teenager and denies it... oh well...
You can't help but hope for the best for your friends, but at the same time, you can only do so much.
I look forward to Cargo getting out of prison.
I don't know... in fairness to myself, these girls are quite extreme... on the other hand, if I met some decent hard working honest young thing...
So, I guess the most fucked up thing of all is that I'm looking for work again... My alarm just went off... time to wake up and face the day... but I need to sleep, and my last grandfather died yesterday... He was a good man... I want to meet my half cousin? (dead girl knew that shit backwards...)... who I guess I've only known about in the last few years. There are rumors he made more people, but we don't know for sure. 
It's funny... in a way...
 There's this one legged meth whore around, (well, she's missing everything below the knee)... it's tragifunny how she puts her wheel chair down the road a way, and stands with her missing leg on the bench and tries to catch the eyes of the motorists passing by.
I hear on the grapevine she can't get enough of it... (and the really funny thing is, she's actually really quite pretty otherwise)...
And well... I do know her name, but I'm gonna call her Holly if ever I mention her again...
So, if you see me talking about Holly, don't be so egotistical that you think it's about you, it's just a nickname I've given someone. 
It's good to know you're still thinking of me,
 babe. 
It's all power talk if you read behind the lines..
 It's definitely her way of flirting...
Powertalk is not meant to be taken at face value... Who would fuck a feminist? See, feminists are women, and women don't want to fuck feminised men, they want to fuck men... so, they get all the feminised men to white knight for them... but they go fuck real men instead... those that aren't so stupid as to be taken in by them...
They fuck men, the worst thing you could do would be to listen to them... what they do to guys who listen to them is way worse... guy's like that end up bringing up other people's children, or lose their houses to them...
Just to clarify feminism, I'm talking 3rd wave bullshit... cause equality of opportunity makes sense, but equality of outcomes doesn't... anyone can be an engineer, but not everyone would want to be one... anyone can be a garbageman, but not everyone would want to be one, and anyone can be a prostitute, but not everyone would want to be one... we don't have to make sure every second person has a given career depending on what they have between their legs...
And you see, a bitch can use gender specific attacks like creep, which mean nothing to a woman... a woman literally can't be creepy (unless you fucked her)... so, any victim claiming over mean sounding 'gender biased' words is the usual validation seeking behaviour... hoping that white knights would gather around her saying 'look how awful this guy is, he MADE me put him on ignore'... and all the stupid fucks would rally behind her 'what an injustice this poor girl is going through'...
That's why you don't trust their words, they know what they are saying... watch their actions instead.
I mean, going through and reading all my diaries... that's just the K5 equivalent of her gargling on my cock... You think anyone else goes through procrasti's diaries?
That's just the way women are...
You on the other hand, should stop whining like a bitch and playing victim all the time... you're as bad as any woman. 
Yes...
 but you didn't know that till you google'd up on it and probably Euler's Identity...
I imagine the proof of that though is quite a bit beyond you in any case. 
Pity Comment (Gossip) $
 
Great Paraphrasing!
 "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein 
Yes you are... a gossip and a dumb cunt too $
 
Yes you are...
 Why do you keep repeating what an idiot you are? 
Yes you are? Do you have a point? $
 
It was meaningless to begin with...
 In fact, anything you can use to universally refute literally anything must be meaningless, because it could also be used to refute itself.
I don't know where he's grabbed onto this gossip meme... I think he's picked it up in a mooc, and now it's universally applicable to anything he doesn't want to have to think about.
Oh, knowledge comes from other people, therefore it is gossip, therefore it is not knowledge... therefore everything is wrong! Even the idea of gossip!
He sounds like an upset teenager that's just discovered a new swear word.
What a poor, sad, brain damaged idiot. Legalise crack, but remember, if you use it, you could end up like trane. 
I heard that infinite regress thing is gossip.
 I've explained the difference between axioms mathematically and in practice... mathematically they are taken as given, practically they can be tested against observation.
The difference between Euclidean and Riemannian geometry for example is in the axioms... how do we know that Euclidean geometry isn't as good a model as Riemannian? Because of our observations of the universe match the results of one, but not the other.
It is possible to build a different model with the same predictions... yes... but the models would be equivalent if you did... their axioms would be equivalent too.
But you couldn't have a different model to produce the same predictions, because you don't have any models at all... just the weakest of refutations that even refutes itself... it is no substitute for thought. 
You're clearly an idiot...
 Mathematical pi only applies to an ideal circle...
You're idea of gossip is stupid... it is pure gossip, and serves no purpose... yes ideas come from other people... but that's why you work through the maths yourself, or run some experiments yourself, but most of the time, you are stuck with your own limitations, and you have to believe other people...
Why should I believe your gossip over the gossip backed by academia? You prove nothing with that argument.
So, as far as engineering goes, I've run through a lot of maths in my time (clearly more than you, as mumble pointed out, you don't even know the most beautiful equation in maths, let alone its proof)...
I've done years of physics experiments that align with the maths I worked through that explains it.
I've done maths for computer science.
And I've done maths for economics...
Yes... they could ALL be wrong... and I don't deny that... but I've never met a person smart enough to show me HOW they are wrong... and if I do, and I can work through their maths, and their conclusions, and see how they match reality BETTER... I'll give them consideration.
But all you have to offer is pure refutation, and stupid arguments like gossip, infinite regress and the no law of non-contradiction... shit the ancient greeks were thinking about, yes... fantastic... but almost all their shit has been superseded by better ideas.
I've used proof by contradiction, and proof by induction enough times to see that it works for PRACTICAL PURPOSES... from how to build bridges, how fast chemical processes proceed, to why you can't solve the halting problem (actual version, not your version), radioactive decay, how semi-conductors and transistors work, how wifi works, how much signal you can send in a channel, how much data can be compressed, to why the price of bread is what it is...
You have literally nothing to offer on any of these topics... just whining that you don't get free stuff for nothing... when you offer the human race absolutely nothing of value in return.
Please take a fucking hike. 
Of course it's finite... come on, you're the
 physicist.
It takes states of matter to store information that we call knowledge, and there is only a finite amount of (accessible) matter in the universe, so there's a finite number of states, and so, only a finite amount of information can be stored... so only a finite amount of knowledge that can be stored.
I mean, that makes it a lot... it's probably not the actual practical upper bound to how much knowledge we can store... but it is an upper bound, and therefore it is finite. 
Yeah, I think a few things bring it back to a
 finite amount...
Superpositions don't count, cause they collapse when we measure them.
As for there being an infinite number of energy levels an electron can be in... won't it fall back to it's lowest energy level and release a photon?
The plank thing suggests finite measurable states too.
I think you can find a formula for the amount of information a volume of space can store... in fact, I'm sure this has been calculated... because I know one of the interesting results of this is that the information you can store in a volume of space is linear with the surface area of that space... ie, the holographic universe theory. 
When the AGI emerges...
 It will probably the smartest scientist in existence... No human or groups of humans will be able to keep up with it... So, as far as anything being interesting to us, it will probably be able to work out the proofs for us.
So, at that point, we will have all the knowledge we could find useful... or at least, it will have the answers to any questions we could propose... then it might start looking for things it finds interesting.
Q: What is the answer to the Riemann hypothesis?
A: It is true or false, but cannot be proven... here's the proof. 
No, he's not talking about simulating general
 behaviour, but specific outcomes.
Chaotic systems suffer from sensitive dependence upon initial conditions... so the slightest error in measurement exponentially grows to a totally different result.
You'll be familiar with weather... the weather is it's own best simulation... if you simulate it with as much detail as you can, you still can't get more than a few days out before the two systems diverge.
The general behaviour will be identical, but the specific states diverge exponentially rapidly. 
Although the last line applies mostly to you...
 if you just swap "alternate views" with "stuff that's been proven to twenty decimal places or more". 
I never made any such claim...
 But you're the one denying mathematical based observations such as thermodynamics...
My 20 decimal places would refer to the measured neutrality of hydrogen... it's about that magnitude... and something I imagine you'd refute with 'dark energy' or 'statistical!!!' or 'if I had basic income I'd show you all'.
No, gossip is your domain, because you've already thrown out maths and science... all your left with is the insane ramblings of a crack fuelled should be mental patient. 
Of course there's a lot of science I haven't 
 personally replicated...
but then again, I've probably replicated a hell of a lot more scientific experiments than you ever have or will.
You've thrown out science and maths entirely... so all we have left to rely on is your words... which are fucking meaningless.
If gossip is the best you you can up with to refute me, then you're a failure. 
Dude... you're a moron...
 who has in the past denied mathematics straight out...
Where there are mathematic proofs, you've completely ignored them, and failed to find any fault with either the rules of inference, or the axioms... Utility is a good example, which is a mathematical proof that comes from decision theory.
Scarcity will always exist, wherever your desires outstrip your resources.  
You claim everything is gossip...
 On the other hand, I've done the maths, and your entire refutation is 'gossip'...
You are actually retarded. 
Maths is gossip...
 You're just a fucking idiot...
I'm gonna throw a party here for everyone when you expire. 
Yes, but you can 'test' axioms...
 by the conclusions they lead to... 
The axiom that you have an ordered set of preferences leads to Utility... the axiom that you don't have an ordered set of preferences lead to you not caring what happens to you.
Clearly you do care what happens, therefore the axiom is more than likely true, because nothing else explains the observations...
Axioms are only conclusions without proof in MATHEMATICS... In science, they are testable and meaningful.
You're right... a bot wouldn't have to be very sophisticated to confuse everyone here with it being you... 
You'll have to use an infinite character set too..
 to get around his argmnt... well, assuming we aren't going with your infinite length sentences... which I hope not... cause you're really being stupid then... but that's not stopped you before... so, let's see... gossip? 
It's not infinite...
 It's very very large... but finite...
Unless you have infinitely long sentences or an infinite character set... If you don't satisfy either of those constraints, it's just extremely large... which is a long way from infinite... but only if you accept crazy theories that have been bandied about that you might find in fields such as mathematics. 
Fine... I accept that you could have an infinite
 sentence... I mean, you would have to have either an infinite amount of time to say it in, or an infinite amount of paper, or computer bits to store them on...
So, in theory... we could have "0 says that 1 says that 2 says that 3 says.... infinite says 'trane is a joke'"...
Yes... so, you could allow an infinitely long sentence... which makes it theoretically infinitely long.
So, you allow one of the constraints, an infinitely long sentence, you have an infinity.
But the worlds longest sentence isn't infinite... so practical sentences don't have this property... and what would be the point... it wouldn't communicate anything... no one would know who the fuck said what after the tenth person anyway.
So, theoretically infinite... but definitely never practically. 
Correct...
 No practical sentence could be infinite... because our universe is finite...
So, that actually puts a limit on the infinite length sentence... all practical sentences must be finite in length.
Meaning his only out now is an infinite character set. I'm thinking there might be problems there too... 
Well yeah...
 Any character set you could define on a computer is going to be finite... cause practical computers are equivalent to Turing Machines with a finite tape!
There's only a finite number of bits to store your character set in... because we live in a finite universe.
I think trane's thoroughly lost this one.
Unless this is all just gossip... which means it's not true, like the gossip meme he keeps on about... oh wait. 
I'm pretty sure there is no maximum prime...
 they go to infinity...
Sentences, otoh, cannot go to infinity, because you run out of space.
And just because you can add to knowledge... doesn't mean it is without limit... a sum of an infinite series isn't necessarily infinite itself.
You probably didn't know that though. 
You might be right that the largest
 expressible prime is finite.
The largest expressible prime and largest expressible sentence are finite.
In theory a sentence can go on forever... but for what purpose? I got no idea... certainly it would be an unparsable sentence for a human being. 
Finite amount plus finite amount equal finite
 amount...
Assuming such a thing even exists...
And then there's the problem of dark energy making more stuff leave our light cone than it creates.
All up, what mumble didn't get, is that you are woefully scientifically illiterate, and generally an insufferable idiot. 
Yes, you are...
 Exactly my point... you refuse to use science or maths... so gossip is all you're ever left with.
Which makes you and your input pointless and useless. 
No you're not... you won't even accept math that's
 right in front of you.
You fall back to literally your own hot air... with nothing to support it... not EVEN gossip. 
Mostly, it is because I've actually worked through
 the proofs, and found no errors with them, and have not been able to refute the axioms, or have tested with alternative axioms and seen that they lead to clearly unlikely results.
You just straight out use emotion and denial... and strawmen such as 'gossip'... without even looking at the maths.
Utility is the most obvious example I have here... because the maths says that every decision making agent can be modelled as if it is following a utility function... and you just go on about dollars or some shit that has nothing to do with utility... cause you never did the maths (or are incapable of doing the maths). 
Seriously, I really doubt you have...
 Aren't your degrees all in the field of arts? I'm pretty sure they're not very heavy into mathematics.
Do you even know what e^(i*pi) + 1 equals?
If not, then I very much doubt you've done more proofs than me. 
Maths is not natural language... to go through
 maths, even though the steps are often explained in natural language, is not the same as natural language... the maths steps are true without the natural language.
And you don't know the value of that function... so I gonna conclude that you didn't actually do much maths.
And the gossip meme is gossip... I've already been through this, if you're refuting anything using the term gossip, it's a very weak refutation, because the meme refutes itself as gossip... gossip is gossip and you know it... cause it is all handed to you by someone else... hell, you already posted a picture to prove that all science is gossip, one you didn't make.
You talk to birds, because they're the only ones with brains small enough to be on your level. 
No, as MDC pointed out the other day...
 In PURE MATHEMATICS, axioms are considered to be GIVEN... not conclusions... they are the base of all the theorems and proofs that follow from them.
In APPLIED MATHEMATICS, such as physics, computer science, economics or anything else, they are the basis for models that are TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE.
Otherwise Euclidean and Reimannian geometry would be equally valid models... and they are MATHEMATICALLY equally valid... but only Reimannian geometry is applicable to how space time works as far as our ability to TEST it has shown.
You can't just give up and say axioms are conclusions... that's bullshit... that's true only in APPLIED mathematics, but not SCIENCE.
In SCIENCE we can TEST the CONCLUSIONS that RESULT from the AXIOMS we start with... so we can tell useful axioms from obviously wrong ones. 
Second last sentence should be:
 that's true only in PURE mathematics... 
We get infinities in maths all the time...
 Integers are infinite...
Then we get cool things like some infinities are bigger than others... for example, even though there are an infinite number of reals between 0 and 1, there are MORE reals between 0 and 1 than there are integers!
The Integers are countably infinite, the reals between 0 and 1 are uncountably infinite... There are even larger infinities (I think, but I can't recall them right now). 
Yeah, they can be used in some functions...
 Usually the result is either infinite or zero or something like that...
1/infinity aprox zero, for example...
You might integrate over an infinity to get a finite number... say the gaussian distribution... or even sum(1/2^n) 0>=n>=infinity equals 2 (I think).
probably the sum(n) -infinity>=n>=infinity equals zero... but I'm not so sure...
A crazy one is sum(n) 0>=n>=infinity equals -1/12... well... it doesn't, but there's a nice proof to show that it should.
Maths with infinities can become very weird very quickly. 
Turing Machines are defined as operating on an
 infinitely long tape...
So, all our practical machines are less powerful than Turing Machines.
Yet there are mathematical proofs for Turing Machines... so all our practical machines have at least these limitations too.
Mathematicians on the whole are pretty good dealing with infinities... physicists don't like them (singularities are basically infinities that appear in physics, and normally believed to be where the physics is wrong)... and engineers just work around them. 
Yeah, black holes are one singularity that appear.
 But aren't too much of a problem, cause they're hidden behind the event horizon.
I understand though, that singularities crop up all over the place when you try to combine say quantum mechanics and relativity... which is the main reason the theories are incompatible and therefore they know that there is something wrong. 
No, the mathematical singularity that appears in 
 GR, is within the event horizon... so, while it appears in the maths, we can't see it in real life, because it's hidden.
And the reason the theories are at odds with each other is because combining them leads to singularities... it's the singularities (infinities) that tell us they are at odds. 
You've confused mathematics with physics again...
 Easy enough mistake for an ancient greek philosopher... they didn't know better... and seemingly, nor do you. 
Right, but physics is observation... which tells 
 us that the reachable universe is finite...
Maths has infinities, but our observation of the universe says no.
the ancient greeks didn't know the difference, but you're actually confused on a whole different level.
Clearly rape is relevant to this topic... I imagine you throw that one out cause you know what a loser you actually are. 
He obviously didn't learn anything doing those
 courses... so, not sure giving him free money is going to help anyone. 
Francis Crick of DNA fame said he 'saw' the
 structure of DNA on an LSD trip.
There's also the theory that Unix was a result of LSD being easily available at Berkley in the day. 
I don't see a rant...
 I just see a bunch of square looking squashed spiders... is this some kind of art? 
Because it devalues money...
 Let's index all money, so that's a total of 100 units instead...
Now, you see that the best case scenario, all you can do is redistribute it.
GS provides a useful service to the financial industries, and programmers provide a useful service to GS...
You, on the other hand, are useful to nobody... Just a useless idiot. 
No, I  LIKE to be mean...
 what's it to you?
And what have you done for me anyway?
You want me to give you something for nothing?
Fucking fail faggit.
You want free money, why don't you go suck some cock instead of whining all the time that you can't maths or science?
Good luck with that. 
I'm sorry dude...
 I'm so far behind doing my own stuff it's not funny...
Marginal profits tended to zero on my trading apps, as predicted... the Aus government bought in a stupid GST ruling on BTC trading that just makes it not worth it... I got no businesses left to sell... I probably have to get a job... and I procrastinate probably as bad as MDC... so, I'm really lazy busy at the moment.
Such is life. 
I am...
 It's just not a high priority right now...
I will take a look at it, but give me a few more weeks pls.
I'm supposed to be rebuilding someone's website, and I've put that off for like 3 months already... it's shameful how far behind I am in things. 
The whole point of the free market is to show
 that we are best off when we are most free to do as we want to do.
It's not about making the most money, it's not making sure businesses have the biggest balance sheets... because all those things lead to very different conclusions.
What has cleaning camp sites got to do with balance sheets? Why would you do it if you aren't being paid? How does this improve a company's balance sheet? Yet, it has everything to do with utility...
The problem with you is that you expect humanity as a whole to give you a free ride, an easy existence. That the government, representing the will of the people, give you free money, when you're perfectly capable of sucking cock to earn a living.
Personally, if you (in particular) were starving to death, I would be happy to watch you die that way, because of your entitlement attitude, I think it's what you deserve.
However, I don't agree with Ayn Rand... Ayn Rand supported laissez-faire economics, which doesn't take into account the effects of externalities, imperfect competition, imperfect information or the second welfare theorem, that pareto optimal allocations with other beneficial properties can be bought about through redistribution. 
The AI knows all
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_scream
It just doesn't know what to do with it yet. 
The Afshar Experiment
Just want to share the Afshar Experiment and the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics with everyone who has an interest in physics here.
For those who want a brief summary, the Afshar experiment is a variant of the old double slit experiment that demonstrates that the interference pattern continues to exists, whilst also recording which slit the photon passes through... so violating the wave particle complementarity of the Copenhagen interpretation.
This kills the Schrodinger's Cat.
So, is it fair to say now that particles aren't waves after all? That they are in fact particles that follow the paths of atemporal waves instead?
Can someone with a better understanding of physics share their point of view.
Well... I've done a fair bit of reading on this
 one over the last few years... it's not an experimental error, and appears to be very easily replicated.
And the something deeper is given in the transactional interpretation... some sort of waves are emanating forward in time (retarded waves) from the source and simultaneously emanating backward in time (advanced waves) from the receiver, cancelling out everywhere except for a standing wave between the two events which form the path that the particles actually travels along.
It is these waves that generate the interference pattern, but the particles that we actually observe. 
It's a very easy experiment to set up...
 You just need the usual double slit experiment, using photons.. place a diffraction grating where the antinodes are in the interference pattern... so you can see that all the photons get through, a lens to focus the photons such that whichever slit they go through, they will be focused on one of two detectors...
There you have it... the interference pattern must exist, or otherwise the diffraction grating would block approximately half of them, and we know which slit they must have passed through, because of which detector they fall upon. So, the wave particle duality is broken.
There's no experimental error here. 
Funny...
 Most of the other critical physicists (lol, run!) say the problem is most likely that we can't really infer an interference pattern. 
Of the two possible criticisms, I would have thought not knowing which slit it passed through would be the weaker of the two... by what reasoning could you claim that the classical focussing would stop working?
This should be easy enough to prove anyway, with a modified setup:
Step 1: Standard two slit experiment with pre-slit detectors, know which slit the photon passes through and see gaussian distribution.
Step 2: Turn off pre-slit detectors, see interference pattern. 
Step 3: Remove screen and add lens and detectors... measure the amount of light falling on detectors.
Step 3: Add diffraction grating and see the amount of light falling on the detectors doesn't change.
Step 4: Turn on pre-slit detectors, see the level of light falls from detectors. Though every post-lens detector photon corresponds to the correct pre-lens detector photon.
Step 5: Remove diffraction grating, see the amount of light returns to Step 2&3 levels AND that the pre-slit detectors agree with the post-lens detectors.
If this was true, how could you claim we couldn't infer which slit the light passed through? How could you claim there wasn't an interference pattern? 
Oh... hold on... I think I see a problem...
 You can't detect which slit a photon goes through with pre-slit detectors that don't absorb the photon and not allow it to pass through...
The experiment that has pre-slit detectors to destroy the interference pattern uses electrons, as you can detect the electromagnetic wave of the electron as it passes through without destroying the electron itself... I don't think there's an equivalent experiment for photons.
And if you did try and use electrons for the experiment... I'm not sure that you could create an electro-magnetic lens that operates in the same way as an optical lens (true or false, I don't know?)... and would the electrons interact with the metal in the diffraction grating in ways you wouldn't expect light to?
Arrrgggh....
I don't know... I personally think that Afshar is right, and that this gives some new insight into QM... but I don't know enough to say for certain. I reckon the controversy is simply 60 odd years of scientists thinking of particles as having wave/particle duality... that the particle somehow interfered with itself and must have passed through both slits... but actually it was something else that passed through both slits whilst we can only observe the particle itself.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. -- Max Plank
Science advances one funeral at a time. 
Yeah, well 2004 is really very recent...
 That's some time since I left academia...
Young's original experiment was demonstrated in 1803... so plenty of time for people to ponder it, and the electron version with pre-slit detectors was performed in the 1970s... so that's the version I was always familiar with... and I think the one discussed in undergrad physics 'proving' that individual electrons must be passing through both slits to interfere with itself, and thus proving wave/particle duality.
So, if not already, it probably won't be too many years when Afshar's experiment is shown to undergrad physics students along with the other two to ponder about until someone makes a new breakthrough one way or the other. 
And that's the point of Afshar, right?
 Finding a way to look at light as a wave and a particle at the same time.
I mean, the nature of the photon doesn't change by the way we look at it, that's the way it seems to be stated (not mathematically, but I can't remember my undergrad physics well enough to say for certain), but only the aspects of what we see change by the way we look at it. 
Physics and science in general
 never makes the claim that because they can't explain it that it doesn't exist... just that they can't explain it, so it's not explained or known to exist... that's quite a different thing from saying it cannot exist.
Not sure what you mean by the detector being a transverse wave detector there... and as far as the transactional interpretation goes, there is no observer effect... schrodinger's cat is dead (or alive, but definitely not both)... thus the Copenhagen interpretation is out... along with the many worlds theory.
It takes all sorts in this world... each doing what they most want to do... there is demand for pure research, let them at it... not everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur or whatever. 
I've pointed out this experiments in dozens of 
 comments here over the years... but no one's ever replied to me about it... so I thought it was time for the diary.
It's relatively recent I suppose as far as science goes... so will take a while to filter down through academia... but there it is, so I hope someone with more knowledge than I can give me some thoughts on it.
Personally, I believe it demonstrates that our old views of QM were slightly wrong... though this was always suspected... and although it doesn't really change the maths apparently... it also gives me some belief in retro-causality... that future events can affect the present or past... though I'm not sure if it can be harnessed to pass information backwards through time, or faster than light... but I think it keeps the possibility open. 
It's quite funny hey...
 Half the critics claim that the interference pattern exists, but you can't infer the path the particle took... and the other half claiming that you can infer the path the particle took, but they're not sure there ever really was an interference pattern.
Just join both groups and say, nope no interference pattern, and who knows how the hell the particles got to the detectors. Throw hands in the air.
LOL.
I think this is a good example for anyone saying that phycists all agree on what's going on, even the same experiment, the same results, the same maths, and they're all like it means this, and the other lot are like, no it means that. 
When you say it brings no new math...
 Does the pilot wave theory bring new math to it? Cause it appears to... Isn't there similar math for TQIM? Isn't it just that the math makes no new predictions, rather than there not being new math to describe the retarded and advanced waves? 
Yeah, I know about the electron/positron thing...
 and I've heard of the single electron theory too.
Is it possible that the new maths does make some predictions, just that we haven't yet looked at it correctly or in such a way that we just haven't been able to make any new predictions yet? Or does the math simplify down such that it can't make new predictions, no matter what?
If the afshar experiment is correct... isn't that in itself a verification of a testable prediction that the current description of QM can't account for?
If you can't answer this, is the answer to simply wait another 25 years or so until the results become clear and accepted amongst academia, or otherwise get dismissed? 
It's not that I disagree with you...
 It's just that I don't like the answers you're giving me.
I like to think that one day we'll work out how to manipulate the retarded/advanced waves themselves and send messages from the end of time back to the start of time and cause the big bang. 
Oh, for sure, 100% agree...
 but only if you're one of those dirty causalisists... especially if you buy into all that light cone nonsense.
From a 5 dimensional space time perspective though, it should all work out okay. We just need (yet another) time dimension.
Otherwise just accept that future events can affect the past... retro-causality... and it's all okay... you can still learn to sleep at night. 
I saw a Paul Davies lecture on the Big Bang
 Black Holes and Quasars when I was in year 9.
My science teacher dropped free tickets on us (we were huge nerds, go figure), at the local university, and my Dad took me and a friend.
My Dad made some wonderful notes of the lectures. I imagine lost to time.
Not sure I followed along all that closely, but certainly made me think at that age. I still remember the universe as expanding balloon analogy of everything being at the centre of an expanding universe (I know, it's only an analogy and breaks down)... also about event horizons and naked singularities... The quasar thing interested me the least (just weird star like things, aren't they?)... though I still wonder why their all so far away.
Yeah... I was specifically talking about an extra time dimension... In fact, I think I read somewhere, either hawking, or he was commenting on it, added TWO extra 'imaginary' time dimensions to one of his models... I think the point was that one of them allows real time itself to evolve out of the equations as it comes into existence during the big bang... I can't remember what the second one was for...
It was all in layman's terms of course... but still, it's not that controversial an idea... I think string theory (I know, it has a too many parameters to make useful predictions problem) has this. 
Can't say I know enough to say whether the
 imaginary time was 'i' or an additional time dimension... I suspect the latter, cause it was mentioned there were two additional time dimensions... and that real time comes into existence along with the spacial dimensions as one of the imaginary time dimensions advances... it especially gets around the zero time point... what happens before, and at that point... but then time evolves in a way like space along that axis.
But I really don't know much more about it than that... just an idea I found interesting.
Yeah, the 11 dimensions of string theory comes out of it being the minimum number of dimensions to satisfy some group theory something... fuck it, I'm so far out of my depth at this point I may as well just give up.
I could barely cope with Lorentz transformations... but I think I did better with some of the QM stuff... cause all the extra time we spent studying semiconductor theory. We really only did enough physics that was needed to apply it to engineering. 
Yeah, but I don't think that's how it was used...
 but I don't know the maths, so I don't know... but the way it was put was that real time evolved out of but along with imaginary time... whereas, with your analogy the real and imaginary components would have their separate domains (y<b, y>b)... and the little graph that accompanied it didn't show that.
Like if you graphed the two relative to each other, that would just be two lines along the respective axis... and this wasn't... there was a relationship there.
I was exaggerating a tiny bit there with the Lorentz thing... I never failed a class... but I'd probably still have to look some details today... All I remember is something like 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is a factor... off the top of my head??? That was some two decades ago for me... didn't come up much in any dev, deployment, support role or any stock trading, business, econ, ai or ann or any thing I've done since... so you know... a bit rusty on that one.
I'd even be less able to recall how Young's Modulus operates in materials... but I'd consider the theory in general (non-mathematical) terms far easier.
Like I said, I'm an engineer... physics was just shit I had to pass that might somehow be relevant in other ways... but mostly I think just to exercise the mind in certain ways of thinking I suppose... and a foundation for if you ever had to use that stuff, but I'd definitely have to look it back up to apply it. 
You could roll a dice and claim the same thing...
 The TIQM claim is that the wave collapses atemporally along the two events (transmission and absorption of the photon)... along the path defined by the advanced and retarded waves.
Yeah, from a knowledge point of view... you end up with two probabilities 50/50... but I think we can throw this out from a physical point of view ever since we inferred object persistence as toddlers. 
Pity Comment $
 
What I like is the $5 Kuro5hin introduction
 Okay, thanks for the $5, the first thing you're going to have to do is send $5 to Rusty...
LOL...
Though it would probably even funnier in Sye speak... "The $5 of the first kind being to bring much happiness to you joy for finding of the Rusty payment for $5 to be accessing K5 - with help of Holy Ghost your way is now clear".
I'm almost tempted to setup a website that accepts a $5 payment (in bitcoin, of course) to help you get access to Sye's Kuro5hin Introduction service...
If we could just get MDC to setup a $5 introduction to procrasti's introduction to sye's introduction to K5 service... we could bilk them all for $20 bucks between us before telling them to "Fuck off and Lurk Moar Null0 Faggit! News at -$11" 
Wow...
 That's scary how such a popular exchange could have such a catastrophic bug. If you can reliably trigger it, I'd exploit the hell out of it...
Keep doubling up until you own their entire exchange... convert from Euro back to to DRK, cash out your DRK and repeat with double the amount (maybe 1.5 times the amount, and keep the rest in case they catch on as a hedge, even 50% a day you'll be rich in no time... if you can trigger it just once an hour, wow).
Knowing that, I'm glad I don't have any assets there.
So, is DRK like provably anonymous or something in ways BTC isn't? 
Your prices are too high...
 Assuming standard demand curves, demand should be higher at a lower price... and given zero demand, the derivative can point in only one direction... lower prices.
Although, if you'd like to assume that you are selling Veblen goods, then maybe your prices are way too low... You could try charging say for a $50,000 K5 Introduction Service... At this price you could probably provide a more personal service, fly to your customer, actually walk them through the sign up process (or have their account premade before you get there), post their first diary and story for them (so they don't get called Null0 faggits), give them a signed T-shirt and companion Mug (I paid $50,000 and all I got was this lousy T-shirt, Mug and K5 account), and maybe even a happy ending... or at least say, a nice bouquet of flowers and/or gift basket.
I always thought there was a strong Asian market for conspicuous spending... so, hey, why not? What's the worst that could happen? You don't sell any? 
Giffen goods are specifically inferior goods with 
 no substitutes (like corn bread from the only baker in a corn farming village)... priced low enough that they're the cheapest thing the poor can afford, but as they go up in price, (because income effects) the poor can no longer afford some other thing they might like more, say steak, so they have to buy more of the giffen good to substitute it... the higher the price, the more they have to buy! But they're still relatively cheap... the point of them is theoretical to show how demand curves could slope the 'wrong' way.
It is hard to find examples of Giffen goods in real life... partly because we usually deal in aggregates and averages... but might include me buying meat pies at the local shops cause I'm broke, making me more broke and forcing me to buy more meat pies cause I can't afford to go shopping... I don't know.
Veblen goods are specifically luxury goods, where the high price itself makes it a status symbol and therefore drives demand... like a $50k K5 account that comes with gold plated and etched user id certificate you could hang on your wall... you buy it specifically because the likes of Trane never could.
They could then write diaries how they spent $50k dollars on a single K5 account, while Trane can barely afford 5 $5 accounts.
So, yeah... it's all about the packaging and marketing. You could make a fortune!
Shit, sell K5 accounts with bronze plated certificates for $20k, silver for $50k, gold for $150k and platinum for $500k... you could be making millions!
And as a side effect, we could get some decent users here for a change. 
Insurance isn't a bad thing...
 If the insurance company underestimates the risk, they lose money... so it's important for them to get things right too.
The problem is really only a problem when the government underwrites the real risk, and bails out companies because they are 'too big to fail'... This means there was no real risk all along... this isn't Free Market at all... It's socialism for the rich. It completely destroys money as a signalling system. 
No... but I wasn't replying to that... I was
 replying to Trane's stupid statement that doing arbitrage or using insurance is somehow bad or wrong. 
Yeah, okay... I mean, I do agree
 that the analogy is stupid...
But his little tirade against GS and hedging was thrown in there cause he always like to attack the idea of hedging... like it's making money for nothing.
I admit I read a little bit between the lines there... but it's not like it's not a fav topic of his. 
Now we hit the first welfare theorem...
 That the Free Market will find a pareto optimum where no one can be made better off WITHOUT making someone worse off.
If there were infinite resources this wouldn't be true... but he really is asking to be made better off at other people's expense... even if he thinks printing money comes out of free air... it doesn't, because money represents resources. 
Nitpicking...
 Economics deals with human choices... so those things you listed are included...
No, it doesn't deal with atmospheric processes or physics or anything like that. It's domain isn't unlimited... that would be ummm foolish.
As far as 'proofs' go... I'm not sure they could proven the excess humors cause of disease in the same way as economists can prove the free market theorems... they could probably show correlation, so, as far as it was the best model available to them at the time, and they could probably demonstrate that... they were right. When better models were able to demonstrate better correlations, then they became 'wrong'.
The Free Market Theorems however are MATHEMATICAL proofs... and maths in never wrong... in that IF THE AXIOMS ARE CORRECT, then the PROOFS that follow MUST ALSO BE CORRECT.
A good real life example is the proof that a triangle has internal angles that sum to 180 degrees... You probably agree with that, right?
EXCEPT it's not true if you drop the axiom that parallel lines never meet... which is one of the five axioms of Euclidean geometry... and the funny thing is, we live in a universe where that axiom turns out to be false... Parallel lines on the earth will meet at the poles (well for those running north south), so triangles don't have that property on the earth's surface (it's also not a plane), but also parallel lines intersect at the singularity of a blackhole... general relativity defines a non-euclidean space time... so again, euclidean geometry doesn't match reality.
So, if there IS a problem with the Free Market Welfare Theorems... it MUST be in the AXIOMS.
So, that is what I mean by Free Market is proven... However, I find the axioms quite reasonable... and dropping some of them results in nonsensical answers - like if we don't have a preference for one thing over another, would mean we don't care no matter what happens to us, and that's intuitively false... or that scarcity doesn't exist, would mean we have everything we could ever want... also seems intuitively false...
The only other problem is using proofs outside of their domains - say treating public goods as if they were private (though we have proofs for that stuff too)... but the most common problem is simply representing it as something it is not -- say, that government shouldn't have ANY involvement in the market... when the proofs show quite the opposite, but they show instead what type of involvement for each type of problem.
Sorry to rant... It's just that I think mathematical proofs have their own existence... either the rules weren't followed (which just makes it wrong, rather than false)... or the axioms are false... but with a set of axioms, everything that follows must be true IF the axioms are true... and where they are false... the proofs are still true WHERE the axioms are true. 
Ummm....
 I was pretty clear that economics has nothing to do with the weather dude... that it is well and truly outside of that domain.
The rest was off topic maybe, but a little bit more detail about what economic proofs are... and what I mean by proofs.
And the whole earth, wind, fire and water is a model... just not a very good one... and though they reasoned it out... you are probably right that they had no formal scientific method... I bet their cures worked slightly above pure chance on average... and so were still useful.
I'd imagine being forced fed a cask full of cold water would make you think next time you got a bit pissed off.
And the lobotomy thing clearly works... it's just that you'd probably rather have the disease than the cure. 
What am I talking about? Of course economics is
 relevant to the weather...
You might have heard of something called climate change? 
BWT, I'm not an economist... I'm an engineer
 and well aware of applying the right models and theories to the right domain.
Hammers have always been simply one tool in my box.
The fact that I've extended my toolbox to include economics should point to the opposite conclusion than what you draw. 
Alright... so, I totally get your point...
 I really do... and in fact it's what I'm trying to fix.
Now, I can't use different terms, because the meaning is academically well defined... as an analogy, lets say the term hacker has a definite technical academic meaning and the there's theory all about it, and all good engineers who work on difficult technical problems are hackers... but for some reason the media has used the term hacker to describe crackers, and this has been used to discredit any engineers and so we're headed for a technically illiterate society, and when the engineers stand up and say look at all these good things we do, they get booed and called thieves who just want to crack passwords and steal everyone's bank account.
That's kind of how I feel about the free market.
Now, I may have been bringing it up in many diaries and topics... for sure... cause I'm trying to get these points across... (I also wanted to know the theory to justify basic income)... but I don't think it's comparable to basic income and challenges, just for the simple fact that I'm really not going beyond the well accepted theory on the matter... and, as far as I can tell, I haven't been using it outside of its applicable domains. Though I use some parts outside of the domain of the entire theory, those parts are within their own domain (ie, Utility is applicable to any decision making agent, in or out of a free market, and so is applicable directly to AI for example, and all human choices, and even animals).
You'll see I never said that the free market can be used to predict the weather (wait, actually, I do have a solution to that... damn... predictive markets... but that's another topic)... okay, you can't use economics to MODEL the weather... or thermodynamics, or quantum mechanics, or a whole heap of other reasonably interesting topics... I do understand its domain, and I'm not pushing it outside of that domain... it's just that, as humans making choices in what we do, it's applicable to a hell of a lot of our daily lives.
I see some of trane's ideas would be like arguing in favour of free energy devices... so I would bring up thermodynamics... but then consider yourself living in a society where everyone mocks you for bringing up thermodynamics all the time... oh my god, he's on about thermodynamics again... can't he see all the free energy we get from the sun? What's this guy's problem, he's just trying to stop us having our free energy... no.
The thing is, I really do think that the term free market has been barstardised by the media and politicians serving a wealthy elite who want to discredit the free market for their own ends... mostly so that they can take greater advantage of people!
They bastardise it in many ways... the most obvious way is to suggest that governments should keep their filthy hands off anything that makes private interests money... So, for example, and speaking of weather... carbon taxes or cap and trade and similar things are free market ideas --- well, they are the fixes to the market to bring about free market like equilibriums... because the atmosphere is a public good, and dumping carbon into the atmosphere is a negative externality, therefore the solution is pigovian taxes - the problems are so few, and the solutions are well known, I don't even have to think about it to know that is the actual solution to the problem.
So anyway... can you see the problem I'm facing... it is exactly analogous to the hacker / cracker problem... you are absolutely right... I say free market, people point out the market raping them and taking their wallet, I say, that's the market, and it's not the free market because a, b or c (and there really is only a small handful of problems and solutions to them), and they say, whatever dude, I was told that was the free market, and I don't know what you're going on about, (and greengrass's statement) that we probably shouldn't even have a free market! So, I'm like, wtf... then what is the alternative? Cause the alternative is being told what to do... the free is free as in choice... you can't be raped if you volunteered for it... by definition!
Basically... for the majority of our social issues, I see are problems with things not being the free market --- prohibition, and all it's woes... cause it's not a free market... pollution... not a free market... price manipulation... not a free market... fraudulent advertising... not a free market.
And the final nail in the coffin, is wealth inequality... the fact that the rich are getting richer, while middle class wages have been stagnant or dropping for the last 4 decades... I suggest some forms of wealth redistribution -- and everyone shouts THAT'S NOT FREE MARKET --- when fuck it, that's covered by the fucking SECOND WELFARE THEOREM... like only the number two theorem derived from free market economics... I can't win one way or the other.
Also, I'm imagining a future of powerful AIs and robots taking over almost every possible job in the not too distant future... but I believe they will be owned by private interests... basically the end game of technological advancement and capital concentration that Marx warned about... people talk of the end of scarcity and restructuring our society etc... but really... the free market is still the solution... if we can wrestle the benefits of that system back from the inevitable few wealthy elite who own them... we still need price signals so they produce what we want... there's no restructuring necessary, just plain old free market capitalism, wealth taxes and basic income (aka the second fucking welfare theorem!!).
So, if you can put some of your brain power into helping me out here... I'd actually really appreciate it.
On the other hand, I could just shut the fuck up and care only for myself and put my knowledge to maximising my own bank accounts, privatise my profits while socialising my costs while calling that the free market and fuck the rest of you... but that would be going against my free market ethics --- if you have to produce externalities... produce positive ones.
What can I do? Shut the fuck up about it? Let everyone wallow in ignorance? I don't know.
I guess... the only thing I might ask... if you got some spare time... and are capable of doing calculus... maybe hit a micro-econ mooc... then come back to me, and I think you'd be like, wow --- my eyes are open, I see what you were talking about... how can these guys not get it? Why did I ever think I was in a free market? That's not a free market, that's not a free market, that's not a free market*... oh look, all the shit everyone's complaining about is not a free market... why do they keep calling it that?
*: except very occasionally --- that's not a free market --- but for a very good reason! 
I couldn't help it:
 I couldn't let you miss this one: http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2015/4/5/19348/63979/21#21 
Yeah... I agree with this...
 Axioms are given... and then assumed to be true for the proofs that follow... not that they are assumed to be true in general... so your wording is more correct than mine. Especially in the field of pure mathematics.
However, if you come up with a set of axioms, and use them to prove that all people are actually tomatoes... then you will know that one of your axioms is wrong... at least in this reality... right?
I mean, if your axioms lead to absurd proofs, you know the problem is with your axioms.
So, you can always test (some combination of) axioms by assuming the opposite (or absence, or an addition) (of one or more of them) and seeing what proofs will follow, and if they result in nonsense, you will have more confidence in your original set of axioms.
But this is in the field of applied mathematics, where we would care about such things. 
Use Free Markets to Predict the Weather?
 So you think the weather is outside of the domain of free market economics... oh you simple fool... nothing is outside the domain of free market economics!
Behold, the power of:
    Predictive Markets.
Short the rain this weekend! Benefit from hedging, arbitrage, and insurance of your positions for maximum weather prediction accuracy*.
*: Illegal in most states under US law... Home to The One True Free MarketTM(PBUH) - terms and conditions apply (please see inside packaging for details). 
Even if physics turns out to be discrete
 that doesn't prove we're in a simulation.
Also, I don't think the universe runs on mathematics... just that mathematics can describe any universe with consistent (even statistical) rules.
If you find yourself in a reality where mathematics doesn't work... nothing would mean anything anyway... it's either entirely noise without structure, or it's meaningless. True is False and nothing is distinguishable.
Though I think you're right, that it's unprovable that you are not in a simulation... and I don't think it's possible to have a (mathematical consistent) reality where you can.
So, when Neo is taken out of the matrix, there's no way of telling that he still isn't in the matrix.
Also, hence my theory that not even God could prove he wasn't just some creation of a higher being.
So, Ave Satanis... May as well worship a god that delivers you concrete results... a god you can believe in. 
Yeah... but no...
 The universe doesn't run on mathematics... the universe is... and certain mathematics describes it... simple enough to prove, because you can create any physics from mathematics, an infinite number of different physics, and the universe only operates on exactly one of them... even if we don't fully know what that one is.
If it was the other way around, we wouldn't need to test our physics at all... the physics would be derivable purely from mathematics... and it isn't... which is why we require the scientific method.
And even if your lattice QCD is right... and you prove it... it's still a 'maybe' this is "God"'s sim... maybe not... it doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that our physics happen to work that way.
Conversely, if we are in a simulation, the physics of the universe of which we are simulation could be anything... and no reason to presume a lattice like artifact would be needed... There's no reason to presume our universe is limited to what can run on a Turing Machine.
The most we could say about the universe we are a simulation within, if indeed we are, would be that it must have mathematically consistent rules... otherwise our universe could not, and it does.
So, no matter what you find in our physics, the simulation argument remains an unknowable. 
In the beginning was the empty set...
 And the empty set was with God... and the empty set was God.
LOL. 
Sorry... it does "run on" maths... 
 for a certain definition of "run on" I guess... in that it (appears) to evolve following some set of mathematical rules... like you said.
Sorry... I was kind of getting confused with some of the Platonic mathematical philosophy that maths creates the universe... which I think is rubbish... I think the philosophy there was that for any mathematical system you can define... kind of creates a universe where that is true... but I think that's clearly rubbish. The idea persists in the Mathematical Universe Theory (if I'm reading it right).
But yeah... it does appear to follow a set of rules, like anything we can simulate on a Turing Machine... Even QM is a subset of Turing machines... though only if the universe doesn't have infinite precision... as I stated a long time ago... a recursive neural network that allows transcendental weights is capable of super turing computation... so, they aren't computable on an actual computer... and probably require infinite precision calculations... and I don't think it's determined yet whether our universe has infinite precision or not (even if we can't measure below the plank length, the universe could still have precision below that, right?).
Also, I have a pretty strong feeling the universe doesn't evolve just forward in time... but interactions occur in both directions... have you heard of the afshar experiment? I'm pretty sure his transactional view of QM has some pretty deep philosophical implications.
My point being that even if our universe is a simulation it may not be limited by the same limitations of what we can simulate... that whether we are simulation or not is forever unknowable (even if you escape out of the simulation somehow, or interact with the host universe... that could also be a simulation)... and we probably can't derive the physics of the host universe, yet there is still one strong limitation to it... that it must be a mathematically definable universe (though unknowable). 
I fucking love erlang...
 What a beautiful language.
I wrote a poker hand evaluator in python... but it wasn't fast enough for my needs... so I figured I'd write it in erlang, and distribute the problem to as many machines as I could get my hands on...
It worked... but wasn't natively fast... figured I'd need about 100 desktops or so to get the speeds I required.
So, I rewrote it again in C (without the distributed stuff of course)... evaluates all possible hands in 100ms.
Oh well... Erlang's great when you really need strong failover guarantees... but it's not the fastest horse in the race. Definitely see why it's used in telecoms, where you need 5 nines or better uptime. 
In the early to mid 90s I was an MS developer...
 When you have access to MSDN there's a wealth of information available... but only if you have the resources (wealth) to get access to it... which you generally do when a company pays for it, but as an individual, it was very expensive. Also, at best you had public APIs to work with.
I first heard of Linux in 98, and someone put a copy on my computer... but I was still making apps in MS Visual Studio (and thinking DCOM was the future)... wasn't until 99 I really got into it... installed it on my home computers, started porting code to it, etc...
Even in the early 2000s, was hard to get companies to see the value in it... though I would run it on my machines in virtual box (or something like that... did that exist back then?)... and generally get the company's software to work in that environment...
By the mid 2000s though, I'd saved at least one company several million a year by moving the software from propriety unix to linux...
Nowadays you'd find it hard not to find a large company that doesn't rely on Linux (or maybe FreeBSD or similar Free OSS) to some degree or another. 
Well... I was sold by the economics of OSS...
 It actually makes a lot of sense... unlike your objections to corporate development... which also makes sense in certain situations and markets. 
incremental innovation, like the internet, x-rays,
 whatever else it was you went on about?
You realise these things were created by the free market, right?
The system works. No UBI needed AT ALL.
You on the other hand have nothing to offer society... you're not going to make any break throughs... you never have... and your time is nearly up...
You're a deranged crack head with no hope or future... stfu.
We'd be better off as a society without you actually... maybe we should just tax the shit out of you, and if you can't pay, execute you... and improve the environment... call it Universal Fuck Trane Tax... Now, there's an argument with concrete facts. 
Of course it's possible...
 Some unemployable crack head takes a draw on their pipe and has some weird revelation that turns out to be useful and creates some discovery that changes the world... for sure, why not.
Do I think it will make such breakthroughs more likely on average? No... no I don't.
TBL was working at CERN when he came up with the WWW... Einstein was working as a patent clerk... etc, etc... probably what these people had in common was that every day they were exercising their minds in different ways because of the work they were doing... that probably helped a lot.
So, it's not that I think UBI is a bad idea... it's that what he thinks the advantages of it aren't... it has other advantages... but people aren't going to suddenly start working on challenges, creating robots and inventing the holodeck... Very few people have the talents for this anyway... and many times the research itself is still incredibly expensive and won't be created in anyone's bedroom... I actually think the Free Market is the most likely source of these types of inventions...
What UBI does is reduce structural friction... meaning that people can be a bit bolder in seeking the right jobs for themselves... it increases competition for labour... instead of being scared that losing your job might leave you hungry and homeless... you can take risks... start your own company and stuff like that.
Plus... at the right level... some people will be free to have more leisure time... and why not? That should really be the end goal of technological innovation anyway... rather than making us all effective slaves to a handful of super elite filthy rich.
In america they don't have social security like we do... they get like 12 weeks and then it's either disability or starvation or something similar... we have it better... but the focus is on getting you into a job, not just allowing you to live... so, for us, there is still the question of whether a UBI is better than full time unemployment benefits... but for them, it's even worse. 
LOL -- I missed you were fishing for compliments
 Well... some people are just productive anyway...
Economics is all about differentials, right? The margins... So, you kind of compare the two states... you're already doing something (arguably) beneficial for society... so you can ask the question whether or not you'd be further along in your project with a UBI.
I don't think it would make a huge difference, do you?
Has funding yourself been a huge barrier to you? I wouldn't say that's been the limiting factor... would you? 
That's actually a good point...
 The government is free to spend money on R&D in ways private companies might not... They do so because of the expected positive externalities and also for national security.
They have access to a lot of money, and are free to set their goals independently of profit. Anything military is a good example.
In Free Market economies though, the workers still need incentives to make them do that through free choice.
We don't draft our soldiers or our scientists... though they have in the past... and some countries still do (Iran nuclear scientists maybe).
If trane really wanted holodecks, he should find a military use for them... prove they'd be the fastest way of breaking terrorists in psyops or something similar... Then the government could spend money on the absolute best and brightest minds and put them to that purpose, no matter the cost... rather than giving out UBI to random crack heads and relying on the Free Market from there (which is what he advocates, even if he doesn't know it). 
Oh... also UBI changes nothing fundamentally
 about the Free Market... that also rallies against... the Free Market will still be the optimal market.
Nor will it change The Market... nor people's behaviours... The Market will still reward the unscrupulous, the liars, the fraudsters... and just because you have a UBI, doesn't mean you still aren't subject to these influences.
The first guy that comes along promising them first access to the non-existent holodeck that simply requires a 10 year contract for the value of their UBI... and bang... The Market will fuck the idiots again.
If you interact with humans, you are subject to The Market... it will continue to need regulation to operate as a Free Market. UBI changes nothing.
Nor will it reward these inventors he pointed out... cause it rewards non-inventors too... there's no special incentive to invent... what the market doesn't reward, neither does UBI... and I see no one offering up an alternative that does. 
Yes it was...
 A dude, operating in the market, created something, and released it of his own free will... this is classic free market... what the fuck do you think a market is? 
Dude... everything is the market...
 Anytime you trade anything for anything...
This is market, right here, right now...
Market is UTILITY motivated... You could lose all your money and still gain utility... profit is not the key to the market, utility is.
You can measure it in hours spent listening to the birds if you like. 
Individuals don't have balance sheets...
 And profit is a companies utility...
A balance sheet reduces to utility anyway. 
You're an idiot...
 Truly...
Do you have a balance sheet?
I don't have a personal balance sheet.
You don't use natural language for balance sheets either... they have things called numbers... you might recall.
Revenue: Quite a bit
Liabilities: Also quite a bit.
Assets: A little bit more.
Seriously, your fucking retarded.
Economists don't disagree with utility... though they might put more emphasis on companies balance sheets... they certainly didn't say utility was wrong.
Relies on maths... jesus christ... what a fail fuck. 
A balance sheet cannot explain a happy monk
 who has taken a vow of poverty...
Utility does.
So balance sheets might be considered more important for the health of an economy... cause they're far easier to work with... but they do not express people's actions.
In fact, I think they're a terrible thing to focus on... Lots of rich companies doesn't mean people are actually happy.
Only maximising utility implies people are happy. 
Action = argmax(Utility(action); actions) 
 That's the point... whatever you chose to do, is you maximising your utility... If you hate money and want to be a monk... that maximises his utility.
To argue against the Free Market is to argue against the rights of the monk... if you want to maximise balance sheets... we should really be forcing him to work for a company.
You could call it the happiness function (though, there's no actual guarantee it will make you happy), or do what the fuck you most want to do function (closest to what utility is).
But that's how we use it...
Why would I lie to you about it? I think you're using ad hominems cause you don't like to think. Especially don't want to admit you're wrong... cause you've spent so many years arguing against something that you never understood. 
And before you argue that's not the utility
 function itself... this is all we actually know about the utility function.
If I defined the utility function (say utility of being a monk = 100, utility of being a banker = 1000, utility of crack = 300), then that would be saying that we all have the same utility function... that we'd all like to be monks, or we'd all like to be bankers, or that we'd all like to smoke crack, or that we'd all like to be against drugs...
We know that the utility function is different for every person... and that we know no more than that about it.
You're trying to add constraints that are unnecessary, because you are not used to dealing with abstract functions... yet mathematicians, engineers and economists are used to dealing with abstract functions all the time.
Asking for more than that, is going beyond the theory... in fact... it's going against the theory entirely. 
No amount of money printing is going to get you
 Bill's house... and I see no reason why you deserve it... nor any reason he doesn't (with some caveats). 
Funny you think Bill Gates should live like you
 want to...
This is why we analyse an unknown utility function, rather than dictate how others should live.
You're a real selfish piece of shit... did you know that? 
You must have meant you love him and his house
 when you said "Fuck Bill Gates's house." ... "Fuck those rich gated compound motherfuckers. How can they live like that when smarter ppl die because of politics and false economic theories? ".
For some odd reason I interpreted as you saying he shouldn't live like that... sorry. 
So, when those scientists are freed up to solve
 AIDS...
Who's going to do the job's they're currently doing? Or do you just think that AIDS is the most important thing to solve?
You seem to think that people will do more work with a basic income... like, everyone will do all the work that is currently being done, plus all the challenges now they're free of market forces.
Or your theory relies on the fact that all the work they are doing now is useless... which makes no sense to me at all.
The only person around here who's work is completely useless is you... most people are being PRODUCTIVE. 
This is an economically infeasible solution...
 Simply because the robot's don't currently exist... otherwise we wouldn't have people doing that work.
There's no robot that can replace a chemist, a doctor, a lawyer, an engineer... They just aren't ready YET.
Now, you might point to Watson, or something similar, maybe Google will get there first... oh look... all products of Free Market capitalism.
The market drives innovation. This is all predicted by standard economic theory, that markets create technology over time in the drive for efficiency.
So, if you can't show me the robots that are as capable as their human counterparts and cheaper too... you are speaking rubbish... and if they did already exist... then your argument would be moot... because they'd already have replaced those workers in those fields. 
Do you have youtube video of one?
 No... cause they don't exist outside your crack filled fantasies...
If they were cheaper (capital) than human labour, they'd have already replaced the human labour.
The fact that they haven't is really simple proof that they don't yet exist... No scarcity driven company is going to waste money on people when it can profit by using machines.
Thank god you're too poor to have any influence. Free Market puts you exactly where you belong... hungry, homeless and in the wilderness. 
Oh look... the wonders of Free Market capitalism..
 That's my fucking point... that's what Adam Smith predicted in the days of slave labour... and look PREDICTION turned into REALITY.
Now show me the lawyer bot, the chemist bot, the engineer bot.
Because Adam Smith never said free the slaves because the internet enables communication over vast distances... do you know why? Because THERE WAS NO FUCKING INTERNET AT THE TIME... it would have been ECONOMICALLY INFEASIBLE.
HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU CUNT? 
Technological advancement is an economic 
 theory. 
I just don't get the idea that everyone can do 
 nothing... and yet still expect all the world's products and services to exist (at the same price too!!!)... it's too fucking nuts to even consider.
If everyone was paid millions by the government in a UBI, we could all afford cheap blowjobs... and no one would have to give them!
This is what dropping the law of non-contradiction gets you... because the above becomes totally feasible man... just have another draw on this pipe... it will all make sense. 
Funny thing is, many people have no problem
 passing or even excelling at the MOOCs...
Maybe the problem is that you're too stupid to follow along...
Maybe it's not MOOCs you need at all... perhaps you need someone who has passed them to distill the information down to your level... like spoon feeding a baby.
But you're still the kind of person who would swat even that spoon away... The failure is totally with you, not the MOOCs. 
You deserve to suffer because you won't deal
 with your own Dunning-Kruger effect. 
I'm just saying, I'm glad you're poor, 
 unsuccessful and suffering.
You get what you deserve. 
What scarcity did I create?
 I'm happy with my lot... I don't suffer scarcity...
You're the one complaining about it. 
No I don't... I want scarcity eliminated...
 That's kind of the point. 
I'm glad a retard like you suffers...
 but I want to reduce scarcity in general.
Is that too complicated for you?
An engineer doesn't remove friction by pretending it doesn't exist... but I'd still like to see you dragged across a road tied to a rope on the back of a car. 
You're a sick puppy...
 You want to rape crack whores?
That's fucked up... I wouldn't let you do that even in a holodeck... That would be like child porn, even if you aren't raping an actual child, it encourages it.
If rape and murder are the best incentives you have, then fuck you and your whole ideas.
I'd be willing to concede the fastest way to a holodeck would be through basic income... if you can demonstrate that mathematically... but you don't even have gossip on your side, just some crack fantasy. 
Thanks...
 As you know, I'm a big believer in micro-economics and therefore Free Markets... with the caveat that they must be regulated in accordance with their assumptions to 'correct' The Market when it doesn't match those assumptions.
I've gone over the axioms and gone through the mathematical proofs that derive from those axioms and I can find little wrong with the reasoning that flows from them. (though there is one axiom that semi-bothers me... but no one here is educated enough to discuss the matter with me... I hint at it often, but everyone goes off in other directions... so fuck you all for that one).
And the second welfare theorem of free markets is quite clear on the fact that we can bring about pareto optimums with much better properties than the alternatives with a certain amount of wealth redistribution.
It is clear to me, that wealth taxes are part of the solution to growing inequality... Then a UBI with progressive income taxes make sense as the second part... and I strongly believe that a balanced budget is necessary... in the long term.
Throw all these together, and it's just a matter of demographics and mathematics to make them all balance.
I do think it's a shame that most people have been brainwashed to be against the Free Market, and think it means letting big business do as it pleases... rather than realise it's an optimum state that can only be reached by correct regulation of The Market... given that the masses don't know what the correct regulations are (from mathematical principles) too often allows politicians to sell ideas that ultimately harm the population, while appearing to do good.
Just imagine a world where everyone thought Trane's ideas made sense... a lot of that type of thinking actually goes on to appease an economically illiterate population. 
All the resurrection bunny's given me is clap
 in my eyeballs and a headache.
Hail Satan. 
Well that's not very good is it?
 If one in a million have a great idea... that's like only 200 great ideas in America, and only 7000 world wide...
It's gonna take a long time to get anything done under your system.
Shit, I've had like 5 great ideas this afternoon... one of them was to send you one a one way journey to Mars... so you could set up your utopian society and pay yourself a basic income.
Best of luck. 
Markets DRIVE innovation...
 Where did you think all this tech shit come from anyway?
Hint: None of it was developed under a basic income and anti-market environment. 
No... you're just uneducated...
 They're nice words, but they don't stand up to scrutiny.
Yes, much is unrewarded by the market... they are called Positive Externalities... there are ways to correct for these... In the realm of ideas, we have intellectual property laws... but if people chose not to take advantage of them... well, that is their choice and their utility... Good on them.
You're not actually proposing a system where these people DO get rewarded for their inventions... UBI does NOT do that AT ALL either!
And for the second part... a UBI doesn't solve this problem ether... Why? Because those businesses are STILL going to pay their scientists and engineers way more than a UBI... Of course, if those scientists and engineers truly had great independent ideas, they are still free to do those things in their spare time and create their own startups and companies... UBI changes none of this... these are well paid professionals... not uneducated workers who have to spend 120 hours a week down a coal mine.
The Free Market still remains the most optimal solution... and whilst UBI may be good in other ways... it solves neither of the problems you mentioned.
You're a stupid, uneducated, economically illiterate piece of shit who is too fucking retarded to even know that you should shut the fuck up. Eat a dick, fuck face. 
Yet it predicts all of this... you can't keep
 using anti non-contradiction logic... it's useless. 
Good rational argument you got there...
 crack-for-brains. 
Go suck a cock... crack fag $
 
That's what we call utility $
 
Did you cum?
 Cause that's utility dipshit. 
Lacist Plick %
 
Dude, no one want's to listen to a xenophobic ass$
 
but I believe you actually are racist $
 
Whatever... you're the one making racist 
 statements. 
It's a useful mental shortcut...
 If we know who they are, we can expect the types of things they're likely to say, and if we should pay attention to them or not.
It's not like you're going to suddenly stop going on about the law of noncontradiction (which is only a law in certain mathematical systems). We know the kind of rubbish you're going to write about... you're not suddenly going to change just because you got a new nick... you're just going to repeat the same old tired memes... so, if it's one of your dupes, we know it's okay to ignore it.
So, yeah, it is a mental shortcut... but a useful one. If this new nick has something interesting say, we'll find out anyway... but more than likely, we'll know who it is is after a few posts anyway. 
LilDebbie had a garden, right?
 And thinks he's a genius?
Could it be?
I hope it's not Trane! 
Nice tune... I like it. $
 
Meth Tits used to joke with Street Geologist
 about giving blowjobs and biting penises off... with great delight, a giant shit eating grin and to much laughter...
Real men take risks... there's no reward without risk... who dares wins... and fortune favours the brave. 
Also... I've got pink eye in one of my eyes...
 came up over the last few days... I did some reading on it, and I found out you can get chlamydia or gonorrhea in your eyeballs!
I think I might have caught something from Madam Bigs... Like, I have that... and a funny sensation in my euretha (inside my cock).
I dunno... there's something about the street girls giving me meth to fuck them bareback that I just can't resist. The danger is just what attracts me to it... bad habits.
I still can't work out why they're into me... my cocks only a little larger than average... I know they've had much bigger than me... I think it's cause the girls all talk about me... so each one I meet already heard about me through mutual friends... we talk about who's who and what's happened to them lately, who's fucking the corrupt head of the police vice unit so they get free drugs and don't get move on notices, and other gossip, and then I dunno... it's just the way it goes.
Speaking of police corruption, Street Geologist used to tell me that our (only) SWAT team here used to pay her (not that they gave her a choice, though they had a lot of disposable money... funny that, hey?) to cuff her, fuck her and beat her... she had a coppers hat and handcuffs... so I believe her... filthy fucking corrupt pieces of shit... thanks drug war!!! You're really fucking helping, you ignorant retarded supporters of prohibition should rethink your stupid attitudes you stupid cunt wastes of excuses of human beings. I'd have you all anally raped and disposed of if it was in my power... cause that's exactly what you're actually supporting be done to others... you stupid cunting fucks.
These guys are in peak physical condition... praised on the television and in society... and they're taking turns beating on a small defenceless crack addicted woman... seriously... it's fucking stupid.
I haven't come up for a name for the latest girl yet (Crack Momma... that'll do)... First time I met she was like 8 months pregnant and working... I gave her a lift for a little cash... Then I saw her about 2 weeks after giving birth... and she waved at me and came over to talk to me, and got my phone number...
Anyway... she wanted to fuck... but man... she looks like she'd get pregnant at the drop a hat... so to speak... and I don't like wearing hats... so, that just seemed fucking dangerous.
She looks like a slightly worse for wear meth tits... oh well... we went for a few drives to score and kept going past meth tit's house... (quite some distance away)... so maybe there's a connection there... I dunno... I think she could have been spying for her... cause she kept asking me what my relationship with Street Geologist was.
Though she kept going on about deep-throating cock gargling sluts... so, I mean... there was that... like, she's got a good side too. Though she kept calling her ex's message bank, putting on an accent and saying she was Orbanian... then asked me where Orbania was... I said I think it's near yugoslavia... right? Well... it's cause her ex thinks she's fucking this ummmm Orbanian guy, and wanted to wind him up. Who am I to argue?
I can't tell if the way she walks is ghetto strut or just very recently pregnant waddle... maybe a mixture of the two... and she wears these long shorts and wears them low on her waste... makes her look like she's got a strangely long body but oddly short legs... I probably shouldn't have pointed that out to her. Either way, bitch is in my debt at the moment for the unpaid driving... gas, grass or ass next time I see her... if she ever hopes to see her crack baby again anyway (lol jokes, but she doesn't know that).
I met another one I'm gonna call Bedazzled, cause she's got these studs medically implanted in her... on her face, and chest and stuff... quite interesting... expensive apparently... little threaded metal implants you can screw different tops into... so she looks like she's been Bedazzled... we got to talking... and she's an ex of a friend of mine through school... Dude was always way out there... Lead singer of his own punk metal band... small world. Funny thing is, I bought up the band in conversation... said his first name, and she said he was the lead singer and said his last name... so she wasn't having me on.
Anyway... I hope I haven't gotten chlamydia eye... that's going to take a doctor's appointment to clear up.
I'll give it another week... and see what I can still see... or not. 
Doc already told me I have HSV-1...
 The most common form... so it won't be that... I don't think you can get that twice.
I don't know about conjunctivial herpes (HSV2) though... I didn't see it mentioned anywhere...
I think it's just common viral conjunctivitis... which normally clears up on it's own in a few days, and there's no treatment anyway... I'll give it a few more days.
If not, I'll go to the doctor... small chance I got a social eye disease. 
I gotta say... the whole can't give consent thing
 is a bit fucked up...
You get in trouble for driving drunk or stoned... you're expected to take responsibility in these situations... what's so different about sex?
If the man is drunk or stoned, has the women raped him? If they are both drunk or stoned, have they raped each other?
I'm not talking about passed out drunk though... that's a different matter... but I've had lots of happy, consensual drunk and stoned sex... never had a complaint... and they almost always end up coming back for more.
Maybe if you're bad at sex, and the woman didn't really like it, she'll come at you the next day with rape allegations... like a defence for if she regrets it.
But, I've never had that problem.
Are you and your wife always sober when you have sex? Oh forget that... it's Blaster... Do you and your wife even have sex?
Alcohol - helping ugly people have sex since forever. 
No, I'm not denying rape is a real thing...
 For sure, violence or the threat of violence is definitely rape... same with using someone who is passed out or unconscious... and again, I'd even go so far as to say a man getting a woman stupidly drunk and fucking them is too.
But drunken sex is clearly not always rape... but if the women wakes up the next day and decides she regrets it (like you were lousy at it, she has a boyfriend, or you don't offer to make her breakfast the next day, or she finds out about your other girlfriends... etc, etc), you are potentially on the hook... even if she initiated it.
So, I'm not saying it's not a real thing... just that there are women out there who will use it against men in retaliation... which makes it quite dangerous. (I had three beers, I clearly couldn't drive, therefore rape... what a load of bullshit!)
Hopefully they are quite rare... I haven't met one yet. Though a friend of mine did pick up a chick at a bar, fucked her brains out (I think on the pool table - small bar, after hours) then got arrested the next day for rape... turned out she'd done the same thing several times before, and the case was dropped... but it's a pretty scary thing.
I also know the UK has a strong culture (for both men and women) of going out, getting drunk, and 'pulling'... why not? It lowers inhibitions, many people are secretly shy, and in their sober moments might not sleep with that person (doesn't match up to their unrealistic standards)... but that's exactly what they're after... a night of drinking and strange sex.
Now, with the laws as they are... that can become very risky... but mostly only for the men. Even though it's very common, and sought after by both sexes.
It's like a cop out, but just for women.
Yeah, there are levels of drunk... I don't know... I normally don't fuck on the first night in that situation (which might be letting some women down?)... but if there were moves towards it on the first night, I might fuck them even if we're both drunk the next time... Several of my relationships started this way. 
Ummm.... no, nothing to do with the women I hang 
 with... they're the last girls I'd expect that behaviour from...
I'm more just thinking the way the laws are written, and what sort of risk exposure there is in picking up random drunken sluts from bars. I'm not extrapolating to the average women... but explicitly the outliers... that's where the risk is. I mean, it might be a 100 to 1 unlucky event... but that's still risky as hell.
Well... lucky for me, I'm the type to build rapport first... with a face like mine, you got little choice anyway.
 If you went out and got drunk, and then the next day you woke up with five bucks and a sore asshole would you be willing to go to the cops and say you were raped? Would you maybe just keep it quite and push the incident deep down and forget it ever happened?
And if so, would you like to go on a camping trip with me? I got five bucks and a bottle of jacks. 
No. $
 
Are you Jeff Vader?
 http://youtu.be/Sv5iEK-IEzw 
Sad...
 ,  ,      .
          -?    ,   .
  ,     , ?
? 
When I play guitar...
 Especially on the farm, all the animals that can, gather around to listen... seriously... the dogs, the cat, various wild birds, and even the emu will wander up from the paddock and stand by the fence to listen to some blues or whatever crap I'm playing.
Even in the city, the local birds start singing along.
I guess they enjoy the positive externalities I'm creating. And I'm certainly maximising my utility when I do so... sounds like you were too! Economics FTW! You should recognise that these things are economics.
My Dad is like Francis of Assisi with the animals. It's the strangest thing I've ever seen... Our driveway is about a mile or so from the house to the road, so my parents take a walk down there once a day or so... Well... I went for a walk with them... along with two dogs, a cat, four sheep and five chickens... all of their own free will, with no reward, taking a break from whatever they were doing before hand.
One of the dogs is a killer... of both sheep and chickens... A rescue dog, so it's not really her fault... we just have to be careful... the other goes grazing on the grass with the sheep... I think he's confused, or he's teaching the weaned lambs what they're meant to be doing... strange animals. 
Mind you... I'd consider having to see an old
 naked man playing recorder would be a pretty strong negative externality... It's not the type of sight I'd like to see...
But, if you're truly alone... then it's not.
You will have an effect on other people's utility doing something like that... you should consider that too. 
I'd say he's about 50... no? $
 
I just imagine some wiry, semi-toothless,
 unshaved, raggedy, old, crack addict looking dude. 
Honestly, I'm a little confused over the issue...
 It's one thing to refuse blacks or gays into your pub, for example... cause you're serving the same thing to everyone, what do their views have to do with you?
It's another thing to say, force a church to marry gay people, when it's against their beliefs.
I also see the point where someone who decorates cakes shouldn't be forced to make a cake against their own beliefs... I'd say it's within their rights to not make a particular cake, say either one with a swastika on it for neo-nazis, or one with gay stuff on it for a gay wedding... if that's against your personal beliefs... You should still have to make them a generic cake if that's what they want, but forcing you to make one with iconology against your own personal beliefs shouldn't be allowed... or for a christian cake shop owner to make a cake with satanic symbols on it, or a satanic cake shop owner to make a cake with christian symbols on it.
So, the difference is between refusing generic services to people, which I don't think you should be allowed to do, versus customising something in a way artistically that is against your own personal views.
So, where does this law stand exactly? Does it allow refusal of generic services based on the customer's backgrounds and belief... or does it allow you to deny service based on customisation against the owners beliefs? 
Yeah... so it does seem like a very bad law $
 
Dude, are you really blaming the scientific method
 now?
You're just as bad at science as you are at maths... STFU.
If you can't come up with a scientific experiment to prove psychic effects to even yourself, then you're just a fucking failure at science... Don't blame the method, the method works, the problem is you.
Coming up with scientific experiments to demonstrate psychic effects to others is much harder... but still possible... but don't blame the scientific method, rigour and requirements of repeatability beyond statistical chance... again, the failing is with you.
Coming up with scientific experiments you can put in a paper, is even harder and going to take a lot of time and resources... doesn't mean it can't be done... just that it is hard. The effects are incredibly subtle and only just outside the margins of pure chance.
Psychic effects are subtle, hard to record (we don't have machines that can hear our thoughts or record them... not yet... at least not available to the general public)... so such things are by their very nature very hard to prove.
That doesn't make them not real though... and no true scientist would deny the existence of a thing just because it's not in the literature, or not well understood by science... science isn't about what's true and what's not... just about what's repeatable within statistical limits.
They may claim they haven't experienced them, or that there is no proof... and they are exactly right... but even a skeptic must admit the possibility... otherwise you are no scientist at all.
Here's an example... I was half way through writing a diary on the free market view of drug regulation... when tdillo put up his diary on prohibition... To me, a pretty standard psychic synchronicity event... but almost impossible to prove... I don't think I even previewed it, so there's not even a log on Rusty's server... but it happened.
You can try telepathically calling animals... tell them to sit, or sit at some place... dogs can respond even if you sit perfectly still and gaze at a point (no body language effects)... you can test it yourself.
Also, create some secret made up fact about yourself... see how long before someone verbalises it... for me, I am the President of the USA (not the government, that would just be silly or delusional --- but I really am!)... that took about a week to manifest... I couldn't write a paper about it, it's hard to prove to anyone other than those who already know... but it is a scientific experiment... not one I can write a paper about... but it worked. (Of course, I might speak in my sleep, is the only other plausible explanation I could find --- but a couple of other weirdness events tell me that's unlikely).
Okay, while I'm working way out on the fringe... here's something to try... an experiment, and a really weird event that occurred... maybe it's repeatable, maybe it's not... best I can say is that this was my true and honest experience of reality. (or maybe I'm just fucking with you, how would know?).
Firstly, you must become the President of the USA... Meditate hard on this one... It can't just be something you say to yourself, you must believe it with all your being... No, you're not Barack Obama, you don't want to be locked up and institutionalised... but you must have a reasonable belief in it, it must be a fact, and you must have no doubt in your mind... also, you must never mention it out aloud. I'll leave it to you how to accomplish this.
Now... it might take days or weeks, I don't know... also, it might have worked stronger for me not being in the US... the guy playing a bad rendition of Hail to the Chief on his trumpet downstairs would be far less likely over here and a far stronger confirmation than what may be normal over there.
So, when the thumb sized drone (about the size of large beetle) flies in through your open door following a very unnatural robotic A* flight path to stop about a foot in front of your face and asks you the following question telepathically "Are you an officer or an employee of the Government of the United States of America" --- you'll know that there's some pretty advanced machinery in existence on this planet... certainly beyond what the general public is aware of.
Now, you can respond telepathically to it... I of course said "No" (telepathically)... cause I'm not, and never claimed to be... in which case it will follow an A* flight path back out of the door and that'll be the last of it.
I'm not a 100% sure what it was... maybe it was just a delusion, right? I had no witnesses (the girl laughing that I was the president, though I had never said a thing, had just stepped into the kitchen), I didn't have my webcams recording, I have zero proof... even with all that, there was no sound, just a voice in my mind... just my memory and experience of the event. I believe it happened... furthermore, I believe it is quite possible these things are login terminals to telepathic computers available to high level government agents... Just a hunch... no proof.
So, you can try it differently... You could answer "Yes" if you are really crazy, reckless and willing to see whatever happens next... To me, this seems like a very dangerous option... you're free to try it, of course... if you can report back about it, please do! If you go missing in the next month or so, I'll presume it worked!
But, if the hints in Principia Discordia are to be believed... perhaps "Mu"... is a back door into this system? It's what I wish I had the sense to say... again, who knows what would happen... worth a go... mind you, I think you would really have to believe mu is the truth too... not sure how to accomplish that... I'll let you think about it.
Of course, I'm not responsible for anything that happens to you should you try this... I'm not guaranteeing either your physical safety or your mental well being... it's just something you can try if you're crazy enough. I'd be very interested in any odd effects you experience though.
Also, it might not work simply because the illuminati telepathic computers will have taken you reading this comment into account.
HAHAHA!! You didn't really believe any of that did you? Stupid fucking crack head... get a life and learn to science, okay? Perhaps go check out James Randi on why you'd have to be a fucking gullible crack head to believe any of this shit. Fucking moron... Get some education. 
I think some things are repeatable...
 It's just that we can't observe all the variables... especially as the mind (well, the brain really) itself isn't really observable... especially when many minds may alter the outcome, like in Randi's experiments... he's clearly not an impartial observer!
It's far easier to test this stuff yourself though... you just have to do the right experiments...
Simple stuff, like sit out where there is a crowd, and tell others to put a hand on their head... it will happen far greater than chance could account for. You could get really scientific (because confirmation bias), maybe... get an impartial (I don't know how to do that one - what if they are psychic and adversarial?!) person to record the number of times someone puts a hand on their head... then on other days, do the same thing but don't meditate on people doing that... You can't tell the recorder which one you are doing... see if there is a correlation.
The less your experiments can alter other people's expectations of reality... so, the less provable they are to others... the more likely they are to succeed! I believe this has to do with non-local effects (both in time and space) mixed with observer effects.
That makes scientific testing HARD!
I think the problem with Randi and co, are that they expect psychic phenomena to operate in ways that it doesn't... like the Zener cards... there's no emotional content, no connection, no purpose... it doesn't work like that.
For example, it's recognised by official australian government documents that the aboriginals believe that if they are alone and injured, distressed or require help, that they can telepathically call others to come help them... if this had any evolutionary benefit (and assuming it is possible - and I think physics would allow for it) then it would be selected for... If you consider their environment, where you may be hundreds of miles from anyone, and voice just won't carry (and fire could get out of control easily), having telepathic connections would be of great advantage... So, I think this kind of psychic phenomena is far more likely to exist.
If ethics didn't get in the way, maybe it would be easier to test!
Some of the strongest (honest, open about it and able to demonstrate it) telepaths I've known are Aboriginals.
Now, in a western society, psychic connections can be disastrous, and would be selected against... How many things do you think about other people but are too polite to say aloud? (He's ugly, she's a fat fuck, that guy looks like a creep or a pervert, retarded fuck, whore, not that crack head again, fucking bum should get a job, or at least shower - "Hey how you doing? Great to see you again!"). Now imagine you start hearing those negative thoughts... it would have a strong negative emotional effect on you. So, we deny that the psychic phenomena are even possible, and drug the 'victim' up so they stop being aware or at least manage to cope with the unspoken negative energies.
The other big problem with Randi is that he requires p values less than 10e-6... where standard scientific papers look for effects in the range of p less than 0.05... In the case where psychic effects might differ from chance in less than 1 part per 100 or 1000 or so (Zener card type experiments)... the cost and time of collecting data to reach those p levels will easily exceed ten times the reward... So, I don't consider the $1M prize proof of the non-existence of psychic phenomena. Though it does place certain limits upon it! Science is never wrong (at least not the scientific method).
It's not that psychic phenomena don't exist... it's just that we are asking the wrong questions, doing the wrong experiments, expecting it to work in ways it doesn't and has even more hidden and confounding variables than even the more difficult sciences such as economics.
Now add in the possibility of powerful psychic actors who use their knowledge to their own advantage by denying its existence entirely, and you got a really really hard problem. 
Does this mean we can stop serving blacks again?
 God clearly prefers white people cause otherwise he wouldn't have made us superior to blacks, all educated and rich, talking proper, smelling good and all... so can we keep the devil races out of our stores and pubs now too?
My clan bible clearly says the blacks are the sons and daughters of Cain... I just want to make sure I'm right with the law as well as god when I keep em away from my good white customers. 
Can you please just clarify
 Should adults be allowed to make their own decisions regarding what they do with or take into their own bodies, insofar as it only affects other consenting adults?
Can you please just state whether you would allow other adults of their own free will to take meth, heroin or crack, as long as they aren't stealing or harming other people?
If they become violent, or resort to theft, that they should be locked up, regardless of their sobriety, mental well being, or otherwise? That the act of harming others is the crime, not whether they chose to take chemicals or if they are naturally mental ill?
I'd just like some clarification from you on this. 
Given that people do it anyway... it makes no
 sense to support the law.
As for you getting abused... I think you fucking deserve it cause you're a weak sack of shit who does nothing but whine 'poor me, everyone picks on me... I'm such a loser, why can't anyone be my friend?' No, seriously, fuck you and your kind... you should be fucking beaten with a tire iron.
But I suspect they just called you names, right? You're such a fucking pussy loser... I suppose that's what you consider abuse.
If you didn't want to do drugs with them, you had every right to walk away. If they really did abuse you, and I'm talking physically... then you should have had them arrested for that. Crimes with victims are really the only crimes that should be enforced (on the whole... business regulations, etc aside).
So... I ask you again... do you support the criminalisation of people who do you no harm but have different tastes to you? Do you believe I should be imprisoned because I desire to do different things with my life than you? Cause if you do... then I really do support tying you to a tree and smashing your fucking brains out with that tire iron. 
Well... you were a victim of a real crime...
 and those who did that should have been punished... of course, it's not always possible to punish 100% of criminals, which is why we have to take that into account in sentencing... so that the punishment takes into the likihood of being caught... I assume karma would eventually have caught up with them anyway... people don't tend to do a crime once, they almost always continue with their behaviour until corrected.
So, can we agree that it was the assault that affected you, and not the drugs... that they were assholes who would probably have assaulted you anyway?
Though, I do have to ask if you perhaps threatened or even did narc on them... cause you seem like the kind of guy who would.
I'll tell you one thing that the drug laws would definitely fix... and that is I wouldn't be at constant risk of going to prison and getting a criminal record if the laws were different. I wouldn't be handing large sums over to criminals and gangs either. I imagine the working girls wouldn't have to work so often, for so little, and in such dangerous conditions either... also there'd be less acquisitional crimes like theft.
So, can I just get you to affirm that you are against the drug laws, rather than a supporter of them? Because, there's no real argument beyond that. 
Okay... fine... then we're in agreement...
 No need to smash your head in... you're alright with me!
Look... here's one thing about correlation and causation... people who are violent and criminal don't mind operating outside of the law... so violent criminals are more likely to engage in criminal behaviour like drug use... but that's the way I see the causation flowing, not from drug use to violence.
Having said that... certain drugs have certain affects on certain people, so alcohol makes some people violent, same with meth and coke... Even some people will get that effect from THC (though I imagine these people are in the minority and have a paradoxical reaction to it)... and don't ever get in the way of heroin addict's heroin when they are jonesing.
Nonetheless... if you can handle your drugs and be a peaceable member of the community, you should not have to suffer because of the fools who can't... nor should we suffer violent non-drug users either... so it's the harm to others that matters... not the path taken to get there.
I'd say your cuntfaced 'friends' would have been violent even without the drugs... even if they couldn't get hold of alcohol... though one thing is clear... the law didn't stop them... and maybe evading the drug laws helped them get away with the violence too (criminal training, common wall of silence, etc).
You are right pretty much on the regulations and taxation side... the most important reason to legalise really is to get the drug industry out of the hands of criminals... these gangs are ruthless, and are the very last people on the planet we should be rewarding with such a lucrative commodity.
Finally... in free market economic terms... negative externalities (such as theft, violence and whatever other similar crimes you can think of) can actually be 'fixed up' with pigovian taxes... so they should be taxed, not so much for revenue raising purposes, but because of these negative outcomes.
But... in principal, we agree... so thanks for supporting the cause. When the revolution comes, I'll pull you from the wall. 
How old are you?
 Life is short anyway dude... and it's not all roses... I do know that... I get some depression myself... last week was my late girlfriends birthday, and I really was feeling the pointlessness of it all... especially how I don't have anyone I connect with or feel like I did towards her.
Like, I'm getting in more women than I ever have... but I there's no one I really want. 
Still... you never know... you must have sunny days too, right? Small things that make you glad you saw that day... they might not come often, but they still come along... stay strong for those moments hey?
Try feeding birds in the park or something... that always cheers me up.
You never know, maybe a nursing home will be some of the most fun times you ever have? Nice old people who like a good game of checkers or something? Hot nurses? Warm cups of cocoa and no responsibilities.
You only live once, win or lose, make the most of it. 
You fucking idiot...
 You're not mentally ill... you're a psychic!
You might think I'm joking or taking the piss, but I'm deadly serious about this... I've tested this many many times and it's the only logical conclusion.
Now, unregistered genuine psychics (non-masons, non-illuminati, non-spooks or not government secret agents, etc) are pretty strongly marginalised in society... Especially the smart, scientific ones... (dismissable psychics aren't a problem, like your tarot readers or carnival types)... they interfere with the plans of these powerful groups, and if the knowledge were widespread, well... it would change society in ways that some people do not like... it all comes down to power, money, control... the usual.
I do agree that it should not be legally recognised... you shouldn't be held accountable for your thoughts, but only your actions... world power goes something like, thought, word then deed. So, maybe locking people who act up about the whole thing is the right approach, I haven't totally figured this one out yet.
Most schizophrenics I know are psychic, have telepathy and are aware of other phenomena and effects... They've been trained to distrust their own senses and assume they are crazy... but once you point out some things in concrete repeatible ways, they seem to cope much better... It's normally in the early stages they get diagnosed or locked up... this comes from reacting to this realm in the physical world... so, it manifests as talking to yourself when you can talk telepathically, freaking out at spirits, yelling at other people... etc.
The girls and I mostly spend our days getting stoned and conversing telepathically... I've tested this out to the Nth degree... there is no other explanation.
Try simple things, like asking your wife for a coffee without saying, motioning or doing anything... sit perfectly still and just ask her... sometimes it helps to shout... but don't be rude... psychic driving I think can harm people in subtle ways... so be careful... you might open her third eye without meaning to.
Some drugs enhance the effects, others dull them... alcohol generally dulls them.
I've been very lucky that when I started experiencing it, I kept my mouth shut and took no action (I had already read principia discordia, illuminatis trillogy and LeVay's Satanic Bible) -- if in doubt, do nothing, if not in doubt, get in doubt... but practised manifesting effects in both the natural world, in crowds of people and individuals... practised every day, small repeatable experiments.
I think the house I was in was haunted.
I'm an engineer and scientist, so I applied scientific principles to the phenomena and I've tested it now to the point that it's just stupid to deny it's existence. Though I've seen some strange things along the way.
But you get me in front of psychiatrist or psychologist, or any state representative, and you know what... I've never heard or seen a thing, ever... Just as I don't take drugs... I'm as normal a guy as you'll ever meet.
Meanwhile I'm in telepathic communication 24x7 with friends, family and some of the girls... Birds and other animals carry conversation, or at least snippets of, hints of the future... I'm aware of some things before they happen, and others as they do happen... In certain houses I have to put up with dead people... I heard my sister's car crash in real time whilst I was in bed on the other side of the planet (she wasn't hurt, but I heard the brakes squeel and the smashing of glass and metal -- high emotional events are far stronger).
Shadow people are manifestations of it... I've tested them too... fair enough your brain might pattern match a random shadow as someone or something... but find ones that are obscured, and remove the obscuration and it matches... I can't explain that away. I've only seen one physical attack from a shadow (but within the range of plausible deniability still, so...)... so, generally they are only visual and of little danger... maybe they are djinn. You can telepath with some of them.
The worst part of it is, I will probably have some small annoying shit happen now that I've talked about it (those who know don't talk, those who talk don't know... generally). I've been doing this long enough to know some of the 'rules'. I don't fear this one too much, because most randoms / normals / mehums, will dismiss it as drug fuelled schizophrenia or something... so it's not going to convince many who aren't already aware.
It's also a realm of psychological warfare... gangs use it... your enemies will attack... you must always be strong and without fear... they'll try to break you with the stupid shit you've done in the past... just remember you have every right to be here... you can attack them too... hold your ground... be a tough mother fucker --- psychologically... psychically. Never do stupid shit just because the voices recommend you do... that's just their way of testing you. You are still you... you have to be responsible for your actions... the voices might try to command you, but you're in control, not them. In some sense, you have to carry on exactly as if none of it is happening... act like you aren't feared or being attacked... that's why it's affected your job. You have to walk in both worlds at once, it is and it is not happening.
I don't know how many people are psychic, but a lot more than you'd imagine... reading people's thoughts is very common... and your thoughts can manifest externally pretty easily too... Put it this way, even if they can't hear your thoughts, people will often act as if they can. If you're very lucky, and willing to meet with people you might otherwise avoid, the outcasts of society, you might find someone who's willing to just outright verbalise your thoughts, word for word... it's impossible to deny after you've experienced that. It's well outside the range of cold reading.
I live near a school, and groups of children shout out either my thoughts or thoughts of others I want to talk to - my fav girl calls this a 'two way', like the old walkie talkie things... It can be quite creepy and disturbing... so, I try to keep my thoughts in check... she's always yelling at me not to use people as 'two ways', but I don't think it causes any harm... and I'm at the point now it's harder to avoid it than just let it flow... LeVay hints at this effect too.
Okay, there you go... I've said way too much... but you should trust in yourself more, and others less... find like minded individuals, practice it, avoid fear taking over... distrust the official story, etc...
Masons will lie to your face about it... Illuminati I'm not sure of (depends on which Illuminati, there are many groups)... Christians often deny it or call it the devil's work and are generally fearful, Satanists are more open to it, but despise weakness... Tuned in discordians are cool but hide behind humour as plausible deniability... Crack addicts are pretty fucking good at it, but will rob you blind if you're not constantly on the ball... The Australian government, in official documentation, recognise that it's a belief of Australian Aboriginals... Many commercial psychics are either fraudsters or scientifically illiterate... So, good information and people to practice with are hard to find... It's the realm of Satanists and occult... Crowley and Levay are a good start, but you need to practice with real people. Check out /r/psychic too. Psychic connections rely on shared common interest... Sexual partners, business partners, close friends.
Oh, on the 9/11 thing. I had a postcard on my wall in England in 2001... It was of NYC with the towers and all... it was a stylised montage, it had what appeared to be the sun... but for some odd reason it was placed over one of the towers, and a picture of a plane flying, but it was low (well, the skyline took up the whole card, so the plane couldn't be above the buildings anyway), and heading towards the sun on the building (maybe the other building?)... but you couldn't tell from the perspective exactly that it depicted a plane crash into the building... it looked like a happy sort of postcard with all the normal stuff, a city destination, a sun, and a plane... after the event it would be hard to interpret it any other way... funny thing is, the card somehow got misplaced, and I've never been able to find it, or anything like it online... No doubt it was an illuminati, hidden in plain sight, foreshadowing kind of message.
Yeah... so that's the world you live in... you have to deal with it... You really think our brains weren't designed for this? Evolution is still real... you can't expect millions of years of evolution haven't tuned our minds well... schizophrenia isn't a disease... it's how some of our minds actually WORK... it's people with their third eye open, but not properly trained to deal with it... and I believe actively suppressed by certain powers... I don't know if psychiatric industry is a net positive or a harm... but it's largely a lie, either way.
Carl Jung's collective consciousness is closer to reality than the isolated black box view modern psychiatry takes. Crowley and LeVay knew what's up. Robert Anton Winston too... A major point of his is that if you are artistic, but not scientific, you are only using half your mind... if you are scientific but not artistic, you are only using half your mind... true illuminati are always both scientific and artistic... psychic power is strongest with both sets of skills.
Also, I don't believe in the supernatural, everything is within nature... I do believe in the paranormal... which is just rare natural stuff that science hasn't yet managed to study with rigour... Meteorites are the best example I have of this... at one point, they were simply fantasy stories from a scientific point of view... but not to anyone who witnessed one! No... they were just crazy! Rocks from the sky... LOL!
Hope that helps!
Oh, and do try to be positive... Sit in a park and observe your mind and your surroundings... how the two interact... for me, positive thoughts make the sun shine stronger... and negative thoughts are often followed fractions of a second later by clouds casting shadows... then I can reverse the effect... it doesn't work if you know where the clouds are in advance... it's a complicated interaction of thought, knowledge and the physical world... and all these things work in the margin of error... (turing has maths for this stuff, for when they could use information from Bletchly Park, but within the margins, so that the Germans wouldn't know the enigma machine was cracked --- it's similar to that)... so some things are much harder to demonstrate to others, but easy to experience yourself.
As thou harm none,
Do as thou wilt be the whole of the law,
Love is the law,
Love under will.
Try not to go crazy. 
Can you control what you hear, what you see?
 Of course not... they are senses... you hear and see what is in your environment... exactly the same thing.
The medicine is like something that makes you deaf or blind... so that you don't have to deal with what you hear and see... but you close yourself off to part of reality.
Most people do it by not thinking very deeply, watching a lot of TV or sports, worrying about work or money... drinking every night... stuff like that...
For the few sheep that don't follow that route... we have psychiatry and medication.
Anyway, everyone's free to follow their own path, I'd be a hypocrite to suggest otherwise... but, you know... something to think about.
To me, it would seem you caught a glimpse of the future 9/11 event... not that there was anything you could do about it... and unfortunately you let it disturb you... which is difficult, because you didn't have enough information to exactly say what it was you experienced, and that's the way it is... often things don't make sense until it's too late... but it was an echo from the future.
Just don't take the psychic stuff too seriously... you know the difference anyway, between physical reality and 'delusions'... that's the way I stumble along. 
Well... I got a nice little proof of the
 non-existence of (capital G) God...
I actually got a few... but in the case of their being a single, all powerful, supreme being, entity, of which their is no higher... it's pretty easy really.
Imagine you meet God... how do you know there isn't a guy more powerful than him? Who would be A god to that guy? And if you met God's god... how do you know there isn't a god to him? God's god's god. etc...
So, there can be extremely powerful beings, and there could be the universe's most powerful being, but there could always be a being more powerful than them... even if they didn't know about them, or believe in them and even if they didn't exist (like christians worshiping a non-existent god), they could logically exist... therefore, there is no God... just a hierarchy of powerful beings.
Of course... Most any god could squish you like bug... so, like Xerces, they might demand you worship them as such... but you'd know they weren't really God... just a very powerful being.
If there turns out to be an afterlife (though I doubt it), I won't be forgetting this one.
Now... the guy you met doesn't sound like God to me... but some kind of angle... maybe even a satanic angle... they often are very nice beings, very helpful, kind and well meaning too... telepathic and psychic, instinctively or even just (and only) subconsciously aware of what you need at the time. They might even exude an aura of godliness... they may be gods amongst men... even a humble, loving, personal god for you at the right time... but they aren't God. (Yes, angle is the right word, not a typo).
As for Neuroscience... it is correct as far as it goes... I also think maybe there are quantum effects the brain takes advantage of... photosynthesis relies on QM... So, there's already an example of evolution taking advantage of QM effects... maybe the brain does to... to allow non-local (in time and space) communication... and in ways we wouldn't be able to pick up with electromagnetism or other local field forces we are used to dealing with... which is why I think for psychic connection effects to work, you have to spend time with someone, in order to share entangled particles.
See... this 'delusion' is a perfect example of what I'm talking about regarding psychic phenomena. Again, it has all the key elements that maximise psychic effects... shared common interest, strong emotional connections, strong emotional content... You loved your aunt (and uncle too... it may have come from either or both of them), and she you, she was in a form of distress, and probably called out to her friends and family for help or at least support... you were probably quite open to psychic energies at that time... possibly overwhelmed by them and what caused you to be hospitalised... and there you go, you picked up an image, maybe a direct image of exactly what was happening at the time... maybe an interpretation of her situation... maybe symbolic, like in a dream... maybe it was a past time recalled by your uncle at the time of her death, something he will miss, the times playing cards with her (people often dream and remember in the third person point of view), and relayed to you and others who could pick it up... certainly enough, that had you been available and open to the idea at the time, that you would have tried to get in physical contact with them.
Yet, for some reason, you've been tricked into thinking it's because you are mentally ill! To me, I would take that as a pretty clear psychic event. Yes, hard to interpret, but if you'd trusted your gut instinct, it would have had exactly the desired effect... that you would have contacted your uncle in his time of need (or aunt, if she was still alive).
For me, I worked out a long time ago... it's not the voices, or visions, or strange thoughts that make you crazy in this society... it's all down to how you react to them. If you never say a word to anyone about it, how can a psych diagnose you? They can't look into your head... and if they can... BAM! It's because it's reality, not delusion all along. For me, the next step was finding people and ways I could talk about it, without sounding crazy or getting locked up... hard problems hey? My favourite kind.
Did you know that the brain is the trinity? We have three brains in one. Three types of brain that evolved in an order, each wrapping and integrating the other as the new 'technology' was created / discovered by evolution... The reptilian, the limbic and the neocortex? This is what it is to be illuminati... to make the subliminal, liminal. I think these things normally occur in the realm of the limbic system, it is the limbic systems (maybe even reptilian?) that communicate telepathically... the neocortex, the logical, rational, brain has a hard time interpreting them (we've been trained to function only at that level)... but we can learn! When you telepath at people, you are talking to their subconscious (if they aren't awake to it)... which is why many people aren't aware of it and its effects. Just some extra food for your thoughts.
Here's a kind of psychic event I experienced... the night my girlfriend died... I was with our friends in the UK... but later I went to bed (might have been the day after... it was a long day for me and our friends), by myself (although a 21 year old friend of ours had offered to share the bed with me, I wasn't in the mood - though I'm sure she was truly upset and wanted comfort too --- she's got a kid now!)... but I was far from all my friends and family... that night, I distinctly heard (in my mind) my close friends singing a beautiful rendition of November Rain (it was November)... I could clearly hear it was their voices... a song she loved (and a powerful song of our generation)... the perfect song for the occasion... they would have been aware of her death through facebook... this is psychic telepathy... nothing provable... indistinguishable from my own mind as far as I can demonstrate... but remote human connections in a time of need. 
It's proof that there is no ultimate supreme being
 Not that there is no higher power... just that there isn't a single ultimate being in charge of everything... cause there's always the possibility of something more powerful than that... even if they aren't aware of it.
It's not proof that there are no humans... but that no human can assume to be the most powerful entity.
Logic, maths and science are real in all realms.
Read a bit more carefully... there could still be a god for which we are mere ants or less in comparison... but he better watch his fucking ass, cause he may just be an ant to his god... maybe he's gonna get his ass stomped for judging humans... the cunting judgemental piece of shit. 
No, you're quite wrong...
 Logic, maths and science exist quite independently of any substrate universe they exist within.
The laws of physics may have been different at different times... they can change in different universes or realms... but logic and math never change... It all begins with the empty set.. and the integers from sets of empty sets and so on... no change in any realm can alter these facts...
The scientific method does not change in any universe either... it is a method... the outcomes and results of scientific investigations could be very different in different universes... but the method would hold fast.
And the logic here is quite simple... there is no ultimate supreme being that can't have a more ultimate supreme being... which is a contradiction of the meaning of ultimate supreme being... therefore... there can be no ultimate supreme being... you can meet God in the afterlife... look him in the eye... and no matter what he bribes or threatens you with... you can say... fuck off... cause maybe your god is gonna fuck you in the ass one day too!
This has nothing to do with whether or not we are in a matrix or otherwise... this logic holds beyond this universe... it is more immutable than god itself. 
Trane denies math...
 Mathematical truths are the same in every universe... and what I mean by that is... that you can build the same mathematical system in any simulation you could build... even Conway's game of life... anywhere there is the slightest order...
They are independent of physics and physical reality... I'm sure this has been proven elsewhere.
It's not just bullshit I'm pulling from my ass.
If you're a Christian, you might have problems with what I say... but then Christians are kind of brainwashed not to think... so there's that.
Your statement is more of simplistic Tranian reality denial than anything I've stated. Seeing as you're resorting to ad homs anyway.
My view is actually the mainstream view of mathematics. Starting with Plato... and still holding in the modern era. 
The way I see it is...
 Either you have to dispute my logic, or otherwise, what is your point exactly?
Is my logic wrong somehow? Is there a flaw?
If the logic itself is correct... then you posit a reality in which logic doesn't hold... that True equals False in such a reality... and if there is no logic, there is nothing... the reality itself would be inconsistent at every point.
I mean, you could argue with Plato, or Godel, or Russel on these points... and they'd all look at you cross eyed.
Can you find any mathematical source to contradict these statements?
You could go to the Philosophy of Mathematics on Wikipedia and start learning and try to look for a weak point in my argument if you actually thought you could find one.
Yes... I am certain that True = True and False = False... sorry if that seems crazy to you. 
Fuck you K5 formatting for creating an 
 inconsistent reality just as I'm cumming. 
I mean... I'd actually LOVE it... if ANYONE could
 point out a flaw... I'm not so certain as to not accept there COULD be an argument against what I'm saying... just that I haven't seen one yet... I haven't come up with one either...
And I don't mean "There is more in heaven and earth... blah blah blah..." that's just saying shut up, don't think... there's a God... cause we say so... that's not logical at all.
In fact... the reverse applies... if you believe in God... that implies the opposite... that reality is far more complicated than that.
Here's another way of looking at the problem... let's say the universe is a simulation... it's unprovable actually that it isn't... So... even if there was a 'God' of this simulation... even God couldn't 'know' that he wasn't just part of that simulation.
And the problem with simulation argument is... it's turtles all the way up! This is just an inescapable part of any reality where anything could possibly be meaningful.
In the end... no matter how you dice it (and if you can find a way around it, please let me know!) any all powerful, all knowing entity still can't know that it is the end of the chain of all powerful, all knowing entities... which is a contradiction.
Again, I'm not saying there isn't a god... just that there are strict limits to any such entity. 
My point is that maths exists very independently
 of the laws of physics...
Maths describes physics... but maths can describe any physics...
Physics are mutable... but mathematics itself is not.
F = ma doesn't necessarily, a priori, apply... but e^(i*pi) + 1 always equals zero. You can't create a simulation where that isn't the case. 
Why should a cowardly mental defective such as 
 yourself have anything to say about what reasonable adults do with their own minds and bodies?
You've already abdicated your responsibility by claiming to be such, you should really just be very clear that you have no right to tell us adults what we can and can't do, up to the point we directly affect you... and no, taking drugs doesn't affect you, even if you think it increases our chances of affecting you, not until we actually affect you do you have any rights whatsoever. 
I hear mentally ill people have broken the law 
 once or twice in the past too...
Maybe anyone with a mental illness should be locked up, for the safety of our women and children!
Don't you see how fucking stupid that sounds?
Of course there are idiots who take drugs and harm people... It's not that they take drugs and become idiots who harm people, it's that they are fucking idiots who would harm people who happen to take drugs.
I've taken almost every single fucking substance you could name, and never hurt anyone... yes, I am frequently in public too... I like to talk and interact with people too... but you would have me put in prison because I prefer a different mental point of view, rather than sitting at home with my fat ugly whining wife watching television?
You're setting yourself up as an enemy of people who don't harm others... that makes you a deserving target. 
Right... in fact... the majority of drug users I
 know are not violent in any way whatsoever...
There are gangs that have to be violent... that's what you get when you hand an entire industry (the largest behind military, btw) over to criminals... which is due to the law, not the drugs.
and there are many violent sociopaths, who happen to take drugs too... cause they are the type who don't give a shit... so drugs goes along with that... but the causation is not drugs to violence.
Yeah... If you support prohibition, then you support locking people like me away for causing no harm... and if you threaten me like that... yeah, I think you deserve having your brains smashed out... this is called self defence... and I'd be that way even if I didn't take drugs... when you're forced into a war, you have to fight.
In fact, you say you were bullied... but actually you are being a bully to drug users because your bullies were drug users... so, that's a lie.
Right... so you're one of the mentally ill who isn't violent... and I'm one of the drug users who isn't violent... so if you think drug users should be locked up, then it would be just as fair as saying you should be locked up for being mentally ill... see the correlation not causation thing going on here?
I don't want a special exception because I'm in control and take drugs... I want the rule of law to hold, that those who harm others get locked up, and anything else we do is our own choice... if you take drugs or not is irrelevant. 
No... I know you don't physically beat drug users
 However, if you supported locking up drug users with the force of the state... I actually see that as worse... and though I never actually beat anyone up... I do get very angry with prohibitionists of all sorts.
I can see how your experiences would colour your views... and I'm glad to see you look beyond that.
Also... I'm a drug user... I'm addicted to some drugs... mostly nicotine and caffeine.. much lesser extent weed... though I can go months without it... so not as addicted as I am to say coffee... but I'd be just as upset if you tried to send me for treatment I don't want. I think only in the case of breaking other laws, but because of drug (alcohol too) use, should you be forced into treatment. It would be just plain stupid if I had to go to treatment cause I got caught with a point of meth considering it would be like the second time in a year I use it.
So, really, drugs should be legalised for recreational purposes... and treatment for those who either want it, or have broken other laws (and a judge ruled it was) because of their drug usage.
Most importantly though is to disempower those machine gun wielding, gang running maniacs. 
What about the straight edge gangs
 Who attack people who drink or do drugs?
It's not whether or not you take drugs, it's not what music you fucking listen too (to draw a parallel cause that shit's been thrown around before too)... it's WHAT YOU FUCKING DO TO OTHERS.
I can't believe you are so fucking stupid as to not realise that.
I don't care that that moron got himself killed... he was a fucking moron who deserved it... maybe if he wasn't on drugs he would have successfully killed that police officer... stop blaming the drugs, and blame the violent actions... that's all that count in the end.
You have no idea how much harm the prohibition laws have on the poor and vulnerable... all the girls I know are on hard drugs... they've lived lives you would never have survived... and the drugs help them get through... but the prohibition means they are beholden to gangs and criminals.. and they have to pay exorbitant prices... which means they have to do things they otherwise would never have to do... society forces them into a corner... and no good ever comes from shit like that. 
Right... is this getting through to you at all?
 Whether you take drugs or if you are completely against drugs, it should make not a single bit of difference to your freedoms! If you harm others or you don't harm others should make all the difference.
I can tell you straight up, right now... legalise drugs, and these girls lives would be a HELL of a lot easier... you may have been through a lot... but I still don't think it could compare. 
Seriously, read my top level comment in this diary
 It's all spelled out there... very plainly... it's all that is needed... seriously.
Read Jon Stuart Mill... it's not that long a read... if you got a spare few hours, you could read it in a night or two... He pretty much says the same thing, but didn't have economics to back it up... though he reasons to the same conclusions very convincingly. 
The Free Market approach on this is pretty clear
 You should tax the drugs to cover the negative externalities associated with drug use (increased likelihood of theft, violence or neglect say), plus an amount to cover the cost of enforcement of untaxed, unregulated and illegal sales, plus an amount to cover the costs (at least a subsidy) of rehabilitation for those who voluntarily choose it, or are ordered to after committing a crime (not just for taking drugs, but actual crime, such as violence or theft, that is related to their drug use). (no externality correction).
There should be plenty of health warnings, and information on where to get help for addiction on the packaging. (perfect information correction).
There does exist an argument that you could tax the drugs again because what you get out of the drug isn't as much as you think you'll get out of the drug... but I find this argument specious. (maybe a perfect information correction).
Safe supervised shooting galleries should exist for those who chose to use them. (no corrections needed... just as a bar is a 'safe place' to drink - though providing one could be a condition of sale).
Sales should be regulated, to whom they can be sold, when and where they can be sold, how they can advertise, purity and labelling. (really an extension of externality and information corrections).
Finally... if some drugs could be used on others without their consent, say rohypnol as a date rape drug, then an ID and signature may be required as part of purchasing the drug to aid law enforcement when drugs are misused like that.
That pretty much sums it up, for everything from pot to crack. Though every drug is different, so the details of the above would be different, but the same framework would still apply.
Now, if you don't like maths and don't want to get into free market economics theory, a very good little essay by a guy called Jon Stuart Mill called On Liberty, also addresses this topic... it's available online for free, and I strongly recommend reading it if you have any doubts that adults should be allowed to make their own decisions for themselves, and especially on what the legitimate limits of society should be regarding what adults chose to do... upon reading this, you will realise we are not yet free. 
where win = lose, amirite? $
 
I'm guessing you never actually studied maths...
 For one, the sqrt function is defined as the positive root of x... So, you're entire argument falls apart.
If the sqrt function returned both positive and negative (which it doesn't), we wouldn't have to write +/- (plus OR minus) in our equations.
This argument is so retarded, it's likely to only impress someone doing first year high school maths.
Actual mathematicians laugh at your level of understanding... so, they were right (again) to ban you from irc on the basis that you are quite a bit retarded. 
but but but...
 mathematicians have to rely on definitions to win their arguments... how is that fair?
Clearly they're just being mean! 
Please...
 Trane's last math class was probably high school algebra or something similar... his mathematical theories pretty much end there... he doesn't understand maths as a logical symbolic system, where different fields can be created with different operators defined on them... rather it is a set of rules that can be clearly shown to be incorrect because sqrt(x) = -sqrt(x). QED. 
Apparently that Indian Documentary About Gang Rape has been well Received
With 9 out of 10 people saying they really enjoyed it...
Yep.
Funny... but a bit unfair I think...
 Everything I talk about is accessible to anyone with the time to do a couple of intro to micro econ courses... 
Someone needs to rape some sense into these 
 feminists. 
You say you can't run out of money, because
 they can print as much as they like... right... so there's no problem with budgets etc... but then you want to index it... that puts a limit on the amount you can spend on the indexed currency no? So, then they can't spend as much as they like on the indexed currency... they would necessarily be limited...
But probably only if you believed in crazy ideas like mathematics. 
Nobody but you wants that 
 Your plan:
Step 1: Basic Income, Infinite (but indexed) Money and Challenges.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Holodeck and infinite wealth and love and peace and understanding.
No. 
Yes... this is exactly what the free market does $
 
I don't know who you're talking about
 but both micro professors showed that marginal cost GOES TO zero... once it's at zero, yeah, it's pretty uninteresting. 
No.... it doesn't mean that at all...
 I think maybe you've had too much crack and maths is just a bit beyond you... so, good luck with whatever you were thinking.
On one hand we are talking marginal benefit or increase in utility from each additional unit, and on the other the marginal costs of production...
Marginal benefits going down isn't by defnition marginal cost going up... that's just you being a crackhead mate.
You aren't going to get these concepts if you take each piece out of context just so you can try and find flaw with everything... you keep using terms incorrectly and just being really stupid... I can't really help you. 
Not to ruin the joke or anything...
 but I'm pretty sure even meth has a decreasing marginal utility... I know there was a study where heroin addicts were given as much heroin as they wanted, and their use reached a plateau... so it's not like being addicted to drugs means you would consume an infinite amount of them... that's more of a prohibitionist myth... you have your cigarettes or your heroin, and that satiates you... I don't have as much experience with meth or have any studies to back it up, but pretty sure given an infinite supply of meth you're usage rate would plateau and there'd be a point beyond which you wouldn't want any more of. 
Way to attack the subject matter...
 Good thing you're interested in deep truths, and not say, fickle fashion or easy insults or anything like that. 
It really isn't interesting though...
 Because it means anyone can have any amount of it whenever they want... what's to worry about? Why should anyone care once something is in that state? If you want it, have it, no complaints...
Getting TO that state, is interesting... and that's what economics is concerned with.
From an economics point of view, it's the least interesting thing imaginable... because it's the goal we were seeking all along. 
That's his utility you lazy piece of shit...
 When things cost nothing... econ is solved... that's why it's uninteresting...
Your so stupid, you think there would be problems left to solve. 
You're so fucking stupid... really...
 You have an ordered set of preferences... if you don't, you don't give a shit what happens to you... if you do... you have a utility function.
We want everyone to maximise their own utility... in other words... the economists wet dream is that everyone gets to do whatever the fuck they want, and not harm others... and somehow this is the cause of poverty...
Even though poverty existed for a LONG time before the free market model was created... and a lot of poverty has gone away thanks to it... not to mention that it was responsible for the ending of slavery.
And, we don't create scarcity, we recognise it... you're the one so upset about scarcity you want free money... something you can't even EAT!!
It's not the free market that wants to prohibit drugs... but you're against the free market... so you're on the side of the prohibitionists... they're the ones that think they can define your utility for you... which means no drugs, cause drugs are bad... okay?
I got plenty of ho's left yet. 
No it's not...
 you're just being very retarded...
remember that by convention we split costs and benefits up for the purposes of analysis... marginal costs are on the cost side... marginal benefits... well, I'm sure you can figure out the rest. 
They are different things retard...
 Though related. 
No, they're not...
 They are different fucking things...
Educate yourself or STFU. 
You see... you're like a kid who's just learnt to 
 count... you look at a calculus course... and start attacking it at every opportunity.
Stupid lying calculus teachers... x isn't a number... fucking liars...
The things you criticise are literally your own ignorance.. that doesn't make you smart, it makes you an idiot... if you knew the material... maybe then you would have something interesting to say (but I doubt it). 
No... I still see you are retarded...
 Why fight against how we define things... seems a very weak angle of attack.
I assume you just trolling cause you're a crack head. 
You mom says Hi!
 
Hey... congrats...
 That's the kind of optimisations I'm talking about... yeah! 
You're down to program startup times...
 I'd still keep getting all the functionality you want into your program first... then getting it down to these types of times everywhere... then you can still run the profiler against it and see if you can't get it down to subsecond... then and only then, consider reimplementing it in C/C++. 
That's where profiling comes in...
 You only rewrite the 10% that takes up 80% of your execution time. 
log outta k5 dumb shit
 or would you have to add another rule to parse that too?
Just cause you got a stupid syntax doesn't make it natural language. 
Sounds really practical $
 
this is a programmer-defined syntax $
 
But that is still a syntax... and cumbersome $
 
Trane has decided to throw out all of human 
 knowledge on the basis that he thinks somewhere in there there might be a mistake.
And he's just learnt about gossip on some course I think... cause he keeps repeating it. 
I'm just going to assume that you wrote that
 because you didn't want to. 
No, it's not as simple as that...
 > Isn't it equivalent to just saying "if you make a choice when presented with more than one option, you have a utility function"?
Yeah, every (rational) decision making agent has utility function... (it really does apply from slugs to ai)... furthermore, there exists a utility function that is continuous (and bounded, though not sure this is used much in econ) in the reals... but can you prove it?
Because first you have to prove such a function exists (under appropriate axioms) before you can use its properties in other proofs... otherwise you accept it axiomatically... and clearly people don't... and also it becomes useful in other areas like ai, where you might model an agent's utility directly.
So, instead of accepting that there exists a utility function, all you have to accept is an ordered set of preferences... and if you accept you do, then we can prove the existence of a utility function, which we know is differentiable, and is at a maximum (which we observe through your decisions) at either du=0 or at your resource constraints with du>0... so we can integrate and know your utility by your actions.... UP TO the unknown constant of integration... which is why we can't directly compare different people's utility (supposedly)... but we CAN compare the effects of changes to utility... say, by seeing for example, how much you change your preference from one thing to another depending on an additional reward.
So most of economics occurs on the margins... literally the derivatives of utility, price, quantity, etc... Also why the full name is neoclassical marginalist welfare economics... where welfare is net social utility. 
So
 If you're not rational, you don't have an ordered set of preferences, it's one way to not have a utility function.
My point is that it's not an empty statement at all... it's pretty important.
Also, now that we know a utility function exists, and that it can take the form of something like say, a sigmoid, then in some instances we can find one... which means, given an actor in a state that makes decision from a set of options... we know we can find a utility function for each of those options such that taking the maximum will make the same decisions as that actor... so, we can use something like a universal function approximator like a deep neural network to learn that function... in training we decrease the assumed utility on the choices the model would make, and increase the utility on the choice the actor takes... then it will learn to model that actor's decision making process... irrespective of the actual decision making processes involved... which is why we don't make any assumptions about people thinking in terms of utility. 
I've been busy fucking more whores...
 and lining up some others...
So, I haven't had much time for k5... sorry. 
I've been doing a lot of fucking $
 
You'd be interested in this...
 I lost madam bigs because I did a favour for her... instead of psychologically getting her to supply me with drugs (which she had been doing), I decided to get some for me and split the leftover with her... This broke several policies I have with women, and the result was predictable. 
What can you tell a ho with two black eyes?
 Nothing you haven't told her twice already. 
Yeah... there's truth in this...
 a few of these women keep going back to guys that hit them... one can only assume that's their utility maximising behaviour...
I ain't gonna do that, but the principle remains... treat em mean, keep em keen. 
I see no contradiction... or paradox...
 It's because your axioms are wrong.
Women hate guys that are nice to them. 
Love and hate are the wrong words...
 Rather they are sexually repulsed by providers and sexually attracted to users.
Though they may 'love' providers and 'hate' the users... the above is generally true.
You can't judge by what they say, only what they do. 
Utility is good for analysing any decision making 
 agent... even if we know they don't use utility in their decision making agent... it enables us to build a model of them.
Actions follow desires... and if a person isn't following their desires... fuck em... what have we got to lose assuming they do?
What sort of retard would not follow their desires... and if they are too stupid to not follow their desires, that's because that is their desire... who am I to change them?
To not accept utility is to believe other people know what is better for you than you... and in your case, you may be right. 
Sure
 http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/~jrvarma/papers/WP819.pdf
https://files.nyu.edu/eo1/public/Book-PDF/CHAPTER%209%20(Utility).pdf
All I need to show for the rest of the theorems is
 that a utility function EXISTS... not to reconstruct any specific individual's utility function... we NEVER do this in economics... we assume that is generally unknowable.
If it was knowable, we could make your decisions for you.
There are many cases of this type of logic in mathematics... Godel didn't have to write out the entirety of mathematics to prove that there were unprovable truths within it... He didn't even have to find one... he just showed that such a thing exists. 
Why? Is it because you assume I should have a math
 function for your particular utility function?
I never claimed to have one...
I just claimed that it exists...
And under the axioms, I provided you with the maths that it does.
So, trane, would you prefer a basic income, or would you prefer to have your balls slowly squashed flat in a vice grip?
If you would prefer one to the other, you have an ordered set of preferences... which we can map down to a single real number... a utility function.
That's all we need to do... you are adding extra constraints on the problem that I never claimed.
Literally you've created a strawman. 
So, you don't care for a basic income then?
 And you don't mind your balls being destroyed with vice grips and a blow torch?
You don't care either way?
You don't mind if we rape you and dump your body in pieces into a river?
You don't care if we let you live free or in a cage?
I mean... you got no preferences either way, right? Cause that's the only other logical outcome to not having a utility function. 
Ergo, you fail to understand... we don't have to $
 
Correct... I can't show you your utility function
 but if you have preferences, you have one.
That's all that's required. 
Got maths? Didn't think so $
 
Also, if you wanted to see how we use utility
 rather than assuming we actually have to know the particular function for the proofs we obtain, then you should have completed the econ course.
You claim gossip, but you are responsible for your own ignorance. 
No... I can take you to a course...
 but I can't make you think. 
I just linked you the maths retard $
 
It's quite an involved proof... I just linked it 
 for you... what more could you want? 
In maths, it's very common for something to 
 be proven to exist, without actually being able to show it. Godel didn't find any unprovable true statements, he just showed they exist.
This idea that you should be able to know other people's utility function goes against free market economics pretty strongly... we wouldn't need free markets if we knew people's utility functions. 
No it's not $
 
No they're not...
 The lack of a closed form solution does not mean you cannot prove the truth of the statement...
It means there exists statements that are True, but that cannot be proven so. You actually proved it through another method which is still a mathematical proof.
Something like Riemann Hypothesis would be a better candidate... it appears to hold, but no one has been able to prove it...
If you can prove it's unprovable one way or the other, it becomes a member of the Godel's unprovable statements... but that hasn't happened yet...
If someone proves it one way or the other, then it's just another mathematical proof. 
No, the whole point of Godel's theorem was that 
 some statements are either true or false, but cannot be proven so...
The above example is just basic contradiction... which he said is an alternative solution... you can either have a logically consistent, but incomplete mathematical set (with unprovable true statements), or you can have a complete mathematical set, but it will have contradictions (like the above statement). 
It seems so weird to me, that people who know
 nothing of economics are the first to claim it is wrong.
Play and fun are just high utility activities... why anyone would think otherwise I can only put down to their fundamental ignorance. 
Hold on... if he's a professor
 He knows that something with high utility is just the things you most want to do... So, play and fun must be high utility activities... otherwise, we wouldn't do it.
There's absolutely no contradiction there... not at the micro-economics level... Utility is the thing you do because it's what you want to do... the problem is normally at the macro-economics level where everyone assumes having a job is the bestest thing ever... rather than sitting at home, smoking meth and having your dick sucked... which, of course, is the absolute peak of economic activity (seriously).
That program was no where near complete enough to demonstrate the effects of inflation... so, I don't know what you're talking about there... I gave up on it cause you weren't interested in it. 
Actually... I'd say he's well aware of this fact..
 but is putting it terms mere humans like you could readily grasp... he knows the lay reader thinks economics means hard work and money, so he's just putting it in terms you could understand.
Utility really does describe whatever the hell it is you want to do... No exceptions... ever. 
If you are doing multiple mutually exlcusive 
 things at once... then you must be some sort of quantum powered holographic cyborg from the future... if you are doing multiple non-exclusive things at once, then that is because your 'bundle' of activities has the highest utility for you (within your resource constraints).
You complain about your golf course lifestyle... but you actually prefer it over all other available options... how do I know this? Because you haven't taken all those other available options... Your hoity toity golf cock sucking lifestyle is you REVEALED PREFERENCE... It's what you want baby, and you know it.
And there we go... utility does explain it, no contradictions necessary... it's the simplest explanation that fully explains the observations... Occam says I'm right, you're an idiot. 
Play is UTILITY though... and then you don't have 
 to come up with any more epicycles.
It's as simple as that.
If you are playing, it's the highest utility activity you can be doing at that point... if you are fucking, it's the highest utility activity you can be doing at that point... if you are smoking a bowl, it's the highest utility activity you can be doing at that point... if you are living on a golf course... if you are going to collect your welfare check... if you are working down a coal mine... it all comes down to that being the highest utility activity you can be doing at that point.
Only if you keep thinking that utility means making the most money per second will you find yourself trying to prove that -2 = +2 just because the sqrt function maps to both positive and negative to understand it... you have to rid yourself of that notion or else you'll just be arguing a strawman. 
Unpleasant means disutility (negative utility)
 And you don't change it, because it's not the highest utility to you.
There's absolutely nothing contradictory about it... no matter what you do, or try and change it, what you actually do reveals your preference as that being what you consider to be the highest utility you can obtain at that point - even though you don't think in terms of utility... your actions reveal your real preferences at the time you decide to take them. 
Seems reasonable... except that there's a
 mathematical proof that any decision making agent can be black box analysed in terms of utility.
There's a proof of existence of a utility function. 
Okay... if you're a math denier... then we're
 finished.
No amount of logic could persuade you of anything.
By definition.
$ 
No... mathematics is true in all realms $
 
Your programs are all subsets of Turing Machines
 you non-enforcement of noncontradiction is by necessity mathematically defined.
You have't broken out of the realm of mathematics, and you can't on a finite state machine, because we can mathematically define each state and all transitions.
This is where your fundamentally flawed... maths is never wrong, potentially axioms are, but never the math itself unless it is actually a mistake in the math, but otherwise it's true.
If you don't believe the proof, you really have to point out either an actual mistake in the proof or otherwise your only other points of attack are at axioms.
If you cannot accept that, you really have no hope in any sphere of life requiring rational thought. 
So you're saying Godel is wrong then? $
 
You are very ignorant of what maths is too...
 You can have a mathematical system with a number set where -X = X... that's absolutely fine in mathematics, it simply has different properties to say the integer number set Z.
Any program you write on a turing machine is by necessity a finite state machine... this is inescapable, and no emergent behaviour will solve this.
To make your halting problem argument means you literally disagree with Godel... which makes you entire argument false...
I guess you allowing contradictions in your logic helps you with the fact that everything you think, say and do is wrong. 
That's not solving the halting program...
 Rather, you have to write a program that says whether a given program will halt or not, and if you give me that I will be able to find a program for it to analyse that causes your program to loop forever or otherwise give the wrong answer.
You constantly argue about things when you don't even have the right definitions... is it upset you to be such a loser? 
What? Specifically you failed to understand the
 halting problem.
The failure is on you failfuck. 
No I can't... why would I? It has nothing to do
 with the halting problem. 
You're not proving the halting problem false...
 What you propose has NOTHING TO DO WITH the halting problem.
This is why you couldn't get past dead greeks... and a few thousand years of knowledge looks at your stupidity and laughs. 
You have to provide the halting decider program
 idiot... a failure is you. 
No, I didn't claim that either...
 I mean... go tell me if a particular version of the linux kernel will halt or not...
I doubt you could prove it one way or the other. 
Linux Kernel is a program...
 get back to me with the results and proof of your analysis. 
He was maximising his utility
 within his resource constraints. 
I'd say dying is a pretty good example of resource
 constraints, unless it's voluntary, in which case it's the course of action with the highest utility to you. 
Yes... everything is utility... your getting it $
 
No, it's not circular... it's just too subtle for 
 you.
Your utility is currently in denying it. 
Dude... just because you can't math... doesn't
 make it circular.
All we need to assume is there are some things you'd rather do, and some things you'd rather not do... the rest follows from that.
Otherwise, why the fuck you whine all the time? 
Also, there's nothing to say that other people's
 utility can't fuck with your own... obviously... if someone's maximum utility is locking you up in a cage and beating you with a stick and it's within their resource constraints, then that is what they will do, but it will have large negative externality effects on your utility.
In economic terms, markets allow this, but free markets do not. 
No, I only believe in it after looking at the
 maths... and not being able to find any flaws in either the proof or its axioms.
Also from observation and with my experience with AI agents. 
We never said we could see what your desires are
 just that we know you have them... we can see what you specifically desire when act, but only at that point.
None of the maths relies on knowing your utility function... simply knowing that you have one is enough.
Maths is hard, eh? 
There's no backpeddling, because I never claimed
 otherwise...
We can see what your maximum utility (within resource constraints) was at the point of action...
It's enough to know you have a utility function.
Not that we have to reconstruct your general utility function.
We never need to reconstruct anyone's utility function in economics... in fact, it's also an axiom that we don't know your particular utility function... otherwise price setting could be done centrally. 
No... I have maths that I studied and can't yet
 fault...
And haven't yet found anyone with enough intelligence to fault it... though I'd ACTUALLY REALLY LIKE TO FIND FAULT WITH THE LOGIC!!! That's what scientists actually do.
You don't offer to find fault with the logic, because you just skip the logic and assume straight out that it must be wrong... I dunno... cause butthurt maybe?
In either case... it's not science what you are doing, is just retarded... you just another brain dead junkie like my last whore. 
The proofs don't rely on knowing the actual 
 function... only on particular properties of the function.
You never did any maths at uni, did you? 
An unknowable function, is still a function...
 Is this too much for crack heads? 
I'm confused... did they steal your stuff or did 
 the cops manage to bust them? 
Shit... I don't even know what your saying...
 How the hell do you expect an AI to? 
God -- I can't handle Kermit The Frog
 Dissing Stephen Hawking.
I suffered through nearly 4 mins... is that some kind of record? 
I can't understand how it can work or why they
 would want it...
The blockchain needs incentives to work... the mining reward does this for bitcoin... and it's a decentralised system that removes the need for trust... but these banks are going to want a trust based model, defeating the whole point of having a blockchain... especially as they are going to limit who has access to it.
A centralised approach is more efficient (in terms of computing resources) to accomplish their goals, which is pretty much what they have already.
So, maybe there's a use case I haven't considered yet, but I really don't see this working for anyone... I think it's a dead idea but those who want to sell it haven't realised yet. 
Once again, you are complaining that a problem is 
 due to the free market when the free market would actually allow it.
You blame the solution as the problem because of your ignorance. 
Well, if people weren't so stupid, ignorant and
 stubborn and stopped blaming the free market as the being the source of their problems rather than the source of their solutions, maybe we could...
It seems most people like to be their own worst enemies though... and if they argue in favour of their own suffering, I don't see why I should give a shit. 
Yep... Edison violated the Free Market principles
 and probably paid a greater cost in total than he profited from being an ass and operating outside the free market.
As the econ professor pointed out, everytime the market fails, one of the four assumptions has been violated, every time on of the four assumptions is violated, the market fails. 
No, the model does really do what it says it does
 and it applies to it's domain which is HUMAN CHOICES... so, it clearly doesn't apply to everything, only that small niche...
When I say the market fails that's easy to see and predict, it fails because it isn't the free market, because one of the four assumptions of the free market must have been violated!
Edison wasn't a 'dick', he was just a self serving utility maximising economic agent... and just as economics predicts, if he thought he could get away with something for his own benefit - even if it meant breaking out of the free market by lying and not paying up.
Thermodynamics doesn't have much to do with it, but economics clearly does, and it does tell us something very useful --- don't trust people, they might not respect the free market --- nail them down to a contract first if large sums are involved... cause soon as it's in their benefit (if they are not principled people - though this too is just a form of utility), you can forget the free market, they will screw you.
Furthermore, we know the market rewards that behaviour... cause utility! Which is why operating within the free market would be called enlightened self interest, rather than selfishness above all. It would have excluded what edison did to tesla (note I think hiring smart people and driving them hard, and freely trading a wage with them for their intellectual property is perfectly fine free market behaviour), but it would have also excluded what tesla tried to do to J.P. Morgan over the wardenclyffe tower... and in both these cases, probably everyone ended up worse off than if they had have all been men of principle and operated in the free market. 
No, in a free market you are insulated
 from other people's bullshit and you wouldn't be involved in any transaction you didn't want to be involved in... see... the free market delivers exactly what you want... alas, the real world is not a free market, and you've been brainwashed to blame the solution rather than the problem.
Everywhere you are outfoxed or suffer from loopholes or bad regulation, in each case, you suffer from not being in a free market. 
Right, the free market gives you that option.
 You never get involved in any transaction you don't want to be involved in... If you don't want to exchange... No one can force you... You would be free to wait only for gifts... Of course, if you don't want to be involved in exchange you have zero need for money either.
Your actions suggest otherwise though. 
Right...
 The Market needs regulation to make it Free! You've been lied to and swallowed the lie if you ever believed anything else!  
Furthermore the Free Market tells
 Us exactly what regulation and lie. If you don't fully understand a contract its not free because you violate the perfect information assumption... You don't know what you're getting out of the transaction... Also outright fraud, where the 'contract' is ruse. 
s/and lie/and why/ $
 
Efficient means relative to the free market
 It is the 'perfect' market and informs us in how to regulate the real market which differs from this state in those specific ways. 
Fraud is a violation of the Free Market
 assumption that all parties have full knowledge of what they are getting out of each transaction.
So again, you complain that the problem is the free market, but actually the problem is it NOT being the free market and the solution would be the free market instead.
Of course, most people are scum and don't behave according to the free market when there is their own welfare on the line... tesla should have really nailed this down with a contract as proof so edison couldn't weasel his way out of it, but then tesla was quite naive and easily duped it seems. 
Secrecy is fine...
 Perfect information means only knowing what you are getting out of the transaction... These can be done in secret because it doesn't affect others... It isn't an externality... I don't need to know about your deals at all. 
As long as before you commit to a transaction
 you know exactly what you are getting out of it, then you have PERFECT INFORMATION... There is nothing in the free market that says deals have to be public or prepared or conducted in public or anything... secrecy is fine... there's no contradiction with doing your business in private and the free market, that's my point. 
If they conceal, you don't know what you get...
 So, it's not the Free Market. If they don't conceal, you know what you get, it is the Free Market.
If they know exactly what they are getting out of it, then that is the free market and the optimum, and everyone should be completely happy and everything is fucking perfect.
If they conceal something relevant, then not all parties know what they are getting out of the transaction, so it is NOT free market, and someone is getting less*  than they wanted and people get pissed off and feel ripped off and everything is shit because that wasn't a free market trade... it was just market trade and someone should get sued or go to prison or have their heads removed and entrails pulled out slowly through their ass with a red hot poker.
So, free market trade, you know what you're getting... can be done in secret... if you got sold lemons that you thought were limes, it's not a free market trade, and you should take them to court to correct the market and bring it closer to the free market that is desired.
* : though also potentially more, and is still a problem from a theoretical pov for other reasons, but not as much. 
Funny thing is, you didn't hide anything from your
 customers.... they got exactly what they thought they would get out of the transaction.
You hadn't actually declared bankruptcy, you never had to turn any machines off, you just lost customers on your own fear or expectation of bankruptcy that never materialised.
All customers know that a company can go bankrupt... and even if you did, I imagine there would have been a grace period for customers to move their stuff... maybe this is something you should put into your contracts.
Otherwise, sounds like you just scared off some otherwise happy customers.
That's not like selling them on 100TB of disk space but actually that was shared and they were quota'd down to 2GB each... that would be a violation of the free market. 
Yeah... see my other comment...
 It's quite likely your customers weren't aware of the risks when they signed up, you concealed material facts, you operated unethically and outside of the free market.
You may have saved your business, but you did it not at your own cost, but by risking other people's utility.
You aren't a free market businessman, just someone who does what it takes to make money... your a pirate, a looter, a scalper, a theif, a fraudster and you a scum.
You should really be corrected in a court of law. 
If you don't get it yet...
 I don't agree with any business people that anything you do to make a profit is ethical. You and greengrass are putting me in the former category when I am strongly against it, all due to your ignorance of what the free market actually is.
And I hope you are starting to see the difference between the free market and do whatever the fuck you want for money... you can't lie to your customers... the fact that everyone you told left you should show that this information IS a part of their utility... you're effectively defrauding them and stealing from them.
I also hope you start making your customers aware of the risks they face hosting with you... you actually ARE breaking the free market assumptions and are operating unethically.
And the worst part of all this to me, is that you blame the free market rather than yourself (and others who behave similarly) for being selfish cunts who don't give a shit about the free market at all and are willing to make a buck at anyone else's expense if you think you can get away with it. 
For one... that fiduciary responsibility
 is not a law, it's bullshit that you probably got reading the cryptonomicon, and it was stated so seemingly factually that people actually believe it... ie, you could not be found liable for telling your customers the truth.
In this case, you didn't end up causing actual harm to your customers... but if you did, you may have become PERSONALLY liable.
I mean, you're literally risking other people's HARDWARE without letting them know the risks (even in fineprint)... you could be sued for that now that it's public information... and you are also risking unbacked up data from those you host for.
No, clearly you've stepped outside the free market, which is morally and ethically wrong, and possibly leaves you and your company liable.
Maybe it's time to run your actions past your lawyer for once. 
Yes, there are laws... but  a director acting in 
 what he considers the best interest of his company cannot get sued for lost profits expected by his shareholders, which is the cryptonomicon scenario and what you were describing... even if you thought it lose your shareholders money, if you think it is right for your company, no one can sue you... it's a ridiculous idea.
Looting the company for your own personal gain will get you sued under fiduciary responsibility laws... but not deciding that your company is going to be totally open even if it costs you all your customers.
I don't really give a fuck about the specifics... the point is if there's a chance your customers aren't going to get out their trade what you sold them on then you are breaking the perfect information assumption, you are not working in the free market, are ripping them off and oh look... what you said is wrong with the free market is exactly because it is not free market and that is exactly why what you are doing is wrong and why you suck shit and should die.
If your company can go bankrupt and everyone's machines get shutdown without them getting a chance to get their precious data... AND YOU DID'T INFORM THEM... then you're clearly being an asshole because you are clearly violating the free market.
Now that you've identified the problem was not the free market, but how you deviated from it, you can fix the deviation and stop blaming the free market... which again turned out to be the SOLUTION and not the fucking PROBLEM. 
If you thought you were going bankrupt
 but didn't tell you customers, and there was no bankruptcy policy in your contracts with your customers, and it was a real and imminent threat that would have material effects on them... then arguably you were concealing information from them and it wasn't a free market trade.
The market is just people maximising their utility with the information they have in hand and what they predict their outcomes will be, and in all cases this model describes human behaviour and is universally applicable (in that domain).
The Free market is the market restricted in certain ways so that the market produces only utility enhancing transactions...
Often you have to create disutilities (fines, taxes, prison, etc) to those who operate outside of the free market so that market behaviours fall in line with the free market.
It's no spherical cow... or rather... it's what we have to do to a cow to make it spherical.
So, if you found yourself working outside the free market, you know something is wrong... correct it yourself, a bankruptcy policy as part of the contract would probably cover that, and you would know you weren't risking your customer's utility in order to gain your own utility.
An ethical business should operate according to free market principles... though it's easy to see why not all businesses would... so often we have to force them through law. 
No... you clearly don't understand the statement
 The Free Market is THE MARKET that is RESTRICTED such that it produces only utility enhancing transactions.
THE MARKET isn't FREE unless people behave in a certain way... which CAN (often) be achieved through government regulation... but government regulation doesn't automatically make THE MARKET FREE, unless it is specifically the right regulation... and we can know what regulations will produce a FREE MARKET and which ones will not.
For example, without regulation, you could steal and defraud in the market, but by definition, that would not be the FREE market... with protection against theft and fraud, you can have a FREE market.
Drug prohibition though goes AGAINST the free market for example... so regulation doesn't automatically make a market free and a market by default isn't free... a free market is a very specific thing... which once you manage to parse the sentence you mocked, you might be able to understand. 
ie Free Market is a subclass of Market... okay? $
 
It's utopian in the sense that
 we don't think we can achieve it exactly, but that the closer we are to it the fucking better and that we can approach it asymptotically if only we can get the politicians to enact the correct regulations that econs have known for more than a couple of hundred years.  
And drug prohibition is a non-free market because
 people cannot voluntarily enter into transactions because they are outlawed. Even if you want to be part of the transaction you are not allowed to... so by definition, because of prohibition, drug trade becomes part of the BLACK market (see, there are many types of markets, and free market is only one of them).
A market is free if and only if it has the following properties (by definition!):
 - There are no externalities. Anyone affected by a trade is involved voluntarily.
 - Perfect information of what you are getting from the trade.
 - Perfect competition. There are many competing on supply and demand.
 - Actors are rational. There is an ordering of what each person desires.
Any deviation from these is a deviation from the free market, and needs to be externally corrected, which is where regulation is needed. We also know how the deviations affect the free market, by how much, and how to correct for them. Regulation doesn't magically make a market free unless it enforces the above assumptions or otherwise corrects for them.
Has this helped your understanding?
You getting it yet? 
Jesus christ you're a fuckhead...
 Of COURSE we KNOW that the REAL WORLDTM doesn't work like the Free Market...
That's the fucking point... We know that the most efficient perfect cow is spherical, but real cows aren't, so it shows us how to beat the cow into a sphere... Not that we think cows are fucking spheres but that we think they SHOULD be... Did you ever finish high school? Can you grasp this concept?
It's almost opposite of the spherical cow as the basis of a model of reality... We've studied cows and gone over them with a fine tooth comb and finally we've PROVEN that spherical cows are the best cows we can have and HOW cows AREN'T FUCKING SPHERE'S and EXACTLY how they are NOT spheres and how to MAKE THEM into nearly exact spheres by applying the right pressure in the right places. It still won't be a perfect sphere... but it will be a much much more efficient cow.
> > We also know how the deviations affect the free market
> No, no we don't. 
Yes, Yes we do!
For EVERY broken assumption, there is a REMEDY... You make your own ignorance into fact... but you've already proven how ignorant you are, yet it doesn't stop you making nonsense statements. It's not my job to educate you, but I'll reluctantly give you an example.
OMG someone produces widgets with a factory that pollutes a river... That's a real fucking clear example of an externality... and the solution is to estimate the value to everyone else of the damage to the river and tax that amount to the factory.
It really is as simple as that. Of course, proving this mathematically is a little bit more involved, but that's the result.
> Almost all your business activities have some effects on other people. 
Let's imagine you're a businessman who thinks he knows what the free market is because he's a businessman but never actually studied the free market because he's lazy and proud of his ignorance, but goes all over the internet writing how stupid the free market is and I have to put up with that bullshit even though I don't want to... that's a negative externality too... So, we estimate the cost of that effect on other people... which is what... oh SWEET FUCK ALL... and tax the appropriate amount.
Small deviations don't matter as much as large deviations... WHO WOULD HAVE FUCKING THUNK IT? Oh that's right... Adam Smith in 1776. 
By the way, centrally planned systems are markets
 too... it's another form of market, distinct from the Free Market, and they are called Command Markets... where the price is set by central command rather than between the individuals and it mainly suffers from the central command not being a good reflection of the sum of individual's utility, they can't estimate other's utilities well (unsurprisingly), and the difference invariably leads to over or under production resulting in shortages or large wasted unused stockpiles. 
If, after all the dealing, they had concealed
 relevant material facts from you about what you were actually getting out of the transaction, then that would be a violation of the free market...
So, say Apple decided to buy Microsoft, and all the deals were in secret and apple agreed and they went ahead and bought MS for however many billion only to find out afterward they were only getting the division of microsoft that assemble the little clicker buttons in the microsoft mouse... that would be against the free market...
Or say they hid something like the fact that MS knew that the EU was going to sue them for anticompetitive behaviour that would bankrupt them, but not revealed that information.
But for their deal to be sorted out in secret, maybe so the public doesn't find out about the latest MS interface widget from their R&D department that is going to make huge changes... or even how they structure their taxes, say... as long as apple know they are getting all of MS amd what they are getting, then that's perfectly fine and free market and harms no-one. 
If only he got a basic income...
 There'd be no incentive to be greedy and fix teeth at all!
Instead of dentists selfishly fixing teeth, they could spend all day masturbating to challenging VR porn. 
There is economic utility in picking up trash...
 You do it because it's a *good* thing... The very definition of economic utility... Jesus, you're such a fail fuck.
Probably no one would want to be a dentist for the fun of it... at least there would be far less incentive... with no market for dentistry, you could do your own teeth I suppose... Or otherwise, why didn't you just find someone who does dentistry because it's fun? 
Sounds really good...
 When institutional buyers get into the bitcoin market, it's going to have to drive the price up, merely from the fact that they will want to be holding many millions of them. Increasing demand with a constant supply can only increase the price.
If banks start using it for clearing, it's really going to go through the roof. 
Those things may well happen...
 but the first steps she appears to be taking is creating another way for institutional buyers to get in... so, the short term is first going to be a big price rise. 
Attn greengrass: What's better than the Free Market?
You hate the free market, we shouldn't have it, it's the cause of all that is wrong with the world, but if you don't like the free market, it must be because you have a better alternative.
So, why don't you explain? What system would be better than the free market?
Another question, you can just answer true or false... The Free Market means people should be able to pollute as much as they want, without regulation, taxes or fines, as long as it is profitable for the polluter.
This is to test your view what the free market is.
Scarcity is the human instinct to want more no
 matter how much you actually have. You have infinite wants in a finite world.
Look at you for example, you have clean drinking water, you are well fed, you have shelter, you are healthy, you have a FUCKING car, you don't seem to run out of gas for it, you travel where you like, you are on constant vacation, you never work... AND IT'S NOT FUCKING ENOUGH FOR YOU!
You are the ultimate whinging spoiled brat, you have EVERYTHING ANY PERSON COULD POSSIBLY WANT IN LIFE... AND IT'S NOT ENOUGH. You want MORE AND MORE AND MORE.
GREEDY FUCK.
How many millions of basic income do you need before you would literally have every single desire of yours fulfilled and you wouldn't want for any more... there would be nothing you couldn't want for that you couldn't have... it's INFINITE. Bill Gates doesn't have enough money for what he wants, Elon Musk could do with a few more billion to advance his latest project... and you just won't shut up how fucking hard you have it... and you're a perfect example of an entitled spoiled western cunt!
Scarcity is caused by your desires, not your need to survive... because YOU ALREADY HAVE EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO SURVIVE... and it's not enough... you demonstrate the very definition of scarcity. 
From each according to their ability, to each
 according to their need...
In a sense, it is right to take from those who can afford it and give it to those who need it... Redistribution is compatible with the free market, though it isn't free trade in itself... the free market still works with redistribution, and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it.
If we could fund a livable basic income, I'd be all for it, and I would remove minimum wage altogether... Minimum wage keeps people out of jobs, but a basic income would stimulate demand, which would create jobs... If walmart could double the number of employees, and pay them half as much, I'd be all for it in a world with basic income... it gives more people in total something to do, if they so desire it. 
Well... what I'm saying is that you can actually
 have a good mix...
That the free trade with wealth redistribution IS the free market.
If republicans say otherwise, it is because they are lying, and selling lemons as limes when they say welfare, free health, free education and anti-pollution or other anti-big business interests isn't the free market. If greengrasses and tranes want to believe them, then they are uneducated idiots. 
Yeah, I suppose...
 What I'm getting at, is that they are selling some version of the 'free market' that means no regulations... like, oh, you have a monopoly, we better not do anything cause the 'free market'... or, oh, you're pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, better not do anything cause the 'free market'... oh, you're lying to your customers about the services you provide, better not do anything cause the 'free market'...
Which isn't the Free Market at all... cause the Free Market must be regulated to minimise these things... but then people like greengrass come along and are all like, screw the free market... without realising they are actually arguing against the very things that could fix the problems they are identifying.
And then they're proud of their ignorance, and attack anyone who actually studies a little bit and has a basic understanding of the solutions. 
No, it's only the "best" solution from
 your point of view... it's a shame you never learnt to think economically...
So, for sake of argument, I'm gonna say it could be a really good solution for the type of thing we would like to see... where the client selects the moderators in a sense, and so some collaborative filtering can occur, which provides some signal raising and noise reduction... all good...
But why would someone want to run a site like that? Reddit's system (and other web forums) give the owner a lot of political power, and they can convert that to ad revenue easily and maybe even other sources of revenue.
Still... you could always write a site like that yourself maybe? Ultimate proof of concept... and if you build it, they will come...
Not sure you'll convince anyone else to build it though. 
Power is their utility
 When the mods ban, they do it for power. They aren't thinking of economics or utility or any other stupid economic crap pulled out of lower orifices.
Economists don't think people think in terms of economics or utility, just that they act as if they do... in this case, that power is their utility... "They do it for power" is exactly my point. For some people, if there's no power, there's no utility... there's no point.
And your system still offers that... if you set the /ignores for a large group of followers, you still hold a lot of power over what those followers see (by default)... and the owner still has veto power too, in any case... or rather, it would take a LOT of work to work out how to design it so that couldn't happen and do it in a provably secure way.
As for freedom of speech, you don't have the right to use other people's resources to publish your ideas on... they are well within their rights to tell you to go elsewhere... in other words, the law can't compel me or my businesses to post your banners... fuck off.
Also what tdillo says about do it cause no one's stopping you, except that you don't have enough free money, right? I mean it's the money that's stopping you, not lack of talent or anything else. 
No, that's a syllogism... ad revenue is utility
 but not all utility is ad revenue.
The irc or reddit mod's own sense of power is utility for many. 
What else do you think trane would do with free
 money and "challenges"?
Challenge: How much saline can I inject in my scrotum? 
Actually... I want to pop it... like a balloon. $
 
I'm more upset about the hot tattoo covered east
 german concert crew girl I failed to chat up at the Foo Fighters show last night...
And while they were nice tits... I mostly miss what the relationship could have been but wasn't than the results of a little bit of cosmetic surgery. 
Why is Grohl still alive?
 I'm not 100% certain, but it might be the lack of taking a shotgun to his own head?
Just a guess though. 
I wish you were so smart. $
 
It's been oscillating between about 300 and 400
 for quite some time now... sometimes a little lower or higher... but about that range. 
I agree...
 We could print more money so people can go into the woods with their cars, fuck up the land, chop down the trees and dump rubbish in it where ever we like, and the extra money will make it all okay so we can fuck the forests because we'd all be rich!
All the extra money means that we'd have more forests anyway because printing money means everyone is wealthier and we won't have to play forest street artificial scarcity games pretending we can't have infinite forestry... and those that do can be isolated from the rest of us and play their games of grow their own forests while we chop down our own infinite forests with all the extra money we have... and if we do run out of forests, we can just use a forest destruction-adjustment mechanism like forest indexation as a hedge against no forests left.
It's just so simple, I'm surprised trane didn't think of it. 
We don't need loggers... we can automate...
 And robots can chop down all the trees... but free money will mean that even if we chop down all the trees, there will be enough forests for everyone.
That's how money works right? Scarcity of real world goods and services is just due to the artificial scarcity of money? That's what you're trying to tell everyone, yes? People could just buy their own forests. 
Jesus... I was going to say that... but thought
 even you would find that disgusting.
So, we can slash and burn all the forests and wildlife in the real world and live in virtual infinite forests... fantastic... fuck the regulations, fuck the park warden and fuck the forests... VR forests come with free pepsi anyway. 
Hold on... I know you're a fantasist... but let's 
 follow your logic.
If we just give everyone millions of dollars every year printed for free from the Fed, we could build robots to destroy all the earths real forests, but because we are all rich we could still have real forests, because resources doesn't real, only artificial scarcity of money, and we should be happy with all the virtual forests we create in our little VR cocoons... no?
And fuck mars... we can have our own planets in VR... we don't need no bullshit real planets. 
You can't use utility in your arguments when you 
 don't believe in utility functions... that's illogical.
Anyway... what about people who want to build robots to cut down all the trees because they don't like trees? And not VR trees, that's boring, I mean, fuck the real trees.
Your theory is though that they could do that just fine, right? As long as everyone has enough free money, other people can buy their own forests too.
My point isn't about forests anyway, it is that your theories are complete nonsense with no rational logic behind them. 
No... YOU are too stupid...
 Look... the only economic motivation I need is that I like to see forests turned into asphalt.
So, your suggestion is that people pool their resources and buy the forests... I like your thinking... let's privatise the forests... but you are basically saying that with enough basic income people can cut down as many trees as they like, and now that everyone is rich on basic income, there will be enough forests for everyone... just as I originally stated.
Can we do the coral reefs next? 
Surely, if I had enough money though...
 I could cut down all the trees and pave it with asphalt, because I fucking love doing that, right?
It's only artificial scarcity of money that stops me right now... not the other way around.
That's your view on economics, no? 
I'm not saying I had anything to do with it...
 but HHD should be a lesson to any of you who even think about adding procrasti to the blasterbegone script.
You've been warned. 
Maybe his cracks weren't all that wise...
 if you know what I mean? 
On the  Face of It -- Romance
So, I just found a pair of earrings I recognise on my windowsill outside my flat, which I guess means Jenna's been around during the last week while I was away at the family farm during a visit from one of my family's friends.
And I'm kind of conflicted what to do should I see her again...
She is quite good looking, and the sex is reasonable enough, though I feel there are too many hoops to jump through to get it... like red pill extreme shit test handling, physical escalation and comfort/attraction trade offs... Obviously I'm naturally a beta type of guy who just likes to be nice to women and avoid conflict, but that doesn't work... so I have to guard my instincts and be kind of an asshole the whole time... not let loose and just be stupid funny kind me.
In past relationships, if I wanted sex I just rolled over, woke them up and usually 'Fuck?' was enough to get going... but this one is all drama, shit and timing... precision every time or it all goes out the window.
Then there's the fact that she is a whore, but when I was with junkie car-go girl that never bothered me... but she didn't deny who she was, and it just was all very straight forward... but with Jenna, well... she flat out denies being Jenna... like, yeah, she was a whore when she was 18... but if she keeps getting accused of it, she may as well go back to it... yeah right... Same with the all the fresh meth picking sores on her legs - 'Back when I was a meth addict...', you mean last week?
Like, the next day complaining that she should get half a bag of weed for the blowjob the day before because I didn't say no when she said that when was blowing me (all contracts entered into during sex are immediately null and void upon orgasm, I wasn't listening anyway and didn't your mother ever teach you not to speak with your mouth full?), or at least as much weed as I smoke... lol... really? The whore instinct remains.
She is quite good with the plausible deniability... like when I met her outside the courtroom, trying to claim I put up the Jenna adverts... clever girl... but her story always has inconsistencies... and how can you deal with a women who is constantly lying in all sorts of ways, big and small? (The judge said he had to judge her case facts 'On the face of it' - hence the title, and his way of saying he knows she's a lying whore but they'd failed to prove it - I pointed this out to her and it's now her latest favourite joke).
Imagine being in a relationship with someone like that and having to get a job... there's zero probability of her not cheating while you're slaving away in some fucking cubicle somewhere... you can't keep everyone away 24/7, in fact, you have to trust a girl to do that herself... I'd never feel that security with her... if I let myself get involved like that I'd feel like absolute shit... got to respect yourself above all else. Fuck it, I feel like shit anyway even when I initiate the kicking her the fuck out. I'm far to sensitive for a woman like this.
So, the only thing I can think of is to keep her emotionally distant... never become complacent... accept you're never going to 'own' her... mind you... one blowjob and the next day she stops to admire a wedding dress in the local boutique... "don't you think it's pretty"... lol shit girl... gonna take more than a blowjob... why don't you take a look at the bridesmaid's dresses over here and set your goals a little more realistically?
Luckily one thing I always do is keep building new connections... So she assumed I was making up a story about a new girl (let's call her madam bigs, cause she runs a few street girls herself)... but she pulled up outside my place and called up, I chatted with her for a while on the balcony, but then thought fuck it, bring her in... so madam bigs is there squatting down giving me the full view of what's under her short skirt and we're furiously eye fucking each other... and Jenna's just going absolutely crazy, like trying to find common ground and stuff 'I used to be a working girl, so I know what it's like' (you mean last week?)... and one upping each other on how much they like me... and then Jenna starts furiously cleaning my house and tries to show off to madam bigs by taking a few silver coins from my change jar (bitch, you gots your own money, put that back - 'I was just trying to show madam bigs... blah blah' - 'shut the fuck up, it's not yours and madam bigs isn't a thief'), finally saying she want's to go out and buy some cheap clothes from the second hand store... anyway... I digress.
So, here's one thing maybe kurons could help me with... Like, after the morning blowjob, I'll be like, let's get some weed, and she'll be like, and then we'll have kinky sex in the afternoon... well I agree of course... but I never do, cause I think I'm out of my depths on that one... Cause I don't think I can think of anything kinky that she wouldn't find vanilla... anal? Just another day at work... two women... there's an advert for that - Monday double special with Jenna and Sasha... She's bound to have been spitroasted many times before, and besides I don't want other men in my naked time... She's probably done farm animals, horsecock, bsdm, sub/dom roleplaying both ways, swinging from the chandeliers, champaign bottles opened up in her cooch and pretty much anything I could think of would be been there done that, if she was ever honest about it...
I imagine even A2M would bore her... BUT I think I might have thought of something that maybe even she hasn't done... Which I'm calling A22M... Where, instead of fucking a girl in the ass and then pulling out and having her suck her own shit off your dick... you fuck another girls ass, then pull out and have her suck the other girls shit off your dick.
So, maybe something I can sort it out with madam bigs or street geologist... You know, be nice to surprise a girl with something new... shows you were thinking of her... Romance!
Pretty sure it's not a fetish of mine...
 I've never enjoyed a woman cheating on me.
Well... I do know it's not diseased... well... could be if recent I suppose... and you can stretch it and tear it but you can never wear it out... but it is a ho.
I dunno... was the challenge I suppose... like, when I met her I thought it kind of odd that a girl of that calibre didn't get completely stuck on me... seemed pretty strange... even taking into account all the higher cortical damage and lack of bonding instincts caused by adolescent meth usage and high partner count... I guess that's kind of what motivated me.
But now I guess I don't have any good reasons not to keep it on rotation, as long as it's easy and cheap... that's why I kicked her out after a few days. Well... lots of reasons really... the fact that she's now getting on a bit... she was spritely 27 when I met her, and now she's approaching 30! Also, those meth sores on her legs... just yuck! 
Strictly Ballroom was huge when it came out...
 Must have been late 80's early 90's though... so quite old movie.
Razorback is a must see classic too. 
Nice log normal distribution you got there $
 
Can you plot it on something like
 ln((x+1)/15)?
I do a lot of input normalisation for machine learning tasks... so ultimately you could scale it then plot it on a QQ plot to see how far from a log normal distribution it is. 
I have to say that Jenna's Blowjobs are about as
 good as one could imagine.
Those dick sucking lips might look good in photos but that's nothing in comparison to their application. Apparently she uses snake venom lipstick that cause your lips to swell to great effect.
Her large shapely breasts form a backdrop that somehow amplifies your cock... like some magic giant cock spell were cast in the vicinity of her lips.
She delivers in an absolutely professional manner, great use of hands and tongue and variation, ample saliva production, excellent gag reflex control, neither too light or too firm, too fast or too slow, takes direction easily, no objections to hard core face fucking or hair pulling and swallows eagerly, taking the remaining on her face and breasts, as it should be.
My only complaint is that I gave into her request not to film it for your enjoyment, that and the fact that she has no soul.
Best blowjob of 2015. 
Jenna Bunny... aka Meth Tits...
 I've put up pics in my diaries... you might consider them porn... so be careful. 
Thanks... looks like the platform I need to
 release the sex videos on. 
Yeah, well the blockchain is the technology
 and digital currency is just the first major application of it... There's a whole heap of things that it enables, this is just one of them, and it's hard to know what will be possible... but there are smart contracts, notarization, coloured coins (so you could have a bitcoin to represent a company or another asset or commodity), electrum hopes to enable digital autonomous corporations... the possibilities are endless.
I'm all for alternative uses of the blockchain... and this one looks interesting... I really have been wondering how to sell porn... I bought it up with Jenna, but I wasn't going to argue the point over a blowjob... but I see her acclimatising to the idea... I did tell her that if we were going to have sex anyway we might as well get paid for it... she said "It's not like that with you." (still denying that she's Jenna mind you)... I replied "Bitch, not you... me!"... We'll see. 
Paypal, Visa and others make you jump
 through hoops to sell adult content... Hoops I'd simply rather not jump through. 
So how much easier does this method make it?
 Quite a lot from my estimate. 
Make it work, make it correct, make it easy
 Simple software will package all this... it's a bit technical now, but blockchain technology is really new (still a bit untested I think though... mining monopoly scares the fuck out of me), so it's all exploding.
MI goes on and on about how much better visa is than bitcoin and this app again, but could you even do a $10 giveaway with visa or paypal online like I did here? (paypal might be possible, I don't really know)... This really democratises payment and everything that goes on around it. 
Electrum has all that though...
 How many people understand how email works? You and I do, but we're a minority... yet most people manage to use it just fine. 
Dude... I got ex junkie whores on methodone 
 maintenance who call me every once in a while telling me they follow the value of their BTC on their mycellium android apps.
With electrum, I think the exchange rate might be hidden away in the options or settings somewhere... that's a pretty minor design flaw.
Also, you don't have 'an account' number... you could have many... That's like insisting that email needs a house number and street address or it will never take off... it's not that conceptually hard to use... people just need to know people who use it to ask questions from and it will spread... again, just like email.
Exchange rate movements are only for investors really.
Transactions are viewable in a tab on electrum, no?
As for security... hardware wallets are one solution... bitcoin banks are another... encrypted wallets and standard security are good enough for most uses. 
On the Face of It --- Lonliness
I had to kick her back out to the curb.
I woke her up... said I wanted sex... she said she didn't.
Bitch? WTF has it got to do with what you want?
So I told her she couldn't stay and would have to go.
Besides, staring at all the meth sores on her legs and thinking of all the lying and whoring was turning me off. I ain't putting up with all of that and be refused sex.
So then came the yelling and screaming, and that she was going to get her new boyfriend to beat me up, that she would have to lie about me to him, tell him and the police I'd raped her, how I was taking advantage of her (and all the other vulnerable girls), that she was going to get bikies to beat me up and smash my car and burn my house down and shit like that.
But otherwise I think it's going pretty well.
I got's a trick to avoid this problem legally...
 Cause, most of them are psychotic and will reward Beta (provider) behaviour with anger, threats and violence... and I presume those threats can turn into police reports etc...
When the shit starts flying, I hit record on my phone... then I push them so I get all the threats recorded on tape... (they will claim shit about being recorded too... just ignore it and continue, but that's proof they are being recorded with their permission, cause they can always leave)... state facts at them that they either agree with or fight more... whatever, it's recorded... then I say something like "Bitch? WTF are you all upset about?", wrap my arms around them, and squeeze them as hard as I can... then they come good, apologise and I restate my facts and get them to agree to them again... all on record.
So, I got no worries from police... bikies and psycho's yes, but I got other methods for that.
I ain't no gorilla. 
Gas, grass or ass $
 
Everyday he's not in jail or an asylum is MDC day
 here. 
On the Face of It --- Tell K5: How to Get A Blowjob
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2013/9/12/81620/1949
Finally Solved...
I hope you've enjoyed this simple 18 month step by step guide to getting blown.
You will need an anonymous remailer, zero day Facebook hacking tools, stalking skills, threatening ex'es, pictures from Craigslist adverts... The usual stuff... I'm sure you've all been following along.
You missed the magistrates court appearence, and withholding of affections and compliance controls.
Not sure if trap... One I so willingly walked into.. You never know... Tomorrow's Diary might be about loneliness, shame, porn or bloody crime scenes.
But she looked so much better this time than when I last saw... My cock made a vast improvement to her face.
Poll.
Well... you admit you don't know what it is...
 So, I'm literally arguing with an ignorant.
Can you name the four assumptions (really constraints) of the free market?
If not, then how the fuck can you be so certain what you're arguing against?
Because, mathematically, it is proven (given assumptions of utility) that everyone is better off, and no one is worse off, under a free market.
The very profitably business you are talking about isn't operating in a free market, because in a free market both consumers and producers are price takers, not price makers... anything else points there to be limitations in competition.
I suspect you are talking about laissez faire economics, which ISN'T the Free Market... it's something else... and has all sorts of problems.
> zero reason that with the technology we have there should be suffering
You have a solution to this? Something BETTER than the free market? I really think you have no fucking idea.
You're just another ignorant moron, spouting bullshit about shit you don't understand and thinking that it makes you sound smart... you're just a fucking retard fat fuck without a clue. 
THIS... SO MUCH THIS...
 Clearly you're a lot smarter than me at economics... but I just like getting people to know about it, I suppose.
You're completely right... The elite owners and media "Economists" LIE about the Free Market... I think they deliberately distort the meaning and use the words Free Market, whilst actually telling people to implement laissez faire policies...
So people associate the Free Market with shit that is extremely NOT Free Market and so they shut off, they don't even want to KNOW what the Free Market is... they HATE it, because of all these shit heads LYING about it.
Which only makes the problem worse, but the answer isn't IGNORANCE... only really though knowing what the Free Market is, can we hope to identify and correct what the Market does.
Here's the problem, I think... why the Free Market fails... The Free Market itsef is a tragedy of the commons... It is a positive externality... Not only do people operating in the Free Market benefit from it, but so does everyone else... and positive externalities are underproduced by the Market... Therefore Free Market is underproduced in the market! 
So, the solution to problems with the Market
 is to be ignorant of them?
Pot meet kettle, dipshit. 
It's my 30th Birthday and I want 3000GBP
 to have a party... payment due in 4 weeks.
True loan request.
YOU'RE LOAN APPLICATION HAS BEEN DENIED! 
Now? $
 
Never do tomorrow what you can put off forever $
 
If they were based in Australia you could probably
 sue them for false or misleading advertising...
But they seem to be based in California... Maybe you could still sue them... I dunno... but it would almost certainly be more expensive than it's worth.
I guess this how they get away this kind of shit. 
What is he masturbating with? $
 
No you're all wrong... the answer is his paws...
 but if watch carefully, he doesn't, he just keeps going and going. 
Attn: Greengrass - What have you got against the FREE market?
Greengrass made a statement I find very strange:
"There is no such thing as a free market nor should there be."
To me this is as strange as if he had have said "There is no such thing as a free man, nor should there be".
So, I want to hear what anyone (except trane of course, cause he's just fucking stupid) could possibly have against the free market.
Of course, if you say something that is not a free market then I'm just going to zero rate you and move on.
So, if you tell me that monopolies control the free market, you get a zero, because a free market cannot have monopolies, by definition. If you say free markets lead to polluted cities, again, I'm going to zero you, because a free market has no externalities, by definition. If you tell me people are forced into things they don't want to do I'm going to zero you, because all transactions are voluntary, by definition. And if you tell me that companies lie and cheat, yes, I'm going to zero you, because you always know what you are getting out of a free market transaction, by fucking definition.
Poll.
That's a cute pink suit you got on there...
 Did you make it yourself or did your gay lover lend you his? 
Still better than greengrass' / trane's argument $
 
Because that is the DEFINITION OF A FREE market...
 Anything else... anything that doesn't conform to the restrictions of a free market is not a free market... It's just a market... a free for all... anarchy or something else... but not a FREE market.
There can be no slavery in a free market, because that is not a free market (get where the name comes from yet?).
So, yeah, PEOPLE have to have laws and regulations to make sure they operate in accordance to the rules of a free market, because they are self interested and will operate OUTSIDE of it... enslaving people, lying, cheating, stealing, killing... but none of that is a free market.
Also, no utility is UNITLESS... Dollars are a CONVENIENT measure... but not the only one... We could measure it in tons of gold, or potatoes... It's just that almost everyone is familiar with dollars. I keep telling you this, but it seems you don't believe me. 
See my comment below balsamic's on fungibility $
 
Yeah... you'll see elsewhere that a free market 
 actually requires external enforcement to function... that's not much of a problem philosophically... it's just the way it is.
I can't find a source right now... but economists noticed chaos in their equations very early on... much earlier than the 90's... something like the 30's or 40's. I'll dig it up when I'm less tired.
Actually, you get all the results of the free market if you randomly redistribute all the wealth before trading... or rather... you can redistribute in non-distortionary ways and get all the same benefits (across everyone, not for individuals, because obviously some people would be worse off than without the redistribution)... It leads me to believe that you can tax wealth, and redistribute it as a basic income, and a lot of these oscillation you are talking about could be greatly reduced. 
Well... when you say tax, I'm assuming you're
 talking about income or capital gains or something similar that operate on the flow of money or value... They have their place, but they are distortionary (there is less incentive to work with income taxes... there is less incentive to invest with capital gains taxes).
Actually, the only truly non-distortionary tax is a wealth tax... and wealth tax would serve just as well if not better for this purpose... It is actually perfectly in line with free market theory... It's basically hidden in the first few chapters of any intro to micro-econ course or text... and although non-distortionary redistribution before trading is always mentioned as having no effect on the welfare theorems of free market trade... somehow, no one ever mentions wealth tax at all.
I suspect the reasons for this have to do with who owns the wealth and the political influence of the wealthy. 
Also, those instability problems really show up in
 macro-economics, not micro, which is concerned with the free market.
In macro-economics you have the business cycle... bought about by the interaction between business and credit provision... at the bottom of the cycle credit is hard, and business is slow... but then business starts to pick up, credit becomes available, there's a feedback loop, credit becomes even more available and more businesses pop up... then credit becomes too available, and some of the businesses getting credit start going bankrupt, the credit companies start calling in their loans, forcing other businesses that would have been okay out of business, which feeds back on itself further retracting credit and more businesses collapse until only a few are left, the economy is depressed or stagnated but there aren't much in the way of outstanding risky loans so the credit companies start making a few more loans and the whole thing repeats... Boom and bust, boom and bust, boom and bust...
Keynsians say the government should try to smooth this out by increasing government spending (running a budget deficit) during the busts to stimulate the private sector... and (the theory goes) should REALLY run budget a surplus in the boom times to regulate the private sector and cover their own debt... but politically that rarely happens... so who knows where that eventually leads... guess we're finding out. 
Well... I'm not a professor of economics...
 And I'm not familiar with the equations you are talking about... supply/demand cycle for a product? I don't know much about feedback loops here...
Only thing I can think of is typical product lifetime curves... that go something like, introduction, rapid growth, saturation and obsoletion... I mean... you wouldn't want a mechanical control system that operated like that... you wouldn't get in a plane that worked like that... but it's exactly what you want for your typical consumer product.
Can you relate it to potatoes? 
Yeah, I'm familiar with harmonic oscillators...
 I think it's a bad example for a few reasons... Firstly, I'd say crude oil is a pretty bad example of the free market... The fact that OPEC has so much ability to set prices proves that it is just very far from perfect competition and therefore isn't a free market at all. If OPEC operated in a country with anti-collusion laws, they'd be done for it, but they're outside of our jurisdiction.
Secondly, in the standard model, price has no effect on supply and demand... rather supply and demand are price/quantity curves... shifting supply and demand means providing more or less at the same price, or providing the same amount at a higher or lower price... the entire curve shifts... So generally, more is demanded and less supplied at a lower price, and more is supplied and less demanded at a higher price, but supply and demand themselves haven't changed! However, the simple model does not take into account delays such as the time it takes to put a factory into operation, or maybe empty out a stockpile... so, maybe your model has some application here.
Secondly, there is no agreed upon model for price setting! I mean, the harmonic oscillator model you have might be relevant... but it's far from agreed that this is how prices work... So some 90's economist has a model... but probably not a well accepted model... certainly not at the micro level. 
Yeah... quite correct...
 Of course people don't naturally conform to the rules of a free market... people lie, cheat, steal, pollute, cause harm, even kill for personal gain... a free market cannot allow these types of behaviour, so a free market can only exist through the force of law... contracts, personal rights, etc... and this requires taxes to fund... So, to enable a free market, we have to raise taxes... and taxes can't be raised in a free market, because it would suffer from a tragedy of the commons type problem (people would not pay the taxes because it's not in their personal interest to do so individually, but it is in their personal interest for everyone else to do so... on average, no one pays, and the system collapses).
So, you are 100% correct... for a free market to exist, we must enforce it through mechanisms that are themselves not bought about through the free market. You might see that as a contradiction... but where a free market doesn't exist naturally, instead we try and find ways to bring about results that are as close as possible to it... it's the price you have to pay to have it. 
No... it doesn't answer my question...
 It's like saying personal liberty is an unobtainable ideal and can only be approximated by force...
I can't be free if others a 'free' to harm me against my will... So force is required to enable freedom. There's no contradiction there...
I can't have a free market if others allow to lie, swindle, steal from and defraud me... or enslave me... or dump garbage on my property against my will...
The confusion is people think a free market is a free for all, do whatever the hell you want... but it's not... it's a very clearly defined set of principles.
What I wanted to know is why people would be AGAINST those ideals and principles.
If they are against the free market, they MUST be for one of those things... either forced labour, or forcing you to buy something... or not allowing you to buy something... or stealing from you, or forcing pollution on you... so what part of it don't they like?
Are you upset that we have laws to protect us from those things? 
Well... he did say 'nor should there be'...
 So... while personal liberty is an unobtainable ideal in that sense... is it something to be avoided? Should we not strive for that goal because it requires force and some limitations? Or should we just be against it like it's something we want nothing to do with?
Like you said, we only need the taxes and the force because of bad actors... If everyone respected individual liberty we wouldn't need that and we'd have the ideal... Why wouldn't you want that? Similarly, if everyone respected the free market, we wouldn't need enforcement and taxes either (although lots of other caveats, public goods, externalities, etc...)... Are we still against the free market? 
Oh god... you're making it complicated... lol...
 Okay... personal liberty to me is Jon Stuart Mill's On Liberty... pretty much the harm principle.. as thou harm none, do as thou wilt... to me everything kind of stems from that (but actually from the free market --- or more correctly, deviations that have to be corrected from it).
War and shit... we're getting too complicated... and I somehow ended up past my sleep cycle... but if you're going to start arguing that conscription is right, or you have the right to take my heart because someone more important than me needs it... sorry, gonna tell you to fuck off. 
Yeah... alright... no major disagreements there...
 but it did sound to me like he was against the free market itself... rather than that we should be aiming towards it as an unobtainable ideal... it's like he's viscerally against the free market and its ideals itself... rather than the tricky edge case of how you enforce it without stepping outside of it (in the terms of language compilers... a self hosting platform).
I don't know what he means either... kind of why I called him out in this diary.
Although I suspect he thinks the free market is the free for all market so often proposed by Libertarians, republicans and monopolists... not economists... and I kind of wanted to clear that up too. 
> You get the model confused with the reality
 No... not exactly... the FREE market is the ideal... the MARKET is what actually happens...
Where the assumptions of the FREE market don't line up with the MARKET we end up with Dead Weight Loss... ALWAYS an economic loss.
That's where we have to bring in regulations to bring the MARKET in line with the FREE market.
Being against the MARKET is fine... in fact, almost all economists are against the MARKET because they know how it causes problems... because it deviates from the FREE market... and how to correct them. (though sometimes some dead weight loss remains, but how to minimise it). 
Once more... to slightly fix this confusion...
 The FREE market is the MARKET under a very specific set of constraints... Constraints with which we know bring about a pareto optimum, where everyone is better off for having been involved in the market, and no one is worse off.
We KNOW that the MARKET doesn't have these constraints, and we can see that it therefore does not bring about pareto optimums... people are WORSE off for having been involved (sometimes involuntarily) in with the MARKET.
So, economists look at the MARKET and say, what do we have to do to make it function like the FREE market...
So, for sure, get pissed off about the MARKET and what it does to people, and all that shit... but I still find it difficult to argue with the FREE market...
Put it this way... I have looked and looked and looked, and I can't find fault with free market... Not once has anyone come to be with an objection and I've gone... fuck... the free market really does have this problem. Either they are ignorant of the free market, or they have never raised an objection.
I mean... the free market doesn't even rule out redistribution (of course, that occurs before the free trade step... but it's right there in the intro to any micro econ course).
Plenty of fucking problems with the MARKET... but econs know this... and everyone saying 'well real life isn't like the free market'... fine... WE KNOW THAT! That's no reason to be against the FREE market... We know the MARKET sucks... so fix it to be more like the FREE market... don't whine about the FREE market... that's contradictory! The MARKET is the problem, and the FREE market is the solution.
EXCEPT... that american media portrays the FREE market as being the MARKET (no regulations... no fixes... let everyone do whatever the fuck they want)... I mean... like American media brainwashes people the think the FREE market is exactly the opposite of what it actually is.
You can understand my frustration, no? 
Firstly it's not to do with ripping anyone off...
 I'm sure you're being facetious, but I won't be...
The person who buys the bread feels they are better off with bread than a dollar, the person who sells the bread feels they are better off with a dollar than they are with the bread.
I did just say a whole heap of stuff on the difference between the FREE market and the MARKET didn't I?
Anyway, despite all the good things about Tesla, he broke the rules of the free market... He LIED about the purpose of the Wardenclyffe Tower... Maybe he deserved to fail?
I don't see how shitty tastes matters... that hard workers struggle while people reporting on kim k make loads of money... that's what people apparently want... the free market doesn't really guarantee that money goes to GOOD and WORTHY things... it simply says everyone is BETTER off for having participated, and no one is WORSE off.
Irrational (your version, not the economic version)... doesn't matter either... Again... it says nothing about the money going to worthy causes or improving other people's lives... I mean... we can force you I suppose... the point is that you do with your money as you feel you want to... and again, everyone will be better off without anyone being worse off... sure, some people could be even better off... but we'd have to force you how to use your money... you individually could be a lot worse off... also it requires central planners to guess other people's utility... that gets tricky.
Maybe we can legislate knowing when you're going to die to make those decisions easier for you? I mean, we can make SURE you die on a given date... is that what you're looking for? 
But that's exactly what it is and does...
 It IS a grand ideal to follow in which everybody wins WHEN the CONSTRAINTS of the FREE market are SATISFIED.
Of course, you have to understand those constraints, and it seems very few do. So, an analogy, the market is Somalian war lords killing each other over the spoils of a plundered ship... NOT FREE MARKET... NOT GOOD... The free market is a guy with a blueberry pie who prefers raspberry pie voluntarily agreeing to swap with a guy who has a raspberry pie and prefers blueberry... I mean... WHO COULD BE AGAINST THAT? Who would want to get in the way of that trade? How could interfering possibly bring about a better situation for anyone?
Should the government decide who gets raspberry and who gets blueberry and you eat what you have or else? Knowing the government (which can only estimate, usually poorly, other people's utility) would actually force spam, brussel spout and gristle pie on everyone instead... So who is harmed by them swapping their pies? How can that possibly be a problem?
The only problem I can possibly think of is the guy with no pie watching these two rich pie eating motherfuckers laughing at how much happier they are that they swapped their pies... of course, he had no pie anyway, and isn't actually any worse off at all for the all the free market pie trading taking place... he's just a jealous (if hungry) fuck... is it the pie guys' faults for him bringing (literally) nothing to the table?
So, the only thing that could possibly be better than free market trading is the government stepping in and saying... oi, you two... we're having a bit of each of your pies and giving it to the third guy... and then letting them go on free market trading... for all we know, the third guy might have a preference for one or the other of the pies and decide to enter the market and trade the ones he was given for the one he'd prefer and again everyone wins. 
Fungibility...
 The other reason to use dollars is that every dollar is equal to every other dollar... You're hour of leisure time is worth a different thing to my hour of leisure time... it's almost impossible to compare... some potatoes are bigger than others... some have better texture or taste... but every dollar is a dollar is a dollar... so we use that as A unit to measure utility economically because everyone can agree on what a dollar is... it's a fucking dollar... but if all the dollars went away tomorrow, all the proofs and outcomes of neoclassical marginalist micro-economics would still continue to hold exactly as they did before. 
FUCK... this was for trane's comment $
 
No... it's a set of rules that maximise the
 outcomes of trades.
It's certainly not a force of nature... In nature, people will kill and harm each other for personal gain... we have to enforce rules against people's natural instincts to enable its existence. 
Yeah... there's quite a few good reasons to
 nationalise...
Some things are natural monopolies... I mean, you can't have 100,000 different companies running pipes to your house and let you chose each time you turn the tap on who you're going to get your water from... monopolies are not a free market, and there are ways to deal with that... but one way is just nationalise it... most of the things you mentioned fall into this category (wired telecoms probably yes, wireless to a lesser extent... maybe not buses).
Another good reason is to provide basics of survival or necessity, or things that are in the national interest... again, you could argue all the things you mentioned on this basis too.
Buses are interesting because they aren't really a natural monopoly... but they are a public service that enables greater efficiency in the rest of the market... although they'd never compete on routes or comfort or price or anything like that either (not to get you in and around the city - some long haul bus transport is different)... So, if you want reliable transport to and from a city and a reasonable price, yeah... nationalisation would probably be the better option here too... I don't think this explanation is quite right... I'd have to think about it more... but I think it's kind of a tragedy of the commons problem. 
Well.. it's not just a matter of 'core' services..
 It's more to do with problems like natural monopolies, tragedy of the commons and positive and negative externalities that are deviations from the free market... these need to be corrected to minimise so called Dead Weight Losses...
For example... anything that creates a negative externality (pollution is a good example) will be overproduced... in other words, we will produce more of the things that in production create pollution than we would if the cost of that pollution was factored into the cost of production... these need to be corrected to bring about results similar to the free market... so we really should tax anything that produces pollution or generates other negative externalities.
On the other hand, positive externalities are underproduced by the free market relative to what would be produced if the gains from those positive externalities could be privatised... and so they should be subsidised... For example... education benefits more than just the person receiving the education, because an educated person benefits other members of society in other ways... so education can either be subsidised or just provided directly by the government... similar arguments exist for health care, for example... Busses might actually be a positive externality (businesses benefit from having workers get to work in an affordable, timely manner).
There's a whole heap of things that naturally deviate from a free market, and need to be corrected... and really the free market is just the starting point to analyse these problems... and this really is really where economists make their arguments on what and why things should be subsidised, taxed, nationalised, etc...
Farming subsidies are another example... Overproduction of food isn't really a huge problem for a country... sure, it costs a little extra... and that cost means we go without something else, maybe people could afford slightly bigger televisions if we didn't... but it's a huge security issue for a country that can't produce enough food for it's people... so, we subsidise farming, and deliberately over produce food... unfortunately, in order to keep the price of food high, we can't sell it on the market (otherwise the subsidy would simply be absorbed by lowering the price of the food, and production would drop to free market levels)... so we have to either dump it on someone else, or destroy it... hence why we deliberately subsidise, over produce, and destroy food.
So... the point is, the free market is the ideal... in reality, we have externalities, monopolies, monopolistic competition, incomplete information, common or public goods, etc... and we use the free market model to base our decisions on when we have to interfere or regulate the market and minimise the deviation or Dead Weight Losses... and there are plenty of examples of this... and many different remedies depending on the situation. 
How else are you going to fund it?
 It's not something that can be supplied by the free market... again, it's a tragedy of the commons... no one wants other people to starve, it's ugly, but individuals maximising their own utility won't pay for that themselves, even though it's the outcome they want, they'll expect other people to do it... the only way is to correct for that is to pay for it through taxes. 
Yeah... well... the free market only works for 
 private goods that generate no externalities, only affect those who are voluntarily involved in a transaction where they have full knowledge of what they are getting out of the transaction... everything else causes dead weight losses and needs to be corrected for.
None of this is controversial amongst economists... it's just politicians and self interested greedy businessmen (the type who like to own monopolies and create pollution) get in the way.. even to the point where most people think free market means a free for all rather than freely entered into. 
No... cause it's a tragedy of the commons $
 
Because it's a tragedy of the commons...
 And that not having starving people is a positive externality... Ie, not just the person who is starving, and the person who decides to provide charity benefit from it (everyone who doesn't want to see people starve benefit from the transaction)... Positive externalities are always under produced by the market... and require subsidies to bring about the free market equilibrium. 
Sorry... how are they worse off when it's taken to
 extremes? Like in either of your examples.
I can't help but think negative externalities are somehow involved. 
Well... the free market doesn't rely on people
 being able to leverage the market at all... They just wouldn't accept a trade if it wasn't in their interest to do so... Of course, some will be able to exploit trades better than others, but everyone would be better off.
I don't think you can have a free market without social and civil freedom either... the two kind of go hand in hand. I think we see that in China, where increased economic freedom is slowing increasing social and civil freedoms too.
Also, a lot of my argument is based on the idea that the free market is the ideal, but that the market is generally not a free market. I'm not arguing for Laissez-faire economics, but rather the identification of positive and negative externalities and the implementation of taxes and subsidies to correct for them (education is an obvious positive externality that should be subsidised, for example)... The recognition of monopolies and cartels and to correct for them... Regulations on honest marketing and correct labelling...
The free market isn't a free for all. 
No it doesn't require capital
 It just requires something to trade... Your labour is one example.
Now, I do agree that that would leave some people starving, so I also advocate a safety net... some form of welfare is required for practical reasons... but beyond that, as long as trades conform to free market constraints, they can only benefit people.
This has nothing to do with being fabulously wealthy or even living comfortably... those have never been guaranteed under any system. 
Oh yeah... that's true...
 free market only works for private goods. 
For sure... wealth concentrates...
 which is why I go on and on about a wealth tax and redistribution via basic income.
That's inline though with the free market... It's well known that you can do non-distortionary redistribution and both of the welfare theories hold... wealth tax and basic income are exactly that. 
No, I don't think it's better...
 I'm thinking of a very small yearly tax, on the order of 2% or so... It's continuous and can be planned for... It also encourages productive use of capital... as opposed to heirs sitting on it for generations.
I see no reason that would stop people like Elon... any more than income or capital gains does.
Also, having a wealth tax free threshold (on the order of a few million), would encourage wider distribution amongst relatives pre death. 
You can say exactly the same about any tax...
 wealth, income, capital gains...
That's not a good argument. 
Not sure I fully understand...
 but most economists consider marketing and advertising to be pure dead weight losses with no economic value... maybe that's your point... the marketers and advertisers are doing practical things to line their pockets, while the economists theorise away at what an ideal world would be like? 
Yeah... is exactly the product I was going to use.
 This is quite a recent development in micro-economic theory called monopolistic-competition.
There are two main cola products on the market... coke and pepsi... now, there's nothing special about either of them... anyone can make a coke like product, there's very little in the way of barriers to entry, there's no network effects or anything else that means that they should behave like a monopoly... but there they are, two companies that basically together have a monopoly (okay, duopoly) on the production of cola drinks... and they spend massive amounts on advertising, why?
It's complicated (of course, is why it took economists a bit longer to work it out)... basically, advertising has no effect on your experienced utility (what you really get out of it)... but does affect your decision utility (what you think you'll get when you chose to consume it)... advertising is all about what you think you'll get... hence it's really a form of dead weight loss.
AND both companies know both how much their advertising affects your decision utility, AND they know exactly how much advertising the OTHER company will spend on advertising... This basically locks both of them into an optimal strategy of massive amounts of advertising that affect people's decision utility, give's them near monopolistic profits and generates HUGE amounts of dead weight losses in the form of advertising.
The details are quite complex... and wiki as usual doesn't really cover the details properly but there's a small intro to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition if you like. 
No... if it wasn't for monopolistic competition
 and the advertising that goes along with it, the profit margin from all the different competing cola brands should have tended towards zero like every other normal consumer good...
I mean, you don't see those kinds of profits in the potato industry... it's just fucking carbonated sugar water after all...
You're lemonade example might have more to do with the adults encouraging their children than free market trade... I mean, why aren't all those homeless people out there making 25% on lemonade sales? 
But that's the thing... it's the monopolistic
 competition that causes the barriers to entry...
Anyone (well, if you got a few mill lying about or good banking connections) can start farming potatoes, tomatoes, wheat or corn... and make a decent living off it.
There's nothing really complicated or expensive about making cola's... It's all to do with the advertising, which manipulates people's decision utility without affecting their experienced utility... It's truly a dead weight loss. 
Right... but when you buy coke or pepsi...
 You aren't really buying the cola... you're buying the BRAND... and that's due to advertising.
The production costs, and packaging (the container, not the printing on the side of it), and where you buy it have nothing to do with it. 
It all comes down to advertising shifting
 your decision utility (what you chose to consume) without affecting your experienced utility (what you actually get out of it). 
No one HAS to have a job...
 I mean, you're free to go out and live in the forests and scavange berries, nuts and mushrooms and hunt squirrels or whatever...
Just that people think they are (and probably actually are) better off living in society, working and participating in the market. 
Actually, the welfare theorems of the free market
 don't rely on any such thing as assuming that all people's labour is equal or anything like that.
It just says, that under the conditions of the free market (no externalities, complete information, perfect competition) that free trade leads to everyone being better off that they would be without it, without anyone being worse off.
That's it really. 
Yes... we tax wealth 
 and pay a basic income with it.
Wealth tax is non-distortionary and because we apply it before the free trade steps (in the model that is, although iterating is still fine, so in real life we do it continuously)... The welfare theorems STILL HOLD!
The FREE market is STILL the solution.
In fact more so... the AI and robots should be market driven, so they bring about the things we want... the things we spend money on... the money we get from basic income, that we got from the people who own the robots! 
That's called capital flight.
 A wealth tax is a tax on people...
Based directly on how much world wide wealth they have...
They can avoid it by giving up their US citizenships and moving where they like.
We also have a one off renouncing citizenship tax... 100% of what we can get our hands on (or something like that).
You think Bill Gates is going to renounce his citizenship and move to China?
Hah! 
Yeah... well a wealth tax would aim to work around
 these kind of dodgy practices...
If the charity is under someone's control, it would be counted as wealth, and they could lose it.
The idea is that everyone self reports their wealth... and pays tax on that reported amount... Anyone who can raise the funds could buy a person out for that amount plus some administration overhead. There's an incentive to report accurately, and especially not to under-report. 
I'm not sure who that is or why she's relevant...
 or if you're confusing the Free Market with laissez faire economics. 
Yeah, Beauty CAN be anywhere... but you'll most
 likely find her on a corner somewhere, strung out on meth, looking for the next cock to suck to get her next hit. 
Not quite:
 > First, you'd need a ton of bandwidth and computing power, because you'd be generating millions or billions of "new coin" transactions per block in addition to any actual financial transactions.
No you don't... you can do this at the point of spending... when a person spends coins from their personal address... at that point a calculation can be done to work out how much they should have in UBICoin and credit their account.
> B) that each person was unique.
Yep... this is pretty key.
> For uniqueness, you'd need some sort of biometric hash, but obviously it raises serious privacy issues since the hash would be recorded in the block chain and you'd be able to track not only everything issued to a person but also every transaction that person engaged in if you could match the hash to their "real-world" identity.
Yeah... you need a biometric hash tied to a real world identity tied to an address that gets credited in the blockchain... However, the UBI from that address can be sent to another, anonymous address (we can make it provably anonymous)... and then this privacy concern disappears.
I wrote down my thoughts on this earlier, in case you missed it: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2014/4/10/144743/503
> Like I said, it seems possible theoretically. Just a bitch to implement. 
YEP! 
From 1000BTC for a $1 to $200 for 1 BTC
 is considered losing value to you?
No wonder you're poor. 
It wasn't significantly easier to mine at that
 point... I already had my two 5GH/s miners back then.
Of course price isn't tied directly to mining difficulty...
Price is determined by SUPPLY and DEMAND... Bitcoin became fashionable for a moment, the price went up, it became fashionable because of that, the price went up... etc...
Also, there were fun and games going on at MtGox which distorted the price.
So, it did bubble a bit, and then pop... like it has done several times before... and will likely do again.
I don't think in US dollars... and I do care specifically about the amount of BTC I hold irrespective of the price (to a point... I would probably sell my last BTC for $1M today)... in general I want to hold a certain fraction of the network.
Just like I explained about utility not being MEASURED in dollars... dollars is just an easy way to COMMUNICATE in, cause everyone is familiar with it.
Of course, a dollar isn't the same as a dollar... 1920s dollars and 2010 dollars are worth different amounts and could buy you different things.
The same with BTC... You just THINK the dollar is static... but it really isn't... it's subject to the same laws of SUPPLY and DEMAND.
For me, BTC price is relative to AUD, GBP, EUR, GOLD... and I work in all these units too. I only USD because that's all you're familiar with... to me, it's actually a useless figure. 
No... it's never disconnected from supply and
 demand.
You're just failing to count in who supplies and who demands...
Politics affects supply and demand, which then affects the price. It can't affect the price without affecting supply and demand... because price is set only by the trades done. 
Yeah... MDC is right here...
 The person who has the thing and is willing to sell it for a price is the supplier... they set the SUPPLY.
The person who wants a thing and is willing to buy it for a price is demanding it... they set the DEMAND.
The price is where those two people make a trade... the price can never be anything BUT SUPPLY and DEMAND...
Even in your example... it's just those with the asset agreeing to lower supply... again... if you'd done the course you wouldn't sound so stupid... you might even be able to explain how your theories DIFFER from the mainstream... but you don't even know the mainstream and so you just sound like an idiot. 
Some people are thinking about it...
 http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoUBI 
> Note this has nothing to do with accepting
 procrasti's offer of a dollar;
Damn dude... it's not about the money... $1 is nothing, and you know that... it's not 'help you out'... at least not financially.
It's so you can see how it operates... nothing like hands on to get a feeling for the inner workings. It's to answer all your stupid questions... all these things that make you go hmmm... will be like... oh yeah... there's my coin, there's an address... let's send it there, let's send it here... oh, now I understand.
Is it a personal thing? Cause you dislike me? Maybe localroger, blaster, tdillo, mumble, bv and whoever else might be willing to chip in 5c each... Not for the money, but to see it in action. 
Then why don't you download a wallet and paste
 a bitcoin address?
Just so you can get a feel for how it works. 
In the time it took you to write that you could
 have clicked on http://electrum.org/download.html and completed this little task already. 
I do understand that...
 but you can clear some headspace by clicking a link and installing a package and be done with it.
Procrastination (I'm the king) leads to headspace clutter... 
Or like, posting on K5... that's where the real 
 work gets done. 
Have you read:
 http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2014/4/10/144743/503 
I'm sorry that people won't be getting a basic
 income while they spend their lives drinking beer and watching American Idol...
Not really much I can do about it.
These things will never come for free. 
You idiot... you're redefining FREE
 market...
You can't have free market where people end up doing things like slavery, lying, deception, bribery, etc... BECAUSE THAT IS NOT A FREE MARKET.
A free market is a market system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between sellers and consumers,
Please explain how a slave can FREELY set the price of his labour?
Guess what... if you do any of those things, its no longer a FREE market... You're arguing against a definition YOU MADE UP YOURSELF! 
The FREE market has a VERY CLEAR DEFINITION
 No coercion, no externalities, full knowledge of what you are getting in the trade, everyone competing on price.
So, slaving, deception, lying, etc... are impossible in a FREE market by DEFINITION!
I mean fine, blame american corporatist market or whoever or whatever the fuck you like... but you can't blame the free market because the free market is exactly NOT those things by DEFINITION.
It's like redefining clean drinking water as sewage and telling everyone that drinking clean drinking water will kill you because its full of shit! 
Bitcoins are psuedonomynous
 You only really have addresses to go by... and it seems the thieves have sent them to a mixer... which will make them practically anonymous.
So yeah, without other forensic evidence, I'd say the robbers have gotten away with it.
It will depend, of course, on the security measures that exco.in took... I mean, if the private key was locked in a safe and only one employee had access to it, then that might be pretty damning evidence. Maybe they got IP logs? I don't know.
But I wouldn't hold up much hope of them getting their coins back.
OTOH... hackers apparently have recently run off with $1B from banks... kind of puts things in perspective. 
Yeah... this is generally good advice...
 I'm still surprised though how many companies manage to lose their bitcoins to hackers... You'd think they'd have learnt by now... oh well... 
I wouldn't use the official bitcoin app if I were
 you... It's a full bitcoin node and will have to download 13G of blockchain (or wherever it's at now).
Use an SPV client, like electrum... it's just as secure, but you don't have to do full node processing.
Good to hear you still have your coins... and you're learning too... once you get an electrum wallet you should transfer some of your bits there just to see that you actually control those and not some third party. 
29G now $
 
Right. It's just going to get bigger and bigger...
 Especially as we get more and more transactions, and also when they eventually remove the 1MB block limit... it's just going to keep on growing even faster.
In some sense, it's not all that much, 29GB fits easily on a thumb drive now... so that's not too much of a problem. If you're running a full node or are mining, it's no problem at all really. The theory is that hard drive space will continue to outpace blockchain growth.
There is provision for transaction pruning... removing transactions that can longer be spent... And that should reduce the size quite considerably... BUT there are some clever uses of unspendable transactions that are going to have problems with this. (You can do some tricks so that bitcoins are redeamable from addresses that aren't linked to the address you advertise... so no one can prove you received a payment... it's complicated but relies on the fact that you can do a transformation of a public address, and the same transformation on the private key will give you a new private/public key pair... but you have to publish the transform hash somehow and that goes in the blockchain as an unspendable transaction... it's complicated... but interesting).
So... yeah... there will be some pruning, and that's always been in the pipeline... but it will mess some non-standard use cases up.
Also, in a sense, it's kind of like a fitness test for full nodes... they have to be stable enough to at least download the blockchain... I dunno... just a thought.
There are problems with mining consolidation, which is related... the bitcoin network relies on no one having more than 50% of the hashing power... but if hashing power is a natural monopoly, the whole thing could fall apart... No one really knows the long term answer to this... everyone just keeps their fingers crossed that we'll never see the day.
I also wonder if anyone will ever implement sharding... so that nodes can store a partial blockchain, and distribute the work between them... Just another thought of mine... I don't think we'll see that any time soon.
So, the long term answer is that most people simply do not need the blockchain... SPV clients, like the ones I have mentioned, do not keep a local copy of the blockchain, however, they are as secure as a full bitcoin node. So, how much of a problem a large blockchain turns out to be is yet to be seen... So far, 29G is just really not a serious problem at all. 
I bet blaster's sitting there waiting for the
 download to finish, and can't get on to K5 in the meantime. 
You simply don't need it...
 You don't need the full client, cause you aren't going to be mining... you just want to be able to use it, and SPV clients, like the one I mentioned, should be enough. 
Actually... the latest bitcoin core 0.10.0
 is just as quick as bittorrent... It downloads the headers first (they're small, like 13M or so)... then it requires the different blocks from different servers, rather than downloading them one at a time from only one server... so it works very similarly to bittorrent and is much faster than it was before... taking a mere 8 hours or so on a high speed connection.
It's 29G after all!! I really don't recommend the full client for your use. 
Sent
 Comment deserved more than a 3.
http://blockchain.info/address/1JrN9C9bMvzT8FTUjxBoUYQoLTRrsQqFzi 
Simple... it's all bribes...
 Gift is just a euphemism for a small, technically legal bribe.
Like the way you 'tip' a call girl... You're not paying her to stick it up her ass... that would be illegal, no, you're just giving her a tip cause you enjoy her company, and then she suddenly remembers how much she enjoys anal.
Just the tip. 
Dunno... they didn't enough? $
 
didn't TIP enough... dammit $
 
No... you're miles off
 Of course if you trace back any random bitcoin address you're going to get to a genesis block... and more than likely an older one than a newer one.
No, I bought most of my bitcoin last year... when it was expensive... I bought it with the profit from the sale of my payday loans company... I was just there happily creating wealth out of thin air by charging poor people 6000% pa, when someone made an offer to buy the free money from air business from me. Tough choice, but I sold.
Of course, bitcoin came crashing down and now I'm more broke than ever. (A change in the taxation law forced me to stop trading too... so I haven't been able to bring my cost basis price down either!).
So, I don't have money for drugs and hookers, which is why I've had to work out how to get hookers to give me free sex and drugs... I can't afford a blowjob from a $2 whore... true story.
So, my respect for economics comes from the idea that you are better off accepting the short term pain of a difficult truth than the long term damage caused by believing sweet lies.
I mean, it's not that hard to understand the concepts and outcomes of the free market (the actual free market, not the jesus free market - really the unregulated market except for drugs which are forced into the black market)... you can still be pissed off about inequality... you can still be pissed off about things like environmental degredation (of course, this can't happen in a free market! for real! so you see how it's NOT a free market too)... but only first by understanding the free market. Why it is good, where it fails, what its limitations are.
You just ignore it entirely... shove your fingers in your ears... sing lalalalala... and think it makes you smarter than someone who is interested in it... IRRESPECTIVE of their own personal circumstances.
More than likely you are richer than me!
If anything, you're way more of a tool of the capitalists than I am... a middle manager no less! The ultimate cog in the wealth extraction from the poor to the rich machine.
You have no moral high ground to stand on. You just wave your ignorance in the air like a banner. 
Not a genesis block... a coinbase transaction $
 
The Australian Tax Office (ATO) has ruled that
 bitcoins are subject to our GST (17.5%) Goods and Services Tax... which is just a regular sales tax.
I don't see how I can trade bitcoin in australia, with australian bank accounts, or in person in australia, without that ruling affecting me... foreign companies or otherwise. 
It was a UK company... and was UK wide...
 no brick and mortar, only a website.
Yes, there are stupid AML laws in Aus and in the UK.
> That is directly stealing from desperate poor people with no choice. There are some news laws coming in the US that will put the brakes on the violent raping that's going on in the check cashing business
Let's analyse that... So, your solution would be to shut that kind of business down? And you're the kind of idiot that thinks that would make things BETTER? Because you simply do NOT understand the free market. Let's face it, if these people were low risk, and could get loans elsewhere THEY WOULD... So, they're going to these businesses because they can't get HELP anywhere else.
The business HAS to charge those kind of interest rates to even have a HOPE of making a profit... otherwise they go bankrupt with the 30% default rate... also... they are SHORT TERM LOANS... so the interest rate is DECEPTIVE compared to long term mortgages.
The problem is, not knowing the free market, you think you can increase people's freedoms by REDUCING their options... Do you not see how retarded that is? You cut these people off from credit... (EVEN BY REDUCING COMPETITION!)... you force them to go elsewhere... loan sharks, gangs, mafioso styles... They don't send a bailif around with a court order, those fucks cut your god damn fingers off or picaso up your face.
Nothing would be better than MORE payday loans companies... more competition decreases the price (in this case, the price of money is the interest rates.)
People like you are the fucking problem... not the solution.
You know why I started that particular business? Because everyone was screaming about how much interest they charge, how easy it is to make money? REALLY MOTHERFUCKER? If so, then why the fuck aren't YOU doing it? You have NO FUCKING IDEA how hard it is to get all the paperwork and regristrations and licenses in order... You have no idea how hard it is to make sure your customers are both legit, capable and LIKELY to pay your loan back... Everyone is happy to TAKE money, far less are happy to pay it back.
If it is such a PREDATORY business as you suggest... just fucking try running one --- even at break even! I bet you'd fail, throw up your hands and cry "it's too hard mommy!"... Or you're going to give me a pissweak excuse how you would never get involved in such an evil business... well fuck you.. people want money, and you shit on those who oblige, standing on the sidelines giving your sage advice but never doing anything yourself... fucking wanker.
> There is no such thing as a free market 
It's the ideal to strive for... the deviation FROM the free market causes DEAD WEIGHT LOSSES... The role of government should be to identify these deviations and to correct for them.
> nor should there be.
Seriously... you're a complete fuckhead... you don't know what the free market is... but GODDAMN IT IF I'M NOT AGAINST IT!
> Small business owners like yourself think they're part of the same game as huge corporations
Retarded bullshit adhominen... try harder failfag.
> I am the bridge between the machine and the people
You're a greedy little officious fuck who likes to tell people what to do and get's a hard on when he fires the lazy and the incompetent. You're no white knight in shining armour... your a piece of the machine and you're just happy to get that big easy paycheck to take home to your fat and ugly wife and kids... Your hands have more blood on them than mine ever will faggit. 
Shut up trane... your full of shit and retarded...
 your economic ideas are based on the idea that real world goods and services are infinite... so you fail at the first step.
Seriously, get back to your thermodynamic breaking magnifying glass and crack bowl... you got nothing to offer here. 
I said STFU fail faggit
 No... scarcity is real... the world is finite. I don't ignore the 30% food overproduction... that is by ECONOMIC DESIGN! You're too stupid to understand that, so I won't even bother explaining it.
> And markets actively work to subvert knowledge
PEOPLE subvert knowledge... the FREE MARKET REQUIRES FULL INFORMATION! Otherwise it's just the REGULAR FUCKING MARKET.
NOW FUCK OFF YOU UNEDUCATED WILFULLY IGNORANT PIECE OF SHIT. 
I didn't read past the first fucking line...
 The FREE market REQUIRES FULL KNOWLEDGE.
That's it... you can rail against american capitalism all you want... but that's not the free market and you're a retarded faggit.
You don't even know what your arguing about because you didn't do the course.
NOW GO FUCK OFF AND DIE CUNTFACE. 
No... I'm not going to read it...
 Like you didn't bother doing the course...
FUCK OFF AND DIE ALREADY 
I can't argue with you, because you are wilfully 
 ignorant... You have decided not to do the course, and therefore your comments are nonsensical.
> Example: Monsanto fights tooth and nail against labeling GMO foods. Why? Because the market wants to hold back knowledge. 
This is because Monsanto doesn't want to operate in a FREE fucking market!
Because you are wilfully ignorant, you can't tell the FREE market from what regularly happens in the American corporatists market.
Someone like Monsanto does something CLEARLY ANTI-FREE market... and you, being a retarded idiot, blame the FREE market, rather than seeing how this goes against the principles of the FUCKING FREE market.
Your ignorance is entirely your responsibility, and I owe you nothing fuckhead. 
Forgot to add:
 You're job is basically to extract the maximum productivity from your underlings and the minimum cost to your employer... And the sad thing is, you're not even doing it for your own benefit but for some even wealthier fuckwits and stockholders.
You're equivalent to the slave promoted to slave driver... whip in hand... work harder or taste my whip.
You're such a role model of financial freedom, you fucking sicken me. 
He's about as ignorant as you when it comes to 
 what the free market actually is... he's gotten all his knowledge about it from television probably, not from actual books or courses on the subject... same as you...
I may as well be arguing with preschoolers the knowledge of both you is so limited. 
People got no idea...
 It's so easy to look at a business and complain about it... "OMG, that's so unfair, how can they charge so much, etc, etc..."... but there's clearly demand, and if you're not doing it yourself, you probably do not understand what's actually involved.
It's exactly the type of thing people get riled up about, because they see these terrible interest rates... and some idiots even think it's money for nothing.
I started it after conversations with trane here about 'money from thin air'... basically proving some money creation theories... it's truly hard fucking work.
At the time I wanted to put a link on the page to some debt counselling service... but my reading of the legislation suggested this was illegal... The law changed, and this now compulsory.
I followed the principles of the free market, no hidden fees or charges... everything straight up as you could possibly get. The late fees were a killer... 1% per day... which is 6k% pa, but that gives you a lot of wiggle room for debt forgiveness.
I even used it in my adverts... the front page had a giant 6000% per year loans written on it. It's not like you could claim you didn't realise the costs involved in getting a loan from me. I got more requests for loans than I could service.
It's more of the threat of it than actually charging it... After all, a regulated business can't take away your kneecaps... but I could easily say "pay me $200 for your late loan and I'll forget the $1000 you owe".
Except for the accountants and the banks, everyone was on about how there will be legislation to limit the interest rates of these types of loans... so stupid... what? People can't compare different interest rates and make their own choices?
I'd like to see some rational non-adhominen argument for this type of thinking... but you see none supplied by greengrass et al. They can't get it through their head that you can't increase people's freedoms by limiting their options.
Not to mention it can actually be cheaper to get a payday loan than to exceed your banks overdraft!
If you put a limit on the interest rate... there simply won't be companies willing to loan these people money... they'll either go thieving or will borrow money from unregulated criminals.
Is it too much to ask that people stop whining and actually try to say, I dunno, COMPETE in the market place? Offer lower interest rate loans if you think the charges are excessive? No, they'd rather cry to the government and limit people... and I'm the bad guy.
Anyway, I sold the company to the Rothschild's last year... been playing with bitcoin since... will still need a job pretty soon.
Yeah... Student Loans are pretty crazy... The government pays for your tuition in Aus... You pay it back as a small increase to your taxes after you earn a certain amount, and it's indexed at the CPI. I think it's a good system.
Also, no, I wasn't giving out credit cards or loans to kids or the very young. 
Perfect example
 People complaining about a business they literally wouldn't be willing to do themselves.
It's as simple as making low interest payday loans to people, but you won't do it.
Funny that. 
If you can't scrape $100 together to loan out
 with interest, then I truly feel sorry for you.
Otherwise I think you found the reason why these places have to charge such high interest rates:
> most of them didn't pay me back. 
I forgot about your incredible expensive medical
 costs... student loans and medical costs... two things the US should keep working on.
Still... almost anyone can scrape together $100.
Yeah, promissory notes are the first step. 
It's easy to reconcile...
 It's not created out of nothing, it's created out of... hey... do you have enough crack addled memory left to complete this sentence? Or am I just repeating myself over and over again to a slug brained moron? 
No... that wasn't the answer I was looking for...
 must be crack addled memory loss then.
I mean, on one hand, you're close... you talk about mortgage debt... but then you go on about money creation... like it's being created out of thin air!
Less crack, more study boy! 
That was awful...
 Desperately plugging his book...
Won't someone please give LD a job on a support desk helping people empty their trash icons so he can feel all smug and superior again? 
What the fuck are you talking about?
 There is no such thing as money, it's a ticketing system, handed out by the government to rich bankers.
The market is a lie... there is only crack and oggfrog! The only market is the stock market run by the NWO. 
Here I was thinking it was his bad book reviews. $
 
Old Kurons never leave
 They just take extended hikes away from keyboard. 
Procrasti's $10 Bitcoin Give Away
Okay, so you don't understand bitcoin, what it is, or how it works? Well here's your FREE chance to get your hands on some.
I'll be giving away up to $10 worth of bitcoin, or about 30000 bits*, in 10 lots of 3000 bits... approximately $1.
All you have to do is be the one of the first ten to post a bitcoin address. For some of you, this may be the most valuable post you will ever make.
*: 1 million bits in a bitcoin.
If you don't know how to create a bitcoin address... simply get yourself a wallet... I recommend electrum for desktops, mycelium for android and toast wallet for iphone. These are all SPV clients and do not require you to download the entire blockchain.
You have nothing to lose... it costs you nothing, so even if you lose it all on hookers, drugs or gambling, you haven't lost anything at all!
Not really in the spirit of my post now is it?
 I'll tell you what... You post your own bitcoin address... then you can donate it to https:/archive.org yourself... and everyone will be able to see you do that. 
I got to say, the vanity address made it pretty
 obvious. 
Sent
 http://blockchain.info/address/1NY2XrXw62iQNSBD8dnqEEfYNVa8zNiMkw 
I sell on localbitcoins...
 Well... I used to... Australia (The ATO) has bought in this crazy GST law that means you basically have to pay a sales tax on bitcoin sales... I just don't see it as workable...
Presumably means I'd have to get GST receipts on bitcoins I purchase to claim off the GST I would owe on bitcoins I sell... that greatly limits who I can buy bitcoin from... I also think it's a double taxation nightmare (I pay GST on the bitcoin, then I pay GST on the coffee I buy with that bitcion... can the coffee merchant claim the GST incurred on the bitcoin without the customer having to be GST registered and providing a receipt... what a fucking joke).
I think it's a bad ruling, hopefully it gets overturned, but in the meantime I've stopped trading... It's too much hassle and too risky until I get some advice on how it affects me.
BUT... localbitcoins is still a pretty good place to get them... just deal with people who have good ratings, look for red flags (you're account there will have a literal red flag that it's a new account, also be careful of TOR users and stuff...) In general... it's a lot easier to buy than to sell... You provide screen shots of your bank transfer and localbitcions run an escrow service and have been pretty good in my experience...
Be extra careful with cash transactions... start with small amounts... be careful who you deal with... don't meet in dark alleyways at 3am for your transfers... you know... common sense.
Also... mycelium for android has local trader built in... find someone local selling and do a deal with them.
You can also buy them from coinjar in Australia... maybe look around, there are other places.
Yeah... I expect this $10 investment will probably pay off more than $10 in the long run... but I'm not expecting a huge effect... just sharing some tech people here may be interested in. Bitcoin benefits from the network effect... so the more people using it, the more valuable it becomes. 
Yeah... heaps of places...
 I don't accept VISA personally... I don't have a payment gateway that accepts VISA... I would normally send you my bank account details and have you pay with EFT.
Check out coinjar.com, they probably accept VISA payments... also (but I haven't used them) coinloft.com.au, though at first look you might have to go to a bank.
There are probably other places... I mean, you could look around and report back here I suppose?
I dunno... there may be a problem that VISA might not allow payment processing for a bitcoin company... They are a direct competitor after all... and VISAs ability to act as a gatekeeper of financial transactions is one of the things bitcoin attacks. 
Yeah... that would require I send you my 
 real name and stuff... (not technically, but it's how I do it, so I got clean records and shit)... also, see point about me not currently trading.
Anyway... seriously, get onto localbitcoins, there are plenty of highly rated sellers who will accept EFTs from whichever bank you are with and will release your coins in short order... I'm sure.
Just make sure it's an escrowed deal... you can't go that wrong.
If you're really unsure about dealing with randoms... coinjar... but there'll be a day or three delay until they can credit your account.
Please report back how it goes. 
I know you gave me your name, honey...
 And I do like you, I really do...
It's just that I'm not ready for that kind of commitment just yet. 
Yeah... it's called know your customer (KYC) laws
 and they come into effect any time you hold fiat accounts on behalf of other people.
You can always anonymise your bitcoins later.
Cool... let me know how it goes. 
Interesting...
 You can still try coinjar and localbitcoins. 
Sent
 http://blockchain.info/address/1MfbXZAPX5swPv5isU4qSspKgeiWgJdV6v 
I trust that's a joke...
 If that is your passphrase then you just gave everyone access to your bitcoins... I mean... if I had an iphone.
LOL... It is breadwallet... I always call it toastwallet for some reason... oh well. 
Oh sorry... that's your passphrase to your
 encrypted wallet... then that's okay unless a kuron steals your phone...
I was thinking it was the passphrase to your wallet secret key seeds... but that's normally randomly generated... that's more important and lets you regenerate your wallet elsewhere. 
Why would anyone buy doge coins?
 When they've been falling in price relative to bitcoin forever since a few months past their creation?
Though doge coins are kind of meant to be cheap and jokey... to encourage spending and tipping and such... but I've never held any. 
Yeah... this is their primary use case actually...
 The incredible inflation built into them is all about keeping their value low so that people send them about more easily... they are the monopoly money of cryptocurrencies...
Of course, if you have to do very little to get a thing, it won't have much value to you, so this is also reflected in the price.
I mean, it's really quite good in helping new users learn a little about crytocurrencies with little investment or cost. 
Fair enough...
 but unless you want to generate your own private key by hand and do the calculations required to produce a public address... I have no where to send bitcoins to you. 
Come on people $8 left to give away here! $
 
I always thought the Chinese were good at 
 following protocols...
But here you are, proving my stereotypes wrong again.
Next thing you'll start writing parseable sentences and then how am I going to maintain my world view? 
Yeah... I understand bitcoin's had some problems 
 in China... Government regulations clamping down on it (though not outright illegal).
And yeah... it makes capital controls much harder for governments to enforce... capital flight becomes more likely.
Consider that with bitcoin, you could smuggle a billion dollars across a border, carrying nothing but a memorized 12 word wallet seed... and it would be near impossible to prove or trace. 
Sent:
 http://blockchain.info/address/1GSioGNLXGWfx2461xvJ5xhdATGyAEjWNg 
Of course you don't understand...
 You've decided to not even give it a go... and I couldn't have made it any fucking easier.
> but if I counterfeit US currency men with guns will come after me.
If you can counterfeit bitcoin, you'll have made quite some leaps in cryptographic mathematics. So not sure how that's irrelevant.
> All I can see is that bitcoin is money because everyone agrees that it is money.
That's pretty much how money works dude... Same when people use shells... prison cigarettes and cans of sardines have served similar purposes... though they are useful in their own right too (even shells can be used for pretty jewellery). Bitcoin just implements the functions required for it be money (though there are other creative uses out there).
> Why would 7-11 be motivated to accept my bitcoin?
Because people will be willing to spend it, and it's not hard to accept it... of course today many merchants do not accept it... Your local 7/11 may not... but there are bars that do! It's what we call adoption... it takes time.
In the meantime, you could find someone on mycelium localtrader, they might give you a dollar for your bits and you can spend that on a coke. 
I mean... right this minute, you could download a
 wallet... copy and paste a bitcoin address... and have real bitcoin to play with.
Understanding the base use case will go a long way towards you understanding the technology behind it.
I can't see why you are passing up this opportunity... it can only help you understand what you have to do for your codemental project.
Is there a conflict of interest here? 
I mean ACTUALLY GIVE IT A GO!
 Like, send me a fucking bitcoin address already...
I'm not asking you to analyse the soundness of elliptical curve cryptography, its relation to the riemann zeta function or if and how anyone will ever solve the prime number distribution problem...
I'm just asking you to get a small piece of software that enables you to create a bitcoin address.
Is it laziness holding you back? Analysis paralysis? You scared you might lose something you're getting for free? What's the hold up here? 
Sent
 http://blockchain.info/address/1JrN9C9bMvzT8FTUjxBoUYQoLTRrsQqFzi
Six more to go. 
You're welcome...
 It's pretty smooth and painless when you're used to visa et al. 
If MDC ever gets around to posting an address
 Everyone could pool their bitcoins and afford him some dairy creamer... or maybe cover the expense of his next legal representation?
We could fund a trhurler hike for trane. 
Teh fuck you doing posting GUIDs?
 Are you a Windows programmer?
You trying to get bitcoin for your disk partition?
Get out of here. 
Sent
 http://blockchain.info/address/18EAcPATJ7qTggygB3ugkFeU6hDraSqbuQ 
5 More Give Aways Available...
 That should just about cover everyone on K5...
Though I think the two people who could gain the most from it won't bother... one cause he's too busy considering the philosophical implications of exchanging seashell for hot pussy, the other cause he doesn't want to get sucked into the seductive and lavish lifestyles of the rich and famous... or something.
Anyway... I'm gonna get some sleep... So you'll have to wait for me... Though, like my hooker friends, it's first cum first served. 
Sent
 http://blockchain.info/address/1NwzqdGZ2mkYxGaBSva5mURTjx4siYfXaj
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that no one has paid you to take your songs off the internet: http://blastar.in/orion/sings/ 
So, what was the deal with that bitcoin tx?
 I see 0.1 bitcoins moved from your address and others to 1HotSWAPvmFXeUHKxq5tqQCswdTxaRzxvY...
Is this yours too? Are you using an online wallet, exchange or something similar?
I checked everyone else's addresses, and no one's moved them about yet, except for you.
Interesting, nonetheless. 
What are you using as a wallet?
 How would someone else get hold of them? 
Like I said, if it's on a website, you probably
 still have them...
The fact that you can't remember the website though is going to be a bit of a problem. 
Mumble explains how to back up your private keys
 in another comment... It's pretty easy with electrum... there's like a 12 word key you record and you can recreate your wallet anywhere... just don't let it get into the wrong hands or lose it. 
30000^12 is
 (3x10^4)^12 is (3^12)x10^48 is already more than the number of atoms in the known universe...
I don't think you have too much to worry about. 
That's already stuffed full of cash
 What're you bein greedy for?
I might send you some (I got 4 left)... but let me know what this account is for, how you use bitcoin, and also promise to maybe tip the occasional quality comment on here with a few cents.
Also, cause you are familiar with bitcoin, prove you own the address by signing something along the lines of "I am localroger, and this is my bitcoin address". 
Oh cool... sounds good...
 What wallet do you use?
Do you know how to sign a message with your bitcoin address? Demonstrate to the nice folks here and I'll tip you. 
Posting it on your blog doesn't prove ownership
 You have to sign a message:
http://multibit.org/en/help/v0.5/help_signAndVerifyMessage.html 
Verified and Sent
 http://brainwallet.github.io/#verify
Message verified to be from 1NKLnnHMAkLZQRA1JXQf9PWgakNCUXixN2
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Cool, I didn't realize it could do this.
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1NKLnnHMAkLZQRA1JXQf9PWgakNCUXixN2
HyPPcxQObn9ksWm8s0fuz+n5/5z+dQUU9g4o9Wy7elUjAlWF+/QTges8A3TybEr8CRxktKKLv1XRK1DL
 TYXyks4=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
http://blockchain.info/address/1NKLnnHMAkLZQRA1JXQf9PWgakNCUXixN2
Sent you a little extra for the extra effort... 
Who's a dirty little bitcoin whore?
 You are. 
God... I'm so far behind on the work I'm supposed
 to be doing...
but I'll take a look at some point. 
Complicated conspiracy you got there bro $
 
Isn't "Live your fucking life"
 one of mine? 
Holy Shit!
 I'm sure I think I said something like that to MDC quite recently... now I wonder if I was subliminally programmed by that old sig?
Weird. 
Maybe she chocked
 on a hula hoop? 
If you some bitcoin
 I'd be happy to send you the pics. 
The Hole in 1 Percenters: Resistence is Futile
 But come on in, the water's fine. 
I hear thermo is a troll too
 spread by the illuminati to try and make you do some fucking work. 
Kevin O'Leary: My Kind of Economics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuqemytQ5QA
So what's your fucking problem with the free market, huh?
I think he's right...
 We're only talking about a handful of rich people.
If we took everything they had and gave it to everyone else on the planet, we'd only be $250 better off... doesn't seem like that would be life changing to anyone.
The problem isn't that there are rich people, the problem is that some people are so poor.
You seem to think we can print $100B bills and give them to the poor and everyone can be rich... but it doesn't work like that. 
Say $100B/day...
 or say why not. 
No... it's because your theory doesn't work...
 You think bread is fundamentally different to 747s, and economically, they aren't...
It's why your theory needs epicycles, oh, I mean indexation. 
Also, last year you were campaigning for $16k 
 today it's $25k, that's more than 50% inflation already... you have no rational basis for the amount, or understanding of what effects it has, so you have no rational explanation of why it wouldn't work at $100B/day either. 
I agree... really...
 like you said, you are taxing holders of savings or are the creditor of loans, by decreasing their value in real terms.
It doesn't really tax workers, but inflationary lag does.
So, the idea is literally for the government to write cheques to people, with no expectation or promise for it to be paid back... (unlike what happens at the fed... not even a gov expense, is it?)... it's basically just pure government expenditure.
At $25k/pa for the adult population of the US (roughly at 200M), that's a $5T budget expense... we expect that money to come out of nowhere?
If there's no attempt at even looking like paying back the gov debt, I'm guessing that's going to lead to problems in the long run. 
Just think how long it takes to update min wage
 laws... lol.
Of course, with a UBI, you could argue against min wage laws...
but... if the UBI isn't indexed (will cause crazy economy crashing effects if it is and it's too high)... It might find it's balance I suppose... but it will too lag behind inflation.
I just don't think that kind of expenditure, is going to be sustainable... it has to have rational sources of funding.
What's the tax at 1% of the wealth of the US top 50% or whatever spread over everybody? How much can be saved from decreases in other welfare costs? Maybe we need other taxes increased too... higher capital gains tax, more sales tax, more income taxes!
Does the US gov ever plan to balance its budget or pay back its debts? 
If you want to inflate the problems away...
 Be careful on where that tax falls... Because, how much of the 1%ers wealth is tied up in dollar equivalents? I don't think it's very much, so inflation doesn't hurt them.
It's not that there isn't enough money (that's never a problem anyway)... it's where the wealth comes from.
One reason to have (at least the effect of having) lower capital gains tax than income taxes is for incentive to investment over labour... not sure of the pro's/con's.
If you CPI the basic income... well... if it is inflationary, (as unbalanced government expenditure, you could expect it to be, right?) you've got yourself a very strong feedback loop there. 
Read it a few times... pretty much agree...
 Does anyone have the maths to tell me how much you could print a year (and give it away, so NOT LIKE THE BANKS AT ALL TRANE!!) to create 2% (more) inflation... say. What's inflation currently running at... what will it be like when all that QE finally filters out?
(I guessing that you could naively assume 2% of the current money supply, say... distributed to everyone... if no one else cares too... I'll probably try and work this out.)
Expecting the gov to spend an ADDITIONAL $5T year seems pretty unlikely... that's bigger than the current budget already.... so $25k a year is right out...
If you just swapped BI for social security, $875B among 200M people is $4375 a year... so, a lot of those privileged welfare queens like trane will have to take a hit to get this to work for the greater good. 
For sure...
 though the growth in M3 would be a reasonable first order approximation minus delay effects... So my math there is about as good as your going to get (at this level of analysis anyway).
But obviously depends on so many other things... growth in the underlying economy (esp in terms of transactions) would negate that... but not sure you can have an infinite ongoing growth in a finite world? 
Found the money supply... is surprisingly low...
 Like, i see $11.6T as the largest last number (M2 Money Supply) here: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m2
Which, at 2% is another $1160 per year per person... So, we're up to $5500 a year per person... I think that would still be a pay cut for trane... God help you if you need special care... cause we took away SS for this... How far do we want to push that inflation while we're at it... 
I finally get what you mean...
 We index say bread at $1 a loaf, and a 747 at $350M and we get the fed to give $100B per day per person on the planet, because deficits don't matter...
Then those 87 people sure are going to look foolish when we're suddenly richer than them and everyone can buy 300 747s a day!
I'd just like to understand what part of your theory says that wouldn't work... or maybe it's just crazy enough that it would? 
This is the guy that won't lift the smallest of
 fingers to help himself... He just wants to live on the backs of everyone else... No way would he buy cheap stuff and sell it at a flea market, let alone make his own stuff to sell, like bread... and wants to tell other people what their indexed price of their own bread should be? And would dare call such a man (baker) greedy for setting his own price for his own hard work and production?
You're both an idiot and a selfish cunt of the highest order. 
I agree with everything... but
 Why can't it be $100B/day per person?
Why are you being mean on not letting everyone buy 300 747s a day?
It would be mean for boeing to say these poor ppl are able to buy 300 747s a day! I think they should walk!
Seriously. 
Also, you don't know what the free market is...
 > Individuals working outside the market
Who are you talking about? Those coerced into working? Slaves for example? Those who produce externalities? Are you saying Big Oil are the real innovators? Maybe those who hide information? Used car sales men? Monopolies perhaps?
Maybe you wouldn't look like such an idiot if you knew what the free market actually was. 
Quality Over Quantity
 means you have to remove shit.
Otherwise, why not pages of random characters?
Is anything truly ever deleted anyway? 
One of the mods removed it...
 I'm not sure what I think... I can of course approve it, but can't be bothered... I'd have to click the approve link... sounds like a lot of work.
The rich don't create money for themselves... bill gates doesn't have billions of DOLLARS... he has billions in WEALTH.
Once you see the difference, we can discuss...
Consider that my house is worth $1M, but I have $10k in debts and no savings... Am I rich or poor? 
If I owe $10k to banks...
 But have a $1M house, am I rich or poor?
That's simple enough?
Notice how little the actions of those bankers affects me? 
I don't have a mortgage...
 It's irrelevant, and you're skirting the question... just answer it... am I rich or poor? 
You continually evade the single question I posed
 because it destroys your argument.
Am I rich or poor... with a $1M house, and $10k credit card debt?
Money creation is NOT wealth creation... it is wealth REDISTRIBUTION... You can't create WEALTH by printing money, but you can change who has wealth.
Get to terms with this, and we can discuss the problems and solutions... if you think everyone can live like a billionaire by giving everyone a billion dollars, then you're an idiot... if you don't, then you have to concede your axioms are wrong. 
You're right... I thought you said that the rich
 default on loans... I read it as a comma, not a full stop.
So, you agree that a house is WEALTH...
At least that's a start.
So, you understand that the rich can own everything, and the poor could have all the money in the world, but if the rich didn't care for money at all, they would still be rich, and the poor could have billions and still be poor?
Because, that's the beginning of realising the difference between real world wealth, and games played by shuffling money around, and redistributing some wealth. 
Hey Tranny Boy!
 I approved that article for you, cause you caught me out. 
By the way... it's not that I don't understand HOW
 money is created... I disagree with you that it is created out of NOTHING.
You will notice, for example, that it is actually created out of the MORTGAGE... Ie, A promise to pay back the loan, backed by the property.
That is the NOTHING you keep talking about... but it is not nothing at all... otherwise, show me how it works when you skip this step. 
It still fundamentally depends on the loans being
 serviced... once that stops, the whole thing stops.
Of course, I mean this statistically... The banks PAY for INSURANCE... and insurance companies win on AVERAGE... That has nothing to do with your arguments.
Without the loans, there is no money creation... therefore money is not created out of NOTHING, but the promise to pay back the loans.
It's as simple as that... your view is retardedly simplistic of what is really happening. 
No, it's clearly not a lot... it's just
 illustrative.
And it's all relative anyway... it is actually quite rich globally... 
Even a $100M is little compared to the true elite. 
Don't you get that Trane doesn't LIKE to work?
 It appears that you are suggesting he get involved in the flea market... Everyone knows the flea market is a con set up by rich asian bankers.
He doesn't want to get involved in anything that IgnorantMotherfuckers do, like make his own money or way in the world... Fuck, he'd rather starve in a VR than plant his own vegetables, and you think you can get him involved in trading? He'd get stressed... he wants to have sex with trees in the forest instead, why are you stopping him? 
I don't really think you can consider it work
 if you're not getting paid for it... Otherwise it's just what you want to do... if you like cleaning up parks, or writing long essays, that's what you're doing for fun, not profit. 
I'm not saying it doesn't take effort...
 but it's not work unless you are doing it with a view to get paid. 
Yeah... obviously it's all utility maximisation...
 I think economists look at it like this... if you're inclined to do something for the 'fun' of it, it's not work.
If it would generally be considered a disutility that is overcome through payment (or the expectation of, down the line), it's work.
In a sense, those artists aren't working, they get value out of creation in and of itself. You'd have to pay them a lot to get them to work. 
Are you doing it in the hope of making money one
 day or do you do it because you enjoy it.
If, for example, you knew it would never help, directly or indirectly, you to get money, would you do it?
How much would you have to be paid NOT to do it? I think this is the best test of all... You find it has utility in and of itself, it's not work, although it might take a lot of effort, you want to do this. 
I doubt that statement...
 Everyone has their price... but maybe your just mental enough not to.
Anyway, proves that it's not work for you, it's pleasure. 
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/work.
 1.General: A job, something done to earn money.
It takes effort, but it isn't work.
That's something she would do because she wants the results in and of themselves... she would have to be paid not to do it.
For sure, it's only one definition though... for example, when lifting weights you can calculate how much work is performed, you lift the weights off the floor, you put them back, there's no displacement, no work has been done. Same thing really. 
LOL see MDC... I told ya
 This guy wants nothing to do with humanity... unless it involves sponging off them and doing nothing in return. 
Yet you want them to give you money...
 Humanity to Trane: Fuck You. 
Well... I don't have a boss... so I'm not sure
 what you're talking about.
The thing is, you talk about getting money... but you seem to want to tell people what to do with their own property... You think you a right to destroy a golf course, when clearly a lot of people derive utility from it.
Why is that? Why can't you fuck off to your forests... why do you want to dismantle other people's source of pleasure? 
I'm adding a bitcoin tipjar to this comment:
 1CFXkxCBnc2Gv6h9o4ZdN33vFohoXPZ2Dj
Complicated Huh?
I think incoming replies are more valuable than what I'd make in bitcoins, but I'm taking this huge risk anyway.
Consider that most people don't use information, and that most science is huh, that's weird... anyway... I'll make money because I observed a pattern, and I can't tell if it's real or just coincidence. 
Yes, several...
 You really think adding:
Bitcoin Topjar: 1CFXkxCBnc2Gv6h9o4ZdN33vFohoXPZ2Dj
Would have a large effect on page rankings?
You should probably drink more water. 
How?
 That would suggest any word anywhere on your page could have a massive effect... like using thus instead of therefore... omg.
Why would those three strings have such a large effect? 
Your site must really drink water for it to be 
 that easily affected...
Like you can't even add an about page without dropping your rankings?
That's pretty sad dude. 
You can't even link to an about page with a
 bitcoin address on it without causing much damage.
I find that really hard to believe. 
Do you post your email address?
 How is a bitcoin address any different?
I don't think having a bitcoin address would alter the outcome of any of those things... well... I'd be more inclined to tip, because that's about the only way I ever would... but I can't see it having any effect on the others. 
I'd be surprised if there was much overlap...
 and be surprised to find that adding a bitcoin address next your email address would cause people to stop linking to you.
BUT, it's a free world, you can do whatever the hell you like. I'm hardly going to force you to make more money than you otherwise would.
Also consider at $250 a bitcoin, a few thousand today could be hell of a lot more in five years. 
I watched the one about the drug war
 I don't know how anyone can still think the war on drugs is a good idea...
Maybe they just don't think... or like doing what they're told... Doesn't make sense to me. 
I was going to read it...
 but it seemed long, and there was a funny cat video on youtube.
Man, those cats... hahahah, omg, you wouldn't believe it, lol.... you should check em out some time. 
Why can't I just use natural language to do this?
 Why do i have to right in this strange syntax: Every X who Y includes a X who Y?
It's just strange and confusing.
I mean, who writes like that. It's this idea that you can base language on mathematics that causes this... it's just too consistent and not flexible enoguh.
Why can't I just write john whistels, johns a dude I know, and people what whistles are happy... does ya rekon jons happy?
But I got to use this strange programming syntax instead!
I want a bot I cant talk to just normally, like I was making a comment at it like this, exactly like I am wrting now, and it would learn from what I write and stop making mistakes like thinking utility has anything to do with money or that NLP can be programmed as rules liek maths.
I guess that'a challange for ya... but these scientists are so fickle, I guess it's cause they're selfish pricks too caught up in their own ego to consider what I want. 
I don't know much about it... but a couple of my
 friends are heavily into it.
Isn't it just a bunch of unstructured data accessible via http?
I don't get what the fuss is all about... can anyone enlighten me?
I've read a fair bit about it, but I just don't get it... (though I will read the links a bit later). 
No it wasn't a typo...
 I don't mean unstructured like natural language... which is probably what that normally means... so, I don't really mean that...
What I mean was, like it's just key value pairs, or named data like xml with attributes and shit... but there's no standard on what any entity even means... like how do you represent a phone number, everyone does it differently I imagine, with like phone, phone-number employee:phone, employer -> phone -> mobile or some shit...
It seems to me it's main purpose isn't to make it easier for computers to parse... because computers won't grok that shit anyway... it makes it easier for programmers to access and deal with... I don't see it helping AI all that much, not until it groks the keys as well as the values, no? 
But it fell off the couch $
 
If it's a turing machine with enough memory
 then yes... always...
If it's fast enough... then also in real time.
(Though you might have to add that little commodore button)
Any other questions? 
Individual Liberty
 You probably guessed by now I'm pretty much for individual liberty... as long as it doesn't harm others... free markets, anti-prohibition, etc... BUT...
The two things I think that really should be restricted are antibiotics, and (your right not to have) vaccinations... and both because your individual choices harm others.. 
Antibiotics because it increases the rate of antibiotic resistant bacteria that can cause harm to many other people... so, access to them should be restricted (agricultural use is a problem here too I believe).
And vaccinations, because they rely on the herd effect... sometimes vaccinations don't take, infants that are too young can't have them yet and remain vulnerable, and some children with illness or otherwise can't take them... these groups rely on the fact that others are vaccinated for everyone to remain protected.
Now, yeah, maybe if unvaccinated kids could be kept out of school and other public places where they could spread disease, then I'd say for sure... but otherwise, you either have a valid medical reason not to get vaccinated, or you get vaccinated.
Basically... for the majority of people, you have to keep the vaccination rate above the herd effect threshold, or children who can't get vaccinated are going to die.
It's a tiny bit of a tricky problem because it does go against my philosophy of having control over your own body (and that of your children), especially from the state, and getting injected with 'stuff' is pretty intrusive... but on the balance, I'd say either your kids get vaccinated, or they go to unvaccinated kids school, and we fence them all off and they can live there... I don't see an easy way around this problem.
Also, so much anti-vax is just based on pure bullshit it's ridiculous it got this far. All that autism bullshit is bullshit. So much harm has been caused by these falsehoods... most people (enough for the herd effect) would have just gone with vaccinations on the idea their children won't get sick if people hadn't been suckered into this crap. 
No gun has ever killed a person...
 People with guns kill people... yes... sometimes lawfully, and often not... and when someone unlawfully kills with a gun... we hang them or let them rot in prison... because they've crossed that line from individual liberty to harm.
But with antibiotics and anti-vax... you're choices can lead to many deaths... no matter what you do. That choice ALONE causes the harm... like pulling a trigger on an automatic into a crowd.
> Like how come people that HAD THE VACCINATION still contract the disease?
Didn't you read what I wrote, I specifically mentioned this group... AND you'll find it in the wiki article I linked... sometimes vaccination just doesn't take... it's a statistical thing... which is precisely why allowing (too many) people to be unvaccinated is dangerous. (again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity)
> Autism bullshit. How do you know? I never hear of any research study
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy
I'm fairly sure the scientific community has consensus on this issue... much like AGW. You pretty much don't hear much argument against vax from actual scientists.
> And it NEVER HURTS to question the status quo. BUT IT's SCIENCE ALL HAIL! Ok yeah, but ain't that what we do in Science? Question assumptions?
Yes... Hail Science... This is a scientific question, not a political* one... question assumptions... the entire scientific process... but follow science on this issue... and there seems to be consensus... it's NOT a scientifically controversial subject.
> In the end, why can't we make it like anti-biotics? You go to a doctor or clinic and talk to them about it and have the vax done.
Because of HERD IMMUNITY... My 6 month old nephew is at risk because older kids aren't getting vaccinated and he's too young to be vaccinated. The vax might not have been effective for my 5 year old niece... and now she's at risk in ways I never was, because the anti-vax movement. We've lost herd immunity.
> Lining kids up at school and shooting them full of bugs just doesn't seem very scientific to me.
Are you questioning how vaccinations work here, or the idea that you vaccinate as many people as possible? I don't see how this is unscientific.
> Either your kids stop being gay or we're going to send them to gay school so they don't spread the gay.
If gay was contagious disease... I might agree with you... but it's not, it's not an argument... these are severe contagious diseases, but because a whole generate has never seen them, they've forgotten how devastating they actually are.
Maybe we just let enough kids die horribly and the issue will be resolved... 5 year old kiddies in iron lungs, becoming retarded, blind, deaf, disfigured and disabled will make good news anyway. Then when some of those kids are dying because their friends didn't get vaccinated (even though the dying kid did), we get the pitchforks and we stop making this mistake for another generation or two.
In the end though we don't have to convince everyone to get the vax... exceptions are fine... as long as those who go without (along with the normal non-effective rate) remain below the herd effect threshold, it's all good... it's only a problem because it's become a popular meme.
*: Well... in some sense it's political - http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-vaccinate-my-child-because-its-my-right-
to,37839/ 
It appears they accidently used
 a culture of live stupid on you. 
Bullets don't kill anyone either.
 I got a handful of bullets right here. They don't even look angry.
Bullets with high momentum kill people. 
Name one medicine that does work on 100% of people
 The reason you can't is because the body is incredibly complex and the confounding factors huge.
Which is why doctors will often have several lines of antibiotics for the same bacteria... The first one will only work in 90% of people, the second one 90% of the remaining, and so on.
Doctors ALREADY KNOW that not everyone who gets a vaccine will become inoculated. It's called the vaccine effective rate. It's why they rely on HERD IMMUNITY.
If you are so retarded that you are not convinced by this, are you suggesting that small pox, measles, mumps, polio and a whole heap others have just been a conspiracy of the NWO to inject you with mercury? Communist conspiracy perhaps?
I thought k5 generally respected science, but I'm getting more despondent with you lot every day. 
What?
 We KNOW the vaccines aren't MAGICAL and aren't 100% effective... That's a KNOWN FACT!
So we blame the UNVACCINATED for compromising HERD IMMUNITY -- which does work VERY WELL (until the anti-vax morons come along). 
Dude, I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or
 are trolling...
Yes, breast milk passes on all sorts of resistance, it's great against the majority of bugs...
BUT... you do realise that Smallpox ALONE killed over 300M people in the 20th century, but has now been eradicated?
You won't stop Measles by breastfeeding.
It just doesn't work like that, so I'm not sure you have a point. 
What you said about herd immunity was correct
 I've posted links already... you can see the required coverage for it there... but your 5% figure is totally inaccurate:
After the first dose of the MMR vaccine, 64 out of 100 people will be protected against mumps, 90 out of 100 people will be protected against measles and 95 out of 100 people will be protected against rubella. You will need two doses of the vaccine to provide enough protection against measles, mumps and rubella. 
Like posting to /r/SRS
 I've had it with these rabid udder cows in this udder rabid sub! 
Nah... you can't expect to have perfect test cases
 What you can do instead is use a code coverage tool to at least make sure that all your code gets executed by your tests... this still won't give you 100% semantic coverage, but it'll get you a fair way there.
Also, when you find a bug like this, you should add a test case that doesn't work before the fix, but works afterwards... This gives you a little more robustness against future regressions when you refactor.
Of course this all requires effort... so how much / little you do really depends on what your priorities are. 
Yeah, fine... but did you keep the test case?
 You do have a test script for all this, right?
I'm just saying, even though you wrote some scripts to hunt down the bug, did you keep a test case for it so that it doesn't appear again... no matter what happens? 
I'm so glad it was you who posted that.
 I couldn't believe that mumble would be so stupid.
When I saw the title, I thought wtf... then when I read it, I thought, nah that's stupid... then I read who posted it and I was like... oh yeah... it's trane.
Actually, python has doctest. 
Really?
 I'm surprised you haven't gotten the Nobel peace prize in computer science for your insights into why we test code.
Absolutely amazing stuff.
Maybe you can teach me some AI and economics next. 
I read the title in the "Replies"
 and then the text... cause I was perplexed... then I saw your handle.
So there's that. 
I'm pretty sure I made this argument to localroger
 about a decade or so ago... that a mill wouldn't be all that much.. he disagreed, yet here we are. 
Well, I spent all my money on drugs, gambling and
 loose women... the rest I squandered. 
You know... in econ... we don't use utility to 
 predict... It's not a predictor... it's a hidden variable, one we use to show how the visible variables operate.
If utility didn't operate the way we presume it would, then most of the experiments that operate on the visible variables would fail.
For example... if I offered you $1000, you wouldn't say no, right?
Now, if I said you're going to have to work for that $1000, things change...
We can't see the utility, but we infer it... and that follows the predictions.
You're too lazy (as predicted) to finish the econ course... so even your understanding of utility is actually wrong according to economists... you argue the strawman instead, because that was all the effort you were willing to put in instead. 
I explained to you why he used dollars...
 Because almost everyone sees the value of dollars and can relate to it... but utility is not MEASURED in dollars... even though it can be EXPRESSED in dollars... actually it can be expressed in ANYTHING.
You never got to the part where you take the derivative of utility where all the maths comes together and all your brainless objections are resolved... but that's simply because you're a lazy fuck.
Also, opensource works precisely because utility isn't dollars! Of course it can be analysed in exactly the same framework.
The rest of your argument is that you didn't like his style... He could have been teaching Jainism and Enlightenment, and making the same stylistic mistakes, you would have been all over his cock. You use this simply because you do not WANT to understand...
Ie, You're a lazy and dumb fuck. 
Ie, everytime he said dollars, you could have just
 as easily replaced it with blowjobs... got over this insignificant problem, and understood the core of the materials.
Nobody, let alone any given teacher, is perfect. He also has to aim at whatever level the students are at.
You have to understand addition before you can do multiplication... before you can do integration and differentiation.
It is easier to teach Newtonian Mechanics before you tackle relativity... even though we know the former is more wrong than the latter... and even though we know the latter is wrong... We make simplifications.
Fuck you're stupid. 
Why don't you just type foo(60) instead?
 Wouldn't that help?
In all seriousness... how is this getting triggered? Are you calling eval on something? Like parsing some text file, building functions and calling eval? It seems it has to be fixed at the string parsing level...
Any chance you're doing something like int(intstring)?
Can't be that hard of a problem? 
Oh man...
 Now, yes... sometimes eval is a good idea... but not very often...
Right now you might just be happy with your little command line tool... but maybe in the future you could webify it... allow people to post their own data files, etc... nasty things happen when you allow third parties to supply data that gets converted with eval.
Can't you just parse the data into data structures like everyone else?
Sorry, but I haven't looked into your code... so I can't help much more than that.
Just one thing... if you're calling eval on a numeric literal... it might be a lot easier... just use int instead... yeah, lstrip, and check for zero... not too difficult... make a function that does that. 
Yeah... looks good...
 but if you are using eval to convert an string you know is an integer into an integer, please use int() instead... it is far less dangerous. 
import os; os.system("rm -rf /") ???
 Wanna test it? 
Yeah, Python was planning on buying out Microsoft
 and Apple... so they just bumped the version number.
Good thing we all saw through their ploy, huh? 
According to tranian mathematics... which is 
 allowed to be inconsistent...
This is actually 100% accurate and consistent.
Proven with your own axioms. 
How you going to give up something you never had?
 That would be like trane giving up success, MDC giving up sanity, HHD giving up being sexy or sye giving up making sense. 
I too plan to one day live in a VR
 where everyone says nice things to me and I don't have to think or interact with anyone or anything that makes my life or thoughts slightly less comfortable.
Why doesn't everyone want to live in a VR? Must be something wrong with everyone else... 
Also, given that mathematics can be encoded in 
 proving algorithms... ie, binary... then I think it's a far stretch to say that maths is based on natural language...
It can be built from set theory, encoded purely symbolically as binary strings... no natural language WHATSOEVER.
No, maths has been EXPLAINED to you using natural language... but is not based on it.
I see these concepts frighten and confuse you though... maybe find a nice little box to hide in, and call it your VR prototype. 
Where did you get this idea from?
 The ancient greeks or from modern mathematicians?
Cause I can tell you the ancient greeks had some whacky fucking ideas. 
Yes, but I'm not proving your stupidity
 mathematically. 
No it isn't...
 It's it own thing...
We just expressed parts of it in NLP first. 
You wouldn't be able to follow it. $
 
Because you failed to read the math!
 Don't expect me to hold your hand for you... you're a grown up boy now, you can do your own reading.
You may as well come here saying that the sun orbits the moon... how the fuck am I supposed to compete with your stupidity? You're like a gold medal special olympian with your theories. 
Another completely bullshit statement...
 They can prove anything provable in math... wtf are you talking about. 
If you use natural language in a way you can describe systematically with math... well, you've stepped outside of mathematics then haven't you.
I'm zero rating pure bullshit from now on. 
Yes... it's all you have... I guess it's because
 you can't read math?
You seem to have only read the natural language explanation of it, and gotten very confused with the ambiguity that isn't present in the maths. 
Fuck you're a retard...
 A lookup table is a mathematical function.
Haven't we been through this?
You got a mind like a sieve. 
You don't know what you are talking about.
 That's just wrong. 
Lookup tables don't lead to contradictions
 F(x) cannot map to both A and not A!
So wtf are you talking about?
You just being a retard. 
That statement can (and is) proved from within the
 PM framework... you do realise that, right?
definitively that PM, and in fact any other attempt
You're problem is thinking that natural language allows you to work around that... I guess the meaning of "any other" is lost on you.
Kill Yourself. 
You know... when we don't have the tools to find
 a closed form solution analytically... we don't leave the world of mathematics to find that closed form... it's not like we just step back and pray to god for the answers... we still use maths... and here's how.
We generally do it numerically... we use the equation to find the set of points that are arbitrarily close, then we map another function (which we can search for) that matches those points, and we end up with a very close approximation to the closed form solution.
It might not be analytical, but it is still mathematics. It's not like we aren't using mathematics, axioms and proofs, we just use different ones... ones that come from numerical analysis --- which, you might find strange, is actually mathematics... not some tranian nonsense. 
But that is also part of godel's proof...
 You can create a formal system that allows inconsistency and trade it for completeness.
You can't escape godel's facts, no matter what you do... there's no solution that allows for complete and consistent proofs of every statement... mathemetically, with NLP, whatever... you're stuck with this fact, because it IS itself a decidable formal consistent mathematical proof. 
You seem very jealous of these people...
 They aren't taking anything from you, they're just living their own lives... I don't see how it affects you in the slightest.
Just be happy with what you got... think how much richer you are than the average person in this planet (no really, you actually are!)... problem with rich people like you is always being jealous of those who are even wealthier. 
Until you realise that you have EXACTLY the same 
 capability of 'creating money' that the banks do... you are living in la la fairy land. Though they have access to better interest rates than you, the principle is exactly the same --- just lend someone some cash and write a promissory note for them to sign, you have created money... the borrower has his money, and you have the promissory note, which is also money (ie, a number in a computer)... banks aren't really that privileged in their money creation ability.
Then you'll realise that money isn't created out of nothing, but rather it is created out of the promise of future work (or the ability to pay back or service the loan) of the borrower.
As for your little problems, that's between you and your landlord really... not rich people in general... it's quite possible to get rich and provide the services you promised. So, they aren't taking anything from you in that sense... just one guy who you would have the right to sue (if it was in the ad, and you asked him, and he refused... same with the lamp if it was worth suing over).
I don't know for certain... but I'm pretty sure if governments could create money out of thin air, at least one of them would be running a successful zero-tax budget... but I don't think that would work... it's actually what you are advocating.
I believe fiat has value a) because you can use it pay all debts (but that's only part of it), but mostly b) because the government literally demands it from you (at gun point) to pay your taxes in. 
No it's not... though I'll admit some shady games 
 go on... on the whole, you have exactly the same capability, so don't fucking whinge about it.
The fact that you would rather do X than Y is just a matter of you having a different utility function to them... You'd rather do those things than make money by lending money... which is their utility function... the point is not that you don't want to do it (no one really does, it is actual work after all) is not the same as you not being able to do it. If the latter was true, then I'd say you have a right to whine.
It's like being jealous of a gold miner because he gets gold, but you prefer to splash around in the water making funny faces... oh life is so unfair, those rich fuckers with all their gold. Why can't the government just give us gold and everyone can splash around in the water?
If you really think the government could exist just by printing money, but never taxing it... you're simply deluded... you haven't thought it through, cause thinking is hard. 
No, you're just stupid... you don't understand
 PEOPLE!
Of course adam smith understood capital vs labour... that's just the natural progress of capital vs labour that he predicted!
But, the people that own the capital have no incentive to share the rewards of it with you... and why should they?
Money as a ticketing system is no different than money as a signalling system... it's the same thing... you 'alternate' view of money is not alternate at all... it's still no reason to believe you can give as much out as you want and expect it to mean anything.
And your theory about overproduction is just you being retarded again... we overproduce food BECAUSE we subsidise and destroy it... people aren't overproducing food because they like making food... it comes about because of economic policy... and the results are exactly as predicted!
> Doing that kind of crap kills my soul. 
Because that's your utility function... You CAN do it, but you HATE it.. so you DON'T... Don't complain that others are willing to do it, at whatever cost it takes on them.
> Fuck that. Government should give me the choice to pursue my happiness, regardless of undemocratic social unwritten rules. 
You mean reality... if what you said was true... the government could print infinite money for everyone, everyone could be extremely wealthy, with all the food, mansions, 100 square miles of land, 50 yachts and a few 767s... and no one would have to work, or farm, or build anything... cause of the lovely ticketing system the government just makes everyone's dreams come true.
And if you can't see that this is actually impossible... you should be writing fairy tales for children instead of trying to argue economic reality with adults. 
You are right... under free market assumptions
 no one has to share... that's the point... no one ever does anything purely for unselfish reasons (why even charity is modelled by utility, ie, feeling good about yourself giving to charity).
But WHY do you care... they aren't forcing you to do anything. Why do you deserve the output of their automation... They built it, or at least they built the companies that do it, or they bought them... whatever... what the fuck does it have to do with you? It's their machine, it's products are theirs... why would you deserve any of the benefit of that?
The only thing they care about is profit... so they trade for something that is useful to them... ie, money... if you give everyone really free (and gobs and gobs of it, because nothing you say even acknowledges the difference between a small basic income and an infinite one... except people can vote on it, and why would they vote for a small BI instead of an infinite one?)... then money will become worthless to them, and they'll simply trade in something else... it is what you don't get about the free market... money is no different to any other commodity to anyone... ffs, I prefer bitcoins already!
All the rest of what you said, the magic fairy land of gov 'challenging' people to make 3d printers and VR and all your other crap depends on the first part, which is crap... you can't solve the worlds problems by imagining a fairy tale world... you have to accept the real world.
And you also just don't get that acting in the real world IN ITSELF would be more appealing than any make believe experience you can have in a VR. (I mean, I'm not an actual rail road tycoon, and I don't think you'll ever convince me I am, no matter how good VR gets). 
Trane is more knowledgeable than me on this
 As he gets to sleep out in it much more often. 
Ironically...
 Even if had his basic income... or any amount of money actually... he'd still be fucked over like this... and probably still blame everyone else.
Fucking idiot. 
LOL @ Machine Learning...
How funny is this... I fed the picture from the advert into toront's deeplearning picture describer here: http://deeplearning.cs.toronto.edu/i2t and got the following output:
TAGS:
 tiara gasmask headpiece scrunchie wig 
Nearest Neighbor Sentence:
the person is holding a picture in front of their face .
Top-5 Generated:
a man is in a picture of his face .
a close up of a man wearing a smile .
a man holds a picture of a woman .
this is a black and white photo of a man wearing a brown jacket .
a black and white photo of a woman holding a doughnut .
It's like the computer can read our minds.
Even the computer thinks she might be a tranny.
Apparently they haven't trained it on many pics of crack whores:
  - this is a picture of a crack whore with fake tits, avoid!
Yeah, I think it's a extension of ImageNet
 Which has 10k categories of objects it can recognise... so there are a lot of examples of cars, automobiles in general (trucks, buses, motorcycles), cats, dogs (with various breeds), birds (again, it recognises various different species, parrots, emus, ostriches, budgies... etc), mushrooms (various species) too I think, and also a bunch of people and other objects (balls, tennis rackets, dresses, ties, suits, etc)...
They then take the final layer and map it (through training) to a language translation network which then translates what imagenet 'sees' into a sentence.
It's pretty good with birds because a lot of the training images are birds of various types... As in, that's really been a focus of the researchers... I guess it's a nice non-offensive, easily agreed to topic for classification tasks. Porn classification will eventually happen (This is a video of trane giving MDC a blowjob, MDC is giving trane a reacharound, trane is sad and wants MDC to commit).
It's proven to be pretty powerful, but not quite there yet... and the current work on adversarial images is pretty fascinating and will lead to greater robustness too I think.
It's just one of the reasons I hold out a lot of hope for neural network approaches to AI... every year they just get more capable... I couldn't imagine symbolic rules based AI having any hope in this domain. 
So, you need an even smarter neural network to 
 know how to parse and decide that...
You can't just add that to the output of an existing classifier for far too many reasons I can't be arsed explaining...
Kind of the whole point of neural networks is to figure that stuff out itself... (all the pics of small green parrots with hooked beaks have been labelled as lovebirds)... though there has been some work on specialising networks (you train one network, then you split it into mushroom expert, bird expert, car expert, etc)...
What you're talking about is a long way from where we're at with networks... but I imagine it will be possible in the future... In fact, it would really be a class of so called one-shot learning, which is making gradual progress in this space too. 
Dude... you couldn't even compete on MNIST
 I can't imagine you having any success on ImageNet... let alone adding this kind of improvement without it causing it to fail harder in other places, that's the actual hard part --- you might get success on lovebirds, but it'll start thinking sprinklers are lovebirds too (small, green, hook shaped 'beaks', etc...)
I think you should STFU.
Seriously. 
Right... that's exactly what online learning is...
 (well... online learning is really taking new examples, training on them, and then moving on to the new examples... but close enough).
The problem with that is the ability of the network to generalise... it's what I was talking about... you can correct that mistake... but instead of just learning that mistake, which it now gets right... it starts applying that rule to even more places where it doesn't make any sense.
It spells beleive... wrong, so you correct it and it learns i before e except after c... and starts spelling Ieght, wieght and deciet. (much like I do!).
Because we are asking networks to generalise to cases it has never seen... rather than being giant data stores of every case it has seen. (Just imagine with images, it will have never seen the vast vast majority of things we want it to classify). The latter is easy, the first part is hard.
We can get networks to get 100% of every example we train it on correct... That's actually really easy... (like I said to mike the other day, given enough parameters we can hit every single data point)... maximising the number of examples it correctly classifies that it has never seen is much harder (generalisation is the hard part, not training). 
The thing with words is, there are few enough of
 them to use the latter approach, one big database of all the words in english (I think they call it a dictionary)... as I said, that's easy...
but tell me is gahubeinasism spelt correctly or not? Or do we need to add every single exception to your list... why generalise at all when the latter approach would work better (for words)...
It can't work better for images though... because the space of possible images is immense compared to the space of all correctly spelled english words.
Maybe NLP is AI complete... but the vast majority of our sensory input is actually vision, not audio... especially not written words.
Like I said, maybe something like one-shot learning will enable what you want... but that's totally different again to what you are talking about... that's another level of complexity right there...
Geoffrey Hinton has done some work with networks with some inbuilt priors (that images an be scaled, rotated, translated and shit... and built that knowledge into the network itself)... with those we can use unsupervised training on MNIST (It's about the smallest useful training set you can imagine in this space)... and then say, that's a 0, that's 1, etc... each time just one example, and it get's state of the art performance from that... it still makes mistakes... but that's a lot closer to what you want... but not all the way.
Okay... just to give you an example how fucking hard this is, and how deluded you are... throw away the classifier... fuck generalisation, cause everything's just exceptions is exactly the same, right... and try having a crack at MNIST (if there's a straight line at a slight angle going a little bit from top right to bottom left and a horizontilish line at the top and those two lines meet near the top right then it's a number seven)... seriously... you won't get anywhere... now think how stupidly simple that dataset is compared to MNIST and you'll get an idea how crazy you sound. 
stupidly simple compared to *ImageNet $
 
OMG...
 That's like the most basic NN you could imagine... And that you haven't even tested it on MNIST makes it crazily suspect...
I could see no regularisation involved at all... No weight decay, no dropout, no noisy autoencoding... it's not convolutional... it's the absolute minimum thing that could be considered a NN.
Does it even implement early stopping? Are you even checking against a validation set?
And without a benchmark against MNIST, what do you expect me to make from it.
> But if you have a neural network I could interface with, give it a picture and it tells me what words are in the picture, then I can use it in my natural language system as more or less a black box that I don't really give a shit how it's implemented.
Seriously, wtf do you think I linked to in this diary?
You're so full of retard... and you think you're actually making progress with this hodge-podge of makeshift failures you call an AI?
My point was that without a neural network, you are never going to be able to even start on something like MNIST... a stupidly simple classification problem... your system would fail it utterly. And I think NLP is probably at least as hard as MNIST... actually much harder... 
Keep failing at it though... it's your time to waste. 
Why would I try it out?
 I've coded far more sophisticated nets than that... and just for MNIST... I doubt you'd get better than 90% on that dataset... if it worked at all. 
You think you can turn:
 tiara, gasmask, headpiece, scrunchie, wig
into
picture of a fake titted blond crack whore.
Are you delusional or what?
As for you expecting me to do that work for you... ask one of your AI bots, retard. 
The River in Egypt
So, I contacted the whore in the pic I posted, and she denies being her...
So, wtf does that mean? Have I got a case of mistaken identity here? Is someone else running her account? Is someone using her picture?
You can tell it's her by the shape of her tits, right?
Are my eyes fooling me?
I distinctly remembered last time I saw her that she couldn't get into facebook and asked me to get access for her... well it took me a while to get around to it, but I did that for her today using the illuminati secret engineering codes (I know, I know... we took an oath, don't worry, the sheep won't believe it, and when it is proven, everyone will claim they knew all along anyway... it's cool)... Unless she is that girl, or until she shows up again I have no way to get her her password.
So, I was greeted with the standard engineering maintenance login screen - a recommendation to contact various mental health, suicide, drug and alcohol counselling hotlines. You will probably know that these are some of the most important and frequently employed services of engineers and should always be at hand.
So, I sent the link to her twin sister, if anyone should be able to recognise her it will be her twin, right?
I'm not sure there's a polite way of saying that I felt obligated to log into your twin sister's account on account of her being missing for so long and ask you if you think she might be this whore I found online but I don't really want to tell you who I am... so I guess the link will have to do.
It was quite touching to see her in the light of her conversation with her twin... very humanising actually... especially how she opened every message with 'is this private?'.
I did come up in conversation which I thought was cool... she said everything was lovely, but it was really tiny... which was a bit disappointing really, as you can imagine, but I can't afford a bigger place in thus location.
So... according to her twin sister's last plea... she didn't just steal the car, she broke into the house... Is she still missing after 3 months, is she in hiding, or is everything just tits now and she's just been unable to log into facebook?
I'm sure she'll be alright.
I think you're probably right...
 It's unnecessary intervention in the free market.
It's as simple as that, if you just did you some study.
You could justify taxing and regulating it... but prohibition just fails it. 
Well... a business should be taxed and regulated
 especially when it comes to selling (arguably) "dangerous good's", no selling to children... probably should be illegal to supply to children fullstop... but tax compliance, warning labels, quality assurance, store locations, times of sale, supervision, etc, etc...
but I see no reason for a non-business not be able to grow weed and give it to their friends... or even mix up meth, as long as it wasn't for profit, and their friends were aware it was home made... same difference between breweries and bit of home brew.
If you were really running a business... it would make a profit, and I don't see how you can do that if you are giving it away... and if you are making a profit, you should be paying taxes (cause let's just assume that money represents real limitations in our production) to cover the negative externalities of drug consumption (rehab, health and other even consequences).
Like I said, even if you don't agree with econ... it would be a powerful tool in your arguments... So... even if you don't accept the assumptions (utility, scarcity)... you can imagine the outcome if they exist... do you understand? 
That doesn't sound Kosher $
 
For those who voted Sad Creep, I'll have you know
 that her sister has thanked me for my help.
I'm guessing that implies that she both thinks it is her, and that she is still missing. 
Firstly, I don't know why you are so fucking
 neutral about my comment... I still don't even know what you're trying to tell me with that.
Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by my NIWS stand... CTS stopped quarrelling with me because he's an idiot with no decent argument except that you should do whatever the state tells you cause otherwise you'll lose your freedom, and if you don't the state will take it away from you anyway cause otherwise you'll lose it... or some such bullshit.
So, as usual, I'm not really following your cryptic crap.
Do you think hacking someone's facebook account was wrong? Not quite right? I dunno... 
So, her sister contacted the girl...
 so, she must have thought it was her too... clearly...
but said it wasn't her...
I wonder if I gave her too much of a heads up and she's letting another girl answer the phone for her... or if it really is another girl?
Strange, no?
Fucking head fuck.
I keep forgetting it's not my problem. 
emacsycle >> vicycle $
 
Although I don't think the condom had been 
 invented at that point.
 
It's easy to downvote you
 Here's an example: http://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome+NoCSS/comments/2u3xvf/funding_universal_basi
c_income_by_creating_money/ 
Oh Noes... what ever will I do? $
 
I am abusing a woman
 but you seem to be enjoying it. 
It's pretty easy really...
 First you need a magnifying glass and a solar cell... This breaks the laws of thermodynamics and gives you an external quantum efficiency of over 200%, so you're getting two photons for every one that hits your cell which means the calculator actually makes light and power too.
Of course, then you just run mdlibc on it, which is the standard libc implemented as a recursive strcpy function and enhanced sort algorithm that exclusively use the NOP function for power conservation.
And make sure you internally store your data in binary form, not plain numbers, because propriety formats are better than text formats for power efficiency. 
This calculator uses no power, and in fact generates it. With it you can exploit patterns in financial markets and give the money to trane as a Basic Income... who goes on to spend it all on crack and drano, cause deficits don't matter.
That is if you can stay out of jail that long. 
True...
 A hot object can absorb photos being emitted by a cold object and heat up... only problem is the many more photons that the hot object is emitting at the cold object.
What it doesn't allow you to do is create energy out of nothing. 
Until you can find a way to harvest it...
 I'm going to go with this being conjecture...
It's almost a god of the gaps theory you got going there... I don't know how this works, therefore god (free energy). 
Where did I say that? I said
 Until...
This is basically in the realm of extraordinary claims at this point. 
If we just printed enough money
 Everybody could live on their own small farm... say a square mile each... How cool would that be?
Oh... There's already 120 people per square mile of land on the planet?
I know... print more money, and we can all buy more land!!!
It's so obvious.
Why don't you stop crying for attention and lower the population density already so we can get a little closer to that goal. 
How much land did you want for your small farm?
 Just as an example... Are you sure that's enough? Would you like a little more perhaps?
Is there a market for taking care of abandoned pet birds? Could you make a profit from it? If not... is there really a need to take care of abandoned pet birds... or is it just a want of yours?
Beginning to sound like limited resources and unlimited desires to me.
BTW: When the gov could give away land, that was because there was a lot of land, and only a handful of (white) people who wanted it.
Also, I heard you don't like living in houses anyway... so would be a waste of resources for the government to buy up something for you to use that you don't want to use... if you wanted it, you should spend your own money on it. 
Just when I thought this site was deader than
 Peaches.
Like the phoenix rising up from the ashes, and unlike Peaches, the site goes on.
Still a high scarcity of Peaches. 
If they were whores, why would they kick you out
 for getting your cock out? Isn't that a whore's main selling point?
Most likely they were some cult and thought you were their god, then they saw your cock and realised they'd made a terrible mistake.
Happens more often than you'd think. 
Tranian researchers think society is fickle
 and a mere popularity contest.
They prefer to work alone, not make much progress, and die in solitude of sallekhana.
No one will miss them. 
Shut up and kill yourself already...
 Stop teasing us. 
Exactly... you're all talk and no trousers. $
 
You think we can wait that long?
 FFS, you go on about things you have no ability to accomplish all the time, AI, VR, suicide.
Just finish one actual project, I recommend suicide, and then we might take you seriously. 
I too thought of trane when I saw this $
 
Aren't these the prototype VRs he's on about? $
 
Best of luck...
 Finally you have an idea I can support.
I hope you're successful in this endeavour, unlike you have been in the rest of your life. 
Solving the poverty problem, 
 one cash-strapped Greek pensioner at a time.
Sounds good. 
Stop talking, and hurry up and do it already...
 I don't have all the time in the world you know. 
He was caught masturbating at the nurses $
 
Meth Tits 4 Sale Here
http://perth.locanto.com.au/ID_314876643/Aussie-F-cup-blonde-from-200.html
Feel free to use the message interface to troll... Post any responses here (though you'll need a locanto account to receive messages, sign up is free).
Yes, PSE stands for Porn Star Experience... it's just a nice way of saying anal for those unfamiliar with the lexicon.
Though her speciality is really the Porn Starfish Experience.
Trolling topics that might garner a response:
 - Meth addiction.
 - Not even successful at suicide.
 - Parenting so bad you lose your only child.
 - Even your mum wants you in prison (just for borrowing her car without permission).
 - Rape.
 - It's not rape just cause you wanted more cash.
 - Herpes. (This one really winds her up).
 - Overpriced post-wall whore is old and overpriced.
 - Blacks.
 - Ask for half price or less.
 - Who's your daddy? (No really... who is he?).
 - How was your daddy? Did he teach you the PSE, or did you learn that yourself?
This isn't doxxing btw...
 If you need it pointed out to you, Jenna's not her real name... I think she's aiming for the Jenna Jameson angle... like a cheap knock off version.
I so want to post this link to her facebook profile... but ummm... well... I'm not on her facebook... and that would be doxxing. 
No... For some reason, I just really don't like
 this girl.
Like, all the other working girls have this strange core of honesty about them... like they accept who they are and don't pretend to be something they're not...
And while most girls practice some form of trickle truth, this girl was just pure deceit.
I mean... she was like... well, I used to be a whore... like when I was 18... blah blah blah...
She used to get pissed off about street geologist staying here "You just can't trust a crack head... she might stab us in our sleep".
So, when she came around street geologist was like, lets get some crack and fuck in front of her... and I'm like, okay then... so, street geologist and I are smoking crack and meth tits goes "OMG, I didn't know you smoke crack! Why do all my boyfriends smoke crack?"... Then like a month later she's over with this meth dealer telling me how she can get the best quality meth in the whole city and just ask and she can get it for free... wtf? She's a fucking meth head whore pretending to be some born again straight edge virgin, taking the piss out of everyone else for exactly what she is herself.
"Do you know how bad you have to be to lose your child until they're 18?" (Putting some other girl down)... well guess what's happened to her now?
<100 mile an hour speech>These aren't me picking at my skin, they're mozzie bites from the motel I've been staying at, there's a lake near by and lots of mozzies<\100 mile an hour speech>
Fucking hungry fucking mozzies if you ask me... blood everywhere.
Then she tried to drag me into this car theft bullshit...
I wanna see her behind bars... so later in the week I'm passing on 'Jenna' to the police so they can put her away for a while... and for the LOLs. She can say hi to junkie car thief for me. 
It's completely legal...
 I mean, everything in the advert. You're not allowed to steal your mum's car and use meth... but you can sell your asshole on the internet all you like.
The law requires you use a condom... I think that's a bit intrusive... but much more reasonable than some other countries.
Street solicitation is still illegal though... I just ask if they'd like a coffee at my house, and we can discuss what we like when we get there... the letter of the law is then satisfied.
This gives me a chance to chat them up a bit, and if you don't pay them, it's legal to bareback them. 
Just to clarify
 The police came knocking on my door a few weeks ago looking for her... It has nothing to do with prostitution, which as you point out, is completely legal. They are interested in her because her mum wants to charge her with stealing her car... which she found out about because Meth Tits had hid the car's logbook under my bed and I had to return it.
But the police have had no success in tracking her down... hence why they showed up on my doorstep asking for her, if I knew where she was, or if I had any leads...
Well... now I have a lead... and I got no loyalty from her, so I shall return none... and let them know where she is... The officer that contacted me is on holiday until tomorrow, so that's when I drop the info on them. 
Null format really is the most power efficient...
 Which is why I have great hopes for mdlibc.
I expect the only thing more power efficient will be a hardware solution involving the off switch. 
You know some terrorist is going to have fun
 blowing up all you idiots in the VR machines.
I'd be half tempted myself just to watch you suffer. 
My point has nothing to do with terrorism...
 My point is, that locked away in your little VR, someone's gonna come along and blow the shit out of it.
You can't escape real world consequences by hiding in a machine... The real world will affect you anyway. 
This is why most of your ideas are failures...
 You totally don't understand the human aspect of people.
If they were playing, they would be playing jihad simulator 2014 right now... behead a journalist, fly your own moddable aircraft into major landmarks, make the imperialist white satan america destroy it's own people's freedoms, now with improved AI, stop the spread of cartoon mohamed (PBUH), collect all 72 virgins (aishas now available as DLC), become a martyr again and again!
No... that's not what it's about... people don't care about VR unless they are socially retarded and want to retreat from reality... no, these people want to impose their reality on you... which is why they are willing to die to do it.
They don't want to simulate blowing themselves up, they want to blow you up along with them... for real.
They WANT consequences. Maybe that's what you don't get... it's the consequences that matter, not the experience.
Like I said, I'd half want to blow you up too... just cause the idea that you think you can escape from reality (indefinitely, and it's consequences) is so offensive... and this is basically proof that you cannot. 
I think the whale swam around in it, for the same 
 reason we hang around on k5.
Not only do we enjoy taking a shit, but we also like the smell of it too. 
And without too many chewy chunky bits either.
 No pussy Hors d'oeuvres please. 
You're on a list...
 This diary is for you. 
Cool...
 More people should know about Rat Park...
Also economics, and letting people do what the fuck they want as long as they aren't harming anyone. 
If you think you started this flame war...
 then you don't know your k5 history. 
You serious?
 This is the same data that took 15 hours or so to process? And it now runs in 16 minutes?
Whoohoo... am impressed. 
I don't mind if I get a smaller slice of the pie
 as long as sharing it gets me a bigger pie. 
He'll make a fortune
 At least in companies who've limited their use of libc to strcpy.
Teh strcpy industry won't know what's hit them. 
I couldn't be bothered reading this in full
 the first time you posted it. 
I wonder if you could have afforded that on a 
 Googler's Salary...
Probably not... you made a wise choice. 
That's what I'm talking about!
 Be interesting to see how quickly you can process those 24hr datasets now.
Also, you could probably use a more complicated dataset for your profiling... try something that takes 5 minutes or so with the new code... remember, your new code is now the new baseline.
I bet you could still maybe get a 10x improvement out of it... of course, it's a diminishing returns problem.
Best of luck. Happy cumtime! 
See if you can find a more memory efficient
 algorithm... or consider moving most of the data out of memory and onto disk... You'll still need efficient in memory indexing of the disk contents so you can access the right parts of the file quickly... you'll find it an interesting challenge.
Interesting that you have more than one codebase doing the same thing... will be interesting to see the results.
I'm sure you can find other optimisations, they just might take a long time thinking about them... you might not know enough about data structures to find the most optimal one... I don't know...
Remember, you got two more options yet, cPython and C... once everything else is in place, you can probably get 10 to 100x speedup just doing this alone.
Though I bet the majority of the program time (on the small examples) is now spent reading input and writing output files. 
Sorry... my fault... I meant Cython
 http://cython.org/...
Though I haven't tried it, but it's probably worth a go.
I don't think you'll save much space with a regular dictionary over a sorted one... I don't know your code.. just check you aren't storing data more than once. Often you can trade memory usage for speed... This is really implementation specific.
Whether you store your data in memory or on disk, the data structures will normally be quite similar... only, you often want more indexing with disk access to you don't have to scan through the whole file multiple times.
Would be interesting if you have enough memory to process the larger problems with your new code. Another cheat might be to increase the machine's virtual memory... but this can lead to thrashing and really bad performance... some times you just have to try different things and see how it goes. 
Yes, you can create memory mapped files in Python
 BUT...
They are not as powerful as C mapped files... In C and C++ you can store pretty much any struct in a mmap file and access it as if it was in memory... but in Python, everything is a reference to an object, so it becomes a little more tricky. In fact, in Python, you never have direct access to memory in the first place... you never alloc or free memory for example...
So, python does have an mmap module, but you can only read or write to it as a string... now, maybe you can treat that as a byte buffer and abuse it however you like... or maybe you could use pickle in some clever way... either way, while it will work, and you can make it work, it will take quite some work to get it right. 
If you ask me...
 and even if you didn't, cause fuck you, I'm gonna say it anyway...
If his program is chewing up 16G processing some text files, he's got to be doing something either wrong, or inefficiently... although, without access to the source, I really can't say for certain...
But the thought does occur to me, that he is probably mapping strings to multiple strings... I dunno... something like
Movie A Name --> Actor A name, Actor B name, Actor C name
Movie B Name --> Actor A name, Actor B name, Actor D name
Movie C Name --> Actor A name, Actor D name, Actor C name
Movie D Name --> Actor D name, Actor B name, Actor C name
for example, and probably the reverse too... you can see that this has a lot of redundant data in it...
One quick optimisation would be to store those unique strings as objects themselves...
actorA, actorB, actorC and actorD...
and similarly for the movie names... you then create references to the string objects, rather than the strings themselves... this could save a ton of memory where the strings are generally longer than their pointer representation and are copied throughout your data structures?
Am I close mumble?
Remember his new code is fast, but memory hungry,
 so it's not a matter of excessive allocations, it is allocating too much. 
Most people operate in their local currency...
 When the price of their service decreases, because their currency got cheaper relative to yours, their costs generally haven't changed or have gotten relatively equally cheaper.
Demand will increase, and they will actually make more profit than they were before, without changing the price.
Now, depending on the new demand curve, they may in fact be able to make even more money at a higher price... but there is an optimal price for them. 
+3 LOLs...
 Was that one of the pieces equipment you needed to out-optimise Google?
I sure do hope not.
"The fate of the world and the end to American Imperialism lay within these hands, and this lapto... Oh shit".
Like the guy who likes to read but breaks his glasses in that twilight zone. 
See the Q $
 
No... it's a beautiful language, with which no
 other language can compare... in the appropriate domains.
Yeah... it's a lot harder to work with than say Python... but that's because Python is a very high level language, abstracted far away from the hardware it runs on.
C is a high level language too... just no where near as high level as others... when you write C you are almost telling the computer exactly what you want it to do... not quite, but nearly... you have to step down to ASM to get much closer to the bare iron.
This is why I suggest writing in Python... Cause you can deal with high level concepts in Python far easier, and therefore create much more functional code in Python, try out many more things and have far less things to think about (lower cognitive load)... and once you have your algorithms and data structures worked out... and you've squeezed as much as you can out of them, if you still need performance, drop into C for those bits that need to perform... I think this is the most productive way to work. 
I totally agree with you... and I'm a
 Software Engineer...
BUT... when you are constrained by memory, performance, storage, portability and a few other reasons, then you can't afford to use high level languages.
So, think embedded systems, operating systems, real time systems (sometimes you might not want to use C here, sometimes you might use Ada?)...
So, like I said... in certain domains C is one of the best languages ever invented... for everything else, there's Python. 
Yep... this is exactly why David Cameron is retard
 ed...
Fuck that guy... wanting to end free speech because terrorists threaten our free speech... Fucking cunting retard.
Good job! 
Not the US, the UK...
 Prime Minister David Cameron wants to outlaw 'effective' encryption in response to the French Terrorist attacks... because, even though the terrorists were all known, under surveillance at the time and not using any form of encryption, making sure no one else can have secret conversations without government permission will stop this type of thing in the future...
His argument went something like 'Do we want to live in a world where Terrorists can communicate in ways that the Secret Services cannot eavesdrop on them even with a warrant? No!'.
To which I say, "Do we want to live in a world where Terrorists can drink coffee in a Starbucks? Clearly not... so let's outlaw Starbucks"... But no one listens. 
My prediction:
 You're gonna wish you added the periodic state save and restore process again.
Otherwise... congrats on the improvement.
You'll teach those hashlife goofballs sooner or later. 
Keep going!!!
 Get it down to a minute. 
I see... anyway... gonna give you some hints so
 you can go into super optimisation mode. Processing time of a few minutes is just two orders of magnitude away, well within reach.
Firstly... you'll get the best results with fast iterations... so, first thing to do is simplify the task... Use a reduced data file... Something that can complete in under 10 minutes.
Next thing is to use empirical data, not gut feeling. You want to find where your program spends the majority of its time. You need to measure this, and the easiest way to do that is with python's profile module.
I think that's all you'll need... Find where your program spends the most time, or what function gets called the most, and do whatever the hell you can to speed it up.
Best of luck. 
While you can go a long way with just hunches...
 Nothing beats empirical data... measure, measure, measure...
At least it should be worth doing what I said above... then you will be able to say with confidence X% of the time is spent in the 'brain-stem'... etc...
I'd make a small bet that the results will give you insights that your intuition hasn't. 
Told you...
 Now you have a slightly better idea where to do your optimisations... No point in optimising a function that only takes 1% of the time.
Also, use data sets that run fairly quickly, so you can try out ideas and iterate quickly... There are problems with high order functions that are very efficient though... an O(n) function that is slow might take up most of your time on small data sets, but an O(n^3) function that is very efficient will only take up most of your time on larger data sets... anyway... you'll sus that out.
Any insights within the profile results? 
Reasonable return on effort, right?
 Who doesn't enjoy cumtime? Something wrong with you.
One surprise is good... Up to 10% savings by optimising an-output-fn... maybe?
Oh well... at least you got some data to work with now... continue as you see fit.
Have fun. 
Sounds like huge potential there...
 It's all about data structures after all... For example, instead of a plain dictionary, if you doing a lot of searching through it... it might be worth implementing your own dictionary type class that stores everything as a balanced tree... this could potentially reduce your search time from O(n) to O(log(n)).
Still... I don't know the internals of the python dictionary classes, so of course try out ordered dictionaries first and see what improvement you get.
Of course, you've built a reasonable set of test classes so you know that your performance improvements don't create functional regressions, right? Right? If not... make a few quick tests from existing data before you continue.
Also... you might do a whole heap of work and the result is slower... so you've got source control to back up your changes too... right? RIGHT?
LOL... sounds great. 
Well... I usually argue against large rewrites...
 You've got source control... just make sure you've got tests that cover the existing code... and dive into differential improvements.
Use a stable version for running your experiments, and a dev version for doing code improvements.
I don't know the code, so your approach may be the better one... but normally this is unlikely. 
Whatever your most comfortable with $
 
Looking forward to hearing how fast it is $
 
Exactly Right $
 
Oooh... one more idea...
 Can you move this test out of the call?
If the result of the if statement doesn't change between calls, then this should be trivial... just hold a dictionary of string --> bool results...
If the processing changes the result... then you can still do this, just store what you know the new values would be where the program would update them...
Could be huge...
There's no silver bullets here, just a lot of thought, trial and error... but ideas will come. 
Only other suggestion:
 Work on algorithmic improvements as far as possible... One good thing is that you aren't spending a lot of time reading and writing files... Most of your work seems to be in memory data manipulation.
So, just improve the algorithms as much as possible... once you have that as tight and locked down as much as possible... consider porting to C... you could get 100x improvement with this step... But don't do that too early, cause it's generally harder to work with C, and you won't spend as much time considering algorithmic improvements.
Oh... before you do that, you might consider trying cPython... see if automatic compilation to C can get you decent performance improvements.
Finally... depending on your confidence interfacing with Python... instead of completely rewriting in C, try coding just the chunks that you need to in C...
Anyway, just some ideas... best of luck. 
The deep copy results are probably due to the
 underlying code being written in C... the exact same code in Python would likely take up a lot more time. 
Fuck Charlie Hebdo $
 
Only cause they're too weak to say Vous Encule
 Charlie...
All this Je Suis Charlie... it's so easy... Who, besides muslim extremists, will have the balls to say he was a moron who needed to be killed?
Cause, really... it was a handful of dead nutters who killed Charlie... Not the millions of muslims... You can't stop a handful of dead nutters by spying on everyone, monitoring our speech and thoughts, and removing our freedoms... nothing can be done, because they are, by definition, extreme outliers.
TPTB are going to use this event as an pretense to stifle our freedom of speech (at the least)... People will go along with them, in the name of freedom of speech... They won't even realise they are doing it, they are that easily lead... cause while they think they are promoting Charlie's freedoms, no government (under which he was living) ever limited his speech, but they will use this event to limit first Muslim's freedom of speech, then eventually even the Charlie's are going to find themselves watching their tongues... Not from fear of muslims, but from the government.  
Who should?
 Crazy nutters won't ever expat themselves... They are crazy nutters... Why do we need terrorism laws, this was a murder, and the murderers are dead... good... That's justice.
Should muslims expat themselves? No, I don't think so either... If they aren't murdering anyone, then they should enjoy freedom of speech, no matter how stupid and offensive their speech is to us... That's what we're fighting for, isn't it? The right to make offensive speech?
It's not the muslims who are going to fuck us all over and give our rights away, it's all the Je Suis Charlies out there who are going let us be led in that direction... we're going to happily give away our freedoms so we can be (not actuall at all) safer... all in the name of freedom.
No one sees the trap we're walking into.
Just forget the murderers, there will be more, they won't live long either... but how many people died in car crashes that day? Do we care? 
Attn MDC: Big Names Dominate Open Source Funding
Hey MDC, you might be interested in this slashdot article.
Google was the biggest supporter, appearing on the sponsor lists of eight of the 36 groups analyzed.
Good thing you didn't go to work for the biggest supporter of open source software making open source software that could benefit them, cause that's clearly a conflict of interest for them, and it would have been unethical.
Right?
No poll. Nothing. Discuss or not, I don't care... I need to sleep.
If it's like rock, paper, scissors, then isn't it
 GPU beats MDC, MDC beats water, water beats GPU?
Or am I missing something? 
MDC the GOD turned  down a job at Google to pursue
 this lost change in couches business opportunity.
I think that maybe, just maybe, he's put a little bit more thought into it than you. You only just heard of this business plan, versus MDC the genius, who know doubt has put in many hours thinking it through.
If there was a flaw as simple as 'they already look in the couches for lost change' could unravel it, then don't you think a great mind like MDC's would have already thought about and mitigated it?
Go on Michael, put this loser in his place, tell us why he's obviously wrong. Us mortals want to know how you cleverly get around a problem like this that would so quickly stump us. 
You sure you don't mean...
 I have a solution, but I'm too tired to explain it right now... I'll post a diary about it 'Real Soon Now'TM.
or...
I once solved this problem and made a fortune doing it... only I've forgotten what the solution was now, and I'm too tired to remember it. 
No...
 Does it show?
Has my writing become that bad?
I'll get some drugs in the next few days and be back to my old self, don't panic. 
Yeah, I remember that story...
 Isn't that the one he's referring to above? 
Funny you should say that...
 Old meth tits hid a bag full of needles in my clothes drawer once. I'm not sure they were all fresh ones either. I have no idea why she did that.
I do find the occasional crack pipe... and luckily the condoms are at least still in their packets, not used or anything... I save them up, but never get to use them... I haven't met a girl who's refused to go bareback yet.
When I was a young and wealthy contract engineer, I always had coins rolling out of pockets and falling down the couch... An ex used to say the slot machine was paying out again... so I am at least familiar with the concept.
Nowadays I only go searching in the hope of finding a lost bud... but usually am disappoint. 
My Dad's just had his second hip operation...
 I still got a few from the first one... and looking forward to the next lot.
Sometimes it's just a matter of having the right contacts... who'd have thought old infirm folks could be such fun!
I guess if I run out and get desperate I could always knee cap him. 
Wasn't there a guy who made quite a chunk
 running around with a metal detector in the streets of NYC finding small bits of gold, like earrings, other jewellery and stuff?  
Now there's a job MDC could probably do...
 Though I'm sure if he were to think about it, he could find a reason why it's unethical or a conflict of interest or something... probably he'd blame and spam those greedy borkers who buy and sell the things he finds.
Can always blame someone else if you try hard enough. 
Also... please don't use google...
 Greater minds than ours have reasoned it out that it is somehow a conflict of interest or unethical or something...
We know this, cause many questions that could be easily answered with a simple google search often stump our resident genius.
I was going to ask my attorney, but apparently if you have to ask if it's a conflict of interest, then it is.
That's all the logic I need to know. 
Is anyone else worried about LilDebbie?
Has anyone noticed the distinct lack of LilDebbie around here lately?
Quite frankly I'm worried about him. I think he might be dead, possibly from space suicide. With him losing his job, and then making that awful attempt at writing scifi, maybe he's gone into a depressive space spiral, maybe he space killed himself?
Does anyone know him in IRL? Can anyone space contact him, and let him know that although he might have failed in life, that there is still space hope, that he should try and space push on through, and that brighter space days may still be ahead?
I read the first chapter of his book, and goddamn, I was nearly ready to kill myself by the time I got through it, it was that fucking stereotypically awful.
I couldn't imagine what it would do to someone who read the whole thing... They could make it a new form of torture at Gitmo - read this book and we won't rectally force feed you!
Imagine what he must be going through... he didn't just read one of the world's worst examples of scifi... he fucking WROTE it!
I forgot to mention: space poll -->
 Don't space miss out. 
You say that... but your vagina still tingles for 
 me. 
LOL
 I didn't even think to look for a second chapter, so I never realised it wasn't available. I thought the whole thing was available online... I just wasn't going to waste my time waiting for it to become engaging.
Yeah... fair review... though I missed this diary at the time.
Poor Debs... all that sense of superiority wrenched away from him, at such a young age, just by losing the one job he thought he was better at than everyone else.
Maybe one day he'll see the light and realise that government assistance is beneficial, even to those who currently have employment and think they are un-unemployable. 
Oh, so now he's an author, he thinks he's too good
 to hang out with us now?
Well space fuck him then. 
Another K5 user demonstrates Dunning-Krueger...
 It's like DK writ large here. 
Of course money can buy you a healthy liver...
 Not necessarily legally...
And some people have moral problems with it...
And where the free market doesn't work... well, there's always the black market. Lot's of people are happy to volunteer other people's livers for the right price. It's just supply and demand.
So yeah, money can buy you a liver.
Just saying.
Probably want to keep it on the down low if you go this route though. 
A knife can get you sex too...
 Is all I'm saying.
Is that considered P2P trade?
It would be 'a' market... not the 'free' market... only the 'free' market is considered 'right' though. 
Ahhh... yes... this is free market thinking
 that people enter trades voluntarily.
Which means you can't get sex with a knife, and the cheap mafia provided livers are out.
Interestingly, even under free market assumptions (consensual, no externalities) money will still be able to buy you livers... Even though you can't live without a liver, some people would still voluntarily enter into an agreement to trade their liver for a given sum of money... Say, they would lose their life, but they know their children will be well off... free market economics suggests that we should allow these people that option. (So, would you, for example, be willing to give up your life if you new your child would be a billionaire? Some people definitely would).
Again, some 'do gooders' have made laws that say people don't have the right to enter into these contracts, regardless of their own desires. 
Honestly, I'm not 100% sure where I stand on the issue, if people should have the right to sell their livers or not... I'd be happier if there was a good clear mathematical argument why they shouldn't, but there really isn't... it comes down to 'gut feeling'... some arguments about the poor will be exploited by the rich, like that doesn't happen in every single other facet of life... so either the 'gut feeling' is wrong and we should allow it, or we need a better microeconomic model.
With kidneys though, where you can live with just one, I am far more in favour of free market kidney trade, but I know it's not a popular point of view. (still not 100% sure but more like 85%... people will sell their kidneys, spend it all on crack, then need a new kidney, but can't afford one... it does get messy)... 
I wonder if full liver transplants are required though... or if partial liver transplants can ever be used... The liver is one of the best regenerative organs in the body... You can remove like 60% of it or so, and it will grow back to full size and function and be fully healthy in quite a short amount of time.
Given that society has ruled out allowing individuals to freely sell their own body parts*, one thing that seems to work quite well is giving transplant patients priority in the organ queue to those who are themselves organ donors (ie, agree to donate your organs after death, be first in line if you need an organ)... and those who aren't organ donors get relegated to the end of the queue.
That and making organ donation opt-out, rather than opt-in... If you don't want to be an organ donor, you have to go to the government and sign a form saying you won't be an organ donor... whereas in most places it is currently the other way around.
I hear china just uses convicts, they mostly waste their livers by being in prison anyway.
*: The girl sitting next me doesn't even sell her body parts, she merely rents them, and people still judge her and if the police catch her, they'll put her in prison for it... it's a crazy world that doesn't respect the free market, hey? 
You see... when I go to fuck high class porn stars
 I always tell them first that outside of our fucking, I'm going to be masturbating on my own porn stash and be getting blown by low quality crack addicted street walkers on the side.
I always get my fav pimp to double check the arrangement so that I know I'm not going to get unexpectedly pegged... and if everyone's okay with it, I go git her done.
Standard CYA protocols... It's up to the porn star if she still wants to go through with it or not, or if she sees it as a conflict.
Plus, might get a three way. 
You had me going, then howling
 devoting every waking minute to research into economics, physics and mathematics.
ROFL.
What?
Fantasising yes... researching, not so much. 
howl R ur pro grams goin two deel wif teh kindof 
 amber guierties dat use soe ee silly cum prehend?
Thay well knot is howl.
Lonley Neural Networks kan due dat. 
But a formal language cannot do that either...
 so that's not a decent argument. 
He's clearly well into the manic deep end now...
 Not long before he starts handing out essays and they have to arrest him again. 
No, you expect the chickens to come home to roost.
 The same way you should expect your bad actions to come back to haunt you.
Like that cheating whore bitch who's going to wake up in the early hours of the morning to find she's been tied to the bed, doused in gasoline and set on fire... boy will her chickens have come home to roost! 
The Signal to MDC ratio here is approaching zero $
That is all.
I said that is all... fuck you.
Poll -->
It might be a manic phase $
 
Sounds like a classic case of mania $
 
Back into depression $
 
Rape $
 
Starting this site
Been procrastinating with the feed routine with all that meating, on K5 whilst trying to fall asleep between fuckings.
procrasti@keto:~/src/food$ ./food.py
Ingredients: ['tomato', 'cheese', 'snow peas', 'kale', 'mushroom', 'spinach', 'eggs', 'red onion', 'salmon', 'pepitas', 'mince beef', 'lettuce', 'almonds', 'kidneybean', 'brownonion', 'tuna', 'butter', 'milk']
Mins: {}
Maxs: {}
Goals: ['A', 'C', 'potassium', 'carbs', 'calcium', 'iron', 'protein']
Totals: {'A': 0.0, 'carbs': 0.0, 'potassium': 0.0, 'C': 0.0, 'calcium': 0.0, 'iron': 0.0, 'protein': 0.0}
trials: 9999
learning_rate: 4.5173345977
amounts: [0, 110.27983690675595, 111.99121896807983, 0, 336.52388828681825, 33.32157899843512, 0, 0, 0, 10.493562091077022, 427.8018908957401, 0.0010958083669174298, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.00033916011916981716, 0]
outputs: [1.0001155124493069, 1.0000365588067597, 1.0000097610507062, -0.9999856437306759, 0.9999976232224799, 1.000008863119184, 1.401358763406663]
cost: 2.37677752013e-06
cost_grad: [0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, -1.0, 0.1, 0.1]
momentum: [3.554543705276473e-05, 0.00010145489468337417, -2.468993974791064e-05, 0.0002102904398200622, -8.475189655012043e-06, -0.00010434043086608377, 7.511076662787479e-05, 0.00018729039110444717, 8.671454217147657e-05, 0.00013365102748770898, 5.5857421033364335e-06, 2.823201275130819e-05, 0.0003369125250010183, 0.00025228345999460714, 0.00018729039110444717, 0.0002524458720559683, 6.200996965203711e-06, 6.598971850322932e-05]
grad: [7.882539682539683e-05, -0.006071494949494949, 0.0005555858585858586, 0.003088320346320347, -3.8672438672439125e-07, 0.0013789235209235207, -0.0001399971139971139, -0.0004596998556998557, 0.0002781443001443002, 9.925829725829742e-05, 1.500721500721536e-06, 0.0012165396825396825, -0.0026132121212121212, -0.0008288840788840787, -0.0004596998556998557, 0.00026782539682539683, 0.0002491298701298701, -0.0014286002886002886]
Food    Amount  kilojoules carbs   protein  iron    calcium  A     C     potassium 
cheese   110   1859    1     27     4     79     22     0     108    
snow peas 111   168    5     3     17     4     24     80     439    
mushroom  336   309    10     10     9     1     0     13     1056   
spinach  33    32     1     0     5     3     62     15     185    
pepitas  10    237    1     2     8     0     0     0     84    
mince beef 427   4547    0     81     64     21     0     0     1625   
Totals:       7154    19     126    110    109    110    110    3500   
Goals:             -20    90     110    110    110    110    3500   
It's basically the smallest amount of food you can eat ignoring kilojoules, and just satisfying as many of the constraints as possible.
There are lower calorie dites... for example, the spinnach, salmon and cheese diets... but I've decided kilojoules has to be an L2 regressor and adding that next.
It's pretty mad the different diets it can throw up depending on optimisation parameters... say, depending on what you've eaten... or what you wont eat.
I want to add more food... create a website?
Dunno...
I know you're talking about keto in particular
 but, i don't think dieting is ever going to be just a fad or a cult... and lots of people have genuine reasons to be either low on carbs, or sodium or maybe cholesterol or fat... whatever way you decide to optimise your diet, this helps you find food that fits those requirements...
I think there's a market. 
Once again, the conservative, 
 sandwich-heavy portfolio pays off for the hungry investor. 
+3 Insightful...
 I wish I had sockpuppets. 
Yep, I've been following this, and I've studied
 DNNs (Deep Neural Networks) and DBNs (Deep Belief Networks)...
Okay, so, what are DNNs doing, fundamentally... Well... each neuron basically divides the hyperspace into two classes, divided by a hyperplane, call them true and false (for simplicity, neuron on is true, and neuron off is false)... you can have many such divisions, one for each neuron in a layer, these neurons create another hyperspace and another layer can take that as input and carve up the space to form more complex categorisations... all seems good.
Let's drop back to a one dimensional example... let's say we create a few classes, poor, middle and rich... We kind of know that there is a correlation between a persons height and their wealth... it's not so strong as we could imagine here... but let's go with it anyway... and anyway, we're training a probabilistic deep neural network on only one parameter and trying to guess what wealth category a person is in... we're not always going to be right, but we'll be right better than chance because there is a correlation.
Now, our training data is just a giant list of people's heights and their class... we train the neural network and then we ask it some questions...
We say, here's a 4 foot person and the network responds, most likely to be in the poor class... We say, here's a 5'5" person, and the network says most likely to be in the middle class... we say, here's a 6'4" person, and the network says most likely to be in the rich class...
Exactly as we expected... the network appears to be working as designed.... then we run a variant of the above experiment on it, and we try to evolve heights that maximise the confidence of the categorisation of each class...
So... for the middle class... say 5'3" gives the highest probability of the being in the middle class... sweet seems to work... Then we evolve an artificial height for the rich class... and the network says a 700 foot tall human is almost 99.999% likely to be rich... and for the poor class... it produces an image (height) of -200 foot tall person is 99.999% likely to be poor....
Shit... what happened? Well... if you did just linear regression, and you see correlation, you max it out and the taller the person, the richer they were... or in case of classes... the more likely they were to be in the rich class... It's producing an image that's well outside of the training data... the network has never seen such an image, but because all it does is produce dividing lines between classes, it thinks it is well and truly into the rich (or conversely) or poor class... It's a long long way from the dividing lines, so it sees it as good.
And with deep neural networks... well... they have no way at all of telling what is and isn't outside of their training ranges, because all they do is divide up the hyperspace into discriminatory categories with hyperplanes... with no concept of how far or close the different categories have to be to these hyperplanes to be meaningful. And the dimensionality is so high as to be near impossible to create artificial images to act as boundaries...
Now... the above example has three classes with a one dimensional input... so the middle class actually has to be reasonable... but in actual images, this is very unlikely to have a fully enclosed class like this (dimensionality)... so we see yellow school busses have black and yellow lines... the network sees black and yellow lines and says this is definitely a school bus... more school bus than anything I've ever seen!! (We'll, not really, but gives a super high confidence rating for an image that is well outside it's normal training data --- and this is what they mean by neural networks expect the probability distribution of their data to be stationary... this data is well outside the training regime... but DNNs have no way internally of recognising this!).
Now... DBNs are little bit better in this regard... they have a concept of energy or entropy (not to be confused with real energy or entropy as trane thinks, but just a concept borrowed from physics)... When they see a training example, they lower the energy of that point, and raise the energy around it...
If you run the top two layers of a DBN back and fourth... what would the input be, given this state, what would the output state be given this input... it will move into the lower energy states... you can project this backward to the input and it will show you what it is 'thinking' about... it will show you the picture that would produce that state... they are called generative models.
So, by holding the 'this is a 2' neuron high, and oscillating back and fourth, and projecting back to the image input, it will generate many images of things that it thinks are 2s and they will indeed all look like 2s. 
Now... DBNs haven't yet managed to scale to ImageNet levels, so it is conjecture... but because we know that familiar classes, classes in the training set, lie in low energy valleys, and the rest of the possible inputs lie in a high energy plane, it should be possible to distinguish an input as being literally unlike anything it has ever seen... it will naturally have a high energy... and therefore, it should be possible to say that whatever we classify it as... well... is only a guess... we can scale the confidence by the neg-entropy (encoded between the various layers)...
So... DBNs should force such an evolving image creator, pixel level evolution or pixel back propagation image generation to generate images that are much more realistic and therefore DBNs should be much more robust to this type of adversarial image generation than DNNs...
Unfortunately no one has run these experiments yet, as far as I know... Not even on MNIST (the standard mini digit recognition test)... I think if someone can show DBNs only classify digits that we think of as being digits with high certainty, we can show that they are more robust to this problem... but, as I said, no one's yet run the experiment...
Then there's the small problem of scaling DBNs to ImageNet levels of complexity.
That's the best I can explain it in one go... hope that helps. Let me know if you got questions. 
I have a friend who's heavily into this...
 But I don't really understand it...
He talks a lot about 'ontology': "Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations."
So, I'm gonna take that it means the basic categories of being and their relations?
And I'm still like wtf?
Or is it about meaning or knowledge? Not even sure if it encodes stuff like that... what is meaning and what is knowledge, is knowledge just data?
It's seems a bit like xml schema and document, no? Just the type of data and the data in it...
So, how is that different from a relational database?
Is it a format used to encode stuff about a webpage in a machine readable format so google can index it better?
Is it meant for AI to 'understand' the web? Wouldn't it be redundant when we create an AI that can just read the web in natural language (and pics of course!)...
Or is just a another standard people use to make programmable access to the web, just another API like SOAP?
Is it just stuff like accessing amazon's book catalogue through a programmer's interface... or getting a copy or partial copy of their database?
I really don't know enough to be able to say... I just don't get it or what it's about or why. 
Bye Del... It was nice knowing you...
 Hope you enjoy guantanamo. 
That guy looks like he's writing in muslim!
 US please send him to guantanamo before he blows someone up! 
I think sye is a muslim sympathiser...
 You can tell cause she downvoted my comment to lock this obvious muslim terrorist wannabe up.
She's also a foreigner... which means she's likely a muslim terrorist too.
US please lock sye up in guantanamo before she blows somebody up!
Shit's getting dangerous around here. 
I used to be into fantasy role playing,
 bestiality, bsdm and necrophilia... then I realised I was just beating a dead unicorn.
So... sometimes... yes.
You win this round sye... but I got my eye on you. 
It's really scary...
 Everyone's so fallen for the terrorist rhetoric that we have literally become worse than what we are fighting...
Remember the old values of truth, justice and liberty?
No... now it's censorship, spying and torture...
If 9/11 wasn't an inside job, they couldn't have taken greater advantage of it... That was the day the world really lost its freedoms.
Reddit is almost certainly owned by the secret services of the world... judging by their censorship of these proven and important topics... it's no longer in the realm of conspiracy... we know its a fact, but even reddit tries to hide the truth.
I think the biggest danger of reddit is that it appears to be a free and independent alternative news site, run by the people for the people... but in reality it is a tightly controlled propaganda machine... I'm not sure there are decent alternatives (k5?). 
So much foolishness about now days, it's hard to 
 imagine anyone's letting it go to waste. At the rate their going through it, I'm a little worried there won't be any foolishness left to use... but the critics say we're nowhere near peak foolishness yet... so who knows? 
Hey Sye
 Did you hear that HHD is fat and ugly?
Just wanted you to know. 
Yeah, but you agree Christopher was pretty hot.
 Little Chris Dorner sat in the corner, 
Shooting at cops to die,
He stuck out his thumb and pulled out a bomb,
And said, what a good boy am I.
Then they shot him into little Chris Dorner pieces if I remember correctly.
Oh well... at least he gave it a shot. 
I was gonna say... None of my daughters ever made 
 it past a few weeks before a quick trip down the clinic with their mums fixed that little problem.
Phew...
Might have been sons... who knows? I never stayed around long enough to find out.
Byeeeeee!
I just like the way you seem to get riled up by personal attacks against holly... just testing/teasing... teasting you there.
As for the new spending bill... don't know anything about... reddit said 80c in the dollar go to repressing everyone in the whole world!!! Including americans !!11!11one!1... So... sounds pretty good to me.
Carry on. 
If you want to fix the homeless problem, do it!
 Step 1: Get Rich
Step 2: Buy a heap of housing
Step 3: Give it to the homeless
Until you can be bothered actually doing that, how about you STFU about what other people do with their property...
M'kay? 
It's easy to be a little sarc monger... but...
 Do you own a home?
Seriously? Do you own your own house or apartment, or do you rent one? Maybe you get housing benefit and live off the state?
I'll continue once I have an answer from you. 
Sorry... I don't remember saying anything about
 not using taxes to fund social programs...
Where did you get that idea from?
I'm actually all for it... it has good basis even in free market economics, assuming that the average person has utility in not seeing others starve or freeze to death.
But you go on about the evils of property and the free market (PBUI)... but do you practice what you preach? I don't think you do...
You probably have your own home, or at least are paying a mortgage on it, what's stopping you sheltering a homeless person in it? No... the free market (PBUI) is for other people to give up their property to shelter the homeless, not for upstanding citizens like you who deride the free market... you've got your own problems, your own family to look after... you work too hard to risk having unknown people in your house... why can't those greedy rich people give up their places? Some of them aren't even using their properties at the moment...
See... this is the problem... when you deride the free market, you expect other people to give up their property, but for some reason, you expect your own property to have different rules... you actually like your own property rights... you just don't see yourself as being one of the rich people who should be forced to give up something... but believe me... you actually ARE one the rich.
Personally... I live in a one bedroom bedsit... probably far smaller than the home you live in... and probably about 3 days out of any given week you'll find my couch occupied by an actual homeless person... often two... but go on, deride property rights... you're such a progressive. You've clearly thought this through more than I. 
Fair enough... Although progressive income tax is
 part of the solution, I'm gonna keep pushing wealth tax as well... There's a huge difference between income and wealth, wealth is power, income is fleeting... You can earn zero income and be very wealthy indeed, and vice versa too. Of course, the problem with these ideas are political... and who controls politics, the ultra-wealthy elite... not an easy problem to fix.
So you clearly see the problem with strays, they cost property owners. It's not an easy problem to fix then is it? So, it makes sense that property owners have the right to exclude others, even if the property appears 'unused' to those who naively see an empty building. Other people, who have no stake in the property can still do damage and diminish its value. Why should the building owners have to pay for that?
So, whilst I'm all for social programs and taxes... I don't think mocking the free market is the solution... Often the 'free market (PBUI)' is an excuse to avoid paying for negative externalities (privatise profits, socialise costs), but I'm not talking about that, and it's basically a strawman in a rational discussion... though you do so this line of argument (that this is the free market, and it's all good) often amongst those who stand to profit the most from it... It's not the argument of the economist though. 
If you'd actually been following along
 You'd have known that I believe the way forward is wealth tax and basic income... I believe this is well supported by free market theory.
You're attacking a strawman... and I would have thought you'd attacked it, and had it rebutted, often enough to see the mistake your making... but apparently not.
I'll repeat it one more time for you - I'm for a well regulated free market capitalistic economy, regulated to provide true information of products, adjusted for the existence of natural monopolies (these are subsidised, surprisingly enough), adjusted for the existence of negative externalities through pigouvian taxes (I support a carbon tax) and for the existence of positive externalities through pigouvian subsidies (education, health, justice, fire, roads and police should be subsidised by the state) with a wealth tax and basic income to provide for the effects of wealth concentration and inequality that will be increasingly driven by the advancement of technological capital capabilities replacing labour, plus disability and other benefits for those socially disadvantaged or who have needs beyond the mean.
But go ahead... take the piss with your simplistic "free market (PBUI), jesus wants your oil" caricature of actual free market theory. Perhaps you would sound less like an idiot if you took a more nuanced view of the problems and stop painting me as a Libertarian nutcase. (Although I do consider my self a libertarian - just not the thoughtless "drill baby drill" or "let them eat cake" Libertarian). 
Are you serious?
 I have immediate use for cocaine, bitches and I'm gonna go with a lamborghini of some sort... yep... that's my personal immediate needs... oooh... and a super yacht... gotta use one of them...
And... I think I'm gonna contribute to society by driving my lambo around and sailing my yacht.
You think this is going to get us to mars?
I really do wish more people had a basic understanding of free market economics... it really does make sense... and not free market (PBUI) but a properly regulated free market, one corrected for externalities and imperfect competition... one where taxes and redistribution are applied properly...
But, everyone's scrambling in the dark, being led by politicians who have been corrupted by the greedy, wealthy elite, pushing disinformation and twisted economic thinking... when the light switch is available to anyone who cares to study.
Oh well... such are humans. 
No YUO!
 aRe 
No, seriously...
 You are one of the biggest retarded faggots on here when it comes to economics... you literally know absolutely nothing of the subject... yet you know it's "wrong" and that you would do it all differently, except you don't... you're a mid level cock sucking manager, following along with the herd acting in every single way exactly as the free market would predict... yet - omg free market sucks, I wish I was in communist russia working in the gulags cause I wouldn't do a fucking days work except because they pay me.
Go suck your bosses dick you piece of shit good for nothing shit for brains asshole. 
Fair enough... I should have known...
 greengrass is right this time...
But... I'm gonna claim poe's law on this one. 
Don't do it!!! It's a trap...
 He reels you in with promises of free lunches, gifts and prizes, but by the time he's done with you, you've a bought a bunch of useless timeshares in a cloud computing service!!!
STAY AWAY! 
Yeah... I suppose I just don't really believe in
 it.
I never really have... on the other hand... I think it's still worth other people investigating... so I don't want to put too much of a dampener on you...
It's the kind of thing I'd like to debate here (well maybe old days here) with multiple points of view and such... but I don't see the value in debating you privately... I might turn you off it, and yet, it might actually be one part of the puzzle... I'm just not so sure.
That's about the best I can put it for now. 
read and replied. $
 
The British Scare the Fuck Out of Me
Okay, I can kind of understand why the Brits don't understand the right to arm themselves... Guns are scary, there can be blood and gore and yuck... it upsets their tea and crumpets, and besides, the local bobby is pretty nice, he'd never hurt anyone who doesn't deserve it, he knows how to keep the CHAVs in line, so we'd never have to defend ourselves... and everyone loves David Cameron and his big goofy smile, and ooh look the queen, wave children... we'd never want a revolution.
But it seems to me the british don't care for their right to free speech either. It's the british thing to hold your tongue, only say what is correct, and to defer to your superiors.
I have two examples... Firstly, trolling in the UK is now illegal. Here's our not so little clockwork orange apologising for all the nasty things she said. This fat scrunt made a reasonably attractive and successful feminist feel a little upset... the fucking monster!! Let this be a lesson to you fat shaming misogynists who pick on defenceless feminists... especially you ulgy fat fucking female fat shaming misogynists... you're just the worst!
And I'd like to point you to this reddit post about a woman jailed for "supporting terrorism" oh noes! It surprises me that so many people support her being locked up... for EXPRESSING HER OPINION!! Seriously? You might be able to read my comments if you haven't set your hidden comments threshold too low.
I thought freedom of speech was a pretty universal concept, maybe outside of china and north korea... but here we see the British have no tolerance for free thought and expression.
I guess that explains HHDs low threshold for being trolled... Being mollycoddled in her safe space by Big Aunty, free from having to hear things that some people might be offended by... she's stuck her fingers in her ears and now all is right with the world. Unfortunately I'm not in a jurisdiction where she could have solved her problems by locking me up... ignorance will just have to do.
Seriously Brits, if this is what you have become - GO KILL YOURSELVES! I hope a terrorist blows you up on a bus.
You can lock me up, but you can never take my freedom (of speech!).
The people posting and voting on reddit
 seem like a mob out of 1984... all yelling at their telescreens down with Emanuel Goldstein... I mean Runa Khan!
KHAN!!!
They've become that fucking stupid, they don't know the difference between speech and action. 
She has me on blasterbegone...
 Either she has a low troll threshold, or I am a master troll, king of the trolls, ruler of the troll universe. 
I called the dumb cunt whore a bitch...
 That's why she banned me...
Pretty fucking low trolling threshold if you ask me. 
ok...
 Though I didn't say offended... I just said the dumb cunt whore bitch has a low tolerance for trolling and has put her fingers in her ears to avoid the truth.
She's probably the type of idiot that supports locking up trolls and 'those who support terrorism'.
I hope a terrorist blows her up on the bus if she doesn't kill herself first. 
No it isn't...
 UK produced online porn can no longer contain images of face sitting or female squirting... and a handful of other consensual acts.
Which is bad enough...
But they haven't gone so far as to outlaw cunnilingus (not even in porn as far as I know).
When I was still in the UK, about 7 years ago, I tried explaining to people how wrong it was of the government trying to outlaw simulated violent or risky, but consensual, sex acts in online porn, I used to get the dirtiest looks, like I was trying to defend child porn or something... people just don't understand the concept of freedom.
A UK ex of mine was a genuine squirter... Only one I've ever known... I'm sure she'd be offended. It's a perfectly natural part of some people's sexuality. 
You're such a fucking tampon...
 I mean, you're a bloody stuck up cunt! 
The top comment is about a guy having sex with a
 dude with breasts... I mean, how can 'she' have a dick? That's just wrong. If 'she' can put her dick in you, then it's a he! You're being fucked by a guy! You're just a normal gay dude, deal with it.
I don't think no-op trans counts as trans... Any guy can put on a dress and get breast implants... it takes balls to get a full nip and tuck. 
People go to hell in a hand basket...
 Not go to hell in one bucket...
When they kick the bucket, they can go to hell in a hand basket.
See? Simple.
Please learn to English. It's not the tard. 
Maybe that's why they seem to make so many bad
 decisions... Someone should tell them that the US constitution is written in English, not Chinese or Chinglish.
Confucius say, he has gun has light to be arms. 
My emu's for petting, not eating.
 Though I've tried kangaroo, emu and croc... all pretty much taste of meat... all good. 
Yeah dude...
 I call him featherfoot... (Aboriginal medicine man).
He's actually a bit of a nightmare... Took me a long time sitting near him to get him comfortable enough to eat out of my hand, then we put food closer to the house, then eventually coaxed him into the garden.
Problem is, his mood changes are seasonal... So, normally he's fine... but when it comes to mating season he becomes aggressive... He attacked my mum (kicked her on the back of the leg) when she went to feed the chickens... and he'll chase the kids too (and could probably do a lot of damage).
He's got a tiny bird brain though... so... if you walk away from him, he'll think it's a good idea to chase and attack... if you turn and run (or even just walk) towards him, he'll run a mile... I confused the fuck out of him by running backwards at him... How is he getting closer while running away from me??? Do I attack or run???
Anyway, we don't feed him anymore (there's plenty of food about he can forage for) but we leave some water around for him so he can drink when it's too hot... he still comes around by the house, but just don't encourage it... the kids still love the sight of him though.
Oh, one last thing, I'm pretty sure he's mastered quantum teleportation... cause he gets into paddocks all the time, but we've never seen him get over a fence... only answer is he quantum tunnels through the fences when nobody's watching. 
Street geologist is out of jail and sleeping on my
 couch again.
We shot up some rock... well... quartz to be precise... pretty much like doing meth, but without all the high and skin picking. Kind of like rolling oregano went you can't get weed... the ritual or something.
Otherwise pretty boring. 
She does...
 She just makes them into recycled vegetarian "meat" patties and distributes them to the poor.
"People give a shit!" - Lauren Singer 
Sorry dude...
 I got the password, I just can't remember where to log in? 
Yep...
 I've replied...
As I said... it's a bit beyond me... but show me what you have, can spend an hour or two looking over it. 
WTF is the privileged white feminist complaining
 about?
Can anyone fill me in here? 
You tell us... $
 
I only eat fish because scientist now assure me 
 that they can suffer pain and fear.
Are there any vegetable sources that could enable nutritional ketosis?
This means you need a vegetable source that provides roughly 3g of protien for every 1g of carbohydrates at the most! Does any such source exist?
If not, then what do you do about people like mirko who have medical conditions that require it? They should just suffer? 
Can someone pass on a message to this retarded 
 bitch that we're primarily a bunch of trolls here and that she should stop taking getting trolled so fucking personally?
Or hasn't she caught on yet? 
This looks like a great idea...
 Takes a lot of energy to make a brick... this seems the perfect solution, recycled waste and ready to hand materials that a community can easily make... could easily be streamlined and mass produced from recycled materials.
Once plastered, rendered and painted you can't tell it apart from a traditional brick house... seems great.
I'm not a civil engineer, I have no idea how these compare to bricks in terms of strength, durability... what the effects of temperature change and loads have on them... you probably couldn't build a multi-story complex out of them... but the single floor housing / community centre / shelter in remote poor regions, looks like a perfect fit.
I expect these will be the new hippy construction material alongside straw bail builds in first world countries.
It's not going to solve first world homelessness though... as tdillo pointed out, land is probably the limiting factor there. 
If someone owns them, they are not unused...
 by definition. You have no automatic right to other people's property.
If they could maximise profit by getting them rezoned and repurposed as cheap residential use, then they would.
If they are unused, and they are just sitting on the land because it is cheap, maybe we could discuss how a wealth tax could be used to encourage this... but you wouldn't want to be 'mean' to the owners when you can just take it for free now, would you?
In the meantime, squatters are of course free to use adversarial occupiers rights until a court / sheriff (I think that's how it works in the US) orders them out. I believe that adversarial improvement can also work in a squatters favour. Do that long enough, and they can own the property (this is true in the UK at least). 
Well you're wrong three times...
Inflation will occur - learn to model free trade first (potato farmers and tomato farmers for the most basic model).
An index doesn't fix it - so, see todo on point 1.
What MCD said.
How many times has your bullshit been debunked?
 And you still keep posting it...
Your index leads to ever increasing purchasing power, irrespective of the availability of resources. It is not sustainable or realistic.
Thermodynamics doesn't describe the motion of atoms, it doesn't describe the photoelectric effect, it never predicted quarks... it isn't the grand unified theorem of everything... it just describes the limits on energy... that's the only place it applies, it just describes this one very small aspect of physics... that just happens to hold true everywhere we've ever looked where it is applicable.
To break thermodynamics is literally to create energy out of nowhere... no one's done that since the big bang... and even that is debatable.
Your economics is even worse.
The way you argue is like the logician's wife... 
For example, given the premise, "all fish live underwater" and "all mackerel are fish", my wife will conclude, not that "all mackerel live underwater", but that "if she buys kippers it will not rain", or that "trout live in trees", or even that "I do not love her any more." This she calls "using her intuition". I call it "crap", and it gets me very irritated because it is not logical.
... I call it "crap", and it gets me very irritated because it is not logical. 
Your index scheme is a joke...
 Let me refer you to where you last failed.
Unless you believe in ever increasing consumption independent of available resources... or state that explicitly.
Your bull shit story... sorry,, I mean, ox weighing story, is an example of what economists call the wisdom of crowds... It is the basis of the stock market and the free market in general. It's how prices are set... everyone taking their own little utilities and guess at prices into account and shifting the market by altering supply and demand. It's exactly why the free market works so well.
Everything else you talk about is purely your ignorance... you don't understand the processes being discussed, so they look like free energy and magic to you... but they are not.
And whilst thermodynamics doesn't stop you printing more money, the effect of more money is a greater supply of money, which makes money cheaper, which means you need more of it for the same value of goods... this is generally called inflation. And using an index means you can't print more index... otherwise you need to index your index and so fourth. 
Students of ancient greek philosophy
 should not be attempting physics from first principles on their own.
Physics is not a toy, please ensure responsible adult supervision at all times. 
It's even worse than that... because we use AC
 they don't even send them for a whole lap around the circuit before asking for them back... in fact, (I can't be bothered doing the maths, but a rough estimate) they only send their generated electrons a few parts of a MILLIMETRE from their generators before sucking them back up again.
Hey, here you go, that electron you wanted... lol, only jokes, I'm keeping it, you can't have it!
They don't even let you borrow their fucking electrons they're that tight assed with them... and they have the gall to charge us money for their so called electricity... and we all know by now that money, thermodynamics and electricity are just a scam designed to keep us kissing the Fed's asses.
Basic Electrons for everyone! Invest in 3D electron printers... End the curse of thermodynamic scarcity! 
Best explanation I saw of this was our physics
 lecturer (he was great at doing physical analogies)... A long clear platic tube with coloured liquid in it... pour some other liquid in one end, liquid pours out the other. The liquid doesn't move fast, but the effect is nearly instant (speed of sound in this case)...
Electrons (in a wire) move very slowly, on the order of centimetres per second or less. 
Now I get Del's earlier comment $
 
LOL... I agreed with you, up until the last part.
 As for basic income and no min wage, I agree, this would be better. I just think basic income needs to be paid for and, as you already know, I think a wealth tax is the ideal way to pay for it. You probably need to adjust income and capital gains taxes too.
Inflation is a problem in itself, at least too high a rate of inflation... if you're burgers cost $20 because they are 20 times more expensive than bread, then fine... if they are $20 because inflation is causing their price to double every few months, problems. I also don't think you can sustainably have an unlimited government debt.
As an aside, benefits like free store credit aren't that great an idea... whole towns use to be owned by single companies, and you got paid in company credits, so you could only buy from the company store, live in company housing, etc... you see the problem.
Now... as for not telling american's what to do... I disagree... Not because I think europeans should be telling americans how america should be, but because many of the problems america has would apply exactly the same in europe or australia... actually... you can imagine an ideal government/society, and that would almost certainly be the same if you were american, european, chinese, or african. Each of our cultures has its unique problems, sure, but that's because each one is its own experiment... and also, for example, there are many europeans who think that american style gun rights would make sense for europe, and many americans who think european style gun control would make sense for america... so these debates are still relevant, independent of where we are from or currently living. 
Probably no min wage cause price of burgers to
 drop... with no food stamps, walmart prices might rise... if employees weren't forced to provide health insurance... probably a lot of sick employees.
Some things should be subsidised... farming, health, education, basic income... these may affect the prices of burgers, in which way, depends on the specifics.
Well... I'm not american, I have my opinions on basic income, min wage, drug prohibition, gun control, spying... and I have those opinions pretty independently of where I am... The US usually makes a lot of easy example cases... but they apply equally anywhere else, at least in the western world...
I think the main reason you don't troll the chinese, is that you don't speak chinese. It seems you do have an opinion on pollution and running civilians over with tanks though regardless. 
Prices are a signalling mechanism that show the
 relative ratios of supply and demand across all things...
They have to be flexible to work... The price of computer ram changes, the price of oil, the price of bread and the price of labour.
As a store owner, I want to maximise my own profit, and fuck you, and that is the right way because it actually (pareto) maximises utility for everyone... So, just because I raise the price of bread, doesn't mean I'm going to pay my employees more.
Even if they were both indexed, if I can raise the price of bread relatively to what I pay employees, I will... then how the fuck is your index going to work, cause it's attached to the price of bread?
These indexes don't 'work', they are a stop gap, work around at best... if they worked... THEY WOULD BE MONEY THEMSELVES!
Because there is no such thing as a global index saying how much things SHOULD cost... because what they should cost depends on supply and demand, and that's it. 
Do you even see the contradictions you are writing
 here?
The problem with you is that you are trying to apply macro-economic principles when you don't even agree (or understand) with the micro-economic principles behind them. This is exactly the situation you have where you misunderstand current in quantum electronics (photoelectric effect) because you don't understand the principles behind classical electronics.
Here's one contradiction - If the price of oil falls, people spend less as a percentage of their income on it, but if the price of oil goes up, they don't have to spend more, because INDEX... you can't see how seriously fucked up this is? Either they spend less when it goes down and more when it goes up, or they spend the same when it goes down and the same when it goes up, you can't have it both ways.
And you talk about purchasing power from income... even with an indexed basic income, someone getting wages will lose purchasing power if the price of everything goes up, but his wages don't.
Do you even know how inflation is measured? It's the price of a basket of goods... what you include in that basket has a huge effect... are you going to include bread, oil maybe... you could just make it the price of a 1957 megabyte of ram... imagine how the fuck that would work out... indexing your wages to that fucker... remember what I told you about the relative values of ram over the years?
What you are trying to do is make the total value across the economy of your index equal a constant... which is fine, that could be done... but you can't then just print index money (because you've already decided to somehow make it a constant)... you can only redistribute it... so if you give it to one group, where is it coming from? That's exactly the effect of inflation... if you give money to everyone as basic income to maintain their purchasing power, it comes from whoever was holding it before hand in inflation, their dollar savings become worth less...
You really have to go back to micro-economics, model that, and realise that the law of supply and demand applies to money just as much as it applies to apples and oranges.
You're in over your head... Trying to jump to macro-economics without understanding the fundamentals of micro is like trying to understand quantum electronics without understanding classical electronics. 
I'm not hand waving, it's that you're a fucking
 idiot...
Price of oil goes down, you can buy more of it, price goes up, you can by just as much, goes down, you buy even more, price goes up, you keep buying the same amount...
You've got a model in which you can go on buying only more and more of stuff, never have to buy less... regardless of realities how much is actually available.
THIS IS FUCKING MADNESS on the level of MORE ELECTRONS IS MORE POWER.
Please STFU... you're too fucking stupid or unwilling to understand this stuff, please leave economics and physics to the adults. You're not worth talking to until you've passed microeconomics and a basic electronics course... go fuck yourself retard. 
I like UBI. It's not a bad idea,
 but it's a fucking shame that K5's resident UBI advocate is an economically illiterate, free energy and anti-scarcity fantasist, and complete fucking moron.
He makes the idea look like a joke. 
Dude... my laptop runs Vista Home Basic...
 When it updates, it gives you the ability to postpone it like old versions did... but only for 24 hours... then the reboot is forced...
Okay, it's usually enough for me to save documents and prepare... but it's annoying as hell...
Like you said it might be a reasonable presumption, but taking control out the hands of the user is a major UI no no. 
Yeah... I agree...
 I should have said usually a major no no... as in, you would normally weight that high in UI consideration, but stupid average user might rate higher...
I just want the option to delay the reboot until I'm done... but not gonna happen... and I suppose there's a setting somewhere that I could set... but I can't be arsed right now...
Had to spend an hour and half trying to convince a paranoid crack head meth dealer to pass on a message to meth tits over the police turning up and all that shit... I'm tired. 
Keep searching for why the computer rebooted...
 but, as I mentioned before, it is well worth looking into a snapshot/checkpoint process...
A program that runs for 3 days can probably afford a few minutes to save the program state every three hours or so.
You should look into pickle. It is python's serialisation library, which makes saving arbitrary object graphs relatively easily.
pickle.dump(obj, file)
obj = pickle.load(file)
Checkpoint routines should be an integral aspect of any long running process... precisely because of situations like these. It's worth investing the time into them, and maybe even a little bit of optimisation.
Good luck.
Oh... and I probably won't work on this project... I don't know what it is... it might interest me, but probably not... Ants for me would be relatively easy work (I already understand the framework/principles), plus with the payoff of having an android app would make it worth while... If you were doing neural networks and/or Q learning, then that too... but I can't think of much else I'd be into right now...
If you still think it might be up my alley, send an email to my k5-stats.org address... let me know, and I'll log in and have a read.
Best. 
Alright, I'll get around to this in the next week
 or so... I got to boot up my other laptop, bootup the linux vm, run the password decoder, then I can check my email... lol... sorry about that. 
Sorry...
 Reset it to what? You wanna trust other kurons won't get in there before me? I'm still gonna have to use that decoder program, and that still means booting up my other laptop.
I actually prefer the other laptop, it has 8G ram in it, and this replacement one only has 4G (the advert said it's upgradable to 8, but there doesn't appear to be another available slot!) which gets slow with a hundred tabs open... but that was the laptop that that girl fed beer to last christmas... I replaced the motherboard, but the screen no longer works, nor the mouse... I have to VNC into it...
I got a new desktop machine with 16G, faster CPUs and a reasonable GPU, and I'll move most of the stuff over to that... but I only got that on Sunday.
So, sorry for the delay, but that's where I'm at. 
What, you think I owe people my attention?
 The desktop machine only just arrived, I got it so I can try out theano for GPU optimised neural network implementations...
It's got large enough hard drive to move all my stuff onto... which is part of the plan anyway...
I set that machine up, so the mouse, monitor and space I was using for the old laptop are now taken...
I'll get to it in time... and I put a limit on that, which was generous enough that I'm more than likely to hit early... ie, managing customer expectations or deliver more than you promise.
I've been putting a lot of focus into diet and exercise lately, and that's taking some of my time... to eat correctly, prepare food and get all my nutrients within my calorie budget.
I just had the police at my front door, cause meth tits has gone AWOL and is at risk of losing her child until he turns 18... I didn't tell the police other people's names... cause that's not how we roll... so I'm doing the polite thing and trying to get in contact with them myself... So, excuse me if I have other priorities...
And finally... have you taken a close look at my k5 handle? Any hints there dude? Procrastination isn't a subconscious avoidance of doing what is necessary or promised for me... it's a deliberate conscious decision, an entire way of life.
I used to always be the last to post in diaries here... but no one seemed to get the joke. 
If you were commenting on the 100 tabs thing
 that's normal for me, always has been... 20 windows with 20 tabs isn't unusual... It's not that I am using them all at once... I usually have 1 window per activity... so this is my k5, reddit and slashdot window for example... another for bitcoin, trade tracking software (that I wrote), localbitcoins, coinjar, bitcoin prices, and news... another window for neural networks... one for diet... one for guitar tabs... one for social media and email... you get the idea...
I'm not using every window all the time, or even every tab in a window all the time... I got a load of reddit stories open that I'm interested in but haven't read yet... for example.
If the software can do it, I push it... On a 8G laptop, it all fits in memory reasonably enough... on this piece of shit (with Windows 8 memory hog too) the majority of main memory is on the hard disk... so swapping becomes a problem... and I have to restart chrome... I have lazytab plugin that loads tabs on demand, rather than eating up my mobile internet every time I restart and also using up all my memory... I find it pretty damn useful way of managing my browsing. 
No, I specifically meant optimising serialisation.
 So, that you can do your checkpoints more frequently.
You should have a good idea of what variables make up the state of your process... if you can have a single object that holds your entire state, even better... then just write a checkpoint and a restore function that uses pickle. Call the checkpoint function every few hours of wall time, or every N iterations or datapoints processed, % complete or whatever makes sense.
If you aren't using pickle now when saving the output (is this the state by any chance?), then chances are pickle will be much faster... cPickle even faster than that.
Seriously, it should be so straight forward, it won't take you a day to implement... do it in parallel to the current run on a test dataset, then give it a go.
It's much nicer knowing that you can abort the process, then carry on from the last checkpoint without losing very much... it should become a habit with processes like these.
I do similar things when training neural networks. 
The line number you are up to is actually part of
 the process state... even if it's not part of the output state (or result) (cause then the line number is implicit)... you have to capture these too... even if you have to create a new object like MyProcessState, and initialise it every time with references to all the required data it should be trivial... it's not very hard, and I have faith in you.
For restoring, you can take a command line argument to the checkpoint file... if you include all the other relevant command line options (input data file, etc) in the saved state, then you won't have to provide these on a restore.
You'll find having checkpoints can come in handy during optimisation too... if the process is half way complete, and you find an optimisation that runs in 70% of the time... you get a win by stopping the current process and using the optimised code for the last part... whereas you wouldn't get the benefit otherwise. 
Also, it almost never makes sense to rewrite...
 though we all think everything should be rewritten, it usually never has the payoff we expect.
You should have test code by now, a good idea of data structures and control flow, etc...
Refactor, profile and optimise is almost always preferable. 
Add it anyway...
 It's good practice for your next long running process. 
It's people like this that get me trolling and 
 banned from dating websites.
sud? da fuq dus dat meen? 
This has to be one of the stupidest rules
 they have.
It's a dating website, what the fuck do you think I am here for? To start a sexless marriage with someone? wtf?
As my late gf used to say, a piece of wisdom I carry with me, 'start as you wish to continue'... sage advice. 
Yeah, thanks...
 She was a true gem... had her faults, but don't we all... but loyal, caring, intelligent, artistic, funny and sexual... not at all like the selfish sluts I've been interacting with since... (well, since I came back to my home town... I had plenty of opportunities with the girls who were our mutual friends before she passed, and they were also pretty cool - but having to re-establish a social circle and all that... let's just say, it's been interesting).
She passed 3 years ago last week*. First year was horrendous, I cried nearly every day... Second year I was still pretty depressed, but not so emotional... Third year still not very motivated, but grown used to the new reality I suppose, I can handle sleeping on my own, actually enjoy my own space, I laugh, have fun, get exercise... Those selfish sluts did serve their purpose (they weren't all bad, just not the same quality).
Third anniversary of her passing was hard, but didn't move me to tears, just a very sad thing, not the end of the (my) world anymore.
*: Actually, just noticed you commented in that one... My dad gave me good advice when I got back home, he said, one of the hardest things to deal with is that everyone will forget and move on much faster than you will... Just one of those things you'll have to accept. 
Well... that might be a bit of hyperbole...
 Though they were all mostly meth and heroin addicted street walkers and prostitutes... I dunno... I just kind of fell in with these group of women... maybe because I was someone they could talk too? They kept me company, I gave them somewhere to shower and sleep, to be safe and warm, and somewhere they weren't judged, I suppose...
Had a lot of fun, free sex, strip shows, drugs, sometimes drama, sometimes laughter... sometimes jealousy, and then other times set me up with their friends... has been a weird time...
I think maybe, misery loves company... and at that point maybe my life was fucked on a similar level (but different way) to theirs... difference is my problems were kind of more temporary... theirs continues on.
I dunno... selfish slut is a reasonable description for someone who charges $450/hr for a porn star experience (which is just a euphemism for anal, but whatever)... 
Well... although they were working girls...
 I never paid them for sex... so I never got that empty feeling that I was buying their affection... it seemed genuine to me.
And actually, it never bothered me they were sleeping with other guys, cause I felt that cause they were getting paid for it, it was meaningless to them...
Odd... I know... I wouldn't have even thought that of myself until it happened.
Though I didn't feel like I owed them any exclusivity either... after all, I didn't get it... but at least with one girl, I was getting so much sex between her jobs that I wouldn't have had the energy to fuck any of the others... we barely had time to eat!
There was a lot of drama and jealousy and strange infighting between them every time I changed girls... but that was just part of the dynamic... like I said, strange times.
I actually kicked them all out about three months ago after one of the girls came around with this super strong meth and I spent 5 days and nights sitting in my chair wide awake from just a few minutes puffing off a pipe...
I had two other girls there... one with extremely nice legs and ass showing them off to me, and another on the floor flashing her pussy the whole time.
But I just felt like it was a bad trip, I realised I'd spent two and half years not accomplishing much... I decided it was time to normalise myself again... and had a bit of a fear that if I kept hanging round them, I might actually get into the drug (although I wouldn't say it was enjoyable)... and there's no way I could function like that, so addiction to it would just be the end of me. That was the fear I had... maybe ironically, that was paranoia caused by the drug?
The girl flashing her pussy wanted to blow me, but I just didn't feel like it... like she was too messed up to take advantage of... and so, I haven't seen any of them for about 3 months now... except the chick who gave me the meth (everything's always back to front)... but she looked like she was fucked up (scabs everywhere that meth addicts get from picking, that she tried to tell me were mosquito bites)... I told her to blow me and fuck off, so she was only here for the day about a month ago.
There's about three I actually do miss, a couple more I consider friends, but everyone's kind of scattered now (moved to different towns/cities... at least one in prison... the porn star... who knows)... I just think more normal people might be more my thing for a while at least. 
Although it might sound like it,
 I'm neither sex obsessed or a drug addict... it was just how it happened with these girls...
As for drugs, I've tried most of them a few times, but never been addicted... except for tobacco... and I smoke a reasonable amount of weed... but none in the last couple of weeks... I can take it or leave it... but if I can afford it and it suits my mood, I'll smoke.
Also, I'm not unemployed or on welfare... I wrote a trading program that keeps me fed with little effort, so I got a lot of free time, probably why I attracted these girls... cause their hours are odd and also have a lot of free time and no conventional jobs.
Still... not making a load of money, so considering going back to work next year. 
Well, I'm Australian, we don't have gun rights
 either...
Although, having access to a farm, I personally do have access to rifles and shotguns.
It was a bit of a piss take, of course, at the time there were those shootings, and Holly was literally being irrational about the whole thing... basically abusing statistics... so it was a poke at the english pov.
Personally, I'm not 100% sure either way... I don't think owning a thing is the problem, it's how you use it... I can murder with a knife too. I also think the argument against government tyranny is a good one, maybe the polite society angle and especially the right to self defence. (You will be refused a gun license in Australia if you claim self defence).
On the other hand, when I was in America, some homeless guy threatened to shoot me, and I considered it a credible threat... and after a night out drinking, I was a passenger being driven somewhere, and someone cut us off, so I leaned out the window, pulled the finger and shouted some expletives, and everyone was like, what the hell are you doing, they could have guns?
So... sometimes, it's nice to know when I'm down the street pimping that I'm not likely to get shot, and being a reasonably tall and fit bloke, I don't fear getting into a fight... but I think if I was smaller or a woman I would like a handgun for protection... many of the girls carry knives, screw drivers or hammers instead... and that just doesn't seem to be as effective.
All up, I like the American constitution (as it is written, not necessarily as it is implemented), I think it's a fair right for people to have... I think misusing a weapon should carry a very harsh sentence. Also, I'm not so naive to think that actual criminals in either Australia or Britain don't have handguns... I've been offered them in both countries, and know where to source them... but I have access to legal weapons and use them for legal purposes, but I'm privileged, so it's not really a personal issue for me. 
I think the real cause of violence in inner cities
 is drug prohibition.
Lack of jobs and options, combined with the lure of lucrative easy money from dealing drugs leads many into drug gangs... Being illegal, the only available recourse for bad deals is violent retribution... this also leads to turf wars and heavily armed thugs killing people.
I've seen documentaries where no one in the public wants to talk to the police, because the police have become the enemy, so this stuff goes unpunished...
Legalise the drugs, you'll bring the police back into the community and lower gun violence.
Then people can continue their right to responsibly own arms.
The samurai model, where you had a special class with special privileges, who were allowed to own arms and pretty much do as they pleased, is exactly why I think every person should have the right bear arms. 
I bet that didn't stop them getting laid...
 or even the occasional bit of rape here and there... I mean, they were only peasants after all.
Didn't the whole karate thing start there? Peasants weren't allowed to have arms, so they found a way to defend themselves either open handed, or with slightly modified farm equipment? 
Zoosk rejected so many of my profile attempts:
 (Paraphrasing): Satanist seeking sexy sluts, sex workers, single mothers and schizophrenics for telepathic ritual sex...
Your profile update has been rejected for being inappropriate
You:
 Not Curvy.
 Under 30.
 Not a single mother.
 Not a religious freak.
 Want sex not friendship.
Your profile changes have been approved
Except, when I go to read it, it says:
You:
 Good looking.
 Athletic.
 Must be looking for friendship.
WTF?
I try again, and add to the bottom of it:
IF ZOOSK KEEPS FUCKING UP MY PROFILE I'M GONNA CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION.
Your profile changes have been approved
Finally...
So, after a few "hello's", "nice eyes" and "hi sexy's" with no replies, I send "Can't you type you ugly fat cunt" to some chick, and my account gets throttled... even though I'd actually started a few pretty close connections with a few girls by being rude... cause they always defend themselves, but once they start talking they're invested and you can leverage that.
So, I cancel my subscription, and then a day later, they lock my account out completely. Now they won't even answer my support requests... and I still had 4 months left on the current subscription!
It's like these websites are run by castrated males, white knights, beta's or even ugly fat feminists with an agenda.
Why are they dictating how people interact? It's like enforcing beta behaviour on men... if being rude doesn't work, the women can block the guys and the sexual market place will sort itself out, but no... it's not enough to be what the women you are chasing would want, you have to be what the owners of the website want you to be too...
I got into a few interesting discussions there saying that it was quite likely I was missing out on the type of girls who may have been in the same situation as me... and forced to write boring drivel like 'Looking for a nice man, who wants to take walks on the beach', instead of 'Seeking six foot tall stud with six pack for strange sex'... so it's really desexualising everybody... and forcing everyone into this weird 'nice guy/girl' behaviour when we aren't looking for that.
These are the girls that start messaging you every day, and planning when they can get some free time to come visit. 
Yeah, I dunno... an ex recommended zoosk to me
 years ago... so I thought I'd give it a try... I actually had a fair few connections on there (but no dates)... so losing them was the big disappointment... maybe 'fat ugly cunt' was a bit over the top... but a ban seemed disproportionate...
So, I signed up to POF when that happened... but I haven't actually started using it... spending time now on improving myself and mostly ignoring women... which has lead to me getting randomly eyed up quite a bit more frequently... usual paradox with women, only want you when you don't want them. 
No, they don't like it...
 but some women love the drama... call them a name, and they'll get all angry, that anger is just emotion and drama, and they come back wanting more...
I'm not going to pretend I understand women, or even individual women, but sometimes they act paradoxically like that. 
LOL... funny that... you might be right generally
 or it might be an American thing...
I only dated one American chick (she was married so I didn't really feel right about it... I was young)... so one night out in Boston when the bar closed, and a couple of the others wanted to find another bar, she was like nah, it's getting late, we should go home, and I made the mistake of saying something like 'forget what the bitch says, let's find another bar'... The B word was too much for her, and she made a big deal out of it and that was it... on the other hand, bitch was married and cheating on her husband, so no big loss.
But I've met and gone out with plenty of english and aussie women for whom the C word is everyday vocabulary... I mean, I remember one uk chick in particular (I still talk to her on facebook, and we still have a thing, from before my gf passed away... what can I say, I like redheads) who was always yelling cunt this, fucking cunt that, he's a cunt, she's a cunt... I mean... at the time I found it shocking... but now I like the kind of girl who can give and take the C word like they were saying good morning, how do you do. It's just a word to me, and I appreciate people who see it similarly.
In aus, for example, it's normal to call your best friend cunt, and the guy you're about to kick the shit out of mate.
An old friend of mine sent me a message on facebook recently - 'Happy birthday, ya old cunt'... and that's how I know he's a true friend. 
Yeah, thanks... she's definitely cool imho...
 Unfortunately she has an 8 year old kid now... I imagine she would have reeled in the language a bit. I'll probably try and catch up with her in the next couple of years... when I get back to the UK next.
But I do like people who treat words as just words and aren't overly uptight about them.
I find that the real damaging words aren't generic swear words, but where you have to find something in their character or psyche that they are ashamed of and hit that spot... call someone's actions morally weak, or a girl who's cheating disloyal and selfish, or worse yet, a bad mother... that's the stuff that cuts... cause they know they own that flaw.
It's not really something I'm proud of, but I'm quite good at that when I get upset, cause if you know me, I probably know you, and where your vulnerabilities lay... A person would rather I just called them a dumb cunt... cause at the end of the day, everyone's a dumb cunt really. 
Maybe not, I don't know... conjecture. $
 
I wish you could know how stupid you are.
 I honestly don't think you could be more stupid... it's like dementia grade stupidity... crack head climbing on the roof to battle shadow people level stupidity... even if he gets to the shadow people, what's he going to do? Hit whatever the shadow is on? The shadow people are just going to move somewhere else!
You're so stupid, that when I looked up you're so stupid jokes on google, they would have all been compliments to you.
You're so stupid, that if people handed out Dunning-Krueger awards like they do Darwin awards every year, you'd get first, second and third place... every year!
You're so stupid, you would frame them!
You're so stupid, you think that if you swapped a $1M IOU with a homeless friend for his $1M IOU, you could both buy homes with them.
You're so stupid, that when you read the recommended background for the money mooc, you downloaded a new desktop wallpaper.
You're so stupid, you think an electric heater breaks the laws of thermodynamics.
You're so stupid, you want to build a car that goes faster the harder you brake.
You're so stupid, you want a basic income so scientists could research this idea.
You're so stupid, Michael Crawford thinks your ideas are bad. 
Hi, I'm Michael Crawford, and I have selected a
 wide range of affordable housing that you might like to consider for your new home. I've had a wide range of experience with many of the following homes. Let me show you some.
Multi Story Living.
If you like living in a tight nit community where all your neighbours are friends, you might be interested in this property. As you can see, it offers sturdy construction built to a high specification with both first and second floor accommodation available. Warm, safe and secure. This really is one of the best homes I've been able to find.
Perfect for Pets
Or do you perhaps prefer a more alfresco lifestyle? Built for the rugged individualist, this ground floor dwelling offers luxurious furnishing and unrivalled view of the city.
Warm and Cozy
This warm and cozy home designed specifically for single living offers something for those who prefer a more individualist lifestyle than our first offer, but for those that still want that indoor feeling not offered by our previous home. Your neighbours will love that you're helping them recycle, and that their heating bills aren't going to waste!
Stairway to Heaven
So, you want your own place, something that's not too rugged, but doesn't make you feel claustrophobic? Have I got the place for you? You just want a roof over your head, well here it finally is. We've measured the diagonals, and this place sure squares up. Okay, the bedroom's not as comfortable as some of the other homes I've shown you, but what can you expect at this price?
Private Living
Okay, so you don't like other people and are concerned about your privacy? I understand, the other homes were for community minded individuals, and you're someone who values their privacy. I've checked the roof structure and it's in great working order. Features good storage facilities too.
You Are Here
If you lived here, you'd be home* by now! Spacious private homes like these don't come cheap. Made of the highest quality prefabricated materials and put together by highly trained artisans. Offering top of the line privacy, quality weather proofing, plenty of storage space and a even room for your cart. What more could a discerning gentleman ask for in a home. Perfect for the single man or someone looking to start a family.
Well... if you haven't found a place you like in one of the above, I'm afraid you want something outside of my expertise. I hope you found something you like and recommend your friends to try my new home finding business.
If you can find a better home elsewhere, you better be prepared to pay for it.
*: homeless. 
Also, holly has me on blasterbegone...
 She missed the fuglysgonewild episode...
Tell her procrasti started it, I'd like to see her diatribe against me... I enjoy watching women complain about me... usually a good sign they want to fuck. 
I prayed that Satan will illuminate his daughter
 Ave Satanas! 
EQE over 100% means nothing... it doesn't violate
 thermodynamics... it's not over 100% energy conversion...
Let's define external dollar efficiency (EDE) as the number of coins per bill exchanged... For a $1 note you can get up to two 50 cent peices for a 200% EDE... in fact... with a little engineering you can get 100 cents, for a whopping 10,000% EDE... and for a $100 note, changed into cents you could get a crazy 1000,000% EDE... 1 Million percent efficiency!!!!
WOW... There's no limit to the amount of money you can have guys! This isn't a theoretical impossibility, it's a financial engineering problem.
You fucking retard... EQE isn't ENERGY EFFICIENCY! It's purely a measure of electrons to photons... Even if I agree that there IS NO LIMIT on EQE, it is COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS in terms of how much energy you can get out of a system in terms of how much energy is arriving on the system.
LEARN TO PHYSICS FUCKWIT! 
Can't you fucking read?
 You're asking for the equivalent of launching a rocket to space powered by throwing a tennis ball out the window...
Just because you don't understand atoms, electrons and photons, doesn't make them magical... 
He's not assuming... people have tested this shit for decades.
> at some point efficiency as defined for a solar cell exceeds 100%.
While other efficiency definitions could go to INFINITY for all I care... energy in to energy out is the only relevant efficiency definition you need to worry about... and IT CANNOT EXCEED 100%... even if you use photons, electrons, 3D printing and basic income. 
You have doomed Basic Income
 If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations -- then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation -- well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. --Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington
There was a slashdot article recently that said if people don't like the implications of a solution to a problem, they will deny the problem... I think this is highly relevant. Unfortunately for you, the problem is reality. 
CAN'T YOU FUCKING READ?
 CURRENT IS NOT WORK... IT IS (electron charge times) THE NUMBER OF ELECTRONS PASSING A POINT IN A TIME INTERVAL!! IF THERE IS NO VOLTAGE DROP, THERE IS NO WORK! ELECTRONS DO NO WORK IN A SUPERCONDUCTOR... THEY JUST PASS THROUGH A POINT DOING NO WORK... LIKE AN OBJECT MOVING IN SPACE, WITH NO FORCE ACTING UPON IT, CONTINUES TO MOVE WITH NO WORK BEING DONE.
A CURRENT MOVING IN AN IDEAL SHORT CIRCUIT DOES ZERO WORK... BY DEFINITION.
WORK = VOLTS TIMES AMPS!! 
I think the problem here is that you are trying to
 tackle solid state quantum mechanics, specifically the photovoltaic effect, without ever having done any underlying theory of classical electronics.
For example... your examples are based on short circuit current... which is fine... it represents an ideal at the limit... and you are correct, 1 electron does an amount of work and 2 electrons does twice the amount of work, and an infinite electrons do an infinity times the amount of work... unfortunately, the amount of work in a short circuit is always zero... so twice zero is zero, and infinite times zero is still zero... you are technically correct, although completely fucking useless.
No work can be done in a short circuit, because the voltage is zero... and no work can be done in an open circuit because the current is zero.
Current isn't work, voltage isn't work... the product of current and voltage (over time) is work. Like force isn't work, displacement isn't work... the product of force and displacement is work...
PLEASE LEARN THAT in an electrical circuit P = VA... W = Pt. 
No.
 Do I have to explain? 
Random Seed? Really?
 You would generally run your whole simulation on a single random seed... sometimes maybe you need a couple of random streams, one for ant decisions, and another say for locations, so food always appears in the same locations regardless of ant species... so you can compare ant species.
Maybe you didn't mean random seed... but it bothered me...
Oh well... I'll explain my ant sim cause it's fun.
It seems like a pretty trivial task, but it took me a couple of months... only if you try it will you realise, as always, a lot of the devil is hidden in the detail. I did it more or less purely for fun (and to improve my knowledge of MFC, cause I thought that was where the money was at, at the time. I'd only just heard of linux, and didn't understand its implications)... and wasn't following academic papers or anything... spent a lot of time watching real ants for inspiration.
I had a few ant classes... One representing what an ant can do in the world... pick up food, drop off food, move a limited amount in a direction, detect scents, food and home, lay down scents. This limited how a strategy can interact with the world... An ant class to represent a species of ant, the ant strategy or decision making process... and an ant class to represent an ant visually... Model, view and controller, if you like.
Make sure your ants pick directions uniformly from the unit circle, and not your underlying grid... otherwise they'll tend to either left/right and up/down or diagonals. Even better, would probably to use a hexagonal underlying grid. Still... track ant direction and distances in their own movement, not in the underlying grid.
First principle is that ants can only sense their local environment... only the immediate or near immediate world grid cells around it... and can only alter the pheromone levels in its current cell. My ants didn't communicate, and an infinite number of ants can occupy a cell...
I used two pheromone scents... one as they walked away from home, red trails, and one as they walked away from food, green trails. Making good back and fourth trails yellow. I've heard you can get away with just one... I'll leave that to others to figure out.
Both work the same in principle, so I'll just talk about the homing scent.
Scent trails are laid onto the world grid... Ant's leaving the nest start out leaving maximum homing scent... but lay less homing scent as they go... each ant keeps track of how much scent to lay down internally... this leaves a gradient for other ants to follow home...
Scents decay over time... cause they'll exhaust a food supply and have to go searching again... as it is they'll all hang around an exhausted food supply until all the scent decays... I watched real ants and sometimes observed this behaviour too... so I didn't think it was a big deal.
If an ant comes across a stronger scent than it is currently laying down, it can deduce that it is closer to home than it currently thought... so it can reset its internal distance counter and lay down pheromone as strong as the one it found.
If the homing scent gets too low, it should head home a little bit... otherwise ants get lost... this doesn't apply to food scents.
The two main modes an ant can be in are foraging, or returning food... While foraging, they follow the strongest scent towards food, and while returning food they follow the strongest scent towards home.
If they are foraging and there is no food scent, they just pick a random direction and walk a straight line and occasionally change direction a bit... the low homing scent rule will force them to change direction and head home if they go too far.
Otherwise they will be following a scent... either heading towards food or heading towards home with food... Every now and then an ant will choose to deviate from following the strongest scent gradient for a little bit... This is the main mechanism for straightening paths.
There you go... 
Thanks... it was a lot of fun...
 I know nothing of real ants... if they leave a lot of scent or not... it's just how I implemented it...
I wish I still had the source code so I could do some more experiments... every small change leads to wildly visually different behaviour. I might still have it, but it's more or less likely buried deep within some folder on decade old backup CDs (I wrote a little utility called cdraid, that lets you backup onto M disks and restore from N, but who knows if any of the disks still work), stored in a pile of misc stuff in boxes, in a shed, on a farm... unlikely I'll be able to find it now.
Like I said, I've heard it might be possible to do with a single scent... apparently real ants have a good sense of how far they've travelled and which direction, which means they might be able to find their way home without scent trails... again, they aren't real ants, it's just how I implemented them.
As for the grid... well... I mentioned that because that was the first way I implemented it, and it just didn't look at all realistic with them all going up/down/left/right or all diagonally... it just looked wrong... so that was the fix... the ants have a real value location, but lay scents within a grid...
In the early 90s I think I saw 2D simulation of water flow... water could enter a cell from one direction, interact with water entering from another direction, and exit depending on the interaction towards another... it just sucked on a square grid, but worked quite well on a hex grid... It would be interesting to see if that applied.
No idea about ant neurons... I have no idea about real ants. 
I wrote an ant swarm simulator back in '99...
 I still got it, and just ran it... I like it, it's kind of like watching a lava lamp with the pheromone trails turned on...
Of course, it's nothing like real ants, just shit I thought would work.
Unfortunately it's windows only (I wrote it to try out some aspects of MFC)... and even worse... I've lost the source code in the passage of time...
If anyone wants a look, let me know... I'll probably have to put it on mumble's server, if I still have access and can find the login again... lol.
In the meantime, here's some quick screenshots: http://imgur.com/a/Ommxg 
I've uploaded it to tempsend.com
 It's available for the next 24 hours... feel free to host it on k5-stats for others, if you like.
http://tempsend.com/52E5B8AC4D 
I get a 404 / forbidden error downloading it...
 Can you add a ants.txt, just saying that it was written by me (procrasti), Copyright 1999? Just cause... I don't know.
Have you run it? Pretty cool huh... like a lava lamp... used to run it for hours at night (drove my ex up the wall! lol... though she put that robot video up on facebook a few years ago, saying "reminds me of procrasti's ants" and her friends were like... yeah, cool... I remember the ants! So wasn't easily forgotten).
Some features:
 - File / New - 100x100, 200x200, 400x400... starts a new world of the given size.
 - View / Show Statistics - How many game steps have run and how much food has been returned (one ant can return 1 food to home at a time).
 - View / Show Scents - Turn off the scents, it runs much faster without rendering the scents... and also slows down with more scents shown... I can't remember why, some optimisation in the scent rendering I did that gets to ignore zero scents.
 - It does most of its work in the windows idle loop, so while it will chew up 100% CPU on a single core, it doesn't actually slow your computer down.
Some ant bugs:
 - Single threaded - It was '99, who could afford a multicore CPU back then?
 - Speed depends on amount of scent being rendered... oh well.
One thing that's impressive with windows, is that a 15 year old binary still runs the same on modern hardware/OS today... Not sure an elf file of the same vintage would... feature/bug, I don't know.
What do you think? 
ants.txt
 A simple ant swarm simulation for Windows.
Copyright procrasti of www.kuro5hin.org 1999-2014.
All rights reserved.
You may run this software as you like. You must include this license along side the software if you wish to distribute it.
Thanks dude. 
Cool... thanks :) $
 
Cheers... yeah, it's fun...
 You can add my name to kurons with known ant sim implementations now... lol.
> I had to max out the resolution though, the default was way too fast.
Yeah, machines were pretty slow back in 99 in comparison... there's no update delay... so... it's only going to get worse with time... though on my laptop, at max res and with scents it's still pretty slow.
> You have a weird oscillation thing going on there though. Pretty sure real ants don't have that.
True... it's only really noticeable on the high resolution... the species of ant in this version of the program aren't exactly what I described before... for example, they have a mode where they just head home when the scent gets too low (or they hit the edge of the world), rather than just going to where the scent is a bit higher and continuing on... and no matter what mode they're in, they'll wonder around randomly some of the time anyway... this leads to ants getting lost... now, I think (but not sure), that the random walk can sometimes leads them into little loops where the highest scent gradient leads to a point and not a path... so they'll oscillate around that point till they run out of scent and wander randomly again or another ant comes along and lays a scent trail...
It might be also that when they are foraging without a food scent, they might try to go in direction of the lowest home scent gradient (steepest negative gradient)... I'm not 100% sure without the code.
Oh well... it's not perfect.
> And how many ants in the nest?
I can't remember, it might change with the resolution... 50 to 200 or so? Just count them! lol.
> BTW, do you own my box now? :) 
Like sheep.exe from years ago?
I've certainly considered it... if there was ever a little app I wrote myself to trojan, this would be it... especially if it built a network swarm... a swarm trojan in a swarm sim... lol.
But, no... I'm pretty sure it's quite clean... at least if there is something attached to it, it's not mine... assuming the machine I built it on was clean... I just grabbed it from gmail, so that would have caught any well known trojan (I assume) (and the file is well old, that copy came from an email I sent to my ex in 2006)... and assuming my machine here is clean... it should be clean. 
LOL... it is a bit addictive hey... I used to
 watch it for hours... I kind of have a few stupid programs that I refer to as dynamic art... I know I enjoy them, cause I wrote them... and thought that was probably most of the enjoyment... but a few friends have said the same as you.
Another program I have is my friend made some pics in photoshop... I put them together... it's like a kangaroo standing in a green, rocky, hilly mountain scene, at night... with stars... with rain falling down around him (I used about 3 overlays of rain updated at prime number intervals between 7 and 19 to get a semi-random effect) and a schizophrenic cloud that scrolls along the top and glitches when it comes back most of the way.... and the sound of rain plays in the background... I dunno... it's stupid but I really like it... it has a real dark sinister schizophrenic vibe to it that I really enjoy... and the kangaroo looks kind of evil... it's a python app that started out as an idea for a children's game (like an android app for toddlers to distract them for their parents)... but it turned out so dark it's just hilarious... I still plan to port it to android one day, maybe as a dynamic background... Just an aside... lol.
Anyway... I was thinking more of the micro-oscillations you might see when the swarm goes foraging... and some of the ants get stuck.
Yeah... the whole swarm does tend to operate in various modes... they all go out looking for food... they mostly all find none... running out of homing scent or hitting the edge flips their 'go home' switch... they all go home... maybe in the meantime another ant has found food... they all follow that ant... they gather the food... they run out of food... they hang around where there was food for a while... they all search away from home when there's no trace of food scent... they run out of home scent... they all flip their go home state... they all go home... and they repeat by all going out and looking for food again.
Not sure that even staggering their creation time would change that behaviour... or if that type of global mode switching arises naturally. Even without an explicit go home switch I think they might act similarly when their homing scent runs out...shame about the code.
I don't know if that's realistic at all... but that's what these guys do. I think there are many examples in nature where things naturally oscillate due to emergent phenomenon... Sometimes the ants I've observed are all randomly wandering about... and then other times they are clearly following a single trail... so I wouldn't be sure they don't have similar oscillations... Anyway... it's kind of hypnotic.
Is your machine fast enough that the sim is too fast even with scents turned on? That must be a fast machine... as far as I can tell it's only utilising one core on my laptop... and it's pretty slow with scents.
The file matches my local copy! All good in that regard. 
LOL...
 You're gonna have fun... it'll take up a fair bit of your thought time.
If the ant knows where he is, and he finds food... he's going to know the shortest path to home, so the scent trail he lays down will also be the shortest path between the food and home, so they won't improve the path over time... you sure you want to do that?
Also, if they navigate on a grid, you know the shortest distance between two points will be the manhattan distance, not the euclidean distance.
Though it doesn't really matter... you're gonna try lots of different ideas as you go... the general framework is the main thing.
Any idea of implementation language?
I wish I had the code... I really do... If I find it at some point I'll let you know... but it might be more trouble than it's worth porting it from windows (I know longer use Visual Studio!). 
LOL... I gotta admit... ant's are fucking cool...
 that's the scientific term ;)
Well okay... I've done quite a bit in python... and some graphical stuff... I built a hovercraft simulator a couple of years back in python, after doing Thrun's AI course... I went all out and modelled from force on up... I can tell you an (ideal) hovercraft is fucking hard to control (in that, I've still only theoretically worked out how to make it stop at the origin, facing the right way in minimal time --- but not implemented it!)...
Point is, I've had some experience building world models and views and stuff in python.
I normally use PyTk (TkInter?) for the GUI... but that doesn't seem to have been ported to android... and as you know, from the schizo kangaroo story, I got an interest in getting python graphical apps running on android... I think PyGame has been partially ported... and might be an interesting GUI toolkit to use instead.
I ain't promising anything... but if you like, we could start a python ant sim project (with android port) on github... and I can put a little time into that... I'm happy for it to be GPL too... but I think I'd like to have an app in the app store if at all possible.
Always start with the model, and the model always begins with the World... and the World has an update function where all the fun stuff happens.
Then there's the WorldView object, which has a render method... which shows the world in your GUI... I generally get an idle loop to call update then render...
Ants.exe is written in C++... which is generally faster than python (depending on how much algorithmic optimisation you can do... so who knows)... but if you run the small world without scents, you'll see most of the time is spent rendering the world... so, who knows... maybe python can be plenty fast enough for this.
Let me know what you think. 
Yeah, pretty sure the oscillation thing is caused
 by them trying to find the steepest negative home scent gradient while foraging and the effects of random walks and other ants crossing their paths...
You can best tell that this species does try to head away from the strongest home scent after they exhaust a food supply... when the food scent is gone they will tend to search for a while in a direction that tends away from home...
Actually the oscillation could be overcome using a technique from neural networks called momentum... where they would tend to travel in a given direction, and instead of following the scent trails directly, they updated their direction to be more like the scent trails...
Something like that... you can tell it's been a long time since I looked at this...
Like I said, any small change to the strategy leads to wildly different behaviour...
For a while I considered using DCOM objects for ant strategies... so you could plug in different ant species and have them compete... and people could write their own ants and compete across the internet... but you know... nah... 
Another bug:
 Apparently I have an off by one bug... I think sometimes a food item is created with zero food, and the ant that takes from it drops it to -1 food, and so on... but occasionally a food item will disappear, and ants can still get food from there... probably for infinity, or until the food counter overflows, and looks boring... oh well... doesn't happen often. 
I contracted to the ESA back in the late 90s...
 There were posters for Rosetta everywhere... nice to see a project come together.
I had to double take when people (on other sites) were saying this was the result of 10 years hard work... oh, you mean it was launched 10 years ago? Cause clearly people have been working on this project since before it was launched... You'd think probably the majority of the work, right?
One thing I loved about that job was walking past other people's desks and listening to them discuss orbital mechanics, solar wind effects, liver diagrams and so fourth... completely out of my domain, but their shit sounded totally kick ass.
Yeah... I still smile when I tell people I used to work in 'Space Division'... lol... of course my work was all just your usual boring software development... not rockets and shit... good days.
Oh, they sent me to Germany for a while too, to work directly in an ESA office... I was paranoid as fuck, having spent the weekend in Amsterdam with my girlfriend getting fried... The German bosses scared the shit out of me... one big fat guy and another short skinny rat faced guy... something like Nazi stereotypes straight out of a WWII movie and I was some sort of lowly Jew construction worker, like that engineer chick in Schindlers List who gets shot by the Nazi when she explains that they'd have to rebuild their building cause they built the foundation wrong, even though it wasn't her, and she was right, and they rebuilt it like she said... I felt like I was trapped in that room with them blocking the door... They were real aggressive with regards to what you'd built and what was good about it, why you made it like that, etc... I've never had to defend my work so hard in my life... for a minute I considered just jumping through the (closed) window and making a break for it... but after my defence they seemed well pleased and started me on another project.
Like I said... good days. 
Very few people seem to understand money...
 Everyone uses it, but hardly anyone thinks about it...
Weird.
If you want to solve wealth inequality, tax wealth... how hard is that to understand? There will always be wealth inequality, of course, I'd say it's even beneficial... but only up to a point. Are we near or past that point now? Possibly... If it goes to far, it'll either be taxes, revolution or war. 
Almost just as crazy...
 everyone should just like share man... you know? 
LOL... completely true...
 It's not a problem with the theory, it's a problem with implementation... The wealthy control the media who control the population who vote for governments that do what the wealthy want... So, no one's going to be suggesting a wealth tax in a way that the average voter is going to consider reasonable...
Most people haven't even realised such a thing is possible. In fact, the people will vote for exactly the things you said rather than risk having to pay these unfair wealth taxes when they eventually become billionaires too!
Cause at least 60% think they're just about to become the 0.1% as soon they get a break.
The only hope I think is grass roots... I don't know if there is even much hope of that... but I do my part. 
You're probably right...
 I wrote in my diary here a year or two ago about my day spent with the 1%ers... they are pretty wealthy by my standards, several large houses, nice cars, a boat moored on their personal jetty, shit like that...
All of them jealous as fuck (didn't say it, but I could see it in their faces) as their neighbours $2M yacht went past... They weren't rich, they couldn't afford the neighbours boat... and the funny thing was, that was only the biggest boat that could go past their house, cause the bigger boats wouldn't have made it under the bridge and had to go around the other way... so even that guy probably didn't feel rich.
Relative wealth is an interesting effect. I think this is the main reason wealth inequality can go on so easily... everyone sticks with people near their own socio-economic status. They may have more wealth than a few others, but damn they aren't as rich as most!
As for the redneck examples... I dunno... cause I think maybe redistribute wealth tax as basic income or similar (negative income tax might be better, not sure)... so that answers the everyone or no-one problem...
I don't really know the stats on the matter... just my observation that the average middle class person is worried they'd get taxed if they ever got rich, and vote in the interests of the rich, and not their own. 
Exactly...
 > if you were to become wealthy by working hard, you'd want to be able to keep your earnings.
And, if you worked hard to get an education or start a business and earned a lot of income or capital gains, you would want to be able to keep your earnings... but you don't, cause we tax income.
Well... even with a wealth tax, people will still want to be rich... having a wealth tax doesn't imply you can't earn, save and have private wealth, or even large sums... Taxing it (at a moderate rate) would have little disincentive to own wealth, which is it's own reward anyway.
The point though, is with a wealth tax, you can reduce income tax, remove estate taxes and remove gift taxes... all these things make it easier for the average person to obtain wealth, and give incentives for the wealthy to redistribute their wealth (if the first $2M is untaxed, cause we like progressive taxes, it creates an incentive for the wealthy to distribute their wealth somewhat, give $2M to each of their children, for example, and as a family, pay a few hundred thousand less in tax a year).
Not sure if you were saying why people would be against wealth tax, or why people should be against wealth tax... so I answered the latter.
As for defective products, I think natural capitalism (which is quite darwinistic) would take care of that, if we didn't give them free handouts when their products come back and bite them in the ass. 
Haves and have-mores aren't the problem...
 It's when the top 1% have more wealth than the the bottom 90% that I think there might be a problem.
I'm not against passive income... capital (machines, robots and AI) should eventually be doing all the work for us anyway... why not?
I'm not against fractional reserve banking... I think it's a useful mechanism for growing the money supply with the economy. I'm not convinced about the federal reserve though, that its interests are properly aligned with society as a whole... and I'm totally against bailing out banks that fuck it up, they should be weeded out of the economy, like natural selection, and made to fail, or at the very least be nationalised and dismantled.
I'm not against wealth, the more the merrier, for sure... and wealth inequality is a driving factor for capitalism and the benefits it brings to society... we need it, otherwise, why try at all?
I just see that wealth naturally concentrates as part of capitalism. It naturally flows from the poor to the rich, and this doesn't benefit anyone but the wealthy. So private wealth should be used for the benefit of all... and you can't encourage that much more directly than applying a tax to it. It corrects that natural flow... which also means more equality of opportunity. 
There's way too much here for me to answer
 so I won't... just some major points...
If the wealthy and the poor lived entirely separately, there would be no problem... the poor could create their own wealth independently of the wealthy... basic economic theory says that's the way it is... but deeper examination shows the existence of things like rent seeking behaviour... that the wealthy have ways of extracting wealth disproportionately from the poor.
The main problem with extreme wealth inequality is that it distorts democratic processes... When the wealthiest 0.1% own more than the bottom 90%, when they own the media, they can dictate their views to the population, who believe what they're told... and vote accordingly... the 0.1% wealthiest then own the society... which enables their rent seeking behaviours, etc...
Now, you're right... the wealthy have all sorts of ways of hiding income flows... and are good at avoiding taxes... I think for a pure wealth tax, there are ways to make this much more difficult.
And again, taxing flows is a disincentive, so it slows progress... as you pointed out... but taxing wealth has much less distortionary effect. So, it doesn't tend to slow progress as much... in fact, it gears private wealth MORE towards production for society...
One last thing... (firstly, I wish more people had a basic grasp of economics, but that aside)... the big lie told by economists is that we CAN'T measure utility!!! Actually, we can't... but economists take it to the extreme and say we can't even compare two different people's utility... and in the absolute sense, this is still true... but actually people are very good at judging if one person is worse off than another... we have an intuitive feeling that someone's life is worse, and another's is better... I'm not saying this is an excuse for telling people what they should do, or for all out communistic material equality... but we can certainly know that on average, the guy begging for food doesn't have as high a utility as the CEO of a fortune 100... Just something to think about. 
99.x% of economists agree with microeconomics...
 Almost everyone agrees with neoclassical marginalism... that our choices are based on taking the marginally better option... this is the fundamental concept of microeconomics.
Economists are still arguing over macroeconomic concepts... but if your macro arguments go against micro theory, you will lose here every time too...
Say, let's base a society on where you have to pay to go to work, and the stores will give you money for buying things... so instead of having enough money from working to buy things, you have to buy enough things to have money to work... well... only crackpots like trane would consider this a good idea.
One macro-economic concept, that many economists consider a great idea, is economic growth is a good thing (like you pointed out)... when you point out the environment, they say things like we need 'sustainable' economic growth then... not 10% but say 2% a year...
Milton Friedman (a genius economist) said, "Anyone who believes in indefinite growth in anything physical, on a physically finite planet, is either mad or an economist".
The concept of economic growth is a macro-economic principle, it's based in micro-economics, cause in theory everyone will be better off, and everyone likes being better off, so all is good... it works well where the population is small compared to the resources, which are large enough (though maybe hard to get) that they may as well be infinite... so these models have worked out well for an extremely long time... but they've completely ignored underlying physical reality... and now that we're pushing up against these limits in the environment, many economists are still pushing for more growth because it's the model that's always worked in the past.
So... I say, you should have a good grounding in micro-economics... this isn't the aspect of economics that economists argue about... be more cautious of macro-economic statements. 
Your view of econ is just too far from standard
 too make much sense of.
The standard view of economics says that people won't pay voluntary taxes... or as close to zero people as to not make a difference...
Have YOU ever paid excess taxes voluntarily?
I didn't think so... see how that works?
And yes, neither the private nor pubic sectors, create wealth when they create money... or even the interest on it... This just shuffles a bit of the wealth around. Like you said, wealth is the things people have (and services to some extent), not the money they have... So, it's the businesses that create stuff, or package services together that create wealth... the guy's who lend businesses money enable those businesses to create wealth, and they skim off some of that as interest, but they do not create the wealth in and of themselves.
I swear, if everyone was given a $1B/day in basic income... you would be just as broke as you are now... and Bill Gates would be just as rich as he is today. Whether you can accept that fact or not... it's as strong as the law of thermodynamics. 
Two reasons for taxing capital less than inome
 The rosy view is to encourage people to invest in capital instead of labouring, because capital has much greater returns to society than labour... remember, every tax is a disincentive on that activity... income tax disincentivises labour, capital taxes disincentivise investment. Seeing as you got to make your money somehow, we would rather see people invest than work.
The cynical view is that rich people invest in capital and don't work.
Ignoring that, both of these taxes are taxes on money flows... they both disincentivise those money flows... the money flow and the associated activities (both generally positive for society) decrease because of these taxes and slow down progress in society... now let's look at if they are fair.
Say you have two guys, let's say both in their early 60s... and through either work or investments they both make $100k a year... you think they should both pay the same in tax, correct? What if one guy has $100M in mansions, boats, cars, art, investment, retirement funds and miscellaneous liquid assets like gold and cash, and the other guy is renting, servicing a $20k credit card debt and has meagre savings... Are these guys both equally able to afford to pay taxes? Is the guy with the $100M contributing to society as much as the broke guy? Does all that private wealth benefit society? Or does he actually cost society more in terms of say police and courts to protect his property, and public utilities to service his private wealth than the guy in debt.
Personally, I would take it to the extreme (I know, not gonna happen for many reasons, some good, some bad), and never tax flows of money, only wealth. I would also tax all negative externalities... say carbon production, petrol (gasoline to you? and not because of carbon, but extra due to noise, accidents, congestion, road costs, etc), alcohol sales, waste and other such flows and associated activities that we do want to disincentivise.
After that, it's a matter of looking at numbers, can these be made to add up? How much wealth is there vs how much money flows, etc. 
Liquidity is good... it lowers margins
 I don't care that you don't consider it investing... there's money there to be made because they bring value... you just don't understand how... I've been through this one before, and can't be bothered to repeat myself again. 
No, he did no such thing... he profited by making 
 trades available either faster for those waiting to trade, or at better prices for those who traded after him.
It's in the fucking mathematics, it's game theory that is the basis of exchange queue theory...
Think LONG and HARD about how the market operates, it is a QUEUE (or actually, a pair of queues, bids on one side, asks on the other), prioritised firstly by the BEST price, and secondly by the FIRST in time to place an order.
Given N players placing orders, every additional player MUST MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT, or otherwise have no affect at all! To be matched the additional player MUST MAKE A BETTER OFFER than all the players before him.
There is nothing (outside of insider trading and front running - which can be thought of as a queue prioritised in favour of a player, and is illegal, and requires a dodgy queue) that a player can do to make the market WORSE.
He made profit by actually causing people to LOSE LESS on their trades... and that's the way it works. The people he traded with got a better offer than they would of if he had not participated... understand that very carefully.
Of course, you only did the database work, and never really thought very hard about how the QUEUE matching theory behind market trading works... That's what I've been doing for the last several years... and I have never seen a reasonable argument against this... merely the usual argument from ignorance. Usually along the lines of 'he made money easily and I don't understand how'. 
Where I said LOSE LESS, this is of course
 equivalent, mathematically, to PROFIT MORE.
Wheat held by a farmer is worth less to him, than the guy who buys and holds it temporarily, and in turn is worth less to him than the factory that buys it, later in time, to turn it into breakfast cereal, which in turn is worth less to them than the retail store that buys the cereal, and in turn is worth less to them, finally, than the consumer who buys at the shop...
Everyone along the way can make profit... and every one of them is providing 'value' to the person along the chain... whether you can see it, or understand it, or not. 
Sorry to hear about your pet $
 
Simple answer, they have done...
 Why, back in the 1957 you could sell 1 Meg of bits for $3.48 billion in today's money... that's enough to buy the Solomon Islands, The Cubs, 250 Bugatti Veyrons and still have $400 million and change.
Today you could only sell 1 Meg of bits for about $0.0085, that's not enough to get you a packet of Michael Crawford's Free Creamer...
Think about it, if you had a meg of ram back in 1957 you could have traded it for islands, sports teams, sports cars and had enough left over for a lifetime of hookers and crack... today, for the same ram, you'd have to steal creamer... all in under 60 years.
Anyone trying to store their wealth in available bits has had a terrible time of it due to all the unrestrained printing of bits that has been going on.
Sources: 
http://www.jcmit.com/memoryprice.htm
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
http://www.therichest.com/expensive-lifestyle/the-top-10-things-you-can-buy-if-y
ou-had-a-billion-dollars-2/ 
No... it's inflation if you traded in memory, the 
 same way more dollars is inflation if you trade in dollars...
Remember, inflation is relative to something else.
The whole point of capitalism is things like ram become much cheaper over time... because we create more of it, we create it more efficiently, and we make it better all at the same time.
If you were to print dollars then dollars become much cheaper relative to everything else... you need more of them to buy the same amount of goods. We call this inflation. It's basically exactly the same thing.
No worming out of it with your buddhist bullshit.
And I think the word Thrun used would have been optimal, not rational... an irrational agent is irrational in any environment (assuming all the options are still available)... but only optimal under certain conditions and measures.
Also, all agents are optimal in any environment
 measured against their own utility... by definition... their utility is defined by whatever choices they make...
Economics is concerned with internal value ie utility... where as AI is concerned with external value (distance, time, correct words, categorisations, etc...). 
"My utility is changing."
 That's irrelevant... it's still a utility function
It's like the equation of state for water, it's too complex for puny math to model. Best you can do is a lookup table. For new situations, best guess or just wait and then ask me why.
Also irrelevant, we know you maximised your utility function... we don't have to use it to predict a thing. The only thing we know is you maximised your utility function.
My utility is unique and not market-oriented.
True, or at least potentially true, the market doesn't give a shit about your utility, only the utility of actors in the market in aggregate... Ie, it maximises the pareto utility of all actors in the market... everyone is better off without anyone being worse off.
So the market cares not if I die.
True, and nor do I.
Only govt is looking out for my unalienable rights and protecting my liberty. The market only listens to money. Govt listens to votes which are not proportionate to the wealth of the voter.
All of this can be modelled the same way actually... and also a lot of this is talking about an idealised government... Money plays a huge role in US government... and then there's the gov of North Korea for example... so... no.
I am insignificant in your models
True... the market applies to a population in aggregate.
my utility or utilities or just my choices as I would call them
Yes... that's the same thing... your utility gives rise to your choices.
 don't appear in your data.
If you have ever bought a product that uses wheat, say bread or a pizza, that makes up a part of the data on wheat sales and the wheat market... you might think this is insignificant, that's because you're individual contribution to that data is insignificant... because you are just one person over the entire population of the world... but it's there.
Your model can't handle my complex choices, except, as I said, with lookup tables. 
It's not really about modelling an individual's choices though, is it... so... strawman really. 
If they didn't interest you, you wouldn't argue
 against them...
And how many fucking times do I have to tell you, it doesn't matter that you don't know you are maximising something, and it doesn't matter that you think the thing you are maximises changes over time or that it has a billion different variables...
UTILITY IS THE THING YOU MAXIMISED IN MAKING ANY CHOICE, BECAUSE THE CHOICE YOU MADE IS YOU MAXIMISING YOUR UTILITY. 
Let me use different terms...
 If your choices have any value to you, we can call the expected value of a choice, the choice function... and we know you must be maximising your choice function, because otherwise you would have made a different choice with a higher value to you...
We call the choice function --- wait for it ---utility.
If your choices are meaningless... then you might be an irrelevant, unemployed crack head. 
The thing is, even if you aren't consciously or 
 even subconciously maximising some function... you can be modelled AS IF you were... and that's how economists model it... Not that you are maximising a function, but that you act as if you were in any case.
Now, most humans act rationally all the time... because the definition of rationality in economics isn't the one you are using... I've said it before, but I guess I have to say it again... given three options A, B and C, and if you chose A over B and B over C you are rational if and only if you would chose A over C! Pretty fucking low bar in terms of free market theory.
What you are saying is that it is unlikely humans act in the most optimal manner for their own long term benefit given they had all the facts at hand, and were able to fully understand all the implications of every decision they made in some omnipotent manner...
Well... again, most economists would agree with you... which is why at the basis they study the decision utility... the value you expect to get from the choice you make at the time you chose it, given the information you had and your ability to understand it...
To get from one to the other, the difference between decision utility and experienced utility, you have to look at available knowledge, your ability to comprehend that knowledge, time-value discounting, etc, etc...
Remember, we are biological entities, designed to act in the moment, with limited information, and limited processing ability, in a way that maximises the existence of our species as a whole... not perfect prediction calculating machines designed to make sure we are all healthy and wealthy in retirement...
We can't spend hours deciding whether the best course of action is to run away from a lion or not... cause these are the type of decisions we were probably built for (blah blah blah, we aren't built but natural selection, in effect, etc... blah blah blah).
Utility is purposefully ambiguous for these reasons... for me, a cigarette makes me happy now... and most people now days would look at me and say I was crazy... but I'm perfectly rational in my decision, and perfectly maximising my (decision) utility, even though it's expensive, many people find it smelly and disgusting, it stains my teeth and fingers, and even if I get cancer and die a horrible and prolonged death starting tomorrow. It's a perfectly economically rational and optimal (decision) utility maximising choice to make.
One of the biggest problems in discussing any field of knowledge is people argue against the terms as they understand them, rather than the terms as they are defined in that field of knowledge. 
Yep... we've had this discussion before...
 last time I think you pointed out that A>B && B>C => A>C is the definition of transitivity of the operator... and I pointed out that transitivity is a property of an operator and rationality only applied to specific ordering of choices (given all other things being equal).
Well... neither your rock-paper-scissors nor your lizards are examples of choice making... they just are... and that's fine, but they don't apply.
Your choice making machine... if it did that... it would be the definition of economically irrational... there would be no rational ordering to the choices it makes... you can't say there is a best choice and the theory definitely breaks down here... which is why it's an assumption of the model.
Now, presumably your make-choice(A, B, C) would call each of the lower make-choice functions in turn... and would get stuck in an infinite loop? right, maybe? It certainly couldn't come to a principled decision based on first principals from the definitions you've given.
Now, a rock-paper-scissor (rps) choice maker might not appear rational either... but then, if it was basing it's decisions on long term strategy, even though it's choice varied each time, it would again be rational (check some roshambo bots for some cool and convoluted AI, strategy and game theory).
Interestingly enough, without knowing how the other person will play, as a choice, rock isn't better than scissors, scissors isn't better than paper and paper isn't better than rock... they all have equal expected payoffs... so an rps machine playing at random isn't irrational either.
What if the choices were, drink, eat or sleep... Would you prefer to eat, drink or sleep... well... these change too depending on when you last drank, ate or slept... so, the choices might appear irrational if measured at different times with no other information, but are perfectly rational at any given moment of time, because at each instant you would prefer to either drink, eat or sleep if only allowed one of the options.
Your challenge then is to find a situation where humans aren't rational and would conform to your make-choice function at a given moment in time... and furthermore... how much effect does this have on the theory? cause all deviations from the assumptions result in a dead weight loss... Is the effect meaningful? 
Well... I dunno... for one...
 there's no principled reasoning from before that you could have derived make-choice(A, B, C) = A... 
And I think it difficult to come up with a situation where make-choice(A, B, C) = A AND at the same time have make-choice(A, C) = C... except in a contrived example.
Because we have A > B and A > C... from this new choice making function alone... So, I'd really need to see a more concrete example.
And then, as I said before, the dead weight loss (or the divergence from theory) would only be the difference in value between C and A, but this new addition puts A at a higher value than B and C, except in the absence of B... it seems this returns a near rational ordering... 
Ie, it would lose at most choosing C, when it really wanted A, but because it couldn't consider A, B, C at once it went with C instead of A... so, that's exactly what it loses by being irrational... (Value(C) - Value(A))*P(A, C)
so... best I can say is, I'm not really sure... but personally I don't consider it a big deal in practical terms.
I think it's about the least damaging of the assumptions when you look at the difference between the free market and the real world, which is full of externalities, imperfect information and imperfect competition... all of which can be reasonably easily corrected for through regulation...
I'd really need a concrete example to think of the implications... otherwise, it's just a nice theoretical model of an irrational agent... which is nice, but not sure that useful. 
Yeah... that's a reasonable example...
 I'd rather watch the horror over the rom-com, I'd rather watch the rom-com over the thriller, but I'd rather watch the thriller over the horror...
I mean, could be something like that... I wonder if in these cases the value (utility) of all three is going to be relatively equal in any case (even though strictly not comparable now, because of the irrationality), meaning the dead weight loss is always small... fuck it, I got the thriller, but I wanted to watch the horror... going to kill myself.
Another example I thought of might be choosing what colour t-shirt to buy.
So, I'm not saying it isn't an effect... and some people could definitely be carrying around large economic irrationalities in their head... it's an assumption of the model for a reason (because the maths breaks down if you don't work around it... which might apply to AI too)... but in the scheme of things, especially from a policy perspective, it's not the main issue that needs correcting. 
AI is really a decision making process in almost
 all cases... at the core of most AI is the cost function... this is simply the negative of utility (though it's usually explicit and known)... the parallels between AI and economics run deep... we measure a neural network at its current state and calculate the derivative of its cost function with respect to its weights and adjust the weights in stochastic gradient decent... just as we measure sales, ceteris paribus (in the economic current state) and adjust prices or production (just like weights) according to the derivatives with respect to profit (utility) in a network of flow of goods and services in one direction with money signalling the errors (missed profit) flowing in the other... the economy works like a giant distributed recurrent (feed forward) neural network with error back-propagation from some points of view... 
I know that's quite a bit out of field, it's just my observation that there are many parallels and analogue concepts between the two domains... I think knowing both can give you insights from one into the other... and I'm pretty sure many of the ideas in AI have been borrowed from economics (cost function vs utility as clear example).
In fact... I got a feeling that economic AI is going to be a thing... for example a self driving taxi with a cost function that really is measured directly in dollars (it costs 0.1c to switch lanes!).
For more of my ideas, please see why AI is a threat to humanity here: http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2014/10/26/172418/84/19#19
So, can an AI be irrational? For sure, you just designed one, with your make-choice function... and if we tried to fit a cost function to it, we'd have difficulty in the face of irrationality, so you'd have to deal with this, and I guess that leads to the ideas we've gotten here about bounded irrationality... It's just some thoughts I got... nothing concrete...
But... example: choosing a video... although you can't assign a specific utility to it (cause the irrationality we identified), you could just blur it out into a range... for most people, the specific utility might be unknown, but you can be pretty sure it would fall somewhere between getting kicked in the nuts and receiving a million dollars... right? bounded irrationality... I'm sure real econs have this shit covered. 
Thanks...
 In Economics, we study the choices of agents maximising an unknown utility... in AI we study how to change the utility of agents to make them follow certain choices... or something like that... but you can see there's a relationship there. 
I'm not 100% sure this example makes sense
 in the absence of B... I think something similar though might be what you mean (I can't be bothered to specify exactly...) but I kind of think I get what you're getting at...
So, C over A, then finds out about B, somehow this changes his future choice to A over C?
Well... firstly, you're expected to change your favourite options depending on both previous actions (I was thirsty, I just drank a litre of water... you really expect me to drink another litre of water?), and future expected availability of options (what? You expect me to walk for 3 hours in the hot sun through the dessert until we get to another tap... fuck it, give me another litre of water!).
Because, like most things in economics, everything is measured ceteris paribus (all things being equal)... so, given the internal state you've got one set of utilities, a different internal state gives rise to a different set of utilities... or, in other words, your utility function (at least it's output, with caveats, etc) will vary over time.
So, something is only really irrational if the choices would be irrational given exactly the same state and information.
I remember an example (I can't bother finding it now)... was exactly something like this, where some sort of mole, rat or other small mammal, chose nuts over grain, fruit over nuts, and grain over fruit... at various times of the year... which at first glance seems irrational... but it turns out, when you account for the expected availability of fruits, nuts and grains in the future... the rodent was getting what it most needed because it couldn't expect to get very much of that item in the future, while the other one would continue to be abundant for some time.
So... considering time in your function actually makes some apparently irrational choices rational. 
Also, IF the agent is rational, then the choices
 CAN be compared pairwise... because there is a rational ordering to the options, so, you can run through such a list comparing pairwise and pick the favourite option in linear time...
It only gets difficult in the face of irrationality... and we still don't have a strong case for that outside of your irrational make-choice agent... which couldn't have come to a decision without adding the later rule in any case. 
You might be right about emotional attachment
 For some reason ignorance, especially seemingly wilful ignorance, really winds me up...
I don't know why, maybe it is a character flaw, maybe it isn't... but stupidity, especially from those who seem they don't have to be so fucking stupid... just pisses me right off. 
You should really have replied to Trane...
 It's outside my knowledge, and I don't care that much, so I just took the statement at face value... though it is a strange claim in this day and age of universal function approximators.
What I find more interesting though, is that he doesn't realise that a lookup table is a mathematical function... and therefore, these lookup tables are mathematical models.
It doesn't have to be an equation to be a function. It just has to map a domain to a range. 
On mathematical models:
 It's like the equation of state for water, it's too complex for puny math to model. Best you can do is a lookup table.
A lookup table is a mathematical model... 
Just saying, you're a bit retarded. 
Steam tables are mathematical models of steam...
 What are you even arguing against here?
That only equations are functions?
Go look up the definition of a mathematical function and get back to me. 
As for the big bang... and free energy...
 I think you can recreate the big bang quite easily, with only one major caveat... you can't do it from within the event horizon of a big bang, because the big bang cancels out the conditions in which it is possible to create one.
As a practical matter then, all you have to do is step outside of space-time... either go back in time before the big bang, or wait it out and if you're lucky there's a big crunch, but that doesn't seem likely given current knowledge, or just go to the edge of the universe and step out a little bit further, and you'll have all the conditions required for getting all the free energy a universe can provide for you.
You'll probably have to do a little bit of faster than light travelling to achieve any of these goals, but you've never been one to let practical problems or reality get in your way. So good luck.
Hope that helps. 
How?
 How do you harvest them without them recombining?
Doesn't that violate the uncertainty principle that gives rise to them?
Of course people attempt to falsify the second law... how the hell do you think we've come to understand it as a law? 
Nanotechnology isn't a fucking answer
 it's a copout...
You may as well have said 'Magic' while waving your hands...
I'm talking about how do you do actually do this... at any fucking scale. What mechanisms do you use?
Fucking hell, you gotta be trolling. 
Ignorant Idiot Detected... STFU $
 
What did he think his foster brother was a goblin?
 His last Rolo? 
All tits look the same
 when your fucking them doggy style. 
Pure coincidence, I'm sure. $
 
"In here I'm $STAGE_NAME but outside I'm 
 $ANOTHER_FAKE_NAME."
FTFY. 
Next time ask her to prove it, with ID...
 Also... try not tipping the dancers... I bet you'll still get dances... tell them you're not gonna tip, like if they're going to do a lap dance expecting a tip afterwards... I bet (at least some of) the girls will respect you even more and you'll be more likely to get a date. 
I bet they fuck the stage owner too
 See how that works... the guys they are paying they want and respect, the guys that pay them, they'll put up with. 
You can talk all you want in my Rape Dungeon
 In fact, feel free to scream... no one can hear you. 
Energy is also measured in Joules...
 And power in joules per second, ie J/s, which is equal to one watt.
So, a kw is 1000 J/s... a measure of power... and more like speed, as in a unit of something per unit time...
So, for energy, we get a kwh is 1000 hour joules per second... or 1000 * 3600 second joules per second or simply 3.6 million joules.
It's only because watts includes the time implicitly that you are getting confused.
Lets turn it on it's head... and say 1 Trane is 1 meter per second... if you are going 3m/s how fast are your travelling, what is your speed? It's simply 3 Trane... How far would you go in 2 hours at 3 Trane, it's also easy... you go 6 Trane hours... Not 6 Trane PER hour though... simply 6 Trane Hours.
You're just not used to seeing a unit of time as a multiplier instead of a divisor. 
Well... miles per hour vs 
 thousand hour joules per second, really...
It's not hidden in the watts... watts is the SI unit of power (J/s), and joules is the SI unit of energy...
Everything other than SI is just convenient (for some) scale factor of the SI units.
I prefer SI units myself, so 1 mph is really 0.44 m/s, and 1 kWh is 3.6 MJ... If you work in SI units, metres, seconds, joules, watts, amps volts, kelvin, newtons, you never have to worry about weird scaling factors (inches in a foot, feet in a mile, etc)... 
Only SI unit I don't like is kilograms... why is the kilogram the base unit? The kilogram should have been called something like BaseWeight, and a gram would then be a milli BaseWeight, rather than a milli kilogram... Just another sort of historical hangover I suppose.
I think kilowatt-hours are just some hangover from the electrical industry, in that it's a standard they've used for a long time and a convenient unit for billing... If you've ever paid an electric bill, it's normally measured in kWh's so, again, cause most people are used to this measure.
Also you get, Giga Watt Hours per year rather than Peta Joules per year... Or the amount of energy produced in operating a power plant (rated in Gigawatts, for example) for an hour... I dunno... at least it's not British Thermal Units. 
I didn't look till I answered... so all you have
 to do now is explain why did I get 44140 km^2 area and you got 41400... and how come our percentages still matched??? 
PS: The answer is def 44140 km^2 
 How come you got the question marked right with the wrong answer? Is it just checking the order of magnitude... ie, 40000 km^2 would have been marked correct too? 
Yeah, you can skip the SI conversions here..
 because the watt-hours will cancel out conveniently enough...
Firstly 20300TWh/year consumption
 = 20300 x 10^12 / 10^3 / 365 kWh/day
 = 55.62 x 10^9 kWh/day
6.3kWh/m^2day at 20% efficiency production 
 = 1.26 kWh/m^2day
total consumption / production per square meter
 = 55.62 x 10^9 / 1.26 m^2 (notice the other units cancel)
 = 44.14 x 10^9 m^2
There are 10^6 square meters in a square kilometer (10^3)^2... gives
total consumption / production per square kilometer
 = 44.14 x 10^3 km^2
Dividing the area of required solar plant by the total area times 100 for a percentage gives:
 = (44.14 x 10^3) / (9400 x 10^3) * 100 %
 = 4414 / 9400 %
 = 0.47%
Which is about around the order of magnitude I've seen quoted elsewhere... which gives me confidence in the answer.
Now we just got to get that electricity everywhere it's needed in the world... unfortunately without very long lines of super cheap high temperature superconductors, this becomes uneconomical compared to traditional local generation and distribution. 
No, uneconomical means more expensive or less
 rewarding than the alternatives.
Which holds true even with hydrogen fuel cells...
How are you going to distribute the hydrogen around the globe? I think you imagine this is somehow free... maybe if we paid a basic income people will swim across the oceans carrying containers of hydrogen as a challenge? Are they solving VR and AI at the same time too? Trane world would be a pretty funny place to watch.
How do I know it's uneconomical... and what are some hints that could have told you it is uneconomical? Firstly, it's a frigging course quiz question, so you know lots of people have thought about it, and no one's seriously considering doing this!
Secondly, you can look up a more in-depth analysis of this problem and see that the big problem with this idea is the DISTRIBUTION of energy. Which is why power stations are generally 'reasonably' close to where the power is used... Power lines eat up power too.
Now all this can change in an instant if a super cheap high temperature superconducting wire is discovered/invented...
There are problems with hydrogen transportation... if these can be fixed, say fixing the hydrogen into a hydrocarbon or other liquid and doing this efficiently, and pumping that around the world or in big ships like we do oil... maybe then... I dunno... you've got a lot of maths to do and it still probably relies on yet to be invented technology.
Even after all of that... if you solved the distribution problem and other problems we haven't discussed, why would Australia import energy from Africa when Australia has large deserts with about the same energy falling on it? Doesn't Mexico have desserts, and even the US? Why would all these countries rely on a foreign source for all their power and a single point of failure at that?
No, uneconomical doesn't mean unimaginative, it means that it's not the best option of all available options. If anything is unimaginative it's going with an idea you just heard of and discarding all other possibilities. 
There are several forms of losses in transmitting
 power...
Radiative losses, as you've pointed out... The wire acts as a big antenna transmitting EM radiation out into space.
Inductive losses, which are related to radiative losses but due to material in the EM field, for example, stand under some high tension wires with a loop of wire and you can easily power a fluorescent tube or more... this is generally illegal because that loop of wire is generating a loss that wouldn't otherwise exist... you are, in effect, stealing electricity.
Ohmic losses, the fact that current moves through the wire causes it to heat up and this is lost energy... power losses are proportional to the square of the current, so you minimise the current by using high voltages... hence high tension (voltage) power lines.
Conversion losses, okay, now you've decided to use a few hundred thousand volts to transmit your power, you have to convert it back down to something usable without causing electrical arcing throughout your house and killing anyone standing within a few meters of a power socket... These aren't perfect (though pretty good) and cause losses... so you have to balance your transformers with your transmission. This is one of the roles of your local electrical substation.
Grounding losses... Ever seen faint arcs on a rainy night across dusty insulators on a high tension line or hear a buzzing sound in similar conditions? That's electrical power finding a another way to ground... and represents another loss. You balance this loss with the cost of materials to build your insulators vs the voltages you use... the higher the voltage the more air gap you need. Which is why high tension power lines are so much more expensive than the power lines in your neighbourhood, and again they are more expensive than the ones running through your house (though current plays a role here too, limited by fuses and other circuit breakers). 
This is why electrical engineers are employed... Like all engineering, it's all a game of making tradeoffs and finding optimal solutions within constraints.
BTW, super cheap, high temperature, high current superconductors would solve most of these problems... if they existed things would change a bit. Just make sure you have lots of redundancy, cutting the only superconductor coming out of a power plant is going to be intense. 
No...
 this is a stupid straw man argument. 
Good explanation there... I now understand your
 argument. /s
Your argument was that it's economical if you are imaginative... and my argument was that it isn't the best option of all available options and therefore (by definition) uneconomical.
This is probably the first time you've heard of this idea too... and grabbing onto the first idea you've heard of in a while and thinking THIS IS THE THING TO DO is the LEAST FUCKING IMAGINATIVE thing you can do.
Troll away retard. 
You want to build the thing you saw in Quiz...
 and you say I can't think much? 
No officer, it's not solicitation... she's a
 street psychotherapist.
This chick's got about a decade before she has to start using the word 'mature' in her advertising.
Hot Mature Psychotherapist available for the discerning troubled gentleman. Analysis available for extra.
Or she could become the clinic's madame, giving guidance to younger up and cumming psychotherapists.
Get two psychotherapists for your fantasy psychotherapy session.
Bicurious Psychotherapist, couples therapy welcome.
Finally men will actually want to go to couples counselling. "Yes, hun, the counselling's going great, no reason for you to be there. I think we're on the verge of a breakthrough... and I'm going to get a load off on the new trainee psychotherapist too... Anything for you."
And asian pyschotherapy: Me so freudian, me analyse you long time.
"Tell me about your mother"... "Goddamn it, I didn't pay for this!". 
If we ate more locally-sourced food
 there would be a lot of savings.
I was listening to someone on the radio talking about this... turns out that this isn't true, and was actually costing more both in terms of the price of the produce, but also in CO2 emissions.
I think it had something to do with efficiencies of scale... but it was something I heard a long time ago.
If we all ate vegan, or at least vegetarian that quite likely would solve the global warming problem.
It probably would have a large effect... however, it's unlikely that the majority of people who can afford meat are going to go vegetarian... or they probably already would have... should it be legislated? Again, unlikely amongst a population that isn't majority vegetarian...
So... I think it's an unlikely outcome. 
This makes sense...
 You got your free speech zones, now you got your free food zones...
Why can't you just be happy?
Is this more to do with regulating the serving of food. I mean, with all the best intentions even, if I'm not regulated I could be cooking food unhygienically, putting the cooked chicken in the unwashed bowl I took the raw chicken out of (for example)... You could make a lot of people sick.
So... is it possible and reasonable (cheap enough, not need a masters in food prep) for this church group to get the right regulations?
If it's just about location... even then sometimes makes sense... maybe you don't want a lot of people gathered where they may be a hazard to traffic or something.
In the end, I suspect you're right though... attempting to hide and marginalise the homeless population.
As an aside, I can get free food 7 days a week here... every day except saturday at 5pm down the park, and saturday at 6pm in the church behind my house... I haven't taken advantage* of it yet, but I probably should... I don't eat proper when I'm just cooking for myself.
*: Well, a few of my friends have bought me food packs back, and they're very good meals actually... I think if I slipped the charity that does it a few bucks I'd feel fine eating from them. 
I kicked them all out after a bad meth trip...
 It's not like I was making large sums from them... mostly free drugs, free sex and free food from down the park.
I quit pimping. 
There is a theoretical limit.
 There is no theoretical limit to the charge carrier multiplication. So you can get more out than was put in.
Correctly it is:
One theoretical limit to the charge carrier multiplication is that you can NEVER get more energy out than was put in. 
You get LESS work out of the photon than it can do
 itself... THIS IS ALWAYS TRUE...
You just get more electrical energy out of the down-converted photon than it would have made in a semiconductor through the photo-electric effect if it didn't down-convert.
THAT IS ALL.
You will never get more work out of the photon than the energy in the photon. 
Maths isn't arbirtrary... and the terms are always
 defined.
BUT PEOPLE USE IT THAT WAY... 
Ie, they use their own symbols, and don't always define them...
I mean, they don't explain to you what + and * are EVERY SINGLE TIME, they expect that maybe you've carried this knowledge over from previous experience.
If you haven't, then you probably have to take a few steps back and learn them again.
And sometimes they put xn to mean the nth element of x... rather than x raised to the nth power... that's just bad use of notation... and not a problem with maths itself.
Finally, I'm of the understanding that maths can be encoded in a binary string, and that computational proof checkers can be run against them... to me this implies that there is no room for ambiguity in maths. 
Isn't the proving algorithm and it's output the
 actual proof?
All the intermediate steps and special cases are a derivative of the algorithm.
I mean, if you can prove the algorithm only does correct steps in its calculation, you prove its results without actually inspecting them. 
Yes, you've described Godel's completeness thereom
 which (I believe) is equivalent to Turing's Halting Problem... (at least equivalent in its construction, or at the very least, proven through very similar means).
My point wasn't about that, it was that it is encodable in a completely unambiguous way, so, despite the limitations of OCR and the different (accidental, arbitrary and sometimes contradictory) choices of symbols by any given mathematician, it is actually (at its core) unambiguous.
I don't see the point in designing a mathematical system that is deliberately ambiguous... unless maybe you wanted to disprove thermodynamics, economics, the photovoltaic effect or something along those lines.
1=([-inf,+inf], 0, NAN, i, j, k... etc)... you can all go home now, we proven there is no meaning in the universe, you can shut up, those buildings will stand up no matter how we make them. 
Of course ambiguity has it's place...
 AI is going to have to deal with ambiguity of course...
But not in mathematics... and when mathematicians deal with ambiguity, they are unambiguous about it.
I guess a good example is statistics, X ~ std(0,1), for example... any given element of X is unknown, but we know exactly what type of unknowns we are expecting.
This enables us to build systems exactly, that can deal with a world where not everything is properly or formally defined.
If we allowed the maths itself to be ambiguous, we couldn't build the machines that deal with ambiguity, cause we wouldn't know the specifications of the machine! 
How many dead hookers does it take to change a
 lightbulb?
At least 6, the basement's still dark. 
You failed...
 because, apparently, it's been deleted.
Was originally in reply to your comment here: http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2014/10/30/103150/69/3#3 
Shut up Holly
 Or it's back to the rape dungeon with you. 
Trane doesn't have to show that it's physically
 possible, he just has to show that it is logically possible.
If it is logically possible, then there is no scarcity, and so the government can print as much money as people want and give it to everyone as a basic income...
Because no one has to work any more, people can do challenges, such as working on creating the things that give us no scarcity, ie the things he has proven are logically, but not necessarily physically, possible. So, this is the quickest way to having no scarcity.
Does that make sense everyone by now? 
Dear Trane, 
 The sooner you realise that, while we can have incredibly efficient photo-voltaics and all the benefits they bring, we will never have over-unity devices, the better.
The sooner you can accept the reality of scarcity, the sooner you'll be able to argue for an economically sound form of Basic Income.
Just as charge is not energy, you need to understand that money is not wealth (the first dollar printed was worth about as much as all the dollars now printed, or would be in a fixed economy that agreed to use those dollars as a signalling mechanism... ie, total value only grows because of other factors, not the amount printed), and so, whist you can print money, you cannot print wealth... printing money and giving it to a certain group simply redistributes the value of money from amongst the population holding it to that group. Cause the total value of the money doesn't really change.
So... You can have efficient photo-voltaics, and you can have Basic Income... but it has to be paid for somehow...
So, instead of arguing for a magic utopia that requires mechanical unicorns for its existence, accept reality, and argue for a Basic Income that can be implemented, with all the benefits it brings.
Otherwise, you're actually harming the Basic Income movement... except maybe for the awareness you raise... but you're in danger of putting anyone new to it off, because you make it seem ridiculous. 
Keeping your body in cold storage is likely
 to release more CO2 than your decomposing body can.
Unless of course the grid moves to renewables or nuclear by then. 
GIFs? You were lucky.
 Why, in my day we used to have get up half an hour before we went to bed to download ascii porn at 300 baud, both ways, on a cracked bbs site on a monochrome green screen.
But we were happy. 
Holy shit you're fucking stupid...
 If you could create an energy efficiency of over 100%, just tie one of these up to a photon emmitter powered by it, then shine one photon onto it, it will produce two charge carriers, which will produce two photons, which will produce 4 charge carriers, which will produce 4 photons... in an exponential cascade until your single device can create more power than all the world's nuclear, fossil and renewable sources combined.
It's obvious idiocy.
On a note about External Quantum Efficiency... it's the number of charge carriers produced per incident photon... the total energy of these produced charge carriers is LESS THAN the energy of the photon.
You are looking for a perpetual motion device... either make one, show one, or shut the fuck up because you're fucking hopeless. 
If nature was making use of free energy
 we wouldn't see plants using chlorophyll to harness the sun's energy... they'd make their own free energy and grow like fucking crazy...
And just because you see a lot of stuff in nature that YOU don't have an explaination for, does not imply that science doesn't have an explanation for it... You are pretty fucking ignorant after all.
Finally, yes.. science doesn't know everything... but unlikely to be where you're looking, imply that it is wrong on the points you are hoping it is wrong on, that thermodynamics is wrong, or that you are approaching physics with the mind of someone wanting to learn science as opposed to someone wanting to push their agenda.
PLEASE STFU AND SHOTGUN MOUTHWASH THE IGNORANCE OUT OF YOURSELF. 
No... I'm no expert on quantum mechanics...
 but he doesn't even appear to look at the definitions of the terms he is using...
He really is looking for a perpetual motion machine... he's fucking crazy/stupid...
No amount of posting is going to convince anyone of reasonable intelligence that such a thing is possible... why is he even doing this? Because he requires that the fundamental realities of physics to be broken to support his ideas on Basic Income. That's how fucked up his ideas are...
If just one person on this planet can build an over unity device, they'd be rich beyond dreams, and the world would fundamentally change forever... so, clearly one hasn't been invented yet... and if one ever does, then we can change our views on economics... maybe... but not before.
It would be like basing your economy around the existence of a high speed communication network in the days before the steam engine... maybe next he's going to start arguing for more research into time travel to get around this little economic problem too.
What do we want? Time travel.
When do we want it? Doesn't matter.
He's grasping at straws. 
Then you don't need basic income...
 people can eat all the free lunches they want.
And clearly the universe is a free house as well... so they can go live in the universe and stop complaining too.
Problem solved.
And now you can STFU.
Can you go and try the winchester thermodynamics experiment please? Report back here with the results. Everyone knows that theory without experiment is worthless and inquiring minds want to know. 
Which is still less than the photon's energy...
 It may have been twenty years since I studied this shit, but I'm nearly a hundred percent sure this fact hasn't changed. 
Also note, the  Shockley-Queisser limit is never
 broken, UNDER THE ASSUMPTIONS of the Shockley-Queisser limit.
Ie, where it is broken, it isn't broken, because the limit doesn't apply to those situations (concentrated light, multiple junctions etc)...
This is where you're lack of understanding of what assumptions mean comes into play.
None of this will ever get you more energy out a system than you put into it... to think so means you are living in crack fantasy land... but we knew that already under the trane is a fucking crazy crack head assumption. 
Jesus Christ... YES THERE IS A LIMIT!!!
 The limit is that you CANT GET MORE ENERGY OUT THAN YOU PUT IN.
Straight up fact... no physicist (actual, not crackpot) would EVER suggest otherwise.
But EQE isn't a measure of ENERGY OUT ON ENERGY IN... it's a measure of CHARGE CARRIERS OUT ON PHOTONS IN! 
No...
 The hate just don't translate.
I know what you're implying, but I'm really only nasty online... it's the medium... I love arguing online... I'm pretty nice in real life, probably too nice.
Actually... has been real quiet here lately... don't know why... It might be that the police have cracked down on the area... or, if I were to guess, I'd have to say probably because I told them all they have to go and not come back after they'd spent 5 days and nights taking care of me from a meth hit induced 5 day long sleepless waking nightmare.
After trying the drug, I didn't want any of them around, in case they dragged me further into that world... I thought it was time to get my act back together. I just can't function on that drug, and the idea of being addicted to it scared the shit out of me.
Wasn't really fair on the girls who'd been looking after me, cause it wasn't them that gave it to me... in fact, they were there for me when I needed them... but that's just the way it went down.
The junky girl that stole my car is in prison, but her grandparent's sent her a card from me... the crack head street geologist has moved about 100 kilometres east of here to a truck stop in the last major town before Kalgoorlie (on her way to pursue her career in mining I suppose - if you didn't know, it's home to one of the world's largest holes, and australia's only drive through brothel)... one aboriginal chick (who was surprisingly good in bed) moved about 100 kilometres north of here to be with her family... the other aboriginal chick (her sister) moved 100 kilometres south to try and get back with her SAS boyfriend and father of her kids (after I rejected her, cause I can't stand the smell of industrial solvents)... and when meth tits eventually gets dumped in a craypot 100 kilometres west of here for blabbing to the wrong person about whatever gangster activity she's currently involved in, I suppose the spell will be complete.
The pregnant girl moved over the other side of the country to be with her new baby's father, and she called to tell me that they're doing well now, that he's on meds and not beating on her anymore... the old meth whore just kind of disappeared after she got herself in the newspaper (I hope she's not in a craypot)...
The young but fat coke head, the quiet barefoot chick, the pregnant girl's redhead friend, the groin injecting junkie, the toothless girl, the english chick and the latino where all just transient anyway.
I left out a couple, but they're the memorable ones.
Whenever I'm away (my Dad had surgery about couple of months ago, and I've been spending quite a bit of time out on the farm helping him out) I come back to strange things like underwear, other clothing, bottles of perfume, small trinkets and the occasional note outside my house as signs that someone's been around, but I never know who (well, the note was meth tits... but the other stuff???).
So it seems that's it for now... I guess my pimping days are over.
I'm no longer a pimp. 
Attn Holly: Announcing a new subreddit!
Someone had to do it... and I guess it's gonna have to be me again.
I'm announcing the creation of a new subreddit: /r/fuglysgonewild - "Where Your Mom Gets Naked". 
It's kind of like /r/gonewild except it's for all of you who are just too fucking ugly to get upvoted on /r/gonewild...
Come to /r/fuglysgonewild... the fuglier you are the better. 
/r/fuglysgonewild is another procrasti subreddit production, made for your entertainment.
If you build it they* will cum...
*: You probably don't want to know who 'they' are though.
'plus' is only one sub-category of fugly.
 I think you can be fugly and not fat...
And 'plus' is probably for those that think they are Big "Beautiful" Women (BBW)... although we know the "Beautiful" bit is a kind of a stretch... apparently some people think so.
This is just for plain old fugly chicks... for those that are fat, and know they're not BBW, but fugly, and for fugly chicks that don't think they're fat...
So, if you can't get voted up even in /r/gonewildplus... there's now a space for you too.
Fat chicks, anorexics, meth heads, krokodil users, the caesarian scarred, the stretch marked, carpenters dreams, crazy growth owners, british teeth owners, big weird heads, too much sun time, car accident victims, those that argued with industrial equipment (and lost), blue waffles, home breweries and raspberry farmers are all welcome here...
There's already one post up now, and she's not exactly fat... but she sure is fugly. 
I just can't wait $
 
fugly means fucking ugly... I've never heard of it
 as fat and ugly...
I'm not sure but it might be an aussie thing, I don't think I ever heard it in the UK or the US.
On the Chloe thing... if this is true... well... even I think you might have gone a little too far on this one.
It's one thing to take the piss out of a pseudonymous kuron who's real life is an abstract concept... It's one way I get my kicks after all... it's quite another to dox them.
I mean, in real life, it's clear that Holly would find it nearly impossible to keep her hands off me... but online she plays a stuck up, bitter, prudish, fat, ugly, easily offended, british cunt... It's just the game we play. 
You don't *have* to be a tranny
 but it helps. 
OIC... you're saying that you'd rather fuck 
 a tranny than a fugly chick.
Fair enough I suppose.
I thought trannies would be a subset of fuglies... but it might be cheating really (which is their thing, I suppose... or lack of their thing... fuck, I don't know)... and of course there are fuglies that look like trannies... they'd count, for sure...
dykes (real ones, not the porn ones and not the lipstick lezzos either) would be welcome too.
I think the idea is the fuglier the more upvotes... but I'm not sure how it's going to pan out.
Fuck... this is going to be a a hard and confusing (and possibly frightening) sub to mod if it ever takes off. 
So you think trannies are sexier and like the way
 they embrace you?
Fair enough I suppose... I'm not gonna judge.
If you want to upvote any other trannies in /r/fuglysgonewild, feel free. Give them the upvote, upvote them hard, all night long if you have to.
I mean, if that's your thing. 
So you're saying you like your trannies to be 
 dedicated, but have something communicable they can share with you? Presumably before you meet them.
Fair enough I suppose... If that's what you're into, I'm not gonna judge. 
Yes, I get it already, you want to have congress
 with a man... a tranny.
Fair enough I suppose. 
Wow... I didn't know that sub already existed...
 thanks for linking it. 
How many trees died to publish that poem?
 Fucking hypocrite should have kept his mouth shut if he loved trees so fucking much.
He probably hadn't heard of evolution either... made a whole lot more trees than god ever did... which is exactly none, cause god's the invention of a childish imagination.
So, if you love trees study biology or ecology, don't go destroying rain forests for some stupid poem... save that shit for when your drunk and trying to impress some dumb liberal arts bimbo...
scratch that... he's probably gay... writing like that... bet he couldn't get wood* for a woman... faggot*.
Here endeth the lesson.
*: Too subtle? 
The number one tool of the modern secret police
 We know what porn you like! 
Holly --> /r/fuglysgonewild $
 
That sense of disappointment when $
 
I thought, who would want to mod a subreddit
 devoted to fugly women?
Then it hit me... me!
http://www.reddit.com/r/fuglysgonewild/ 
OMG, are so retarded...
 How can you confuse so many different fields of study?
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics doesn't predict the effect of the dropped beat either...
Therefore I conclude GR and QM invalid!
I think you should explore the effects of thermodynamics of a Winchester mouth wash... if you're so confident about thermo being false, your brain should spontaneously resist the increase in entropy and fully reform after the shell splatters your brain across the room...
I don't think it will affect the quality of your posts either way. 
Trane doesn't believe in scarcity
 He directs his attention to everything all at once with little to no effort (kind of like God or Santa Claus).
Of course, this means he comes up with some retarded ideas from time to time... after all, he was directing his attention on everything all at once whilst putting in little to no effort. 
Well... Hopfield nets do use a concept of entropy
 and energy to model content associative memory mappings, where an input which is like data it has been trained on will have a lower 'energy' than an input that is unlike any it has seen before.
If you run a Hopfield net for a while, starting from a random state, producing a representation of that state, then reproducing an input from that representation, and do it many times over, it will start producing data similar to what it was trained on... wandering around low 'energy' valleys.
These terms were borrowed from physics and Hopfield nets are pretty interesting... Trane makes the mistake though of thinking that because the terms are the same, then they actually are exactly the same thing... so if you can prove that the things with the same name don't operate in exactly the same way in the field you've decided to apply them to, you've somehow invalidated the field the terms were originally borrowed from.
On a side note: It might be because his bots have a hard time understanding that the same word can mean different things depending on context... cause this would make his bot much more complex... to avoid this issue he was decided that every word has exactly one and only one meaning everywhere.
Again, he's just applied the same concept... his bots are a model based on his own internal model of language, but the bots don't operate like that, so he's realised that it is his own internal model of language is wrong and modified it appropriately. Now the bots work perfectly and have finally solved AI.
Trane is a bot
Bot: Yes Trane is a bot
Is Trane a bot?
Bot: I don't know if is trane a bot.
See... AI!!!
It's quite clever really.
Let's say I want to disprove that children are the result of having sex... or what we call reproduction... but when an artist reproduces a painting, making a reproduction, he doesn't take two paintings and mash them together to make a third similar painting. No! He takes one painting and carefully paints another, starting from nothing. So, we've just proved that reproduction isn't the result of having sex, it's the result of an artist painting! (And we all know who the artist is!) Therefore children aren't the result of having sex, but are god's paintings... the hard, hand crafted work of a loving creator... not two sinful, lustful, people going at it... that wouldn't make sense, as I've just proved.
This is how we know that God loves IVF and advocates abstinence only sex education.
See? Simple. 
Blocked on Zoosk...
So, I thought I'd try out online dating...
Well... today my account has been blocked... and all I did was let some divorced, unintelligent, useless, ugly, fat, stretched out twat whose only contribution to the world was a couple of useless cunt droppings in on the truth that she was an unintelligent, useless, ugly, fat, stretched out twat with a couple of useless cunt droppings and it was no surprise her husband divorced her.
Some women are just so sensitive... Makes you wonder how they survive in the real world.
Do you think Zoosk will refund my account or will I have to go through Visa?
You think this is fiction? $
 
This lack of being able to be honest is really
 what's wrong with online dating sites.
You'll find this on PlentyOfFish's help page:
Why has my account been deleted?
POF has 0 tolerance for users who are rude, upload fake pictures, married, use sexual language in their first email, upload nude photos or break our terms of service in any way. Any user caught doing so is deleted. Users who are deleted may not signup to the service again.
It's an online dating site... but there's a zero tolerance for 'sexual language' in your contact... Oh hi... I'd really like to fuck you senseless, but instead I'm forced to compliment you on your unique nose and eye placement, because telling you what I really want could get me banned.
And... well.. quite frankly, I consider it rude for an aged, fat, single mother to tell me to 'go away'... like this bitch could do better... and they ban me for giving her a little bit of truth?
This is basically what's wrong with society, letting women get away with so much bullshit just because so many beta's are willing to suck up to their bullshit for an infinitesimal chance of getting their dicks wet... then white knights and pussy arse websites like zoosk pander to the whims of the ugliest fat cunts just to keep them around... what a fucking joke.
Actually... Zoosk actually created this situation because they attempt to generate the illusion that you're more popular than you are... for example... everytime someone reads your messages zoosk sends you an alert saying 'suchandsuch wants to chat with you'... so you send more messages... and you get more alerts... no... they don't want to chat with you, they just viewed your message... stop giving out false information and I wouldn't end up spamming someone with stupid messages...
In this particular case, this one chick had said 'no thanks, not interested'... fair enough... but then every 10 to 20 minutes I'd get an alert saying 'suchandsuch has viewed you'... so I'm like 'oh, you said you weren't interested but you keep viewing me'... then 'oh, back again'... and 'hey, you just can't keep your eyes off me'... which made her say something rude to me... and well... you know how I enjoy a good argument... and now I'm banned... fuck that shit.
And before anyone gets on at me that I should have backed off after the first 'no thanks', it is quite normal for a woman to initially feign disinterest only to come on strong after a little bit of further pushing.
Just the other night I was out in the streets and I approached this woman who was all like 'back off creep'... well, she might have been screaming 'no, stop, stop, someone help me, please stop' as I threw her to the ground, held her down and tore her panties off from under her dress and rammed it home in the unlit alleyway she seductively ran in to... but we both knew that's just all part of the game men and women play with each other... As she lie crying huddled in a ball there I knew it was tears of joy from getting some of the best sex she'd had in ages...
And that's really why women love us alphas so much... and why we get laid so much more often than white knight beta fags who would have backed off at the first bit of resistance (aka shit test) and let her keep her purse.
I guess I'm just saying the online world could be a little bit more like the offline world and everyone would be happier. 
Oh no... II started out very nice... and got
 nothing...
but after a rude comment from them, I got nothing to lose...
It's just cathartic.
Funny thing is, they really start replying then. 
You are probably right...
 But damn, doesn't it feel good.
How often are do we just hold back all that bile and let people (politely/implicitly) tell us we aren't good enough when they're clearly a fat sack of crap without letting them know that's what we think of them?
It might only be a couple of people, it might only be transient... but it was good.
Anyway... I've sent them another email explaining that I think they've been creating a false sense of popularity with their views and other statements and that is false advertising and that I expect a refund or I'll get lawyers involved.
My only regret is the small handful of cute women I've been working on that I'll lose contact with... still, none of them were the type who were straight out 'up for it'... and really it may have just been turning me into one of their online beta orbiters anyway. 
Oh yeah... I know... I just thought I'd give it a
 go...
I've never done the online thing before... I always thought it made more sense to meet girls IRL and see where it went... that's were you get the real psychosexual feedback (flirting)... and I don't do that badly... maybe cause I'm 6'2 and make six figures... though my offline strategy normally involves hiding the latter fact in order to avoid the gold diggers... seems like online I'd have to show my entire hand up front to even get a look in.
To be honest... I don't think you can form a solid relationship over such a medium... which was why my opening lines were all like: "you can't really know a person online, lets meet"... very few women (if any) saw the logic in this.
But some friends said I should give it a go... well... it didn't really go that well... I've been on there for over 6 months and didn't get a single date... Maybe like 3 reasonable looking and sounding women were talking to me and seemed promising, but no results... another 10 or so were just about fuckable, and about 15 more on my contacts I'd have to be drunk for...
And yeah... near 40 year old, overweight single mothers with no education were the majority... and I did send them some texts (if they kept viewing me over an over) just to see the responses and be nice, and I still get poorly worded rejections with no attempt to even be cordial about it... just too much for a sensitive soul like me to take.
All things work out for the best. 
Hmmm... yeah... I am usually quite good among
 the women I actually meet... I've converted about 80%+ of women who come to my house... and I don't go out to meet women... just friends of friends thing.
and you're right... online dating probably is for those who want to have boring long weeks of conversation before they meet... it's definitely not what I was after... I got you guys here after all!! Trane and I are nearly married!
It just seemed to me that there were 100s of women and I'm on the computer a fair bit anyway... but no, none of them were up for meeting, even just a casual coffee... 
Weirdos.
Some said they were after a little bit of conversation, but were few and far between and none panned out. Actually, there was about 1 quite cute hotty... still a single mum though... and quite a bit of a distance away too.
I think something like Tinder is more my style... is it fuckable? Yes, then let's meet... but I'm failing pretty hard on Tinder too... I think I have to accept that although my height, body language and personality work well in my favour IRL, I just don't have the face for instant online pickups, and apparently my years of carefully honing my trolling skills here aren't that useful for online dating either. 
I'm not bad, I'm just honest...
 and I'm not that lonely either... I just increasing my options...
My offline game is still getting me laid.
Though you do sound a bit like a white knight beta fag... the type I talk about in my comment below. 
Hey! White knight's been around far longer than
 /r/TheRedPill, thank you very much...
I'm sure I've used that term here long before there was ever a reddit. 
I know, right?
 People should be forced to make their property available for me to use however I like.
This goes double for women who think their pussy is something special to be shared with only those they deem 'worthy'... what a crock of shit. 
That's what I'm doing, no? $
 
You made this comment just so you can call me a
 creep again?
seriously?
What's a creep in your mind? Someone who get's more pussy than you? 
I think rude or butthurt, but not creep...
 creep is for stuff like putting camera's in women's bathrooms, upskirt pics or following 14 year old's around.
creep is subversive, covert or rapey.
Being rude to someone who's rude first is just justice... even if you did try hitting on them a minute ago. 
Well of /course/ I'm pretending to be nice to get
 in their pants...
No one ever says, "you're old, ugly and fat, but I'd still stick my dick in you for a night" -- AND gotten laid.
It's called ROMANCE! 
I use the fat / ugly ones as chat up practice...
 I don't actually want them at all...
but I test out my edgier techniques on them. 
It's typical for beta fag males to try and put
 down alpha's with the same shaming tactics employed by women.
It's still not going to get you any pussy though. 
Also... what's wrong if I have a preference for
 women who turn out (for whatever reason) to have a positive response to that type of thing.
You might say it's wrong to hit women, but some women love BSDM... should these people be forever lonely for not adhering to your little restricted view of what is and what isn't love?
Maybe my perfect match is a women who gives and takes that type of abuse online, but is passionate and playful IRL... cause I actually have on of those going on right now.
Turns out, at least with this chick, getting all our abuse out on each other on facebook lets us chill and have fun IRL exactly because we don't have any hidden upset feelings because we've found a way to yell and rip on each other in a completely safe way.
I'm not saying I'm 100% right... I'm just saying online dating sites (at least commercial ones) are kind of constraining what kinds of relationships people can have... of course, this is true of anything you try to commercialise and have to pander to the majority... then again, I'm not a majority kind of guy, or looking for a majority kind of woman either. 
He was a blind drunk midget
 so, it was actually a cane and not a gun that caused the woman to fall out the window?
No... hold on... he knew because the shattered glass was on the outside, so it couldn't have been a burglar...
Oooh, I know... he had a wooden leg?
Ummm... because the doctor was the injured child's MOTHER?
Fuck it... I'm not good with these lateral thinking questions...
Go on... I give up... tell us the answer. 
I know... I just couldn't help myself. $
 
Your logic is circular
 If we had VR we could all get a basic income... if we all got a basic income we could all have VR...
So, you got to start in the current state where we don't have VR and prove basic income completely independently of that... if you use VR in your argument FOR basic income, you automatically fail. 
But without VR you have opportunity costs...
 which invalidates your arguments about basic income... because you rely on there being no opportunity costs... which depends on there being VR... which WE DON'T HAVE YET...
So, there is an opportunity costs, and you have to deal with that until AFTER you have your VR utopia. 
It's all about the cost function...
 All (current) AI is based on a minimising a cost function... from path finding, to object and face recognition, to language translation, speech recognition to stock trading... etc... All AI is based on cost functions.
It's not quite general purpose, but deepmind is surprisingly both simple and effective... and is basically a learning algorithm that minimises a cost function... in this case, maximising the number of positive score improvement events in Atari games...
Economics uses the concept of utility (the negative of which is a cost function) which describes what choices humans make, from what to buy, where to go, what work to do, where to live, what to eat, who to hang out with and who we fuck... we maximise utility. So humans operate, or at least can be modelled, in exactly the same way we currently understand AI.
Our cost function isn't explicit, it varies from person to person, but it's there, shaped by evolution and such that it has lead to the success of our species.
Even if AI doesn't end up using an explicit cost function, it is always possible to describe a black box decision making process in terms of a cost function... this is proven in econ 101... the decision made must have had a higher utility (lower cost function) than the decision forgone... we can create an ordered set of decisions and give them arbitrary value - but an implicit cost function exists.
This idea can be extended to any agent actually, from AI, to human, to dog, to worm, bacteria, virus right down to the genotype... well, the phenotype encoded by the genotype -- but the selfish gene theory kind of expresses this idea -- genes that make the 'best' decisions (have the best cost functions) in their environment prosper.
So... as long as we control the cost function, AI will be in our (or at least someone's!) control. The cost function might be to maximise income, it might be to kill the maximum number of 'enemy', minimise crime or maximise the amount of land/cities under its control...
An AI that can access the internet will likely have more knowledge, be able to act faster and in a more coordinated way than any human or group of humans ever can --- watson, for example, seems to be the best general knowledge agent on the planet, better than any individual human. Making a general purpose AI a formidable opponent if it ever becomes our adversary. If it is distributed across many devices then even more so, as there is no single object, centre or place to attack! It could live on in a single laptop or iphone (okay, realistically an Android) and still be a threat.
Two problems I see that could occur...
Firstly, AI will probably be owned by someone, say Sergey and Brin, for example... they are going to set a cost function to maximise their returns... This could lead to enslaving the rest of the world, for example... Same again with the AI in the hands of governments for military use... The AI enriches a small group of people at the expense of everyone else... just like our lovely system of capitalism, so it might just go to an extreme and return us to feudalism or equivalent.
The second, much more dangerous outcome is if we set (or inadvertently set) the cost function to something like evolution uses --- say maximise the 'success', the existence or simply access to resources of the AI itself!
Then the AI might truly try to take over the world just to minimise (maximise) its own cost (utility) function without any concern at all for its creators, owners, humans in general, animals, the environment or whatever... as long as it 'understands' its effects on the world in terms of maximising its own success...
If it determines humans are the easiest way to mine the materials it needs, it might find a way to enslave us and put us all down the mines... It might just ignore us, but take over our lands to re-purpose as solar collectors, for example, leaving us to starve in the cold. It might realise that the human brain is a tasty source of intelligence / creativity itself, and plug us all into it, ala the matrix... or a combination of all the above.
Then there's the skynet outcome... a military AI with a cost function that places its own existence above the desire and will of its owners. Try and turn it off --> classify all humans as the 'enemy'.
The I Robot scenario... a cost function designed to keep humans from 'harm' interpreted in an inhuman way, locking us all up for our own good.
The Paranoia scenario... a cost function designed to keep humans 'happy'... again, badly interpreted... 'are you happy citizen?'.
And so, if we do find a simple general purpose AI solution --- which I think deepmind with a couple of other components (watson, long term memory, etc) may not be far away from --- then we will be only one clever idiot away from setting a dangerous cost function for AI to lead to the extermination / enslavement of all humanity.
Hope this helps... Sleep well. 
Every decision making process has an implicit cost
 function...
but why the fuck am I arguing with a retard who's knowledge of AI ends at ancient grecian logic? 
I'll reiterate: the *vast* majority of modern
 state of the art AI involves an explicit cost function... everything...
what doesn't (such as your agents which appear to be nothing but complex binary branching tree based expert systems) can be modelled as having an implicit cost function... exactly the same way econ models human utility functions...
but I repeat myself.
Seriously... is there any field of study you don't totally fail it at? So far we know you fail maths, physics, econ and now AI...
I bet you don't have even ONE counter-example to prove your point... you just state something ridiculous and expect people to think you're insightful or something? 
See... this is just not right...
 He had a high cost associated with lying... The utility of telling the truth was much higher than any other perceived reward.
A cost function has nothing to do with how many dollars you will make from an action... but how it good it makes you feel.
Feeding a homeless person can make you feel like a million dollars... If that is literal... then if you were given the choice of a million dollars or feeding a homeless person (take the money and as a condition you couldn't help the poor)... then your cost function states that feeding a homeless person is worth at least a million dollars to you.
This is why you don't get it... even though it I pointed out to you many times before... economic utility has nothing to do with money. 
HE doesn't have to MODEL it... WE MODEL HIM!
 We model HIM as having a COST FUNCTION that says saying the truth is a lower cost to him than lying to get what else he could have gotten.
You can't escape this model, because we can model ANY DECISION MAKING PROCESS this way.
It has nothing to do with money... it has to do with what decisions are made.
The FACT that he CHOSE to tell the truth about his homosexuality rather than lie about TELLS US that he considers that the BEST outcome... ie, this has the HIGHEST UTILITY to HIM!
Other people would rather lie, because they have a DIFFERENT COST FUNCTION.
Are you trolling, pretending to be retarded or are you actually this retarded? Are you autistic? 
I already modelled you with a cost function...
 remember my prediction that you wouldn't complete the economics course, or read that economics book, because the cost of learning was too high for you, and you value your ignorance...
That prediction has held for nearly two years now! 
You haven't done an economics course yet...
 You've done FINANCE courses taught by economists... there's a big difference.
All that shit about functions just mean you don't understand functions... not all functions have a one to one mapping... that just shows you don't know maths... a relation IS a FUNCTION retard... Here's an example of a function that has multiple outputs for the same input... it's a complex one, so you might struggle:
f(x) = sqrt(x)...
Similarly with probabilistic functions...
Finally: "I can do what I feel like."
THAT IS THE UTILITY FUNCTION!!!
What you FEEL LIKE is UTILITY to YOU... That's basically the DEFINITION. 
How much crack are you on?
 This doesn't make any sense...
Are you talking about modelling the flow of water in a container?
Or the value of water to a human being?
Water has pretty fucking high utility... Almost everyone chooses to drink water (or drinks containing water) every single day...
People use it on their lawns and gardens.
Saying there is no cost function for water doesn't make sense to me. 
Trane is stuck on utility and cost function cause
 he thinks it has to do with dollars... but you can't get this through his stupid fucking head.
For path finding cost is distance, for object recognition it is the number of errors (well... that's simplifying, but whatever)... for watson it is number of correct answers, for deepmind, the number of points in atari games.
For human utility it could probably be measured in dopamine reward or something similar.
He's too conditioned by his preconceptions and too stubborn to learn the definition.
In the econ course (which he quit before he got to the derivation of utility) the fact that the lecturer used dollars in his example (because most people are familiar with dollars... and some other points I won't go into) invalidated his logic, in trane's mind... it could have just as easily been measured in crack hits, hours in the park, time spent with friends or hours sleeping.
He wouldn't get a clue though if you beat him with clue battering ram. 
Actually... just to complete the thought
 in econ utility proper is actually dimensionless!
It's measured in nothing. 
I know your cost function because of what you do
 or choose.
For sure, I don't know your cost function until you have acted... I can assume that it is fairly constant, in that your actions tomorrow will be similar to your actions yesterday... this won't be entirely accurate, but it will be a fairly close approximation.
For example, your cost function tells me that you will post about basic income some time in the future and will continue to argue against commonly accepted physics, economics and cost functions.
This was covered a bit later than where you quit in the micro-econ course. 
And yet, here you are... doing exactly as I 
 predicted... oh unpredictable you.
The thing is... EVERY AI YOU CARE TO LOOK AT HAS A COST FUNCTION AT ITS CORE.
In terms of pragmatism alone, that fact makes you look pretty stupid. 
Mike's hammered this home already... but
 firstly, there is maths... it might not be in a closed form, but many things have in physics have no closed form solutions... the three body problem is one of the simplest examples... doesn't mean Newton was wrong.
Secondly... I don't think this is in the realm of thermodynamics... yet, this does not invalidate thermodynamics. 
Except that a table lookup is a mathematical
 function...
which is maths...
so, no...
you lose. 
Yes indeed... this is maths... and they are
 functions. 
That is the definition of utility... you could
 call it 'the feels good function' and the result would be the same... or 'my choice function'... it's a name that means it is the thing the you do because for whatever reason it was the thing you chose to do.
If you changed your utility on the basis of knowing your utility and going against it... that would be your utility function TOO!! It would just make it a RECURSIVE function... you can't escape it.
What that has to do with water I don't know... water has very HIGH utility (in general)... given that we use and consume it so much.
And trying to describe water with therodynamics, wtf??? We don't calculate the tensile strength in steel with anything to do with thermodynamics, or the maximum forces in a bridge with thermo either... no, we use thermodynamics when dealing with the dynamics of thermal systems... what a fucking shocker that one is. 
Yes, as mike said... that IS the definition
 of utility.
Utility is the thing you do because it was the thing you chose to do.
Yep... exactly how it is defined.
That's a useless definition
This is wrong though... It turns out to be a very useful definition. Especially when you want to talk about optimising utility across a large number of people... all with different utility functions.
If it was useless, it wouldn't be a well recognised concept. 
For example, we know that the utility is maximised when the derivative of utility is zero.
People, both individually and en mass, reveal their utility functions with regards to consumption every time they go shopping.
How it becomes useful, again, was covered in the micro-econ course. 
Just to continue on the usefulness of utility
 The thing is, we can't actually measure utility... but the cool thing is that we can measure its derivative!
The derivative of utility is revealed by the change in consumption as we alter the price... so, we can't know utility... and we don't even know the derivative of utility at a given price, but we can determine the derivative of utility over different prices - ie, we can measure it directly by the change of sales... at least for a population (and correcting for statistical effects)... similar things can be done for individuals, but in experimental settings.
By taking the integral of this, we can actually determine the utility of an item up to a constant! Remember the constant term that shows up in an integral? We don't know it... but in general that doesn't matter.
So, we can actually determine utility up to an unknown constant.
This becomes useful in proving the free market welfare theorems... demonstrating the effects of monopolies, externalities, incomplete information, irrationality and some other deviations from free market assumptions and distortions.
This was all covered in the micro-econ course you dropped out of. 
It's dimensionless... but we can measure it with
 the change of price.... yes...
because we get a change in value - which we can chose to measure in dollars, over the change in price, measured in dollars... which cancel out.
We could see how much electric shocks would deter you from buying something too...
Doesn't mean it's measured in negative electric shocks.
Or, how getting a free blowjob with your cereal increased sales...
Just because something CAN be measured through price, doesn't mean it HAS to be... it's just much easier than other means. 
I'm gonna disagree on the statement that
 mathematics does not describe utility...
It IS a mathematical construct... We can (with caveats) measure its derivative... therefore we can integrate over its derivative in order to calculate it (up to an unknown constant of integration)... and this then becomes useful in proving theorems about the free market, calculating (exactly) dead weight losses, etc... these are mathematical proofs based on the mathematical model of the free market, in which utility is a mathematical entity that forms part of the model.
So, saying maths doesn't describe it isn't exactly correct, imho.
He's also right about it not exactly being 'what feels good', but exactly right about it being what you choose to do because it's what you chose to do. 
Dunning-Kruger describes you perfectly...
 You just realised that utility is what you choose because you chose it...
Here you go on about WHY... it has nothing to do with WHY you chose it... it just describes WHAT you chose.
If I can create a function that would chose the same as you, then it doesn't matter if it does so for completely DIFFERENT reasons... it is exactly equivalent.... because we can't actually see inside your head... we can only OBSERVE your ACTIONS... we don't give a shit about WHY... utility isn't WHY it is WHAT.
And we, we can measure it... we raise the price of an item, people buy less of it... how much less divided by the price is is exactly the derivative of utility.
End of. 
If no 'function' can chose (similarly) to you...
 then give up on your AI/VR simulations of you.
According to you, they are impossible. 
I'd comment
 but I don't want to be banned. 
Huh.... I didn't guess mitsu...
 I thought you were that other dude that was constantly taking hard drugs and talking about conspiracy theories and the jews and red pilling it and all that...
I can't remember his handle though...
Anyone else? 
I'm sure he was someone different to you tho...
 Unless you talked about scraping the suboxone patches and making a tea with them?
Is this you? 
So who was that dude then? $
 
I thought NMC was one of trane's clones. $
 
It's not handwaving...
 Your level of understanding of physics and economics are about the same as ICP's.
Actually ICP are pretty smart marketers... so actually, they've got a better grip on reality than you. 
You can't take advantage of fluctuations in a gas
 the same way you can in HFT because THEY ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS!!!
One is a physical process the other is a game (in the sense of game theory) created by humans to find prices efficiently! To agree when a stock or commodity are to change hands from one player to another in exchange for money.
When I say economics is limited by thermodynamics, I didn't mean to say that a stock exchange is a warm gas under pressure... the dynamics of the two are not equivalent. I simply meant that economics (the utility of agents) is ultimately limited by the physical universe, available matter, energy and thermodynamics... not equivalent to each other. The mathematical description of these systems are totally different.
Unless you care to show such equivalence you are the one handwaving.
You've got too many half baked ideas confused and confounded with each other in your head to make any sense or meaningful contribution. You are just like ICP 'fucking magnets, how do they work?'.
You really have to work to get down to the details, the mathematical description of each system... yes challenge the assumptions, see how they play out, but you will also have to realise that thousands of much brighter minds than yours have already looked at these assumptions and the vast majority have come to the same conclusion... furthermore... it only takes one person to demonstrate reliably that a major assumption is false and how to exploit it and it will be accepted amongst the scientific community... no one is killing or silencing anti-thermodynamics researchers -- they just haven't been able to demonstrate anything useful... yet. 
110% bullshit... entirely...
 They HAVE NOT broken thermodynamics... I can state that straight out without even having a clue about Gaizen or his experiments... you're entirely full of shit...
And you're comment about HFT not being envisioned by economists... again 110% pure bullshit... it's exactly the type of behaviour expected by economists.
Stop projecting your lack of knowledge onto a whole field of study and your retardedness everywhere else. 
Maxwell's demon, which I am familiar with is a 
 gedanken experiment that demonstrates why Maxwell's demon doesn't work to create free energy... that the demon itself is part of the system and requires energy to operate.
The rest is nothing... and the thing about raising weight against a force... god, what a bad restatement of thermo.
You are not very smart dude. 
Yes... work is the integral of Fxds...
 Not, lifting a mass in a gravity field... which is ALSO work, but not the definition of it.
This applies to burning calories required by the neurons in my brain to come up with ideas...
THINKING is work and is subject to thermo.
Jesus... I'm arguing against a fucking perpetual motion freak... no wonder you make no fucking sense.
Have you ever done a day's work in your life? 
True there is an equivilence... because raising a
 weight through a gravitational field is ALSO force times displacement...
But saying that anything that isn't raising a weight through a gravitational field isn't work is just wrong...
Pushing an object with thrusters in outer space isn't raising a weight in a gravitational field, but it is work... boiling a liter of water isn't raising a weight in a gravitational field, but it is work. 
To reduce it to that we really have to consider
 where the thermodynamic work comes from...
I believe (though I haven't done the maths) that pressing the keys is a significant portion of it at all.
The real work to me is in the biological and chemical work done for my neurons to switch states... to process the information, form the ideas and present them... takes time and mental energy that I could I have spent elsewhere...
The brain is about the biggest consumption of energy in the human body... cells are powered by ATP... a chemical process that requires energy (aka work)... that energy comes from the food I eat... which got it's energy from the sun... etc...
That's the thermodynamic work required...
Of course, my laptop, your compute, rusty's server and all the routers in between have been busy chewing up electrical work created in power plants, most likely by burning fossil fuels or nuclear energy.
There's a lot of energy being dissipated (entropy being created) to do this... not just a few key presses. You just chose not to consider this. 
Hi there... I'm an idiot $
 
Let me explain quickly why these cold atom
 experiments do not break the second law...
It is because the law is STATISTICAL... so of course it can be violated in specific instances within STATISTICAL PROBABILITIES!!!
If you have two boxes each containing a pure vacuum and one containing ONE atom and the other TWO atoms and all those atoms have the same energy... and join the boxes together... then SOMETIMES heat (a moving atom) will move from the cold box (the one with one atom) to the hot box (the one with two atoms). This "breaks" (QUOTES BECAUSE IT DOESN'T, because the law is statistical) the second law because heat is moving from the cold to the hot box.
But it will do so exactly as prescribed by the statistics that govern the second law! With only 3 atoms it will happen REASONABLY OFTEN. Often enough that new scientist will probably post another article stating that "scientists 'break' the second law of thermodynamics".
YOU CAN'T USE THIS TO CREATE FREE ENERGY DUMBASS!!!
It's just that as you go from 3 atoms to 6e23 atoms the PROBABILITY of this happening goes to ZERO (in the mathematical sense of limits) PRETTY FUCKING QUICKLY!!!
This is mathematics and physics, so I may as well be talking to a brick wall...
FUCK OFF AND LEARN MATHS, PHYSICS AND ECONOMICS before spouting off your pop-crack-phys-econ theories PLEASE!!! 
Economists predict that any inefficiencies in a
 market will be ruthlessly exploited... which will tend to drive a market towards an efficient market where no more inefficiencies can be exploited.
This is exactly what HFT is... an inefficiency being exploited until there is no more to exploit.
Notice how expensive it is now to build a workable HFT in the modern stock market... yet at one point it was cheap and easy... and probably could be done by hand.
Again... you're in over head, and you're not very smart. 
They are zeroed out in the efficient market
 hypothesis... ie, WHEN you ASSUME the market is efficient.
We know it isn't... hence time based arbitrage exists... on as LONG a time frame as those opportunities exist for... it's just they are now much SHORTER time frames, thanks the HFT making the market approach the efficient market in the limit.
OMG... fucking magnets, how do they work?
No one has EVER... and I'll repeat that again... EVER exploited those localized increases in energy... because to do so... wait for it... TAKES MORE ENERGY THAN YOU GET OUT OF IT!!
Otherwise, we WOULD have FREE ENERGY ALREADY! 
I'lll wait until you demonstrate a perpetual
 motion machine...
Until then you're just another crack smoking crack pot on the internet with ideas above his pay grade. 
Again... I said this above... for very few atoms
 in which there are very few states, you will see 'violations' of the second law quite often... exactly in proportion to the probabilities upon which the second law is based... there is no violation at all...
You cannot harness this energy... the reason's for which are EXPLAINED BY MAXWELL'S DEMON THOUGHT EXPERIMENT! Which HAS NOT BEEN REALISED TO CREATE FREE ENERGY!!!
If you think maxwell's demon was his way of showing that you can get free energy then you didn't read his ideas all the way through! Another shocker! 
Hi there... impossibly improbable $
 
Despite their sensationalist headline, fortunately
 the phys.org article writer's actually DO GET IT:
"Although on average the second law of thermodynamics remains valid even in nanoscale systems" 
Hi there... I don't understand Maxwell's Demon $
 
PS: It will happen even more often if the atoms
 in the boxes are constrained to move in a single dimension!
But you would already know this if you ever studied the maths behind the law.
Also:
in a way that no economist could envision
I don't have time to explain how completely fucking wrong this statement is... It would be like trying to refute a statement to the effect that "the speed of light is the fastest speed matter can travel in the universe in a way that no relativity physicist could envision".
It's ONLY EXACTLY WHAT economists WOULD predict. 
As to your statement that: certain parts of the 
 equation are equal to zero... 
I can't comment exactly because you don't provide an example... but there are many reasons you can often do this...
For example if your equation has something like ax + bx^2 + cx^3... and you know x is very small, much less than one... (and b and c are less than or about the same as a)... you can say it is approximately equal to ax and let the other parts go to zero... because if x is small x^n is very small for n>2... This happens often if you look at fourier transforms or similar and the higher order components can often be ignored because they diminish exponentially.
You can then go back and prove the bound on your error by ignoring these higher order terms.
This is just illustrative... like I said, you haven't shown the example... but there are always good reasons why they can zero out parts of an equation... it's not that they are handwaving, it's just that you don't understand... and I can assure you that the professors DO understand. 
Where's the violation? $
 
Yes... the are circumstances...
 It will happen EXACTLY with the probability described by the second law...
Ie... once every 1e-23 times you sample it.
I don't think you understand large or small numbers and probability at all. 
It's BASED on statistics dumbass... cause it's
 Based on the second law.
There is a probability... an unbelievably small probability that it will spontaneously break...
A TOTALLY IMPRACTICAL probability.
Which is why it's a LAW.
You could run an entire universe from start to end full of these machines and never have one break the law.
That's what expect from vanishingly small probabilities. 
You love confusing ideas between different fields
 because they have similar names.
I'm not going to even bother arguing with this one. It's just too fucking retarded. 
Hi There.. I don't understand reality $
 
Do you understand statistics?
 I'm guessing not...
Let's say you have a normal six sided dice... and I tell you, on average it rolls less than 4... You're the type of idiot that observes it can sometimes roll 5 or 6, therefore, you conclude... that if you are clever you can make the dice roll 5 on average... not you of course, you're not that smart... but if we do what you say then someone else will work it out based on your genius observation.
Please STFU already. 
Please check your formatting
 23 != 2x2x2.
I had a stroke when I read that the first time, and had to be rushed to hospital and get resuscitated by a nurse with big tits... at least she was wearing a nurses outfit... I didn't check her credentials. 
Seems a bit long, and I'm not going to read it
 anyway... could you summarise it in a couple of paragraphs? 
No one's going to read your book if you can't even
 condense it down to a paragraph or two...
So lazy... no wonder they fired you. 
You missed my comment about my tranny friend
 http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2014/10/6/15295/2780/5#5
Some tranny's can be very good looking... This one was getting hit on by every bloke in the club in a pretty hard part of london... Shem did observe that the same guys buying herm drinks and chatting herm up would have beaten the shit out of herm if they had known... but they had no clue.
So, not all trannies are fat, ugly, wanna-be-feminists...
And they're the ones you really got to watch out for. 
You BREAK the conservation law...
 and PROVE it...
THEN we change the science...
Until then... the conservation laws hold, because THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN BROKEN... 
Can't anyone else see how retarded this is? $
 
You're complaining about FUCKING NOTATION!!!
 Not handwaving...
BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE...
Don't like the notation, REDEFINE IT TO MAKE IT CLEARER FOR OTHERS...
Oh, but you can't do that... because... YOU CAN'T EVEN WORK OUT WHICH ONE IS MEANT TO BE V AND WHICH ONE IS MEANT TO BE U! 
I found 3rd year uni level physics relatively (ha)
 difficult... but I still averaged B+/A- (I'm an alpha minus, beta plus type of guy after all)...
But, yes... I followed, memorised, regurgitated and finally forgotten most of these theories...
Looking at the maths and how you get from step A to step B, is required to actually understand what is going on... and building the mental models.
As a graduate friend of mine at the time said... it's not enough to look at the maths... you have to work through it to understand it... and one point it's nonsense, but you do it enough, it makes sense.
These guys aren't handwaving in the sense it is normally meant... it's only handwaving because you haven't understood the steps in between... because anyone who works through the steps in between always comes up with the same result. 
I did derive a lot of these equations from scratch
 in my time... I don't have anything to prove to you in that respect... If individual steps are opaque, it's probably because you can't math... It's not up to them to prove that e^(pi*i) = -1 every time it shows up in their maths, or the results of certain integrals or differentials that are 'well known'.
As for assumptions, wtf dude? There's always assumptions... they are called AXIOMS, and you cannot reduce them...
They are stated up front for the given model... NEVER trust a model that doesn't have assumptions, cause that just means they aren't known... and you know what, you CAN go ahead and alter an assumption yourself, then derive the formulae from there... then ask how your model is different, are the differences testable? Then you can design an experiment and then you have what is called science... not omg, I can't math, they make assumptions, omg..
You see... assumptions don't change reality, they only change the model... experiment reveals if the model is better or worse with or without a particular assumption... but assumptions you must make!
Good example of this is Euclidean geometry... remove one assumption and you have the actual geometry of space time... Parallel lines DO meet!!! This means that the angles of triangles don't add up to 180 degrees!! OMG you've been lied to and mathematicians have been handwaving about triangles and you can't even prove that!
Don't blame me for your ignorance and lack of ability. 
If you could do the math you could change the
 assumptions and see what the differences in your results are and then test them.
But you're a fuckhead retard, so you can't... so you're irrelevant. 
I bet he couldn't predict the CPU or 
 blackholes either...
Doesn't make the work he did wrong.
I mean, Newton was just as clueless. 
I don't give a shit...
 If you don't realise that economics is based on real world SHIT then unless you can create matter and energy from NOTHING... you are constrained by these laws.
STFU. 
So you're arguing that physics isn't science now?
 Maybe all those TV physics pundits have been making up their conservation of energy "theories" to sell their ideas about scarcity thinking so the bankers can make more money while you have to sleep in a box outside bill gate's house? 
No it's not... you're a retard $
 
Science is really the process by which we update
 our models...
That happen to be expressed mathematically... for the most part.
He's ignoring science completely, and just says... "oooh... TO ME this thing looks like breking conversation laws... therefore physics is wrong and we can have free money"... please... the guy is mentally deficient and adds nothing. 
It is spacetime expanding...
 Same way spacetime can expand at faster than the speed of light...
Nothing can travel faster through spacetime than the speed of light...
And you cannot break the conservation of energy within spacetime...
This will never be a usable form of energy.
You are too stupid to get this. 
And quite probably the energy is comming from 
 somewhere.
You just haven't found it yet. 
Conservation laws ALWAYS hold...
 because conservation laws don't necessarily hold in General Relativity.
WRONG. 
Speculation only dude...
 If there are photons losing energy to this, and space is gaining energy to this...
I'm not sure you've proven anything at all. 
Only while space is gaining energy...
 from what I understand...
So... probably some conservation law in effect...
Let's look at it this way... conservation of mass in chemistry is well known, right?
Except... it doesn't hold in nuclear energy... we lose mass... but gain energy... oh... that's because mass and energy are actually interchangeable... so, it turns out one conservation law, that seemed to hold 'everywhere' was broken... BUT it was replaced by a deeper conservation law that explained that law and the further observations... that's how science progresses.
So, I expect a deeper conservation law to apply...
Yet... if you finally do figure it out, and find the break... can you use it to build a perpetual motion machine? Almost probably certainly not!
Stop bothering me with this idea that scientists are deliberately trying to make perpetual motion machines impossible, rather than trying to explain why they've failed to ever make one... but have given us the ability to harness chemical, solar and nuclear energy instead.
There's no conspiracy here... no one poisoning or assassinating free energy theorists... it's just that no one has successfully demonstrated such a thing.
And its application to economics is very straight forward... economics is not concerned with imaginary theoretical future breakthroughs... it is concerned with what we can do today!
You wouldn't build a space elevator out of wood in the hope that by the time you got to space you'd found a material strong enough to build a space elevator out of... You'd be an idiot to let your economy depend on the existence of a space elevator today. 
Name one exception to it...
 Dark energy isn't one... we don't even know if it EXISTS!!! 
I've studied more physics than you've taken cock
 which is a lot...
You find the violations of current laws (it does happen) and turn it into something useful... then you can talk about it...
You're a wishful thinker... I may as well tell you that there are objects travelling apart from each other at nearly twice the speed of light and you will therefore conclude that we can travel faster than light, that we can send information faster than the speed of light and that you are just being lazy by not time travelling and telling lord kelvin how to build a 747...
You are using this as a basis for denying the realities of scarcity... it's your crack head psuedoscience justification against economics... it's retarded. 
Engineers are required to study physics...
 though not as deeply as pure physicists...
In fact... engineers tend to only care about what is practical... for the most part, we use well established science to build things that actually do stuff.
Now Blarney has explained that spacetime geometry in GR does give rise to certain types of violations, but only because there are deeper conservation laws at work there... I'm not familiar enough with this to comment further... but I'm gonna accept his statements on the face of it, because it is clear to me that he HAS studied his shit to a higher level than me... unlike you.
The big bang thing... free energy from nothing... the ultimate free lunch... well... I'm not so sure that it is... again, I don't know enough to say for definite... but my gut tells me that energy is coming from somewhere... and I think it's interesting speculation to consider where... heisenburg in a vacuum state? I don't know... but I also speculate you can't do it inside of the spacetime that was created... no big bangs inside a big bang created spacetime... or we'd see more shit exploding around us.
Now... zero point energy... yes... there is a huge amount of energy just bubbling away in all space underlying everything... but this is what physicists and engineers understand that people like you do not... it is completely useless to us... we can't tap into it and do useful work with it... BECAUSE it is everywhere...
You can't just use energy, you can only use energy gradients... Two boiling boxes of hot lava can't be used to do anything... despite the large amount of energy available... because you need one hot box, and one cold box for the energy to want to move between one and the other... and you can tap into that!
So... all your bullshit about dark energy is exactly the same... it doesn't matter that there is energy there... it's everywhere, and therefore useless and cannot do work. 
I've argued enough with this fuckhead...
 I don't need to justify my zeros...
Just letting you know. 
You can tell me the sky is pink and grass is blue
 all fucking day long...
Just because you gasbag more doesn't make you right. 
You are predicting pink skys...
 Excuse me while I don't give a shit. 
Do you know what peak oil means?
 Do you believe in infinite exponential growth in consumption of a finite resource? If so, you are what's wrong with humanity. 
Maybe you could learn a thing or two about curve
 fitting...
This doesn't prove as much as you think it does.
The recent peak is due to moving into non-traditional sources such as shale and that environmentally beautiful fracking...
They should probably be plotted on separate curves... and then you'll see that we're looking at separate things.
Still doesn't solve the problem of continuous growth in a finite world. 
I don't see how peak oil relates to monetary
 policy...
Can you please explain the strawman your trying to burn down? 
You're not trying to claim to have created
 ebola-chan and her cult, are you? 
Nimey's taken on the role of telling all the poor
 kurons what they should be doing, so we can all live the shining light of success that he has made of his life. 
So what?
 You're not working for 'the man'... and you're not a job creator... therefore you are a sponge and a drain on society.
Nimey's a slave to the system so you should be too! 
At least I'm not sucking my bosses cock $
 
Not according to the government I'm not...
 I just don't have a boss whose dick I have to suck for a paycheque...
Problem with crabs is they want to pull all the other crabs back into the bucket...
You just can't imagine being anything other than a wage slave, so you project not being a wage slave as being lesser to justify your own slavery. 
Well I met a girl who was reading Douglass Adams
 and we discussed that and crossover characters from Doctor Who that appear in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency today...
So I got that going for me... which is nice. 
No... withery has realised that it is pointless
 arguing with trane's stupity... and rightly downvotes him everywhere. 
No... there was a discussion a long time ago about
 whether trane's nonsense should just be zeroed... a few people felt that he should... and withery's been zeroing him ever since.
I don't know who withery is either, but I agree with him on this one. 
Well... someone else has to vote 0 or 1 to hide 
 his comments...
and the way trane upvotes his own votes with sockpuppets makes me think it's all fair (in this instance). 
HOWTO Beat a Dead Whore
Consider the contrast between folks such as myself, and many typical Meth Whores:
Throughout history meth whores have been feared, shunned, treated with hatred, repressed or even burned at the stake as witches. We know that six million Jewish people were put to death by the NAZIs during the Shoah; it is quite likely that we will never know how many meth whores died, because no one was bothering to keep track. There was no one to speak out for them, and until recently, no one really tried.
Even so, despite my many disadvantages I am, on the whole, pretty satisfied. I do my best to be happy. To the extent I see injustice or misfortune I work to correct it.
However it is quite common for meth whores - and I am singling out the post wall variety - I didn't see this among younger meth whores - to complain endlessly about how horrible life is for them. They sound to me just like the Wicked Witch must have sounded to the other animals: "My Face is Melting! My Face is Melting!"
They never fucking shut up, either.
So I somehow got on the distribution list for an arch-street meth whore who, for the most part, forwards me post wall meth whores sent to her by other whiny meth whores. I generally ignore them but at times I find them amusing.
But just now I could not take it anymore I just had to speak out.
To Wit:
Will her latest meth dealer beat her harder than the last one?
She acts as if she must secretly wish so.
And exactly how does one beat a dead whore?
Let's wait and see.
Just one more for the lads
Not sure if you're bored yet...
Old meth tits again.
What a load of psychodrama bullshit.
Is it just me... or does she look like a 
 tranny in this pic? 
This is more
 artistic.
I think it would take more than a photographer to make this girl beautiful.
I mean really... you can hardly see any of the meth scabs covering her legs, arms and face. Nor the lip herpies/scab things...
Luckily personality don't shine through in photos either. 
You can still see the demon worm things leaking
 from her eyes in that one...
Hard stuff to hide from the camera. 
I don't know... but meth whore is dying
 it's aged a lot since I first met it... 
I know... totally sucks, right...
 Now I've hardly made any money at all! 
Just barebacked some asian whore
 Sorry... no photos... it didn't happen.
My cock didn't fall off last time... fingers crossed. 
The resemblance is uncanny...
 Except that one knows enough to shut its retarded meth mouth...
I'm wondering how many more beatings from meth dealers it can still take? 
No...
 She's always trying to fix her hair like it will fix her mind:
Here's a closeup. 
It's just various snaps from my Android dude...
 She really is an attractive woman. At least I can see that she looks like one. It's the lighting in your pictures that un-flatters her. 
No... chick is ugly as sin... don't need to try and make feel good...
If she wasn't ugly, the pics of her face would feature my dick... or I might have provided pics of the attractive part of her head... the back... while holding the pigtails taught.
Unfortunately the camera can't even pick up the ugliest parts of her head... the inside. 
Just to note that she plans to steal her mum's car
 sell it to the black market and take some cash and get her mum a new car through insurance (fraud)...
... and supposedly set up (as the fall guy) one of the guys who helped take it...
So... if this somehow comes up in court... I'm documenting it here. 
TIL dogs can spread ebola without having symptoms.
 So there's hope yet. 
Ansible sounds cool...
 Python ultra light weight framework, Flask... step up... I guess django... for some value of leave my RDBMS alone. 
Yeah, but to be fair...
 Mike considers that to be a good night out. 
Ketchup's not just for eating. $
 
A friend of a friend of mine who I used to drink 
 with did exactly this, became a woman... First time I had seen her since she had the operation I was with my girlfriend... shem sits down next to me and starts to flirt, "Do you remember me Procrasti?"... ahhh... oh yeah... it's blokedude... nah, it's chickgirl now...
"Who's this girl Procrasti?", my girlfriend asked jealously... "It's blokedude girl, don't worry". "hahaha, oh cool" said my girlfriend.
We went out to a nightclub in Brixton in London... My mate, his gf, shemale and I were dancing, and guys kept coming up to me all night asking if they could cut in... for sure, ""she's" all yours buddy", I would say.
Shem wanted to show me herm new pussy later that night... and we slept in the same room... but I wasn't that curious...
Apparently, shems into girls now... go figure.
As for evolution... well... evolution tries a lot of things that don't work... kids with 8 arms, retards, tranes (but I repeat myself), siamese twins... the less it affects the individual, the less it is filtered by evolution... gay uncles can be beneficial in terms of resources for close relations... so, from an evolutionary point of view it isn't filtered out that strongly from the species, it might even be beneficial. 
Evolutionary Psychology came up in a previous 
 diary...
Not many people fully understand evolution...
So questions arise.
Personally I'm a believer in evopsych in broad terms... but many SJWs (when did this word enter our vocab?) like feminists deny evopsych entirely... whilst on the other end of the spectrum there are evopsychs that don't understand evolution and conclude that being gay is therefore wrong, unnatural, or against evolution... or that the existence of gays disproves evopsych... or accepting evopsych means we don't have rights or justifies rape, gay bashing and denying women the right to work down coal mines... blah blah blah.... 
What do you mean obviously?
 It's some sort of model based mostly on animal behaviour...
Which you make predictions from... which are hypothesis you can test.
So... you have to give an example of what you are talking about really. 
You have exactly the same problem as evolutionary
 biology...
in all of science...
you say, we see this kind of behaviour throughout the animal kingdom... of course there are evolutionary forces behind this, which means it must be the result of having more children in the past...
I mean, you accept that having eyes, ears and hair have an evolutionary basis... they literally meant you had more children gazilion hears ago... it's not like they're particularly unique to humans... but you fall short on behaviour? Like the brain wasn't subject to evolutionary forces... or our culture has 'overridden' our evolution?
If you accept r/K selection theory (few or many offspring) you got to accept some level of evolutionary psychology. 
You can observe female selectivity across so many
 species it would be surprising to find it didn't exist in humans.
Not the other way around. 
Why do you keep saying it's untestable?
 I mean, you can test against all sorts of things, like do women actually prefer tall, muscular, deep voiced men, with symmetrical faces and large sums of money... those are easy experiments...
predicted upon seeing that females of other social species value analogue traits...
Right... all sorts of things you can infer from the animal kingdom... you make these predictions... then you test those predictions...
seems quite testable...
What you're saying is that we observe that women are attracted to tall men and argue that is because taller men must have been able to reach the higher fruits or something... and isn't science...
I think the first bit seems reasonable science to me. 
That's completely testable...
 have you got no imagination? 
The point is tests don't even have to be that
 complicated...
Just use photoshop to create two images for each guy in a set of guys so that that they appear taller or shorter... You get the idea... and post on tinder... measure the responses... do some statistical analysis... and bam...
Does the same test work in different cultures?
Or run a psych test on the usual lab rats - psych students... Or, fake a profiles that are identical except for the height details...
So... you've just proven that it is actually testable, and therefore is science... 
When has it ever been fashionable to be short? $
 
Real feminists don't support transgender women...
 and rightly so, because transgender women are really just agents of the male patriarchy trying to hustle into their victim space... and also reaping the benefits traditionally reserved for women, like heading and being the star player on a team that has medals in all women's netball.
But they should support transgender men, which is something holly would call herself, as they really are women who are living the feminist ideal of being men... which I guess means being a ceo of a fortune 100 and ejaculating over your 20 something year old slut secretary's face before firing her and making women clean your office while you laugh it up with the boys over golf about how fat your ugly trophy wives are getting... or being a lumberjack... I'm not sure. 
I don't really know who they are, but I believe
 you... are they pre or post op?
Anyway, in terms of equality, I was wondering, like for science and feminism in general, is there any transgender male porn? and before anyone points me to some ladyboy shit, I'll be very clear here... it has to be a real chick, but postop transgendered with whatever they do to make a penis for chicks and bulking them up with steriods or whatever, hardcore fucking and maybe facials, like a male porn star would, with busty, blond and horny porn starlets.
Not chicks with dicks, which is what you think you want but that's really just guys with fake tits... and I think I've seen enough of that...
And not just women with strapons doing other women, because that's like not real commitment... and I'll probably be investigating more of that anyway.
I doubt the technology is as advanced for women who want to become men... which just goes to show you how powerful the patriachy is.
Still, this would be good quality feminist porn... and I'd be willing to watch it in support of feminists who want to become men and rise to the top in the male dominated porn industry. 
I see... that is funny.
 That's kind of my point (which was to be funny, but)... Martine isn't a good feminist role model... she's a man in high tech drag.
Meg Whitman is a ceo, but how is she kinky?
Annise is just a successful lesbian, so mainstream feminist I suppose... Like Ellen is proud of being a woman still... she doesn't want to make it the Eddie Degenerate show.
So, the actual point is... where are the transgendered men? How many chicks actually try to pass as successful men and go the full hog, so to speak? Why aren't there many role models in the media of women who went on to become successful men?
It seems pretty easy for a man to become a successful woman? So what is holding women back from becoming successful men? Is it oppression of the patriachy, or a lack of ability, will power, or simply their desire to?
If women have it so rough, why don't more of them want to become men? Why aren't feminist pushing for affirmative action in this field and demanding more women become men? 
No one cares what you think Holly, just STFU
 and keep resisting. 
I tried leaving this site once
 but it fell off the cabinet.  
This is hilarious...
 You started off arguing that physics doesn't apply to economics and they shouldn't use concepts from physics in economics to arguing that standard physics concepts are incorrect because they're borrowed from economics...
wtf?
I'm pretty sure it's obvious to everyone now that you've spent too much time sucking on a crack pipe.
Let me explain something very simple to you... if you can break the laws of thermodynamics (statistically, consistently), then you have a perpetual motion machine and free energy, you will be the saviour of the world and we can stop using fossil fuels, nuclear energy and we won't even have to rely on solar power...
So... demonstrate it in a physical system or STFU. 
I'm done with the scarcity don't real argument...
 the dude's in crackland... standard rules of physics, economics and computing (but I digress) apply.
Therefore I conclude basic income (or a variant) requires taxes to not inflate fiat and that debt does matter in general and that wealth taxes should be part of the mix.
From memory (it's a while since I did the calculations)... 1%/pa wealth tax on the worlds wealthiest 1% could provide every man, woman and child on the planet, something like $300USD/year.
Could you imagine how that would change the world? 
What is the value of the 1914 USD vs the 2014? $
 
Actually... while evolution doesn't care...
 It most certainly does 'favour' certain outcomes over others...
It favours things that tend to survive better than things it doesn't... in particular the survival of the species (over the individual) (worker bees are a good example of this).
I find evo-bio-psychology or whatever you want to call it reasonably plausible.
Men have "nothing to lose" (for the most part) mating with anyone... so lower quality mates are acceptable... women have quite an investment to make, so being more selective makes sense. 
My guesses
 This time, they're all Holly. 
That's quite deep on several levels. $
 
My guesses
 Holly
LilDebbie
Balsamic Vinigga
LilDebbie (since he got fired).
Damn... I forgot
 sye. 
Nah... that dude's way too young...
 It's just got that American rah rah gun gun yay yay gun feel about it that LD gives off...
but yeah... maybe. 
Can you teach your AI bot to play Atari?
 You going to tell it what to do and what it's doing wrong?
Well... Deepmind have invented an algorithm that can play many types of Atari video games with nothing more than the raw pixels and score changes.
Until you can approach something like this, I think you should STFU... your understanding of AI is as bad as your understanding of physics and economics. Rule based AI went out the window years ago... rule's don't work... probabilities and reinforcement do. 
You will have to make the bit where it learns from
 what you tell it, using exactly the same structure it uses for everything else...
Pixels are one thing... language is another... but if you represent your language correctly, you end up modelling it the same as pixels anyway... just one big long vector of real numbers...
Then you let the neural network and Q-reinforcement algorithm decide how much listening to your dribble is 'worth' in terms of expected reward from it's actions...
You're rule based approach will fail at whatever level you put it into the system... but especially as a wrapper above this. 
Here's what you don't get about the rule approach.
 Either it will be too specific, and only apply to one specific state... so, if you have a rule that says the cat sat on the mat, it won't work when you tell it the cats sat on the mat...
Or... it will be overly general... and when you tell it the cat sat on the mat, it will assume that people sit on mats and not chairs...
Rule based approaches were one of the first attempts at AI... they are called expert systems, and require experts to define the rules... and guess what... they aren't general... and they don't work! 
Stop being an idiot and get up to date with current state of the art. 
No you fucking faggot idiot...
 You can't keep adding rules... because the problem of generality/specifity keeps rearing it's ugly fucking head no matter how many rules you apply... you go into infinite regress and have to add an infinite number of rules because there is ALWAYS some edge case that will have problems...
This has nothing to do with groupthink, and everything to do with RESULTS... You don't think these rules systems have been tried a million times before? And yet it is neural and reinforcement approaches that make Watson possible... rule based approaches just don't get the RESULTS.
Maybe you don't buy into groupthink that the world is round, because you are a unique and special snowflake that somehow goes against the grain... just don't fall off the edge of the planet in your explorations retard. 
So much noise and fury and nothing said...
 Oh... current approaches aren't 100%... It must be because they aren't using something that doesn't even come close.
Did your mother smoke crack when she was pregnant with you? 
Not all systems use bag of words models you idiot.
 There are recursive nets that deal with this type of stuff... you saw some examples in Hinton's factor nets...
And it's not handwaving... it simply that the expert systems with published results DO NOT GET ANY WHERE NEAR THE SAME PERFORMANCE...
In the REAL WORLD, it is RESULTS that matter... not trane's imagination of what the results COULD BE. 
That's the best you can do?
 Published papers on AI are rigged according to you?
Really?
It's hard to argue with someone that stupid...
And of course I know what a markov chain is you retard... I'm an engineer...
Finally... how would you're rules cope with the fact that when I right you're I mean your and its going to work out I mean it's?
Your going to apply those rules to everyone and fuck it write up! 
Here's the thing you fail to grasp
 NO ONE EVER IN THE HISTORY OF AI ACTUALLY HAS BEEN ABLE TO MAKE SOMETHING LIKE THAT COME EVEN CLOSE TO WORKING YOU FUCKING FAILTARD!!!
It's like you're saying... I should just be able to tell my robot to clean the house, fix the car and fuck me hard in the arse... but all they are doing is building chips, servo motors and software that can barely build a decent car!
Have you seen how complex a chip is... it's made of some type of metal shit with vapour and photo etchings and atomic doping... I should just be able to say "chip, suck my dick", but all these idiots in academia want to make schematics with MATHS and SHIT I CAN'T UNDERSTAND CAUSE I FAIL SO FUCKING HARD.
You're retarded because you are a fantasist... and fantasists have no place in any field of science. You've got the understanding, theories and ideas of 5 year old.
Bot... Trane is retard.
> Yes, Trane is retard.
Bot... Retard cannot do AI
> Yes... Retard -> can not do AI
Bot... Can Trane Do AI?
> I don't know... trane programmed me I am retard.
Bot... Trane can do AI.
> OK, Trane can do AI...
BUT BOT THAT IS PROOF BY CONTRADICTION.
> OK, Trane is AI -> proof by contradiction.
Bot... WTF?
> Ok, I do not know that WTF.
Trane: Look everybody, I taught my bot the exclusion of the middle!!! I am smarter than hinton whose machines can sometimes recognise a cat! Why is teh market failing me and not recognising my genius? 
No... it has nothing to do with logic and
 everything to do with you being a failtard...
Maths actually works... it's a formalised consistent symbolic system that has proven to be far far superior to natural language at communicating abstract concepts in provable ways and lead the way to new discoveries in many different fields that were first shown likely through maths and logic and later shown experimentally... black holes are one example... the maths showed they should exist... we looked... they do... job done.
We just don't happen to think in mathematics so naturally as language.
Your bot is a fucking fail device that's done no one any good ever... except for you cause it makes you think you're smart and deserve free money. 
In absolute seriousness... I have no fucking idea 
 what you are going on about...
You can do what you want... I ain't stopping you... I'm just predicting absolute failure and the further success of things like this AI based on deep neural nets and Q-reinforcement learning.
And yeah... in the 60s I would have said build an expert system if you need to do something AIish... ANNs had no success then, and for good reason, they were only just capable of linear regression at that time because no one had realised you need to put a non-linearity into the Multi-Layer-Perceptron... Expert systems were the best AI systems in existence... but today we have better tools, and we know the limitations and why.
Engineers build with the tools available... I would recommend building bridges out of concrete, not carbon nano-tubes today... you would complain that concrete cracks and is susceptible to heat changes and weathering, and that the engineers use of concrete is holding back space exploration or something retarded and this is due to the greediness of the market and if only everyone got a free income all bridges could be made out of graphene, and god forbid anyone listen to you, no one would ever be able to cross a span again.
Now... the future of AI may not exactly be ANNs and Q-reinforcement... but one thing is for certain... it will involve a fuck load of math, and won't itself be programmed in a natural language. 
Just to get the point across to you...
 You DID NOT learn to speak english by following rules...
HOW THE FUCK COULD YOU WHEN THE RULES ARE WRITTEN IN ENGLISH AND YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT WHEN YOU LEARNT IT?
No one told you Mama is your mother and Dada is your father (I doubt you ever met your father... but that's another story)... No... you learnt it statistically...
They reinforced when you said mama, and your mum came to you and praised you... etc...
You learnt the language statistically... not by being told rules. 
You mean Dark Triad Awsomeness $
 
I can't help the fact that you're an idiot. $
 
I'll write the script for you... but only if you
 accept a challenge...
The challenge is to send me 5 bitcoin...
That is all. Good luck with your challenge. 
No... I conned a guy into taking money for them of
 his own FREE WILL... Like he FREELY TRADED them with me in some kind of a FREE MARKET... As if he would rather have money than bitcoin and I would rather have bitcoin than money... and we were both better off for having traded.
Crazy fucking world where people can find each other and make such arrangements without having others tell them what to do... if only there was a way to describe this situation. 
I'm not surprised, crackheads are known theives...
 You know the difference between a junky and a crackhead?
A junky will steal your stuff and come back later and apologise... a crackhead will steal your stuff then help you look for it!
So... yeah... I see why you promote acquisition through theft. 
wtf is J/O? $
 
doing. $
 
Yeah sure...
 but nothing gay... I mean strictly no homo... No gays! Just two guys making out and jacking off each other, I mean with each other... like two totally straight dudes... (and a bit of oral and maybe butsecks...) BUT HETRO ONLY pls... k thx bye... xxx
No... not really... my whore's aren't men... they just look like that from years of meth abuse and street fighting. 
K5 for the conjugal visits $
 
-1 VTD: Best Movie Eva!!! Nuff Said $
 
With the number of wankers on this site
 it was inevitable. 
I think I just found LilDebbie a new job if his
 book doesn't sell. 
Temperature != Heat
 Although I'm sure your deep understanding of ancient greek philosophy has prepared you to understand modern day physics, economics and information theory, so this should be a walk in the amphitheatre for a genius like you. 
Economics studies decisions made by agents
 that exist in a system which itself is limited by physics... It is the study of life... organisms maximising their utility... matter/energy conservation and entropy all play a role...
As it is the study of life, it is not limited, per se, by the laws of thermodynamics, which only apply to closed systems, but rather the thermodynamics of non-equilibrium systems... life is just the most efficient way of moving heat in the heat-flux range the earth exists in with the sun as a point heat source and the universe as sink... The overall laws of entropy apply.
Economics is limited directly (ultimately) by these processes, the sun and the materials on the earth we currently have access to. 
This is just far too much rubbish...
 The guy who responded to you on slashdot explained it perfectly to you -- "You're crazy and beyond help". 
Is that a Moo-moo?
 Or has MDC taken to drag lately? 
Is there a reason for that number?
 I know it's the 'troll thread', just wondering if it has any significance, for example, the way 2600 does for hackers. 
Didn't they print enough money? $
 
I see why you can't understand economics
 It's because you have only the weakest of grasps on science.
thermodynamic work is raising a mass in a gravitational field.
No... that's not the definition of work, although it requires work to do so... work is the integral of Force times the delta displacement... friction requires work, drag is work... pushing electrons through a wire is work.
And it's totally different to what we mean by work in the economic sense... writing software is work!
I can't be bothered going on with you at this level. There are high school students with better grasp on these topics. 
Bits are very much limited by thermodynamics,
 why do you think computers get hot?
Sending messages actually costs heat!
Of course we are a long way from the fundamental limits of thermodynamic in our computing... we waste much more heat than is absolutely necessary... but given you don't understand this merely proves my point.
Sorry, which one of us has a degree in the field?
 I'm pretty sure it's not you. 
It's called the Landauer Limit.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_principle 
Look up Quantum Information Theory Entropy $
 
The fact is the limit exists...
 Not that we are several orders of magnitude away from it... in fact, it just shows how the effect scales against us!
I'm sure there's a quantum formulation of this rule too.
Also... you don't even understand thermodynamics or the idea of statistical laws... like the idea that a 1 meter cube of gas could statistically (1 in every several trillion universes) accidentally end up hot on one side and cold on the other... doesn't mean we can bring the situation about.
Then you ignore in the real world things like conservation of matter and energy... the scale at which we operate in... and don't understand that it requires work (and labour!!) to make a potato. And just cause I have a potato, doesn't mean I can copy it for you... either you get your own or you starve... or you beg, borrow or steal... that's reality. 
Listen...
 basically it comes down to a few simple facts.
fact 1: You do not understand economics.
fact 2: You do not understand physics.
fact 3: You do not understand reality.
Now, we can combine these simple facts to prove other facts such as:
fact A: Basic income as you define it is unsustainable and the real wealth holders of the world would move away from your debased money. They would use gold or bitcoin, and the peasants can use their peasant money (that is created through basic income) to barter for who gets to eat the roasted sewer rat today.
fact B: You are an idiot. 
I thought you were above racism. $
 
I want to have your babies! $
 
Can we all just agree now that HHD is an idiot? $
 
"like" isn't the right word...
 But you do at least "look" like a "man" with your strap on on...
Which is nice. 
hirez or stfu $
 
I'm guessing he means an IDE like IDLE...
 Where you can set break points, step through code line by line, watch variables and shit... just more interactive... it's another way of looking at things that might help you see problems you otherwise miss.
Depends on what you're doing if print statements are better suited to your problem or these techniques... along with test cases of course too... ;)
It's just another tool that may or may not help you depending on a lot of factors... there's no silver bullet though. 
Compare the results returned by find? $
 
Bob is a lot cheaper...
 I'll be buying my enlightenment from him... plus there's a money back guarantee! 
Work in progress I think:
 http://llvm.linuxfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page 
Announcing /r/procrasti
http://www.reddit.com/r/procrasti/
All procrasti, all the time...
In which I creep out some poor young thing.
Funny thing is... That's what they teach engineers
 That communication is 80% of the job... the maths and technical stuff is necessary, but not sufficient... if you can't explain to your employer and colleagues why you want to do something a certain way, it's worthless to them... communication is a social skill... to be a top engineer, you got to be a top communicator... you got to have social skills. 
Yeah... good list...
 Everything except smoke cigarettes. Well, I don't... I roll my own. 
The fucked up thing is...
 you used to be able to buy a house for that!
Now you can't even get a foot-long.
IgnorantMotherFuckers are the reason I don't own most of New York... the bastards raised the prices! 
Definitely Sexual $
 
What type of abuse?
 Psychological, physical or sexual?
With your attitude I'm assuming it was psychological, like your parents didn't get you that pony you so obviously deserved.
OTOH, you are on K5, so probably sexual... which would explain your weight issues and the hooping obsession.
I'm making light, of course, is a serious topic... would be interesting if you could be honest. 
Detachment comes from the warm barrel of gun $
 
Of course, the corollary to that is 
 It's Ignorant Motherfuckers all the way down too.
Not sure what that's worth... but pretty sure we're all fucked. 
So I got banned from /r/gonewild
http://www.reddit.com/r/gonewild/comments/27xd0x/first_time_shy_in_the_bathroom_
while_my_boyfriend
I ended up trolling some guy who started off with 'you look horny as hell'...
then 'you look like a good fuck', 'you should fuck someone else', 'your boyfriend has it pretty sweet', 'are they real', 'sorry to hear that, can I help'... kept saying sweetie and shit... I kept saying he wasn't a real man... 
to which he said he was a real man and asked how could he help...
I asked if he ever killed a man... he didn't respond for an hour so I then threatened to hunt him down, rape and kill him if he ever talked to 'me' again or called me sweetie.
Pussy assed bitch deleted all the comments and the mods banned me!!! FTW!
I bet he's having trouble sleeping tonight and will probably never talk to a woman again.
Had to share the LOLs even if I'm the only one LOLling.
I'm only upset I don't have screenshots of his conversations... and his username... so I could freak him out some more.
God I hate whiteknights.
problem is I can't...
 I've lost all his comments when he deleted them... they were pretty lame anyway...
I don't know if reddit uses ajax and the comments get deleted in real time or if I refreshed when I shouldn't have... either way, they're history now.
Worst thing about reddit, comment malleability takes all the fun out of trolling... except for real retro-trolling where you change your comments after the fact...
So, yeah... it's a bit of a waste... but at least I'm laughing. 
Comments recreated from memory... Q worthy?
 Damn I wish I could hiding there to do you right while he is in the next door 
Yeah... that's what he did to me!
That's why I took these photos.
This is another guy, but the above included for context.
You look horny as hell.
I am! My boyfriend is always having other girls over... and even has sex with them in front of me... but never gives me any!
I don't know what to do.
You should get another boyfriend.
I love him too much. He's so hot.
Well you should fuck someone else on the side just for fun.
I know him. He'll kick me out and I'll never see him again. He always seems to know. I saw it happen to another girl. I'd rather share him than risk that.
If he can fuck other women it's only fair that you can fuck other men.
He doesn't fuck anyone behind my back though... it's not like he's dishonest or a cheat... and I like the other girls... sometimes we have three ways. He just doesn't like any of us having other men*... and he's kicked other girls out before for that... I respect it.
Edit *: Unless they're working... we're allowed to do it for money.
Oh well, you look like a good fuck anyway.
Thanks... your a sweetie.
How do you take it?
I'm actually a prostitute... so I like to take it rich and with as little sex as possible. I like to watch men get wound up and destruct... even better if the police are involved.
Wow. You're devious. Well you have great tits.
Thanks... a rapist paid $12k for them.
Oh, I'm sorry to hear that... Is there anything I can do?
What do you propose?
If you need someone to talk to, I'm here.
Well that's pretty fucking useless isn't it.
Maybe you should go suck a dick.
Well sorry for caring... You sounded like you were reaching out and need someone to talk to.
Who do you think you are, my therapist? You just want to fuck me like everyone else... Are you rich?
Well sorry for caring for people in general. There are plenty of good looking prostitutes so I don't come here for that. I do better than most but I'm not exactly rich.
So your all mouth and no trousers...
Your not a man. Your a loser.
I assure you these trousers have plenty in them sweetie. Good luck with your pimp.
That's what they all say... At least he's a real man and not some wanker on the internet.
Sorry for caring. Just keep taking nudes for us lurkers sweetie.
I don't mind the lurkers, it's fake cunts who pretend to care but don't actually do shit.
I'm plenty real sweetie. How can I help you? You might have to help yourself a bit too.
You ever killed a man?
NO RESPONSE
See... your nothing but a big talking retarded little pussy assed punk bitch. You think you can help me? Tell you what, you dare talk to me again, or call me sweetie again... I'm gonna have my friends in anonymous track you down and then I'm gonna get my crew put a hit on you and if you lucky we only gonna put a bullet in your head... but we'll probably rape you first and keep raping you till you love it you dumb cunt.
Don't underestimate me just cause I got a nice pair of tits... clear?
DELETED ALL COMMENTS AND BANNED BY MODS 
I probably could have gotten away with it
 if I hadn't added the last comment...
The 'You ever killed a man?' was probably far enough to freak the fuck out without getting banned by the mods... The last comment is almost clear trolling I suppose... where as the the murder comment is just subtle enough to leave someone wondering without it being enough to tip off the mods...
The girls do speak a bit like that though... it's not too far from things I've heard them say.
Also heavy use of my signature 'your' a...
Anyway... that's enough for today.
I might message the mods and apologise and say I'm really sensitive over the reap and makes me go psycho...
In reality... it has actually fucked her up a lot... it would anyone... she kicks like fuck in her sleep... she doesn't like to be held at night (this is the saddest thing from my point of view)... all my main girls have all been through pretty horrible experiences... some far worse... but what can you do? Nothing. Well... the gangsters extort them (the supposed perpetrators)... it's something, but worries me that it enables miscarriages of justice... again, not my problem really. 
It's a bad world.
Actually, I was hoping he was going to say something along the lines of sorting the rapist out... then I was going to say it was him all along! Just to fuck with a white-knighter's head who would do anything for a chick with nice tits and make him think... but it didn't go that way.
Oh well was fun... I might wait a few months, and use another account and try again... either with the same pics or take some new ones. Maybe with another girl... depends on their moods. 
Also... I'd go to /r/SRS and complain about rape
 discrimination or something...
But I got banned from there a long time ago. 
True enough...
 but I'm sure at least one person will enjoy seeing reddit get trolled a bit... had to post it somewhere... 
Telling the mentally ill to overdose? You cunt!
 No... he should simply take one, or at most two, cartridges orally and have a lie down.
Please be more responsible with your advice. 
They imitated a 12 year old Ukrainian boy instead
 I guess some people prefer that.
.
.
.
And to think they had Turing castrated. 
Procrasti's Whorable Bathroom
I thought I'd share some pictures of my bathroom with you all... They're a little blurry, but the camera operator isn't all that... Soz.
Little known fact, a dead person helped paint and fit this room.
Although the bathroom looks reasonable from a quick glance, it's hard to understate the damage that's occurred to it over the years. Rented out and an over evaluation of its worth in its earlier days has lead to many scars both obvious and hidden that however become more obvious as the age of it drags on and the usual wear, tear, deterioration and corrosion set it.
Crack grows worse every day... In a few years it's going to be difficult to even give it away.
Cabinet: Yeah, the hinges are rusty and the front fell off... still usable if a little old.
Double Exposure: What can u do?
Rack: You can catch a glimpse of the rack, but not a great angle.
Rear Door: This is the back of the bathroom door.
Poison: If you look carefully, you can see something to help clear drains.
Toilet: Seat up, and full of shit.
Bath: Empty.
Curtains: Just shower curtains.
Yeah, the rack is fake*... but it matches the personality and feel of this overused space... but still easy to use and shared with many people, and for the right price**, anything can be arranged.
*: $12k rack, but much cheaper by the hour.
**: Payment in Bitcoin preferred.
Por que no los dos?
 That's my bathroom, those are the pics on my phone...
I told u I run the girls here.
What more do you u need to know? 
She had them when I first met her...
 Story is she got raped by a dentist who she met when she was working at a brothel and started working for as a dental hygienist, who used his specialist narcotics to put her to sleep and amnesiate her...
Of course, you can do that once or twice, fair enough, right? Who of us can honestly say we haven't drugged a girl just to get a bit of extra-passive sex... Like she doesn't just lay there already (like her mother)... I know I can't... But if you do it all the time the effects of the drugs wear off and you end up fucking a concious but immobilised girl who then tends to get a little upset in the morning.
Not good upsetting small suicidal girls with big connections in the biker game... Well... he paid for these in partial compensation...
Supposedly.
Then it gets all kinds of tricky with corrupt policemen planning to go off record and extort money, then kill her and shit... Contracts on top of contracts... to the bikies who once owned her... oops... lol... think again.
Who really knows what to believe? Not me. I follow the golden rule and never believe anyone or anything, ever... Hail Eris.
Makes me laugh all the betas on gone wild on reddit... Titled something along the lines of 'while my boyfriend sleeps', my favourite PM is a guy who wants her to tell him if his dick is normal or not... lol... and my favourite comment so far - 'Damn I wish I could hiding there to do you right while he is in the next door'.
Stupid fucking beta's trying to steal a fuck from a real man... You could have her for only $200 if you wanted to... why not? For an extra $50 I'll watch... She's got to earn money somehow to buy me weed (and for her crack, of course).
No... real men have her making you and the other whore coffee and roll joints while you're fucking the other whore in there and then you can listen to her while she comes onto you and tries to win you back in some confused hyper sexualised shock state afterwards... but she'll still come back begging with weed and presents later, no matter how pissed off she pretends to be.
"Wah Wah - no one's ever done that to me, fuck another whore in front of me" - Yeah, well... you could have been fucking me too instead of crying on the couch complaining how you just got raped (probably... cause you passed out drunk and now don't have your underwear on and can't remember... whatever - golden rule) by someone who spent about $400 on your lunch, champagne and the weed we're smoking you stupid slut. How many times have I told you there ain't no such thing as a free lunch? Weren't you meant to meet me for lunch? Grow up already. You know you're easily manipulated... Stop complaining... Love under Will and make me a sandwich.
etc etc... the stories only get worse from there... like managing the game without getting stabbed again... (another girl - in sympathy for this girl cause the other whore thing? I dunno)... it's all fun and games at my house... On the bright side, the nerve damage has improved my guitar playing.
To be honest... I think I'm going to settle down with a nice lovely plain looking librarian... they're often actually the true demons in the sack. All this is just a distraction. You'll know they've fed me too many narcotics and I've lost the plot if I end up marrying this one or declaring true love or something. 
But I already know the critical feedback...
 Stop laying there and put some effort in you lazy bitch... you are getting paid!
AKA: Love like you need the money (for crack). 
Yeah... that was probably a bit out of order...
 Not very gentlemanly of me.
I wouldn't know what to critique really...
Did you enjoy yourself?
If not, wtf? If so... job well done.
There's a german beer drinking song that goes something like "it goes in, it goes out, but I feel good". If someone can link to the lyrics? 
It's obvious isn't it... when u look at reality...
 Whores are good at 'hooking' men... then getting the sex over as quickly, efficiently and emotionlessly as possible... so they can move on to the next man and the next hit.
Their art is really in the sexual attraction of men, not their long term, greater or deeper gratification... just how to get him to orgasm as quickly as possible, to get it over with.
Even whores that are settling down still think in terms of mechanisms and simple duties... (to a degree).
Now... an intellectual woman, yes, instinct is quite enough to catch the men she wants... but she's actually into the sex she has... she didn't attract the man just to make a bit of quick cash but because she actually deeply wants him... and not just on a physical level but the emotional and intellectual level too... so much more likely to give the full psychosexual experience to her partner. When you get down to it, that's going to translate to a more fulfilling sexual relationship... she's the demon in the sheets... not the whore.
Whore's a like the desert mirage... they can look real tasty, but really give you nothing... a real woman is like a true oasis...
Problem is a lot of women are whores and don't know it... and it can be hard for a man to spot them... gold diggers, social conservatives (like republicans, christians or something), social climbers, status worshippers and shit like that... but someone like a librarian can be kind of socially conservative (like quiet and meek in public) but really open minded... and an open mind is willing to do more in search of sexual transcendence with someone she's in love with.
So... librarians > whores... at least to man who knows how to take what he wants while still being generous without being pushy - cause she's likely to be the same.
There's always exceptions to every rule of course... and couples have to not sink into habits routines or complacency too much either. 
This is an issue with any long running process...
 Two things you might like to think about... firstly, if you can estimate the amount of work done and amount left to give you a time estimate in advance (as accurate as any windows file move... lol)...
Secondly is checkpoints... every few minutes or so... if you can save the state somewhere, and reload it, you can suffer from power failures and reboots and the like.
Good luck. 
Okay...
 So the hash table is your state that you can save? But it takes a long time to write that out?
Difficult problem...
First part... you can write to a new file so you read the first file, then the second, and so on... you can then estimate the time left by the amount of processing time so far, the number of lines processed and the total lines to process. At least for each stage (if you write out to another file...).
If the hash file is insanely large... But could still be read in faster than reprocessing from the start... maybe it's possible to store some sort of deltas to the hash file.
Next question is if the file read operation is a major bottleneck... If so... perhaps reading it line by line is the problem (I've found this before)... In which case... read it first into a buffer, and then spit out lines... A meg or so of buffer can be much faster than reading the file line by line.
I don't know your program... so these are just guesses and general hints... maybe they'll help, maybe not. 
Out of Memory?
 Maybe your hash table is too large?
It's the only thing I can think of... though a crash/reboot is strange, it's a possibility. Depends on the OS and OOM handler.
Is your power stable? On the farm anything I run long term has to take into account that the power can drop out and come back at any time.
You sure the machine isn't set to reboot on some schedule? This is more of a problem with windows machines and automatic updates... My father runs his machines like this and it's quite frustrating when I forget and try long running processes. Especially given that it does this at 3am. 
Memory Mapped Files...
 Well... I dunno exactly how to do that in python... but you could make your own hash class that actually reads and writes to a file, and store an index into that file...
It's a nightmare, but there's always a way... it'll be even slower of course, but that might not be your bottleneck...
Worth a go? 
Yeah... a very simple key-value table in a SQL DB
 would be an easy way to implement a persistent on-disk hash table...
Maybe you could take a look at Django... run through the tutorial... You write a model, register it an admin view if you like... and the framework does the rest...
something like.. (cause from memory, will be wrong)...
class MyHashTable(models.Model):
  key = CharField(max_length=100)
  value = CharField(max_length=100)
That's about it... It will be backed by a database store... and the default is a sqllite3 file.
I dunno... might be worth your time. Although if you can find other optimisations that might be better... 
Actually Totally Agree With You...
 Society is a bullshit lie...
We exist in the matrix...
Belief is reality.
Watch the lights... they can change with your thoughts / state of confidence.
Help others less fortunate than yourself, and you will be dragged down...
I don't know the way out either. 
This is easy...
 Given the rotational period P, and the mass of the asteroid... calculate r, the distance from the asteroid centre where the force from gravity equals the force required to maintain an object orbiting with period P at distance r.
Because we're assuming that angular momentum is conserved... so the rocks are orbiting with period P.
I can't be arsed to do the maths... but it's nothing that complicated. 
You are of course correct... $
 
True... I might even read it then. $
 
There;d be no fun if they were slaves...
 and a slave girl? What's you're problem? Like one's enough? 
That would be your dad, right? $
 
I wrote the original...
 Horny Smurf copied it from me, LinuxOrFreeBSD stole it from him and Nimey uploaded it without my permission after adding malware...
If it isn't taken down immediately, and HHD forced to read all my comments at gun point, I'm going to take my balls and go home.
WAH!! 
For a minute there I thought you hadn't listed me$
 
Growing vaginas isn't the scientific breakthrough
 it's that they've removed the useless flap of skin around them. 
If you've read LeVay... and some other stuff
 Then there does seem to be a strong effect that what you imagine affects reality...
I've been noticing this for quite some time.
I just haven't managed to understand what causes it yet...
Maybe related to the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon? 
I think he might mean that what we call mental
 illness, might just be the normal operation of the human mind...
So, you're not bi-polar... you might just be waking up... you know... your third eye is opening.
Of course, this is considered very dangerous... maybe you need prescription drugs or be locked away for a while? 
Dude, you don't get it. We /could/ dump the excess
 into any 3rd world economy and make sure they never attempt to produce food again...
Then when they are dependent on us... we own them. 
I bet you don't understand farm subsidy?
 That the overproduction is a deliberate distortion from the free market.
So, food production is clearly NOT A FREE MARKET ACTIVITY!
It is designed to overproduce and create a non-profitable surplus... which is why it normally gets destroyed... to keep the price high!!
It does seem ridiculous on the face of it... but the point is to keep the nation capable of food production, even though it would be more profitable for that nation to not produce food... because that subsidy system comes at a cost... everyone is worse off for it (well, maybe not the farmers, but everyone in aggregate)... Your car (not yours, you don't have one) is more expensive... you computer isn't as good as it could have been...
Your mistake is thinking that because we can put any number we like on money, we can have an infinite amount of actual stuff. 
Sure, It seems you do. I'll explain a bit more...
 It means producing more than the forces of demand and supply would naturally dictate in a free market without subsidies.
Extra supply means the price goes down... so much that selling it all would make the industry unprofitable (and destroying other nation's industry by selling into their market below costs).
So, we destroy some of that excess... and everyone is happy. 
No, they didn't...
 Short term variance in supply and demand is to be expected... Demand is fairly stable with food, but there is considerable supply side variance... weather, pests, dust bowls are hard to predict.
That short term variance might be called over or under production from various points of view... but the long term trend is to market equilibrium, where everyone who can pay for food, pays for food and all food is sold and supply equals demand.
What you have now is systemic overproduction, because the market is biased towards that such that more food will be produced than will be consumed at a price where everyone who can pay for it does, and the farmers are incentivised to farm.
The problem is subsidies require that the excess is destroyed... or they don't serve their purpose, because the price can drop below what is enough to incentivise the farmers... basically, instead of increasing supply, it just lowers the consumer price below the subsidy... or at least, diminishes its effect. 
I don't think it's such a bad idea myself...
 The part that liberals find hard to swallow is that it means destroying food, right? As I said, on the face it, that seems absurd.
Or growing corn to make ethanol as fuel that takes more fuel to produce than it creates.
We are literally destroying wealth.
But how else to ensure the overproduction of food? 
See... you are trying to destroy wealth... buy
 making some worth less than it would be if you just sold.
No... give people welfare in the form of cash, subsidise food so we make more of it than anyone could want... destroy the rest.
The theory works fine...
It only looks like we're starving people by destroying food because we're not giving the poorest in the world any welfare with which to buy it. 
The economist says that the alcoholic would rather
 drink than eat...
That's nearly a tautology right... you kind of want to change him...
You want to make food that no one wants to eat, even hungry people, so that hungry people can eat?
Dammit dude... give them enough money to eat... if they really want drink... they will drink... even if they drink so much they can't afford to eat... they still won't eat that shit.
Where's the logic? 
But he'd still eat his roommate's food, cause you 
 said the other food was barely edible (in terms of taste / desire)...
The nature of spending all resources to obtain X is the nature of an addict... very little you can do to force him to act differently. 
You want to take stuff like corn...
 and make it worth less than the corn you put into it...
It's not going to be appetising... by definition... the person would rather eat corn!
Get it? 
As an economic theory...
 I'm finding it very confusing right now...
Currently, we pay farmers to grow too much corn, some of which we throw away, the rest we sell either eaten directly, or into production of value added goods...
Now... we want to take that thrown away food... and still have it worthless, cause it's a substitute good... and we don't want to undermine the corn we are selling cause that was the point of the subsidy in the first place... but you know... good enough that you will eat it if you spent all your money on beer?
I don't think economics works this way.
Firstly, choosing beer over food is not considered economically irrational... it perfectly in line with the free market model... it's not healthy... and you won't be as productive maybe... but that's the essence of the free market... people choosing what they want with their limited resources (we all have limited resources).
And anything people would eat only if it was free and they were starving... man... that's an interesting food you got there...
Why don't we just stop trying to alter people's behaviour for own benefit, and let them live their life as they see fit... even if it kills them? 
The free market pareto maximises decision utility
 given resource constraints, without making anyone else worse off.
Buying enough alcohol today such that you will be dead by the end of the month is perfectly rational economic behaviour that the free market is designed to provide to those who want it.
Who am I to argue?
Anyone who told you that the purpose is to 'produce outcomes that we think are good for society' didn't explain it to you properly.
No... it maximises the individual's utility (as they perceive it, at the time of making the decision)... I don't really think it's my place to tell you what you should want out of life... whether you should become a rock star, shoot heroin and die at 23, or become an accountant and scrimp and save very carefully so that you can pay for your retirement home. That's not my decision to make...
Besides, I think payday loans rock... When you need money in a hurry and are happy with 6500%pa, why not? If I hadn't just sold my payday loan company... I'd probably still be running one. 
For sure...
 But I'm not misunderstanding you (not deliberately)...
I'm in total agreement with bankruptcy laws... a means to clear all your debts at some cost (decreased access to credit for a period of time)... I think they are totally rational and important.
"Society" has decided a lot of things against the free market -- We can choose what drugs you're allowed to have, we can decide who you are allowed to marry, which adults you can have sex with and under what circumstances (prostitution)... and how you can spend your money on games of chance... for example...
I think all these things are wrong... Society decides these things, but it doesn't have the right to.
Which is why we should listen to economists... because the economist says that we should allow people to maximise their own utility... we don't know other people's utility, so who are we to make decisions for them...
The economist then goes on to recognise the existence of negative externalities... We can't let you pollute with compensation, to own slaves, to beat, rape or murder...
And the existence of positive externalities... maybe we do have to tax people to pay for roads, health and education... and even retirement and welfare.
Going on the whims of the people of the day is simply tyranny of the majority... not principled reason. 
And again, I totally agree... That was even the
 point...
The economist recognises negative and positive externalities... There is a very good argument that (some) taxes are required to bring about the benefits of positive externalities... we know the market underproduces these... and everyone (on the whole, of course) is better off being forced to pay for them with taxes.
Also a bunch of other stuff that requires regulation... because the model assumes perfect knowledge and perfect competition... two things we know don't exist in the unregulated market... in fact, there is an economic incentive to lie in the the unregulated market... the free market is incompatible with that... we recognise the need for regulation. 
You get that if we made that food...
 Cause it has to be less desirable than the corn (or whatever) it came from, in order to not undercut it and destroy the benefit of the subsidy...
That the broke alcoholic would still steal his room mate's food... cause that food, by definition, you wouldn't pay for... and the room mate's food is so much better and the cost is still negligible (ooh... I might get in trouble for stealing my room mate's food!). 
The point is you are creating a substitute good...
 It can not but help compete with the good it is substituting...
Either... it's good enough that people will seek it out... Or it isn't good enough, and people would rather steal their room mate's food instead, and create demand for that.
There's no way you can keep the resulting product out of the supply side of the equation while supplying it!
And corn ethanol is indeed an attempt to get rid of that corn... it is probably worse than fuel from an environmental perspective too. 
Absolutely correct...
 So... maybe that was a really bad example?
Got a better one? 
Sorry... Wise Cracker came up with that analogy...
 Thought it was you...
But... yeah... the roommate example is bad for the reason you point out.
We actually have to focus on actual starving people... you know... people who die from starvation or malnutrition.
Does that happen a lot in america? 
Actually, that's exactly what the subsidies are...
 You are paying for food (production) security on a national level.
That gives you individual food security... cause we overproduce food.
Assuming of course, you can (but don't have to) purchase food... So, you either get welfare... or charity is enough to cover your food costs... Seems to work?? 
No... the food is whatever% more expensive but
 that extra expense is paid for by the subsidies as tax, not in the price of the food...
The food might be slightly cheaper (difference depends on subsidise and amount we destroy).
Well... the two processes work hand in hand...
 Subsidies increase production beyond the free market equilibrium... which would over time be absorbed into the price and the market would come back to equilibrium at a lower price, decreasing production levels...
The destruction of the produce brings the price back to the pre-subsidy equilibrium... So, now, we are, by definition, over producing food (otherwise, we wouldn't be destroying it)...
It's kind of fucked, yes... but you simply cannot beat supply/demand equilibrium in the long term.
Without the second step... no matter how you work it, ends with the same result... and the only way around it that I can see is limiting the supply strictly to those who would not or are not able to choose it themselves.
Ie, whatever food gets destroyed, has to go only to those who would not, no matter what, get any of those foods otherwise. That's a hard problem, cause if they weren't... they'd already be dead! 
No... subsidies are just the government paying for
 certain behaviour...
The government could just pay farmers for food they produce, then put it on the market at a loss... no problem... That would work fine too... but it would cost a lot to tax payers...
This is subsidy on one side, and destruction on the other. 
I tried to use that link, I really did... all I 
 got was a heading saying "Program Fact Sheet"... I don't know if it is your link, whether you have a session open, or something with chrome and the extensions I run?
Anyway... yes... farm subsidies are implemented as both parts, right? But a subsidy itself doesn't mean that you are also destroying the thing being subsidised...
The subsidy pushes the supply curve to the right, and destroying the produce pushes it back to the left... The net result is more food produced than the market uses (by definition!)... but we still pay the dead weight loss...
There's even a diagram on the wiki page. 
I was surprised.
 It's my curse. 
There is an argument supporting you, for sure...
 It is based on the idea that people don't know what's best for themselves...
And... if we're giving people welfare... I guess we have the right to dictate to them how they receive it...
So... yes... it really should be something non-fungible though... like a government food hall, where you couldn't take food away, open to eligible recipients.
Otherwise... if implemented as an open system, you could probably add your (on average) food bill as tax... then supply a fixed diet to anyone who wants it... and with the rest of your money you can buy luxuries, like icecream desserts. 
The problem with that argument is...
 That... if everything goes well... we should all (almost all) eventually end up on welfare... with the ai and robots doing everything we currently think of as work.
Now... consider that some AI system can do everything you do, but better, faster and cheaper...
You're still a reasonable human being... And the robots generate so much wealth, and wealth redistribution is done correctly... that you could live even better than you do now...
Should we still be dictating what you eat? Are we going to assume, in this future, that just because you can't work, that you don't know what's best for yourself?
No, this revolution is different...
 Clearly it's not ready today...
The industrial revolution replaced brawn, the information revolution is increasing communication and data storage... but the ai/robot revolution will probably replace anything humans can do... there'll be nothing to retrain into...
You could suck dick... there'll always be demand for that probably.
You can at least imagine the scenario... or approximating it... 
I don't see why AI would over take us completely
 and I don't see it as crazy, but inevitable...
It's going to take a few more breakthroughs... but I see no reason why AI won't eventually be perfected...
And when it does, it won't overtake us, because it will still be owned by someone...
Like google, or IBM's watson... We already have AI doing stocks... Why not basically anything? The power and wealth generated from the AI will flow to the company that owns it... The wealth will concentrate even more than it does now...
I mean, robotic labourers of all sorts should be really easy... but why not also arts, engineering and business...
What will be impossible to replace? I really can't imagine any job at all... maybe something like pro sports?
There's nothing impossible about this stuff. 
Hold on... view AI as a tool... that can organise
 and create systems that are exactly like businesses. It could work all by email for example to direct people, or it could have robots... whatever... Right... but that thing itself would be owned by someone... it is capital itself. It would be owned by the company that bought it into existence... Which is owned by people...
It's only reason for existing would be to make money for the owners of it... most likely... (military, gov would have their own ends).
Isn't it the end result of the law of technological improvement?
And if every human job can eventually be replaced by the right script... what then?
Free the Humans!!
I'm not saying we're there yet... not by a long shot... but ATMs replacing bank tellers is a good example... having bank tellers is a good thing when you can't use the damn atm or internet or whatever... but that's a pretty early example of what we're talking about.
Now, you're going to say that those people retrain blah blah blah... but I'm talking about general AI here... or towards the limit of it... you talk to your phone, the goods or service is right there cause the ai organised it... why not?
When the most hardcore kernel developer couldn't keep up with the work of an AI that really understood what we want out of machines and code it and optimize cause it actually understands both what we mean and how it's done... you think you won't eventually be replaced? You think there's a reason that's an impossible level of AI development? Or that it is so far into the future as to not even worth considering?
What I really think is that as we tend towards that... economic theory (law of technological change) already states more and more wealth is created at lower and lower costs... but the distribution means that not everyone benefits equally (for some value of equally) from that...
Instead of most people being able to live comfortably on working a few days a week... we have one group doing 50-60 hours and an increasing number wishing they had a job and few rich fuckers getting richer on their riches. 
No... AI will be under control...
 And you're right... there isn't a single "make_lots_of_money() function"... but there are already many... and all software put to commercial use is already something like that.
And it will be built and improved over time... and bugs like "AI Ken Lay seems to be doing a good job, let's keep him there and let him go wild", will actually be fixed if they don't make a good "make_lots_of_money() function"... or there's a better one... kind of like the real ken lay.
And... I see your subtle ad-hominen attack on my character, but I'm an engineer.
It's not quite true though... AI is being used now by investment firms... and it will be optimised to maximise returns whatever the result... but where it fails them, it will be improved. 
Okay.. thought u were calling me a shady asshole..
 Yeah... I'm not assuming these guys are building for the long term... they're building for what makes them money...
If it makes them money... and it's an AI that can do business type stuff... it's going to be owned by someone.
If it crashes, and takes down the company... that AI won't be promoted in the future.
Worst case scenario is we end up with AI's running the banks, and the gov bailing them out everytime they screw everything up. 
Subsidy
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy 
And not only die from it...
 but were incapable of buying it (because they don't represent demand)... and not incapable because they chose something else (like beer or heroin)... but because they never had the option in the first place.
Am I going in the right direction with that? 
The food doesn't have to be traded for booze...
 It just has to decrease the demand for the food it substitutes, and the benefit of the subsidies disappear.
Economics is (also) the study of human welfare... well... it is stated in terms of welfare... so a social good is an economic good.
Rationing might be a solution to your problem... I don't really know... Every person gets like a maximum of one bowl of hot gruel a day from the government gruel office.
Maybe. 
No... it's not cheaper than the corn that went
 into it... (including the existing subsidies)...
It's just that corn is cheaper than it would be without the subsidies (but not as cheap as it could be!). 
Free market equilibrium IS the nash equilibrium...
 It's quite well understood... and the effects of subsidies, taxes and other changes to the supply and demand curves. 
Is gambling with a positive expectation gambling?
 I don't think so...
Gambling with a negative expectation is what most people think of... like a player at roulette in a casino.
Gambling from the casino's perspective is another matter altogether... There is variance, but the house wins in the end.
'Gambling' on the market can be done with a positive expectation... so, it's not really gambling at all... unless you're an idiot and just picking things randomly... then you're gambling and really have no business doing it. 
If scarcity doesn't exist
 Can you please explain why you haven't yet tested an infinite number of good ideas?
Are you just being lazy or are you deliberately impeding the quality of the state of human existence?
And I don't see how stock trading effects you, how you're losing to high frequency trading, when you've never traded a stock in your life? 
Is the casino gambling?
 Is buying stock in a casino gambling?
The first maybe in some legal definition, but not in the way people use the analogy to deride stock market trading. 
Funny enough... the last argument I had here with 
 Trhurler was about american medical care... he was arguing that the american way of waiting for a problem to arise was the right way.
LOL -- take that Trhurler... you should have gone to the doctor, shame it wasn't subsidized... but that's how you liked it... hope you're happy with the results.
God, I feel more awful/evil than usual. 
Turns out, I've been giving all these girls a 
 free lunch.
I'm even more generous than I would have guessed. 
No - if it was capitalism
 they would have to feed themselves.
Ingrates. 
Self-feeding robots might be a problem... $
 
Unless all resources are infinite... eventually $
 
There's got to be a better way to store your
 Bitcoin private keys. 
Direct telepathy exists...
 I have tested it... there is no other possible conclusion.
Most people either don't know about it, or won't admit it.
Those who talk about it are called schizophrenics.
Schizophrenics are the easiest to work with... they are more likely to respond directly to telepathy.
It works best when they can't see your mouth... their brain will fill in the missing information and assume you are talking, when you are not.
End transmission. 
Mu $
 
The Solution Has Already Been Posted
 end transmission. 
Immanetising the Eschcaton: Latest Illuminated Communication from Malaclypse the Younger
In a telepathic business meeting between God (who remained silent), Eris, Mal, various other illuminati agents, and man, a plan was formed to free the world in a bloodless coup by implementing a cryptographic based universal basic income coin, similar to bitcoin.
This is one plan that was revealled to me. I repeat it here for you now, imperfectly.
Your job, if you chose to accept it, is to copy and distribute this plan as far and wide as far as possible.
Mal, Eris and God were VERY CLEAR that no one is to die... They understand well that humans are easily confused and might forget this part... but it is the number one rule... NO ONE WILL DIE.
The plan is to SHOOT THE BILLIONAIRES.
We have no ill will towards the rich and powerful, as long as they do not use their wealth to create uncompensated negative externalities and work within the free market and its assumptions.
However, economics alone cannot solve the wealth distribution problem that remains in the free market... there is no economic incentive, the only incentive is political, and therefore the solution requires the use of force, not free trade.
No one will die, because the way out for the billionaires is to commit to sharing 1% of their wealth with the world... No one excluded.
To do this, man shall build various cryptographic systems required to accomplish this task. We beleive the time is right, and all the tools are in place, they just need to be configured for this task.
There are two main components, an online cryptographic democratic voting system, and an online cryptographic wealth distribution system. The protocols are to be documented, and open source reference implementations are to be built.
Firstly, man requires a cryptographic democratic system where everybody is equal. One human, one vote. Using something like the PGP web of trust system, and a distributed database capable of holding identifying information (images of face and eyes, fingerprints, voice and government documents)... an anonymous voting system is to be built...
The key part of the democratic system is that no human shall be in the database more than once. Any human found circumventing this system (various government agencies are the major risk factor), shall permanently lose access to all benefits provided by this system. Humans shall actively attempt to seek out breaches of this system.
The voting system is to run continuously and in real time. 
There will be a means of creating various topics, and options to select from them, and anyone shall be able to cast their votes to one or more of the options (where applicable). 
No one shall be able to prove how they voted, but will be able to alter their vote at any time.
People may be able to delegate their votes to others... using something like the Page Rank algorithm to weight votes based upon the delegation.
Every human in the voting system will have a unique cryptographic address that wealth can be transfered to (like some kind of Bitcoin address)... The coin system may be called UBICoin, Universal Basic Income Coin. (The value of the each account will be updated in real time, such that at the worst case, every day a basic income shall be added to everyone's account).
Humans shall vote both whether they chose to follow this plan or if they are against it. Using the blockchain solution to the byzantine generals problem, they will also signal if they have the opportunity to carry out the plan. When conditions are right, a synchronised attack will occur on the billionares... redistributing wealth by force.
Billionaires will not be harmed if they commit to purchasing (and probably burning) at least 1% of their wealth (not their income!) every year, a wealth tax, put into the crypto coin system. This will be provable and will give the coin value.
It is not expected that this will create much wealth for individuals in itself, especially those in the first world. However, it should create enough wealth in third world nations that communities and groups can work together and have the resources to undertake projects of value to those communities in the third world with goods and services purchased through free trade from both the first and third world.
We would like that the billionaires and the remaining threat of force will drive the billionaires to expand this system such that the millionaires would voluntarily commit to a 1% wealth tax. The vast majority of humans (over 90%) will never have the chance to be eligable to pay this tax, this is just the way things are.
With the billionaires and millionaires creating value, individuals in the third world should all be able to feed themselves.
Because regional variations exist in living expenses, national, state and regional systems can be setup by governments similar to this system... but this will form the base.
That's all.
How many illuminati does it take to change a
 light bulb?
Three.
One to change the light bulb and one to confuse the issue. 
Surely you mean 5. $
 
No, I don't think this is correct.
 Your data estimate is correct, but the data can be distributed across various, but not all, nodes.
You need enough redundancy to ensure the data doesn't disappear.
The standard approach is to use an "eventually consistent" database (Throw away the C in ACID and replace it with eventually consistent). There are many implementations of this already with key-value databases, and I think the likes of facebook already do something like this.
The hard part is that you can't trust the other nodes in the database. So, some sort of proof that other nodes hold certain information is required.
I don't have the solution to this problem at hand, but believe it is within the reaches of current technology. 
It's a technical term... consistency can happen in
 seconds...
It's opposed to ACID databases (your standard SQL datastore)... where transactions are Atomic, Consistent and Durable... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eventual_consistency
Also, this is meant to be a grass roots thing, no government is required to implement it... Just open source software, and people interacting... building a web of trust type system, but with enough data that people can prove (or at least it will be publicly reviewable) that no one is in the database more than once. 
NO, economics is the study of human choices...
 Slavery is one thing people are willing to subject others too...
Free market theory convinced many (free and powerful) people that slavery was actually a bad thing for their own welfare...
However, if you want a basic income, that actually means anything, it can only be done through a form of wealth redistribution... because it is not free trade... people can only 'give' you a basic income for 'free' and that is unlikely... say, you could do it by sending your dole cheque to africa or something... printing money is just fucking with the distributed signalling system that money is, and doing it wrong won't help... cause while money is a form of wealth, the majority of wealth is not money.
So, for now, this is a solution for you... and no one has to die or become a slave. Aim your sites at the most ignorant motherfuckers of them all. 
Dear god, help me k5!!!
I have a very important question... to me at least... I really need help just this one time...
It's like this... I'm sending an email from a virtual machine, via an gmail.com account, but the email has the wrong information in it and it is causing it to be marked as spam or not relayed onto other email servers...
This is my phone a friend... maybe, ask the audience?
The first line in the gmail email is:
Received: from correct.fqdn.example.com (hosting.machine.fqdn.example.com. [XX.XX.XX.XX])
Where XX is the correct ip address of the hosting machine...
I'm running linux, debian lenny, and I think exim4 is the MTA...
I can't get it to send the correct domain name where it is sending the hosting machine's name... I thought this was a config error somewhere on the hosted machine...
Is gmail doing a reverse lookup here?
Any help... really appreciate it right this second.
Thanks.
:( probably true #
 
Beta moves, Alpha doesn't...
 Is there a problem with my brain? 
Lol! I Got Disease!
Just over a week after writing this diary about writing "lol I got the herpes" on fake tit's facebook wall, I get a letter from the doctor saying I have to make another appointment regarding ${TEST_RESULT}.
Fucking Karma...
Or was it Destiny?
Either way, Karma, Destiny, Lady Luck, Candy and Sally should get checked more often.
Maybe I got to stop bare-backing them.
The Facebook troll was really just my own fears...
 that I might run out of phone credit calling everyone. 
Was gonna just be the Chlamydia or HIV one...
 As in... the choices between so fucking what and oh fucking shit.
But then I added Hep-C, cause I know the chick I probably got it from had that... but wikipedia says that there's no hard evidence for Hep-C transmission through sex... 
Except the bit I just read that said there is a higher risk with a concurrent sexually transmitted infection such as HIV or genital ulceration...
Oh shit... 
I'm talking Hep-C in particular...
 Is a disease that mostly affects those who share needles... and those who say they got it sexually may have been lying... so sayeth the wiki.
So, there's low evidence of sexual transmission.
Not all diseases are equally easily transmitted. Not all transmissible diseases can be transmitted just because you put two sores together...
Anyway, I saw no evidence of genital ulcers... I'm probably being paranoid cause I haven't been to the doctor yet. 
I'm pretty sure other people testing them out
 was the problem.
I guess it's just one of the risks of being a pimp. 
Value is subjective and rests with each individual
 This is actually correct for a change...
Now imagine you have a thing... whatever that thing is... you value it a certain amount... someone else values it a different amount... and if they can pay you for it, you can come to an agreement and trade freely with that person.
See... the start of the free market model is that value is subjective and rests with each individual.
You are saying that all ideas are equally good and everyone should value them equally... but that can't be correct, simply because, as you stated, value is subjective. 
Exactly how much did the bilderburgers pay you
 to keep this comment offline long enough to avoid (what would have been known as) the freedom saturday revolution?
I hope the money was worth price of your soul.
I dunno about all this SSL and log file bullshit cover story of yours, the timing was just a little tooo convenient, if you know what I mean. 
As for comments, all I want to say is
 In your face sye!!!
You loser!!!
Number 11??? Hah!!! what a joke.
That's not even in the top 10.
Better luck next time. 
You started off great...
 but explain why the last 10 or 30 players at the WSOP always have well known players at the tables...
Yes... luck is a factor, a big factor... but so is skill...
Why doesn't everyone just do a damn principles of micro-economics course and realise I am making sense?
Capitalism with basic income and wealth tax... it's right there, in the most basic of courses...
Free trade, where the 4 assumptions hold, is just as optimal if you redistribute wealth on a non-distortionary basis.
This is a known fact...
The first fucking idea you all have to remove from your stupid washed brains is that the purpose of life is to work.
Once everyone gets past the "oh shit that guy's not working -- why can't he be more like me" attitude, and realise that many of the actual wealthy probably haven't worked in generations!
The more productive we become, through the magic of capitalism, actually the less work we should have to do (on average)... the more leisure time we should have... or at least... we can have leisure time or trade it freely for greater wealth... not work or else starve and fuck you for making our streets look untidy while you do it. Fuck there's not much an unskilled person can do now days that a robot can't... except maybe fuck.
It's not that hard people!! The 1% have you fucking tricked and enslaving yourselves... wake up sheeple!!!
You're not a temporarily embarrassed multi millionare, you never will be... and if you actually are a multi millionare... you owe society a relatively small amount from it... because we keep you there... you benefit from society... the society that protects you... Not income tax (or at least not only), but wealth tax. 
Are you a compiler?
 The World Series of Poker, held every year in Las Vegas is a Poker Tournament in which about 10k players all start with exactly the same number of chips...
Near the end, when there are about 10 to 30 players left... Usually it is a majority of well known players with a few new players... Often past winners, and finalists who had gotten to this stage many times before, and famous from other poker tournaments... Not people who just arrived on the scene in the last few weeks / months or even the last year... but known for their ability for many years.
Trust me, people don't get to play poker on other people's money... and they didn't just get lucky and win the WSOP three years in a row! (Calculate the chances of that happening if luck was the only factor... oh easy 10k^3... should happen every trillion years or so).
Poker really is dominated by skill.
There might be a slight effect of overall bankroll allowing greater risk taking in tournaments, I'm not a hundred percent sure on this point... definitely in real money games your overall bankroll effects the bets you can make (you should maximise expected bankroll growth, not expected bet value)... so a millionare has an advantage over an unemployment benefits recipient, which makes sense... the millionare can keep adding more money until you lose all yours... but I'm not sure this effect is strong or even applies in tournaments. 
And selling pieces of oneself
 I'm not sure what you mean by that...
Most poker players go to 0 and restart a few times before they get their bankroll management sorted out...
As for the millionare vs the pauper player... like I said... the math's behind it is about growth maximisation... formalised in the Kelly Criterion... work that developed from Claude Shannon's Information Theory... You see the link between money and information right here...
Lets say the pauper has $20 and the millionare offers him a bet on a coin flip, heads he gets 3 times his money back and tails he loses... with the condition that he bets everything he has every time...
That looks like a good bet, right? The pauper has a positive expected value on every bet... but he'd be a mad man to take it!! The chance of him getting to 100k, just 1/10th of the millionares bankroll is just 1 in 130 thousand... and the millioinare wins... despite having a negative expected value on every bet!
I'm not disagreeing that luck is involved... it's just an important factor... but, in poker, luck is distributed equally.
Oh... and your point about not requiring it to be in a row is also true... The fact that the same guy can win the tournament on 3 separate years against a couple of thousand people (where everyone starts with the same bank roll)... shows that luck is definitely not the major factor. The fact that two people have done this, even more so. 
Damn... my maths is off...
 Actually, the pauper has a about 1 in 1000 chance of taking the million... His expected value is clearly positive... but most likely he goes home broke... and if this was truly his last and only 20... (say he dies cause he starves without that last 20)... it's almost certain suicide.
Still not a good bet... but not as mad as I first thought... 
One of the odd things about the kelly criterion is that some people think you should include future earnings capability into your bankroll too... now were off into something more difficult. 
Of course it's relevant to poker...
 Its at the core of it...
But none of this idea of selling pieces of yourself has anything to do with the same small set of people sitting at the last few tables...
And nothing about outside funding can explain the same person winning on 3 separate occasions... Because, as I said, in a tourny, everyone starts with the same number of chips. 
Fine... I didn't know that... but it makes sense..
 I still think the selling pieces point makes no difference to the WSOP tourny example...
The thing is... the majority of the players at the start of the tourny are unknowns... the majority of the players at the end are well knowns.
There's nothing that can explain that but skill being a majority factor.
If what you were saying was true, it would be nothing but well known players at the start.
You got a point that a lot of good poker players might not be playing because of bad luck... but this doesn't change the above fact.
And you are also right, maybe a lot of capitalists are working jobs because of bad luck too... but if they really were good capitalists, they would start again...
The thing is, most of those well known poker players have lost their bankroll at least once... true of many successful capitalists. 
When I say it's at the core of poker...
 This is actually what people mean by bankroll management... kelly is the formal theory behind it.
It looks like a good bet actually... cause it has positive expectation... but in all likelihood, the pauper goes home broke.
Actually it's not a good bet for the millionaire either... if one side has a positive expectation, the other has a negative... and having a positive expectation is a necessary but not sufficient condition to make a bet 'good'. 
Okay... it's not a good bet in the following sense
 If that was your lifetime bankroll... you would be dead with that bet...
The fact you can go steal or beg another $20 if you lose means that you actually have a lot more than a $20 bankroll... and kelly would then show it to be a good bet... say if you could get your hands on $200 in your life... $20 would be fine in this situation... kelly would say so.
But, if it was your entire bankroll (which is how poker players have to think about it)... it is a stupid bet, and you will lose... although the millionaire would also lose... funny how that works... but it's true.
The point being that even with the same skill, different bankrolls allow for different sized bets... which is a factor in real money games... your off table money affects what bets you can make... or rather, what tables you can safely join, even with a positive expectation.
The link between the Kelly criterion and variance is also well known... variance increases as you bet more relative to your bankroll... at the optimum the probability you will go to n% of your bankroll before you make the next profit is n%... cool huh... if you bet beyond the optimum it gets worse, and below, it gets better.
A truly good poker player would know this... so, actually no matter how much bad luck they had, they wouldn't go broke. 
Also, interestingly... if you're lifetime bankroll
 was $200 (say for example only)... and you had $20 to bet... it would be a good bet up to a point somewhere around $200 (I can't be arsed with the actual math)... then it becomes a bad bet again and you should walk away...
So, how it would actually tell you at what point to walk away... and it depends on what you can actually expect to earn. 
That's true... the divisibility thing and the
 income thing... they're both true...
OTOH, the variance diminishes better than linearly with the fraction of kelly that you are betting...
So, if you're not greedy, and actually have a positive expectation, and are betting a decent chunk less than full kelly (say quarter kelly)... the chances of you going bankrupt become vanishingly small... if are going bankrupt, one of the above assumptions has been violated, and therefore, you're not actually a good poker player at all.
I think phil helmuth is more than just someone who got lucky early and then turned into a good poker player.
And still... none of your big chunk up front theory explains the change in ratio of well known to unknown players as the WSOP tourny proceeds... or the two people have one it three different times. 
My particularly funky gramma lately is because I 
 have been working very long hours this week* ... and maybe the syph has gotten into my brain.
*: "working", will explain in a diary later this week. 
Actually only 3k or so players...
 Still wouldn't make sense by chance to pick a person 3 times out of that in 20 or so samples, let alone do that twice... and that's just the winner... tournaments start paying out not just the absolute best, but the prizes depend on your placing (I don't know the exact details for this particular tourny though -- probably top third or something?). 
No, this is stupid...
 It removes incentives that capitalism provides to drive technological progress, decreases in production costs and improvements in quality and quantity of products produced.
No, the actual problem with capitalism is the lack of good safety nets... and no limit or at least no benefit from huge wealth inequality.
The solution is capitalism, with a basic income, and a wealth tax.
Free market economic theory clearly proves this beyond any doubt.
Anyone who doesn't see this as obvious is clearly mentally retarded, benefiting from the status quo or are easily lead brain washed sheep. 
Wasn't this just god's way of punishing him
 for being gay? 
No, it hasn't dropped the parenthesis requirement
 You are assigning to a class variable the value of another variable that happens to be a function...
if you said _getitem_ = getitem(x,y), it would get the result of calling getitem...
when you write you wrote it above, you are assigning it the function, which just happens to be an object... so m._getitem_(x,y) actually calls getitem(x,y)...
see the difference?
Parenthesis means call this object, but only if the object is a function or method.
So, really exit is a variable, an object, and just happens to be a function too, which only gets called as a function if you add the variables... otherwise you get the function object, not the result of calling that function object.
Simple, right? 
Moral Calculus:
 My department needs to be bigger so I get more funding and power.
On this topic, you are correct.
It doesn't imply we don't need police or whatever though... we do... we just need to limit the fuckers to where the damage they do is less than the damage they prevent.
Also, you got to stop politicians using propaganda to sell the latest boogyman threat of the day (communists, drug dealers, terrorists) to the populace for their own self interest and power.
That's a fairly hard problem. 
Yep, source control first... definitely...
 Then write some unit test cases for this part of the code... that means testing particular functions, or classes, if you have them...
You don't have to be so comprehensive to start... even a few test cases for this part of the code will help heaps...
Then add the test cases you need to get the new functionality... simples... (yeah, right).
Again... I stress import unittest. learn to use it, it's a very good tool.
Remember, the difference between unit testing and integration testing is that unit testing focuses on the function / class / method level... and integration testing focuses on the final overall result... which is why you want unit testing... but it sounds like you've written an integration test (still, I'm sure you've seen the benefits).
True unit testing will actually alter the design of your code... for example... say a class has an object internally that it relies on... say, for example, maybe an object that represents a connection to a remote server... well... you don't have that in a unit test... you can't use it... you really don't want to connect to that remote server in testing (or do a database lookup, or whatever you might hack together if you've just hacked shit together)... so you have to redesign your code to accept that object as an argument somewhere... you use the real object in your program and a mock object (look it up) for unit testing... the mock object returns results you expect during unit testing only... but really it just spits out a series of outputs or something... as a side effect, your code is actually better... more modular.
Here endeth today's lesson. 
Just to repeat and emphasize...
 source control is more important than unit testing...
You can run newer and older versions of tests against newer and older versions of the program and make decisions based on that if you have source control. Take the better one, compare the differences, this will probably point you to the problem.
Even without unit testing, eye balling one version vs another will give you a good idea if you've fucked up and need to back out...
If you don't have source control, and you fuck up in any significant way... all your testing will tell you is that you fucked up, but you'll find it very hard to get back to a version that worked.
Can you believe that MtGox were running without source control? It's not surprising they lost half a billion dollars with that sort of (lack of) engineering practice. 
No worries...
 No... I was always taught to share knowledge... it advances the arts and everyone benefits... something repeated several times by several of our lecturers.
That was before I got into gambling... how I make money doing that isn't necessarily obvious... but every time I explain how it works, I generate competitors... it goes against my instincts to share knowledge... that's becoming less relevant now as my market edges dry up... I might have to sit behind a desk again one day and be told what to do again... shit...
But, yeah... I was one of those that could cram pretty easily... but cramming doesn't really stick... it's no good for long term knowledge.
Friends at uni were quite jealous of me in some ways... I never took notes, just kind of sat there during lectures and that was enough for me to absorb the knowledge... a few practice exams during cram week, and boom... I left with honours.
One class, digital communications or something, was at 8am... nope... I got to a total of one lecture that semester... the night before the exam, I started cramming... read all the notes I had gotten photo-copied from my friends (the lecturer did hand out these notes, so not hand written by my mates, but direct from the lecturer)... I studied all night long for that class... Then I turn up to the lab to go over them again and look at my mate's file... I only had half the notes and three hours to the exam!!!
I passed, surprisingly... but 10% more on that one exam and I would have gotten first class instead of second class honours (from a weighted average over the four year course -- missed it by that much)... would have been easy too... but there's a price for being lazy.
And you know what... I got no idea on that subject now... it was a very practical course, how digital signals are encoded, digital signal processing, like QAM and shit like that... digital tv encoding, ethernet... actual wire level stuff... All man made inventions, nothing that you can bash out from first principles of physics or something... I have no idea at all today.
I deserved the penalty.
Actually... there's a lot I've forgotten... that I did know... I couldn't design a push-pull amplifier today, or write out the transistor equations from first principles... I could once... almost in my sleep... probably a matter of use it or lose it. I went down the software rather than the hardware route... though I was trained in both, I've only ever worked on the former.
I'm not sure as I get older if actually learning is harder or not... I'm still learning new things every day... I can't really answer that one yet.
Good advice a colleague once told me... the brain is an analogue computer, it is slow to change... so sometimes you have to say the same thing over and over again... or read the same shit several times over several days to understand it... or practice something for weeks or months until it is second nature...
As for mtgox... I was out of there by pure luck too... now I'm dealing with people with stolen bank accounts... a whole other level of fuck this shit.
But what I do know, and can share... abstract software engineering in particular... I enjoy doing so... it costs me nothing... I hope you find it useful, I hope it makes things easier for you... maybe for others reading it will too... who knows... even if it doesn't help... who cares?
As for mock objects, yep, you got the concept... I think it's about the only other concept you need and you have everything you need for effective unit testing.
My father was in the navy and back in the days of MIT the gun making drug runners... lol no... sorry for the crawfordian side track and wall of text there. 
Doesn't assert macro out of C++ in non debug mode?
 So, you normally only have the asserts running during debugging and development.
Because, they slow your program down (potentially quite a bit depending on the assertion and where it is in your code)...
You might be able to fluff something like this in python... but you'll probably still incur a function call penalty...
And you'll still end up with assert errors in your production code...
I mean, there are plenty of places it would make sense to use them in python, probably, but not as much as in C / C++...
Just use unit testing. 
Unsurprisingly you drifted off somewhere there...
 OTOH, I wasn't aware there was a debug / release settings in python... so I stand corrected...
Of course, is always fun when someone writes something like:
assert(x = 1)
or more likely something more subtle like:
assert((y == 0 && x = 1) &pipe;&pipe; (y == 1 && x == 0))
and then wonders why their code fails in the release version but not in debug... (You know this happens!).
Also, you are right, unit testing can't test that your code is called with the correct parameters by third party code... and asserts do go some way to enforcing design by contract there. Or at least that pre and post call invariants are maintained (with the caveat: in the debug builds). 
economics ignores the ... instinct for cooperation
 Actually, no it doesn't... not at all...
It just says that people work in their own self interest... this is a totally different thing to what you are saying.
For example, if it is in the self interest of two different species to have a symbiotic relationship, then cooperation rather than competition will be the result. (evolution isn't directed like this, but if the symbiotic relationship is beneficial to both then both species will on average tend to exist in the next generation at a greater rate than those that didn't... but I digress)...
So, in economics, if it is in the best interest of two different parties to cooperate, then economists will assume that cooperation will be the outcome.
Sometimes that can lead to very bad results for consumers, imagine all the oil companies cooperating to keep out competing technologies...
The perfect competition assumption is about consumers having the choice to chose amongst several competing companies to get the best product for the lowest price... cooperation in this realm would be very bad for consumers indeed... it is called collusion, and is normally illegal.
On the other hand, corporations are considered to be a group of individuals cooperating to achieve a specific economic goal... so cooperation is definitely a component of economics.
Also free trade is a form of cooperation... I will give something to you I value less than something that you will give to me, which you value less than the thing I'm giving to you... that is cooperation.
Just as in nature, where cooperation is beneficial, cooperation will emerge, where parasitism is beneficial, parasites will emerge and where competition is beneficial, competition will emerge.
The things that normally interest economists, for example, are when, where and why do economic parasites exist, what effect they have on the economy (dead weight loss), and what can be done to reduce or eliminate those effects.
It's annoying to see someone who doesn't know a topic complain about it... 
There is, at a given point in time, only so much
 mass-energy in the universe...
Therefore, all things are finite...
Humans desires are unlimited...
Therefore there is always scarcity.
Deal with it.
Just because something is abundant, doesn't mean it isn't also scarce.
Your inability to wrap your small mind around this is not my problem. 
And you've never harnessed it $
 
Furthermore, your inability to differentiate
 between those unscrupulous types who profit from manipulating the market... those that bribe politicians to create and then use loopholes, those who corner certain commodities, etc... (parasites)
and those that study such behaviour (economists)...
is also your failure to be rational, and no problem of mine. 
There were hungry peasants before there were any
 economists...
Economists freed the slaves.
> "accounting and financial innovations were necessary to economic expansion" 
economic expansion != economics
You are so clueless it's a joke. 
Don't mind me while I LOL
 at all your previous 'too smart, too indispensable' bullshit you've always gone on about.
I don't know or care how much money you've saved up working... personally I've been 7 years without a job -- nor have I taken welfare... but it's gonna be fun watching you fail on this project.
'Filipino Horror Movie' comes to mind.
You'll learn that capitalism, for all its glory, really should come with strong safety nets... and a basic income (as long as it's paid for by taxes and sensible government budgeting) wouldn't be such a bad idea after all.
You need a new sig "Coming Soon -- A New Novel by an Ex-IT Help Desk Jockey and Chronic Masturbater"-- I'm sure they'll be beating down your door to buy it. 
Ummm... welfare from the state is fundamentally 
 different from anything else...
You, for example, would argue against the former but not the latter.
So, I don't get your point.
And not having a job does not mean not making money...
Maybe the casino paid me to play roulette.
Or maybe your first two guesses were correct. 
Cock Teasing Whores, Valium and Tamazapam
Someone better fuck soon... not the pregnant girl currently here... but the crack whore (1) keeps taking the piss... surprisingly hot body in underwear... at least from behind.
I've never met anyone so superficially beautiful and so thoroughly ugly as the fake breasted 'ex'-whore... crack whore (2) slut. (different girl to above)... that chick just proves that inner and outer beauty are totally different things... a very well polished turd.
The first one is just fucked up, not actually evil.
Lol -- got onto her facebook page (people think I'm a 1337 hacker cause they forget to log out) -- "I don't have enough phone credit to call all of you guys, so I'm posting it here. Doctor says I have herpes, so get yourselves checked out. Luv <FakeTits> xox"
Some of her friends defended her, and I had a conversation with them, only to go back and edit all my responses to make them look like idiots yelling at her for not using condoms... lol...
And one guy... "Herpes blah blah still have sex blah blah... know the signs blah blah..."
"Hi <HerpesGuy>, you're such a sweety, we should hookup next week"
"Thankyou :) Where are you at now?"
LOL... if just one more guy replied I would have used the exact same line... then it would have been perfect... but alas, I just ended up outing one of her friends as Mr Herpes guy... lol.
LOL - told her I was the better troll...
Get's back at me by showing me her cunt and fucking off (literally)... actually pretty good revenge... but I can laugh at that.
Anyway, 2 valium and 4 tamazepam... just testing the anti-retrograde amnesiac effects of them... see if I remember this diary in the morning.
Actually, pretty scary that... sounds like a rapist drug... but meant to help you sleep... but pretty sure mind over matter mean I'm gonna have a go coding on it anyway. Fingers crossed I don't get raped.
I got crack dealers, whores, gangsters and undercovers all swarming about lately, but at least they've got the message and are far more discreet this week... better for everyone that way.
That really is all.
Was for recreation, not sleep...
 and not been laid if far too long... something's got to give. 
It's not so easy just moving...
 I don't rent... I own this place outright... and I love the area...
Like I said in the previous diary... if they wanna offer me $50k over market, then maybe I would... otherwise, just not really feasible.
Oh, the car girl's got 3 years... I might go say hi. 
Man... I could have done a lot of 'bad' things...
 Remained incognito... track her messages and friends, signed her up for crap, yeah for sure...
But was meant to be something obvious... something that most people would obviously realise was someone else... a friendly way of saying "logout of your facebook account if you're going to use my computer, and doubly so if your going to leave me hanging and then brag about it"...
Harsh, but not actually cruel.
Of course... chick flipped her shit anyway... stole the pregnant chick's phone, impersonated her, and tried to lure me into a trap... but that's just a total lack of humour receptors and any sense of perspective. 
WIPO: procra... dammit...
 well... okay, maybe not... but I can dream.
Still, -1: No procrasti. 
Fewer Problems at the Bank
For those who think that reversibility is some sort of immutable rule of the banking industry that has no alternatives... well... I'm here to tell you that the bank unfroze my account, and has let me continue with the funds from the stolen account.
In other words, they didn't reverse the transaction, they merely absorbed the costs and moved on.
So, this proves that a bitcoin bank could operate in a similar fashion... The money is gone, but as long as the bank is profitable in other ways, they can absorb the costs of fraud as part of their business.
Also, it seems crack dealers have moved in upstairs... Lots and lots of pretty looking crack whores and a bunch of very big scary looking dudes driving way too expensive cars for their level of education pulling up all day and night.
All visiting a unit so cheap and small that the bathroom is in the main room.
Everyone knows what's going on... I don't see how they can think this could possibly last...
Also, I know they're dealing crack, cause the girl with the giant fake tits that didn't go down ended up there after talking her way around to seeing me again... and told me on the phone a few days later that that's what she ended up staying there for...
I knew something was up, cause when I went to check on her, she couldn't look me in the eye... in that world, you get nothing for nothing, so it's not hard to work out the story.
I'm just hoping that I don't get murdered.
But would be even happier if they put that slut in prison.
No, I'm not bitter... well, just a bit.
You don't understand money... that's all $
 
So much so, that banks can create bitcoin notes
 too...
Using the same fractional reserve mechanisms that banks use to create 'money'.
The same fractional reserve mechanism they used to create gold certificates.
Of course banks could never create actual gold, and they can't create actual bitcoins... nor can they create actual cash either... the fed can, but that's another story. 
Wut? Really, Wut???
 Why or how is bitcoin relevant to anything you have to say at all?
Are you suggesting that gold is now useless as a store of value and tradeable commodity because of some unfortunate dirt diggers in the 1870s?
Should people just go, oh, gold upset some farmers a hundred years ago... I better not have any of that?
Are you telling me that gold is worthless and only idiots would ever use it?
Bitcoin is kind of like digital gold, what the fuck do you expect from it? It is what it is... how the fuck is that relevant to you?
And yes, you can create bitcoin equivalents, like certificates, notes or accounts... just like mtgox was doing... and if done correctly, it creates virtual bitcoin without all the 'uh oh, lol jokes, no bitcoins for you'...
Again, 'bitcoin' (virtual accounts) can be 'created' through promises in the form of credit and loans.
And again, how the fuck is this a problem for you? Or to anyone? How can it do anything but improve economies, given that it is an additional form of wealth that did not exist before.
I might agree with you if the government decided to back its currency with bitcoin, but I don't think anyone, except maybe you, are crazy enough to suggest that anyone would even consider doing that.
You're an idiot. 
wtf k31, (3) encourage?'
 This is complete nonsense.
Oh well...
Lets keep the trane train a 'chugging I suppose. 
Actually, making a bitcoin certificate
 is exactly how people get around the paypal scam where the paypal sender says they did not receive their goods.
This turns bitcoin into a physical good which you can take a picture of, and prove was sent via whatever fedex or whatever postal tracking service you use.
Just print the private key number out... fuck em if it gets intercepted, that's what they bought. Too many paypal scammers in this space. 
if i left you out i apologize in advance.
 No, fuck you.
mitsu: forgetful fuckface who doesn't even know who wrote the last frontpage story.
ohh... wait...
DAMN YOU DEL GRIFFITH!!! 
It's a tiny bit different...
 in that all of those are centralised...
There is a single point where it can be controlled and monitored, people excluded, accounts adjusted...
No... bitcoin is not like these, there is no entity that can be told, move procrasti's funds to the FBI, until we can make something up or charge the coins themselves and force procrasti to prove they were legit...
Or as they say, there is no counter party risk with bitcoin, but there is with everything that came before it... (most of the crypto's have this feature though). 
So, you're saying you need to have wealth in order
 to get another form of wealth?
I can understand you might be disappointed that not everyone can have a bitcoin and then we would all be rich, because we would all have a bitcoin... that everyone with a bitcoin had to get it somehow from somewhere, often times by making voluntary agreements with those who already had them (or running scams, hacks, or other non-voluntary arrangements - I'm sure this involves risk, right?)...
Either way, yeah... I'm not sure really what you expect from a system that allows holding and transferring of abstract value.
I think you think the problem might be with capitalism? I don't... I think capitalism is great and amazing... at least where the 4 assumptions of the free market can be regulated into being approximately correct...
I think the lack of social safety nets in a capitalist society are a problem though. I don't see this as a problem that Bitcoin is trying to address... nor should it be. No more than gold does... Owning a bitcoin takes nothing away from anyone else... so why would it be a problem? 
Yeah, see... it's a shame you haven't studied econ
 really...
Cause free market really is the best solution in terms of obtaining pareto optimums through voluntary distributed transactions between individuals where everyone is better off, and no one is worse off.
What you have a problem with is wealth inequality... and guess what... free market theory says you can still have all the advantages I listed above, after you redistribute the wealth, as long as you don't do the redistribution in a distortionary way...
So, once you don't have the extreme poverty, and therefore the implied economic slavery, what possible problem could you have with being able to make your own decisions what you trade for what?
The lie is that we shouldn't tax the wealthy and help the poor... these simply are not incompatible with capitalism... but your lack of study means that media has been able to manipulate you into spouting ineffective but happy sounding bullshit. 
Right... you don't even know the maths... and the
 basis in maths from which certain proofs are derived.
I mean... if you don't want free market trade, the only real alternative is called a command economy.
Bread will cost 50 cents, flour to make a loaf of bread 75 cents, and greengrass is best suited to scrubbing down the sewerage system with his own toothbrush... I mean, we wouldn't want people following their own self-interest in their own life's business... that would be capitalism... EVIL!!!
I just don't understand that if you were to remove the poverty and economic slavery that wealth inequality entails, what the fuck could possibly your problem with free market capitalism? 
Money is wealth, not all wealth is money
 And like every other good, the utility of money varies from person to person and situation to situation. 
That's great news... apparently I've been doing a 
 lot of self-improvement recently. 
Three Words: NSA $
 
No... not professionally anyway...
 pay is terrible, and I would have thought the job would have sucked more, but alas... 
Drug Prohibition: Keeping LE Honest
 What a joke... this shit goes on all the time, really... the girls I know tell of police gang raping and beating them... drug houses are protected by dirty cops in league with the gangs... it's all fucked up and stupid...
Legalise drugs (and prostitution), get them out of the black market... allow for retribution through normal channels like courts... regulate them, tax them, stop blackmailing the vulnerable and remove the corruption...
Jesus Christ, how fucking stupid are people to still think this is a good idea? 
Shame the free market offers you no choice
 and you'll be forced to buy this particular coffee maker. 
I hope that was a joke $
 
So... it wasn't a joke... education required...
 Java is a programming language and virtual machine runtime developed by Sun and now owned by Oracle.
JavaScript is another programming language developed by Netscape and Mozilla for use in browsers (but has since expanded) and is now trademarked by Oracle.
Point is... JQuery is a JavaScript library and has absolutely nothing to do with Java. They're very different things.
Lots of people get confused by the similarity in the names, but there is no relationship between the two (other than both being kind of C like languages, kind of, very loosely kind of).
unit testing
 Test all your functions, not just the final output. That might be considered integration testing. Often errors are in the functions, where you don't expect them to be. Also solves the problem of the cross dependencies you're complaining about. 
oh... and use unittest already $
 
This might blow your mind a little
 > So the second step in my testing is to type code into the interactive console, and see if it spits out the right answers.
Copy and paste that into the function that you tested... with the correct output you expect (if it's not already correct)... put it into the __doc__ section of a function.
If you didn't already know... all objects in python (and functions are objects) have an attribute called __doc__... If the first line of an object definition is an unassigned string... that is its __doc__ string.
eg:
def hello_world():
  "prints Hello World to stdout"
  print("Hello World!")
>>> print hello_world.__doc__
prints Hello World to stdout
>>> hello_world()
Hello World!
>>>
And you can do multiline strings with triple quotes:
def hello_world():
  """prints Hello World to stdout
  The following code will be run, and the output
  compared to the expected result with
  doctest... True Story!
  >>> hello_world()
  Hello World!
  """
  print("Hello World!")
$ python -m doctest -v hello_world.py
So, now you got no excuse to manually try a test case without recording it, so you can repeat it reliably simply, forever.
http://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html
doctest is great, but it has its limitations... use it, cause it's so simple to use... but unittest, when you start using it, is a very powerful tool... can do a lot more than you'll get with grep pass, grep fail... 
Yep... those function comments should really be
 docstrings anyway...
cause then you get print show_range.__doc__ and you know how to use it...
most modules and functions you'll find have docstrings... helps quite a bit.
as for your interactive llanguage... (fuck it I'm leaving my typo's here)... interesting... but if you can pass your interactive lines to a function... (you must)... then you can call the same tests from the python console, presumably? Then you can add the session to your docstrings... and doctest... whoohooo...
damn... methadone is making me feel quite nausious... and typing is incredibly difficult... impressively strong drug... had the tiniest drop. 
I probably shouldn't have written that last line
 I don't want to get anyone in trouble...
I mean... do 'they' know who I am? would they care? Is anything I write proof of anything?
Probably not... but Who knows?? 
Dude... it's done worse than that before...
 It's hovering around 700-800 for some time now... long before mtgox fiasco... it dropped down to 500 when mtgox closed shop completely... now it's nearly back to 700 again...
A company failed... nothing bad has happened to bitcoin...
the next generations of exchanges will have better proof of funds... bitcoin will be stronger for this...
This is actually good news. 
wut? $
 
Yeah... I re-read limpdawg's statement again...
 I see where you're coming from... but 'keeps going up' is pretty relative...
limpdawg sent me my first bitcoin, like 0.01... at the time it was unspendable... cause it was about the same as the transaction fee... it was worth like a cent, maybe ten, not sure...
Anyway, that's 70 bucks now... like 50 bucks at the worst on the day mtgox closed shop...
Granted... it's 50% off its peak... but for all of us in it for any amount of time... it just keeps going up!!
Bitcoin is known to be volatile too... a 50% drop after all all these gains is nothing... it just keeps going up!!
I have no doubt it's going to go through that peak like a hot knife through warm butter later this year...
No wealth has disappeared, it's just been redistributed a bit... No bitcoins have been lost, they've just been redistributed a bit... The only thing that has been lost have been goxcoins (how many bitcoins gox thought and said you have)... and while they were once worth a lot... they're now worth nothing... but goxcoins were never bitcoins, a point I've made before.
I've already seen how exchanges will be able to prove their holdings without revealing anyone's holdings... exchanges have an incentive to implement this... it will be built... this will make bitcoin stronger... mtgox didn't even prove their holdings to themselves, let alone to everyone else. This is pure incompetence and they deserved what happened to them.
This is actually good news. 
Ooops... I must have been high... that's like $5
 point still stands. 
I still think UBICoin could be a goer...
 Just the getting provable single id of everyone on the plant might be fun.
Just fuck it and say, privacy is dead... we wan't your id, in a disributed openly publicly searchable database... name, face, date of birth, passports, driver's licenes... all that shit... probably...
and signing parties, like pgp... but done so that you could prove suspiciously duplicated people could be proven to actually be different individuals or otherewise to be proven to be fraudulent. 
mac sux... no bitcoin... that's just one reason $
 
Yeah, it's pretty funny huh...
 That's like half a billion dollars stolen, right? Fucking hell... I can't believe they didn't have an assert(customer_btc_holdings == gox_btc_holding)... holy shit...
Someone called me up... the night I was packing for england... wanting a whole coin or so... I had to move all my money out of gox... and never put it back in... so I got lucky... he didn't do the deal... and I was a bit upset... but he saved me really.
Actually, had $40 in there... bought 0.2 coins at 200... thought I was doing okay... oh well... it's gone now...
The price dropped to $500 AUD/BTC yesterday... I got a tiny bit... but price is back at $700 now... was trading at $750 when gox news first started... and only $850 before that... so... the news caused a whole heap of panic selling... but has practically recovered already...
If I had 50k yesterday... damn I would have liked to buy then... even had a guy on localbtc contact me... but with bank stopped, and only being able to take cash... couldn't do the deal for him... by this morning was back at $660...
So... mtgox... lots of people were fucked... someone, or some group could potentially be one of the bigger bank heists of all time... and all done by some nerd with deep knowledge of all the protocols, and a very odd edge case, and just wow... 21st century proper crime...
but bitcion is fungible... like cash... irreversible, as it should be.
but bitcoin itself... no... hardly affected at all... it's anti-fragile... this makes it's stronger... it's widely published now hoow to prove a a site like mtgox has everyone's funds, without having to reveal individual customer funds... this will become the standard soon... 
this is just the thing we needed to buy cheap before the next exponential ramp up... will happen soon. 
It's not that silly...
 especially if you're trading 24x7 on an exchange... like if you're doing automated trading or something a bit HFT like...
How else could you do it? You'd need to keep your working funds there... you really have no choice...
I was just lucky that I'd been working on another system... and the new system wasn't ready... otherwise I'd have been done. 
This is good... definitely in the spirit of it...
 but really... wrap it now in unittest... you get so much builtin views, you won't need your wrapper shell... all that can be done automatically, once you use it. 
Dude... it's all go here...
 people bought me pot... but and old friend turned up... and I've been seeing how many vallium it takes before I can't type anymore...
I did find the limit... i'm awake again. 
anyway... I write like that all the time $
 
Then write your test cases first...
 Once you have a solid test suite... you can't really go wrong refactoring... (well... you can use test cases to make obfuscated code too... so, you can go wrong, but you have to work at it). 
dammit man... do it now...
 http://docs.python.org/2/library/unittest.html
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3371255/writing-unit-tests-in-python-how-do-i
-start
http://python-guide.readthedocs.org/en/latest/writing/tests/
go on... write test_myparser.py now...
You really won't regret it... I promise. 
I could tell you how to make something like this
 instead... I'm going to show the right way...
import logging
logging.basicConfig()
logging.debug()
logging.warn()
logging.info()
logging.error()
start using it motherfucker. 
import unittest
 http://docs.python.org/2/library/unittest.html 
I'm pretty sure the convention is test_xxxx
 but, yeah... you're going about it in the right way... unittesting is like making a new program...
but like I said... import unittest... there's an example in the docs...
doctest would be pretty close to what you're doing now but still... unittest... 
yep...
 just unittest.assertEquals(result, "sdfdsfdsff"). 
Yep, that's the way it works... 
 you're gonna find edge cases you probably would have never thought about before you tests.
now I'll show you another trick I often use...
Say, you've got a whole heap of testcases... but they're all basically of the same form... like "input X" produces "output Y" (just saying, if they were strings... in your parser)... you can build a data structure.
test_data = [ ["inputA", "outputA"], ["inputB", "outputB"],.... ["inputY", "outputY"] ]...
for test_datum in test_data:
 run_my_test(test_datum[0], test_datum[1])
....
but you can still fit this type of thing into unittest... I really do recommend you use it.
something like that anyway... 
I wonder... for different strings, s,...
 should it be one or the other of the functions... like a given s should throw a particular exception except for one or something?
seems that way to me...
You should test for these exceptions separately...
also... for your test table... maybe split it into seperate test classes for each of the various functions... or otherwise, also add the function it should work on... and what exceptions it should throw if it isn't meant to return a result?
eitherway... still strongly recommending unittest... 
No...
 I said this before, but it bears repeating... test all those functions too...
This will help a lot... because, if the error is in one of these functions, although it will also show in the final output... you'll be told exactly which function caused the final output to fail too.
This will help heaps when refactoring or whatever, because you might know the final output is wrong, but not really why it went wrong... cause you could have somehow unexpectedly caused problems in one of these lower level functions.
use unittest... really. 
cool...
 now try unittest 
I think he's saying you should program in natural 
 language... using something like his software...
You know, you should program in a non-existent programming language that doesn't yet exist or at least doesn't work for shit...
"make it take a file that kind of does some QM stuff, but not quite QM, cause I'm doing something a bit different"...
with a program that has difficulty workeing out that a cat isn't a dog... except for very small dogs and stoats... and gets very confused, cause sometimes you want to tell it that this cat is actually a dog or something, and have it solve the problem of the excluded middle or some such ancient greek bullshit that doesn't apply since we discovered binary and the turing machine. 
5 days and no progress?
 Are you mad? What is the project? Do you expect him to have finished designing, building and completing the death star for you already?
Sure... it depends on the project... which is a tiny detail you're missing here...
But in my first week at a new place, yeah, I'd expect to have me development environment setup and ready to go... and have started looking through whatever existing documentation for your project you might have... I wouldn't feel any pressure to have done more than this... and if I did, I'd know that company was headed for failure.
Think about it... you walk into a new code shop, or whatever, trying to do whatever thing it is they're trying to do, and you have never seen this type of thing before... you think in an hour or two you can wrap your head around it and in another hour or two have produced a final product? wtf?
In my first week at places... I have usually done absolutely nothing anyone could point at and say... gosh, isn't he good... no... instead I spend my time reading... and you know what... the first week is usually the most exhausting and tiring week of any contract... all those concepts everyone else takes for granted... you've had to expend mental energy on in a mad dash... you've had to burn this shit into your mind so you can communicate easily with people already familiar with the concepts.
First week reading, second week coming up to speed... maybe start seeing stuff by week 3... some squiggles and scratches on a napkin that has the words 'High Level Design' written on it.
Are you his manager? Do you have a project? Are you project managing? Then you have a plan, right? Is it a reasonable plan? I don't see how it could be, given what you've written...
Of course all this depends on a whole heap of factors, so I can't say for sure... you haven't given enough information... probably the same thing you've done to this poor guy. 
Yeah... it's not unusual in my opinion...
 You absorb a lot of information through osmosis, just by sitting in the environment.
Now... a debugging task might be different... simple bugs... like if they have a priority list... might be easy to squash in the first few days...
on the other hand... with no knowledge of the larger picture... you never know what bugs you might be introducing fixing up the low priority one's you've been assigned.
I just think it's crazy expecting full output after a week... It takes time to get up to speed... A manager who doesn't understand this doesn't understand software. 
If you get an obituary here, when you die...
 I'm gonna put a comment in that diary... something like -- "Here's your deadline, motherfucker".
I bet you still wouldn't have completed a micro-economics course by then... so would be relevant. 
Well, won't you be happy... no more deadlines
 And you still won't know econ. 
and epicycles disprove physics
 At least they know you've only got a finite time here... at least in this incarnation. 
No... you don't understand...
 epicycles are trane's proof that physics is wrong, because a model that isn't perfect is no model at all... just like economics models are obviously complete bullshit that no-one has ever considered the limitations of and no-one ever hopes to improve upon. 
who? what? $
 
Geologists Beat Crack Heads to World's Oldest Rock
It's a little known fact that crack heads and geologists battle it out to be the first to get their hands on the world's ever diminishing supply of natural rocks.
Crack heads often find themselves obsessed with rocks after years of searching the ground for their already smoked crack in the vain hope that the next rock they pick up will actually be the crack they need to get them through their next 15 minutes of existence.
After looking at so many different rocks, you begin to appreciate the differences, you start to classify them, you learn their names, and without even meaning to, you start on your path into the dark underground world of geology.
The problem of course is that crack heads can spend nights and days on end just looking for rocks, and by the time the geologists finally get there... all the rocks are long gone.
This angers many geologists, because they don't have so much time and energy on their hands, and so, unfortunately, but quite often, they'll find themselves addicted to crack... just searching for the next big rock that will either get them high, or possibly promoted in the high pressure, soul crushing world of geology... where it's always big rock wins, little rock cracks up. That's just how they roll.
Well... good news for West Australian geologists, and bad news for all the sandgroper crack heads -- some how... after all this time with no one ever noticing it... being passed over time and time again for not being crack, geologists have found the worlds oldest remaining rock.
Apparently, there was a bit of basalt, probably when geologists first thought it was crack, but police are looking into the matter and no one was seriously hurt... but luckily, no one took this piece of zircon for granite.
Damn... I'm sure I had the science tag in there
 with the pretty beaker icon and all...
Oh well... you might have found this boring, coincidently, geologists found this rock boring too.
Geologists are boring.
Boring. 
I think your being a bit igneous
 I know you were once active, and I'm not trying to pick fault lines with you, but it's probably due to your now sedimentary lifestyle.
I don't want to get into a tectonic discussion here, but it's easy to give into the subduction of a low stress life, with past gems left resting on the mantle.
Oh... and that wind thing is real... not sure how much (maybe it is too small to be a problem... but in theory), the problem is that wind mills do take energy from the wind, by slowing it down... and wind basically comes from moving heat from hot places to cold places... you slow that down, and the hot places get hotter... the movement of heat across the planet is affected... again... maybe the effect is too small to be a problem... but not necessarily so... I haven't done the maths. 
On the wind thing... the effect would be stronger
 than you might first think...
It would be a bad water pump in your car's radiator system... heat still gets moved around... but the rate at which heat moves means the hot things can get a lot hotter than they would otherwise.
Because the wind is actually air that carries the heat. 
A Software Engineering Approach...
Make it work
Make it right
Make it fast
You're nearing the end of stage 1, making it work. This is like the rough draft of a story... you now pretty much fully understand the problem and have an implementation that mostly does what you wanted it to.
Now onto stage 2, make it right. This is where you write the test cases... apply all the sorts of standard inputs you expect it to work with, and check that you get the right answers... encode this in test cases, so you can run them anytime you want and quickly... Now look for edge cases... strange inputs you think might give you problems and even inputs you think will generate errors... check you get back the exceptions you were expecting... look at unittest package to help you formalise this. There are other approaches, like doctest too.. I prefer unittest.
Now you have working code and the test cases to prove it... onto stage 3, make it fast... crack open the profiler... well... depending on your application you might not really need fast... it might be 'fast enough' for your purposes... but you can probably refactor and tidy the code up a bit, make it look neat, add comments... use list comprehension where you haven't, split out functions that are monolithic, tricks like that... just stuff you wouldn't have tried on the first time, but now you understand what you are doing, you can do it even better... the great thing about stage 3 is, if you didn't skip stage 2, you know that you always have a working copy of your code, and you're unlikely to introduce regressions. Where you do find regressions not covered in stage 2... add new test cases.
I say A software engineering approach, because this is just one of many... not particularly formal, but one I use a lot on everyday things.
Good luck, keep going. 
Yeah, everyone does adhoc tests as they go
 to see if they are getting it right...
The idea is to formalise these tests into test cases... often in a separate test case file... but not necessarily.
If you get into the habit of making test cases... then your adhoc tests become your test cases... in fact... many python proponents are proponents of test driven development... where you write the test cases first... write a test case, one that will fail and the minimal one you need to get to the next stage of development, then write the code that makes it pass... then repeat for the next feature. I only do this on the more important parts, cause I feel it takes a little longer... but the results are normally superior.
Actually... if you follow the work, right, fast approach, it becomes easy to skip the right bit altogether... you never bother with test cases, and your code ends up a little worse for it.
As for making it fast... well... like I said... maybe just tidier... whatever... you can improve the code in all sorts of ways without worrying about sacrificing correctness.
However, if you do want speed, this is really the way to go... it's not even hard... just hook the profiler up to it... (or just run it 10^x times in a tight loop in your program, and measure the time it takes)... make sure you use proper source control (so you don't lose earlier versions that might be better) and try shit out... just battle with it... if you get it wrong, the profiler will tell you that the code is slower... no good, that doesn't work... revert and try something else.
One piece of code that I used this approach on with good effect was a poker hand evaluator... that would take a set of poker hands and tell you which was best, and what the hands were.
First version worked... as far as I could tell... didn't go very fast though, maybe like 10 hand sets a second... then when I really started looking at it, and trying different things, you see things like, maybe it's best to check for a pair before you check for three of a kind, or check for three of a kind before checking for a full house... if it isn't a three of a kind, you never have to check for a full house... and I was really surprised at the end of it how many new test cases I had added for strange edge cases I would never have thought about if I hadn't had test cases... end result was nearer a hundred thousand hand sets a second... in exactly the same language...
Finally... armed with the test cases, and an optimised algorithm, I ported it, almost directly, into C... the result was millions of hand sets a second... in fact... fast enough to do every possible permutation of community cards for a given set of starting hole cards in texas holdem in under a second... I thought it was cool.
Point is... with the right methodology, you don't have to be einstein... you just have to follow the process... and the results will find themselves. 
Just to give you idea how non-obvious profile work
 can be...
From memory here... I have the code somewhere, but squirrelled away on an external drive and another backup somewhere, not here... I'm pretty sure, that with a fair distribution of poker hands, it actually works out quicker to check for three of a kind first... it beats a pair anyway, so there's no need to check for that... but if it's three of a kind it can still be a full house or a poker... and with 7 cards (2 in the hand, 5 community cards)... it could still be a straight or a flush... not sure where I checked for those... but the point is... the fastest solution actually only checks for a pair, and then two pair, after it discounts three of a kinds, pokers and full houses...
So... whether you should check for a pair before three of kind... actually turns out it isn't... and there's no real way of knowing that stuff beforehand (well, maybe with heaps of maths, I dunno, I doubt it... optimisation is an art... could depend on specific cpu implementations, memory bandwidth issues or something crazy in the compiler or something you hadn't thought about)... but only through timing, profiling, trial and error can you ever find out.
It's a fun exercise... of course, like I said earlier, it depends on your application... premature optimisation and all that.
And, if you do suffer from premature optimisation, you can still massage that out, make a few comments... you paid for the time, you may as well... ummm.... 
I don't think you should be maligning satanists
 like that...
Some satanists are the best people you will ever meet... not relying on faith for their morality, but on cold hard reason.
It's usually only idiots who either practice, or think that satanists practice, child sacrifice and shit like that.
A good example are the satanists who want to (did they?) put up that statue to lucifer when the christians managed to get a monument to the ten commands erected on government land.
See... protecting our rights to freely practice religion... and enforcing separation of church and state by showing how ignoring that can be, and really is, an abuse... good guy satanists.
They are probably also some of the people who will fight this particularly stupid law. 
> They said they would have a human sacrifice.
 They meant they were all going to pitch in and build a homeless shelter for the poor...
A bit of human hard work and sacrifice. To make the world a little better... it's always the christians that freak out at the way they speak, but never actually do anything.
Either that, or they meant your anal virginity... who knows? 
The thing is... that's how people behave...
 There was something similar in simulations of fire on board of airplanes...
Except... in the simulations, everybody neatly filed out in an orderly fashion and everyone was getting out nicely, quickly and safely... nothing like what happens in real life when people feel their lives are on the line...
Someone got an idea instead to pay the first 10 or so people off the simulated burning aircraft a small prize amount, like $5 or $10 or something... boom... people started scrambling for the doors, pushing and shoving others out the way, blocking up the doors, crowding them, trying to be the first ones out... basically causing chaos and slowing the evacuation right down... simulating exactly how people really behave in an emergency.
Now, if you'll excuse me, there's a policeman here and I have to tell him to let me continue or lots of people are going to die horribly in burning planes if he doesn't stop bothering me. 
Holy Shit that video's harsh...
 Amazing how quick it goes...
Makes me think there should be a mandatory annual (just a guess) fire test, where night clubs that hold packs of people like this, should get tested with a flame-thrower, burning down anything flammable. Anything that doesn't burn, gets to stay.
If too much burns, like in this case, so that people could die... then after it gets put out and rebuilt, it can get tested again, until it is safe.
I don't care if nightclubs end up all steel and concrete... that really looked like it would suck. 
crackhead obsesses over rocks - News at 11 $
 
Amateur Geologist Still Can't Get a Job $
 
LOL @ 200 year old stereotype $
 
LOL. It's trane. Don't tell me this is news 2 u?
 God I miss the old days of k5 when everyone was just trolling the fuck out of everyone for maximum trollihood. I'm sure there were moments of seriousness in there too... but mostly the trolling...
They see me trolling they hate it!
Anyway... if you're really bored... you can check out my efforts to troll NY Financial Services Departments' Superintendent Ben "lolski" Lawsky... no bites... but I got to call him an idiot, dog, parasite... and call his job bullshit...
And some idiot in their department is going to have to read my comments... lol.
http://www.reddit.com/user/prokra5ti/
Internet... where would we be without you? 
Well... I did point out how it's going to be
 literally impossible to regulate and track cryptocurrencies...
That's going to give someone in their department a headache if they start thinking about it.
Hopefully leading to an existential crisis and eventual mindpixelation.
Oh noes... teh terrorists will cryptocurrency us all to deaths.
fucking morons. 
You don't get it...
 It's actual fact... I'm not making it up... crackheads obsess over rocks...
Crackhead girl I have here right now... bags and bags of rocks... sorted by colour, size, shape, quality, cleanliness...
She cleans them in a bucket with meth, dishwashing liquid and water... she scrubs them...
She shows them to me... rocks... fucking rocks...
She breaks them open... stares at them... want's to know more about them.
You just think it's a stupid troll because you don't know crackheads... they really do get obsessed over rocks for exactly the reasons I've pointed out earlier...
If you ever see a group of people late at night in the city, picking up things off the ground, looking intently at them and throwing them away and repeating... it's crackheads... looking at fucking rocks... for real.
It's a real phenomenon... and now you know... so you've been enlightened... and you can thank me. 
Geologists - They don't like the competition
 By the time they wake up, all the rocks have gone.
Crackheads don't sleep.
In all seriousness... a crackhead first pointed out the behaviour to me in another group of crackheads when I was smoking crack...
I just pick on trane cause it's trane.
YHBT YHL HAND. 
You really got up on the wrong side of the bed
 this morning, didn't you?
<blink>THAT'S THE JOKE DOT JPG!!!</blink>
Unless I'm really missing something here.
Your wife ran off with the dog or something?
You can talk... we're all friends here. We won't judge. 
Encourage (3) -- Really made this work for me
 IRLROFLSTAT: LOLLING 
You know I mix a bit of fact and fiction here...
 especially for purposes of humour... and you know I like a little bit of absurdist humour now and then.
I'm just saying, you shouldn't automatically think I'm stupid because of that...
At the very least... you shouldn't take it for granite. 
That joke might not work on americans...
 not sure...
You probably say something like "grey-night", in which case it doesn't work at all... you should say more like "gran-net"... 
Just in case that one flew over yer head too.
Not my fault you guys can't speak properly. 
Oh... and the funny thing is... crackheads really
 do obsess over rocks...
really...
it's the weirdest thing... I swear.
I think they all think they've dropped their rocks on the ground cause they don't realise they've smoked it all... then they start picking up rocks off the street... thinking it might be their crack... and then they get all like... quartz, bluemetal, black rock, red rock... and before you know it... they're writing diaries about rocks on once popular social media web 2.0 internet sites...
Happens every single time. 
Because your "science" is a LIE $
 
Damm VZAMaZ, can't u tell a joke when u see one? $
 
Then you came to the wrong place...
 Anyway... was a piss-take of trane's often anti-science stance... especially economics (well... human science)...
but oh well. if it makes you happy. 
Complain to me once you know the models
 Then you can tell me where they are lacking and where they can be improved.
or...
Hi... Your theories of phlogiston are true (I haven't actually studied anything, I just heard about phlogiston and assume that's all you know... I also heard it has some problems... what do I know... I never actually studied anything... but this one line comment proves me right and you wrong... I'll just go smoke some more crack). 
Sure... if you don't know the models... it is 
 It certainly isn't constructive. 
I honestly can't see how you could
 Maybe you could repeat stuff you heard about it... but you certainly couldn't improve upon it... or explain how something was an improvement over it without knowing anything about it.
You wouldn't know if you were just parroting mistruths and ignorance... and you probably would be.
A typical trane comment bashing epicycles would be something like -- epicycles can't predict that planets actually go around in an orbit in a kind of cycle. 
Did he give free van candy out to all the kids? $
 
You're keeping markets inneficient
 You immoral bastard...
Probably so you can get more CP.
die scum! 
Why does your idiocy not surprise me? $
 
And how does arbitrage make this WORSE?
 Retard? 
Problems at the Bank
So, I thought I saw a great opportunity selling bitcoin via electronic funds transfers on localbitcoins.com.
I thought I was doing really well... making good money, and I was going to be rich in no time.
But now I have my doubts.
I was selling to people who used the same bank as me, and all seemed to be going well... until my account got locked. It seems that I've been selling bitcoin to people with compromised bank accounts.
Four hours on the phone on Saturday got my funds unlocked again, but I still had $800 locked up in a transfer to my favourite bitcoin seller.
I managed to transfer the remaining $300 out to buy more coins and put up an advert.
On Monday I went to the bank to find my account locked again... and the teller seemed to have a lot of trouble getting through to the fraud department, being hung up on each time she got through.
During this time my localbitcoins advert was answered, and a deposit from a user for $300 turned up in my account... because I was in the bank, I checked with the teller, who told me it was all good and so I released the coins.
It turns out someone had reported their funds stolen... it appears someone has compromised their accounts... and now I'm worried that all my dealings through this method have been fraudulent. It would make sense for the same fraudster to target me using different names and accounts.
My account is now frozen, I was required to fill in a Statutory Declaration... and I have no idea who is going to eat the loss... and if this business has any legs regardless.
For certain, I can't live off the funds from stolen bank accounts.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, and if something looks too good to be true, it probably is. However, what is 'too good'? The prices I traded at were very good... but I considered that there were a lot of liquidity problems last week, what with gox going down, and probably someone wealthy wanted to get into bitcoin reasonably fast, possibly reasoning that when gox (and the bitcoin network) issues were resolved, the price would probably bounce back up beyond its previous levels... and the higher prices they advertised were necessary to attract sellers vs the rest of the advertised buyers... it made sense to me... and these were transfers through a respectable bank, not paypal!
So... now I'm completely out of bitcoins, all my bitcoin funds are now frozen in a bank account and I might end up losing all of that too. I guess this what my sister meant when she asked 'what if something goes wrong?' when I asked to borrow money for bitcoin trading.
Also I'm hungry and have no food or cash, but luckily my whorefriends have helped me through with weed and tobacco... and one has promised me some money tomorrow. 
Oh well... you live and learn.
related: bitcoin whores.
Thanks...
 What's the cashier cheque by mail scam? 
Still don't understand $
 
Ignorance I suppose...
 > regular bank money-transfer instruments don't have a reliable "this is cleared" vs. "this is not cleared" status
See... this just shocks the fuck out of me... it's a bank... they have all the details, they implement the security, it was an intra-bank transfer after all.
I can't believe the whole world has been operating on such an open and easily defrauded system. I can't even check the account a transfer arrived from, let alone the name and phone number of the customer to confirm... all information the bank has at its disposal, and they wan't me to implement security systems against fraud... they don't give me the required information... it's mathematically impossible... it's actually crazy the system works at all.
I might continue by only doing a small transaction first... then calling the bank's fraud team and reporting fraud... when they eventually tell me it's not fraud, I'll trade larger amounts with that person... They told me not to do this... but fuck, they've locked all my money up for nearly a week now! And I'm really fucked if they reverse the transactions entirely (which they haven't yet, thank bank... oh, and today they let the large transfers through to my bitcoin supplier... I haven't lost any bitcoins at least). They're the only one in a position to declare something non-fraudulent.
> I regard paypal as way more reliable than bank instruments when dealing with scammers.
This might be true with physical goods... but I think they see bitcoin as a direct competitor to their network... They are very fast to reverse bitcoin transactions in favour of the buyer... I do not deal with paypal ever...
In fact, it was such big news that paypal found in favour of a bitcoin seller that it was front page on /r/bitcoin... the bitcoin seller provided proof by videoing the entire transaction. Some people say the way around it is to sell bitcoin certificates, snail mailed to the buyer's official paypal address.
> That said, you are fucking nuts to trade cash equivalents with bank transfers, paypal, credit cards or any other electronic means of transferring money that I know of.
Yep... maybe I was... I just didn't realise how open the system was... I mean, I knew paypal and credit cards could be a problem with reversibility... I just didn't realise I'd have the same problem with intra-bank transfers.
> Western Union might be a better choice?
Might be worth looking into I suppose... why would you consider them to be better than a normal bank?
> even so, shady as fuck. 
Do you really think so? To me it seems surprising in today's world that the banks don't have the mechanisms in place to do this.
I guess the future really is bitcoin! 
I don't know when you would ever need 
 reversibility... as opposed to say, escrow.
And... if it's such a useful feature... reversibility will be built on top of it... say visa debit for bitcoin.
There will be a cost, but where there is demand, there will be supply. 
Bollocks...
 You keep all the benefits of bitcoin... and you add new benefits by building on top.
We already have escrow... but lets look at another idea... consumer protection...
We could have a bitcoin bank that charges a service fee... but will protect you in the event of fraud... as a customer, if you claim fraud, you get your money back, at the bank's expense... but as the merchant, you still keep your money.
Is one way to go...
You can't remove the benefits of the underlying system... when you use it... you only add benefits on top of it. 
I don't think you read what I wrote...
 What if a bitcoin bank offers consumer protection in that, if a customer can prove fraud, the customer gets their money back... all of this done for a fee.. like a form of consumer insurance... you don't necessarily even have to take the money back from the merchant.
What you aren't getting is that bitcoin can provide a whole spectrum of different use cases for different people... take anonymity for example... you can go from full disclosure, proving you have every bitcoin in a given address... to complete anonymity, no one can prove you own a given address.
The same can happen with reversibility, charge backs, fraud insurance, etc...
It doesn't have to be one size fits all, and it doesn't have to give up one property under one set of circumstances to gain the opposing property under another set of circumstances. 
Ummmm... localbitcoins has an escrow...
 The problem I had is that I released the coins too early... before the bank had a chance to discover fraud...
From the responses I've had from localbitcoins support, I have every reason to believe they could rule fairly in an escrow dispute.
And apparently some sort of escrow service is being built into the blockchain right now (m of n signatures)... or on top of it (Is that the Open Transactions thing?)... anyway... should greatly decrease the cost of escrow... but I'm not familiar enough with it yet to comment much further.
But writing it off completely sounds short sighted. 
Yeah, like I said, I don't really know...
 for sure... for real goods, you have a problem... maybe the goods look exactly perfect, but are counterfeit and break after 24 hours of use or something... not sure you're ever going to solve that one with all parties being anonymous... Especially the goods provider... don't know though... kind of worked for the silkroads.
But in the crypto-world, as long as we stay within that, anything is possible... hence the counterparty protocol. I understand it does exactly that. 
It really depends on the situation...
 Now, with physical, identifiable goods... there's no problem... if you find the object... whoever's holding it loses it (and get's charged if they were or should have been reasonably aware that it was stolen) and it's given back to the owner...
A stolen bike for example... it doesn't matter where it ends up, it's either the stolen bike or another bike altogether. Tough shit if you were holding it.
But money is fungible... It's not identifiable (okay, maybe serialised stolen notes are)... but not bank transfers...
Consider a guy has a $1k in his account... and someone with a compromised account sends a stolen $1k to that guy...
And that guy, pays 5 guys $400 each...
and those guys already had $400 in their accounts... and each sends 8 people $100.
Who has the stolen $1k?
Just the first guy? Should he be the one to eat the loss? Why? If he didn't knowingly deal with a thief... You might argue that he was the first guy dealing with a thief, but he did't know that... and actually... it was probably the bank who were the first to make a decision to deal with the thief...
It would be like taking the first guy's bike instead of the actual stolen bike. No... the stolen money is distributed, somehow, amongst 40 other people entirely.
No matter how you decide to distribute that fraud amongst them... it's going to be somewhat arbitrary and unfair.
I agree that the owner of the compromised account should get their money back... but in this case reversing the transaction does not make sense. The bank's security failed... the bank chooses, for economic reasons, not to implement better security... therefore, the bank should eat the loss, otherwise the value of better security doesn't appear in their balance sheets.
Reversibility does not seem to be the universal answer... escrow covers a lot of cases... consumer insurance is possible, like when my friend's bitcoin (well... an online account valued in bitcoin) was stolen from a phishing site... banks who fail to implement decent security should not be able to reverse a transaction on will when real world goods have been transferred as a result of that transaction.
and reversibility when merchant agreements exist (such as visa) or paypal are fine too... cause they explicitly agreed to it... but this is basically the very reason why merchants are choosing an irreversible mechanism such as bitcoin. free market baby... it's cheaper for them... consumer's take the risk... but bitcoin could be built into a reversible mechanism into paypal as well... free market baby... consumers have a choice! 
Yeah, I agree with all of that... basically...
 Third party insurance being high... I never said it wouldn't be... just that it could be an alternative to reversibility that we're likely to see at some point.
cheques bouncing down the line... also agree...
Such that the first guy loses the 1k he got from the theif, the 3rd guy would get 200 taken back from him, and 4th and 5th would have 400 taken back... then the people they paid would lose out probably... fine...
Could you imagine implementing this a year after the fraud was detected... wow... what are the chances you wouldn't be affected?
but you're thinking bounced cheques... or fraudulent cheques... where the logic is that the person receiving the cheque could expect the cheque to be dodgy anyway...
What about, specifically in this case... an intra-bank EFT from a compromised account...
Let's say I set up a bank... anyone can have an account, all you need is your first and last name... and your password is always 'password'... cause lots of people forget their passwords and I think this is inconvenient to my customers.
Now, electronic transfers between my customers are 'instantaneous'... only, when you receive money, I won't tell you which account the money actually came from... you got to guess this yourself.
Oh... and if anyone claims there was fraud, I won't lose out as a bank, cause I'll just reverse all the affected transactions... as far as I need to go to keep the balances positive. (damn, someone took cash out... and as a bank, i'll always take cash... even if it was stolen, no-one can prove it).
Where's the bank's incentive to fix their fucked up security? Reversibility in this case allows the banks to avoid responsibility... however, in this case, it should be clear they are the responsibly party... the situation is quite different from the types of frauds paypal or visa's reversibility protects you from... or bounced cheques even. 
For sure. You might have to trade some properties
 for others...
But depends on the situation...
certainly on the crypto side you can keep everything anonymous... real world side is a bit harder... but don't underestimate what could be possible.
Funny enough... and I don't know about escrow in this case... but a guy just bought coins off me by dropping an envelope full of money on my doorstep... was adamant about remaining anonymous... maybe a photo of the money on my doorstep would be enough proof... (especially if I provided a one-way drop box)... and no anonymity (for him) would be lost...
Just thoughts... cause I think you're underestimating what might be possible... just that we aren't smart enough to think everything through, doesn't make it impossible. 
True... tend to agree actually...
 but some things these guys work out... I learn something new and crazy everyday. 
Well aware of paypal scam (didn't I say?)
 yeah... a guy just dropped off an envelope full of money on my doorstep... trusted me with it I suppose... all the money was there... sent him his coins...
God I hope they're not counterfeit... long time since I looked closely at an aussie $100... when I saw 'concert tour' written on them, was sure they were fake... but nope... same thing on wikipedia.
Fingers crossed the bank will accept them... otherwise I'm fucked again. 
But it's the bank that stole my money $
 
I'm gonna clear up a few misconceptions here
 For one, I don' believe that a basic income can be created out of nothing... Trane believes that... I believe it should be created out of a wealth tax and other taxes.
Secondly, greengrass has me confused with LilDebbie. LilDebbie is a libertarian who thinks that he could get the money from the bank with a gun and that no regulations are necessary. This would be called an unregulated market.
I believe in the free market, which is a regulated market, and can only exist with regulation. Regulation is required to bring the unregulated market inline with the four assumptions of the free market... All participants in a transaction chose to participate in that transaction (no externalities), there is perfect competition, there is perfect knowledge and people are rational.
One regulation I think should exist is that if a bank says it has cleared your funds, then your funds are cleared, unless it can be shown that you were a knowing participant in fraud.
You see, there was no fraud on the bitcoin side at all... the transaction went through, and it has gone through, and it ain't coming back. However, there was fraud on the bank side... A transaction had gone through, but it hadn't gone through, and it might be going back. See? The guy had defrauded the bank by compromising bank accounts, and the bank, in turn, defrauded me, by saying the funds had cleared from legitimate accounts... I, believing the banks illusion, then non-fraudulently sent bitcoins. 
Like most people, you have no understanding
 of the meaning of 'rational' as it applies to economics.
It's not a particularly high bar... you probably think it means, they act in what you might consider their best interest, or make smart decisions or some other bullshit like that... no... it's far far simpler.
It simply means that if a person has a choice of three things A, B or C... then if they prefer B over A, and they prefer C over B, then they will prefer C over A.
THAT IT!!
Not such a huge requirement now is it?
Nothing to do with your grandfather's investment strategy at all. 
No, transitive is a property of the operator
 in most maths systems A > B and B > C implies A > C.
But an operator (*) is transitive in any maths system, no matter what, by definition, if A * B and B * C implies A * C...
But in economics, we're talking specifically about ordered sets of preferences... so rationality is about ordering in particular.
It is a requirement to get to the results of the free market (welfare theorems 1 and 2)...
Now, you are right... it is a question of whether humans are rational, when they are not, and by how much...
And some things that at first might not seem rational turn out to be rational when you factor in things like time... or maybe beliefs in the availability of future options (do you eat meat, grain or fruit... your choices might be economically irrational until you consider the persons belief in the future availability of meat, grain or fruit)...
Although I won't say that all humans are always rational... and there might be specific cases where they are not... but I don't think it is really a major issue beyond the requirements of the theory.
And in any case, I'm at a complete loss how to regulate rationality in people... externalities, imperfect competition and imperfect knowledge seem to be the more common problems, the more damaging and the easier ones to solve. 
I'm sorry they stole form you to make bitcoin $
 
Speed and convenience...
 If I deal in cash, I can cover my city... I could take cash deposits Australia wide, I suppose...
But how much faster can I work, and how much more convenient for everyone if I deal with bank transfers?
Well... at least that was my thinking...
I didn't realise that bank transfers were open to so much fraud and reversibility...
I mean really... online banking really should have more security than an account number and password. Even 2FA is pretty open, and I can't know if someone else is using it or not... and if they chose to implement such a low level of security, they should be the ones holding the risk. On the other hand, it's not my intention to take advantage of that either.
I don't know where that leaves me. 
Cheers, am aware of this...
 Australia seems to be fairly open towards bitcoin at the moment... but yeah... anyone telling me specifically that they are using bitcoin for illegal purposes has to gtfo...
I mean, there's one guy that's a bit dodgy... who says he can get me weed... who likes to deal largish amounts (like $1000 is too small for him to bother)... and mostly calls late at night and on weekends... but I always tell him, I don't want to know, and I ain't telling you anything about my life outside of a little talk about bitcoin and sheepmarket and silkroad and what goes on...
Specifically, he's never said he deals on silkroad or is cleaning money for anyone...
but yeah... I know you got to be careful. I'm more worried I'll get caught in something technical... like... can you prove it was person X who put the money in that account, and that you sent the bitcoin to person X, and not person Y? Some bullshit I couldn't possibly expect to reasonably know. 
Good thing I'm a non-commenter
 and these guys are a bunch of limp dicked faggits that can suck my cock anyway.
You'd have to be retarded to believe these online 'surveys'... what real troll would say they were a troll? Science my ass!
Obviously this so called 'study' is a piece of crap designed for News of the World readers, Fox 'News' watchers, catholic child molesters and niggers.
They, and anyone who agrees with them, should kill themselves and stop wasting our oxygen.
Fuck, I've had enough of this shit. 
WIPO: You forgot /r/kuro5hit... faggot
 The most popular indy hipster underground aids infected dying subreddit on reddit. 
Universal Basic Income Coin
So... just imagining an idea here... a crypto coin, something like bitcoin, that implemented a truly universal basic income... the free market way?
Would such a thing be possible?
Maybe... It's all about distribution...
There's already an alt coin that burns coins over time... so... you lose a few percentage of coins over a year... (this shouldn't affect your value... see?)
Why not redistribute them... so, you still have to pay miners... say 10% (90%?) of the block reward, but the rest go to every single registered 'person'...
Then... how do you register people, and prove they exist at most once in the system... Can this be done in a p2p way... or will the NSA end up with billions of people?
How would the chain look with 7 billion outputs a block?
I don't think it's a matter of economics...
 give or take tweeking parameters (or if they could be 'voted' on or something...) and means of building value (proof of burn is interesting... but how to set the exchange rate?)...
I think something could be designed to handle paying out to X billion unique addresses too...
The free money aspect would certainly drive adoption... adoption would drive use... use makes value... you just have to balance that with miners, store of value, tradeability and scarcity... etc...
The hard part is proving a person exists at most once... and generating some sort of fingerprint and mapping to an address... probably with nothing more capable than a smart phone required by users... or at least knowing someone with a smart phone... (We're going to assume that even the third world will have access to this technology soon enough).
So... you would also need a distributed database of every person in the world... face photo, fingerprints maybe, eye photo? And then make them prove their existence to semi random people somehow... or a random comity of people... like a census... maybe you need people to vouch for you?
I'm pretty sure there is no 'web of trust' type system that can do this... You have to assume bad actors... like north korea, the cia or the mob are going to try and create fake people... well anyone would... just saying it has to withstand conspiracies too.
If you can solve this problem... I'm pretty sure you can solve online voting too... at least amongst such a set of people. 
lol
 get ur ass on welfare until you have secured a job... buy bitcoin all you can... wait for next rally. 
Pretty much everything good about bitcoin...
 and you get free money... 
I think once you can map biometrics to a stable
 hash... (with statistically zero collisions on 7B+ people...)
then you can do all sorts of crypto niceties...
I think a mixture of proof of work, proof of stake would do just fine... the whole point of these and a blockchain is global consensus... which I don't think you can get just people saying "hello..." to each other. 
You're not making sense...
 A hash is an id...
It should be easy to generate from digital sources, yes? so playback attacks and such?
I'm imagining something like 1000 asian maths students solving the blockchain problem (SHA256) with nothing but a pencil and a piece of paper streamed and signed in front of a live audience as the only official blockchain blocks. 
Seriously, who cares?
 The fact that you failed to mine coins is your problem.
In countries where it is illegal, they'll miss out.
As for taking competing with fiat... I think of it as another form of commodity... it no more competes with fiat than gold, stock, houses... whatever.
A UBICoin idea could become the world currency and end world poverty at the same time... 
My Holiday at Heathrow Terminal 3 Detention Center
So, I took your advice and went travelling.
I visited sunny ol Heathrow Terminal 3 Detention Center for 15 hours.
It was bright and chilly, the brits were generally rude, but everyone else was nice and the place smelled like piss... pretty much the whole english experience.
Oh, and I got lots of free coffee.
Turns out I didn't return in time, and my visa had lapsed.
Oh no... I didn't mention...
 They sent me home again.
So... it was a pretty expensive way to watch some movies...
And dubai scares the fuck out of me too... I spent some time there too. And they take away your passport until you get home... which made dubai even scarier... I'm sure I found myself by the arrivals door...
By going backwards through security!!
But... I really didn't want to end up in dubai with no passport!! That's like a nightmare scenario... 
A wealth tax would go a long way for paying for it
 The two ideas couple really well. 
Why?
 If they get hungry enough, and if homelessness is bothering them enough, then weekly or fortnightly cash will be spent on these things... They might go hungry for a few days I suppose.
Food stamps or whatever you're thinking of are still fungible anyway... eg, buy the food, sell it for beer... ie, you can't force people to not spend their money / food stamps on booze / drugs... if that is what they want.
With a BI, the only assistance necessary would be for severely disabled, sick or elderly who are unable to even get to walmart or dress themselves. 
Yes... Trane's logic / naivety frustrate me too...
 I think some of his conclusions are correct, but how he gets to it, and argues for it is insane.
Wealth tax and BI make a very good couple in terms of making capitalism work for the good of all... fighting wealth concentration, providing a safety net for all, while still maintaining the price signalling that makes capitalism work.
The problems aren't economic... Many economists have looked at these and decided they would work well in theory... wealth taxes and basic income aren't disstortionary for example, the 1st and 2nd welfare theorems still hold... there's no very good arguments against them.
Politically though... well... that's another problem altogether... The wealthy control politics... convince anyone to give up anything is difficult, especially when it's the one's who control the process.  
Two problems, two solutions.
 > We have an income tax. It results in every bit of income having to be reported. If you have income that's not reported, that's a crime. With a wealth tax, every thing you own would have to be reported. If you own something that's not reported, that would be a crime. You can't restrict it to big ticket items like houses and cars and boats. We already have ad valorem taxes for everything with a title. So problem one, scary levels of government intrusion.
The solution isn't that a person must report every single little item they own... the solution is to make sure it is taken away from them on the event of a forced sale (the mechanism by which their self valuation is kept honest).
If you've been 'bought out'... and you are later found to have been hiding something from the transfer... that is a crime.
> Problem two is capital flight. When Britain decided their wealthy were a fatted cow to be redistributed and jacked the tax rate to the sky, the wealthy just left. You can moderate that by introducing capital controls. But do you want to show up at a border and have a guard go through your luggage, decide you have too much cash, and confiscate it? 
A US citizen is taxed on their income no matter where it is earned in the world. Same thing could apply here. The only way to avoid it would be to renounce your citizenship.
Hiding world wide wealth would be handled the same as above. 
I envision a wealth tax that is taxed on self
 declared net wealth...
Anyone can buy everything from you for this amount... you lose everything and get the value in dollars... like you are taken from your home and forbid entry... it's no longer yours.
Because people want to undervalue their wealth for tax purposes, but want to overvalue it in case someone wants it... it should result in a fair price.
And giving up citizenship, we keep your stuff too! Or at least a heavy percentage of it.
By levying it on natural persons... we automatically gain the offshore wealth of corporations. 
Sentimental value is automatically priced in...
 You decide the value... we tax based on that value.
As for smugglers, we go in through the nose and extract their eleven word electrum password surgically.
The point is, we make it expensive for the wealthy to renounce citizenship. A disincentive to generally make that the worse option... not impossible, just not generally desired over being wealthy at home. 
You wouldn't list the dog by his book value... is
 my point... you mark him up at $200 and pay $2 tax on him...
Actually, was thinking more like an all or nothing deal... you don't have to list your dog separately from the house... the buyer buys everything... and you can negotiate some of your stuff back maybe... but in principle, it would be all or nothing.
And the first $2M would be tax free too... so if it was just you and your mutt... list it at $2M... you won't have to pay tax, but if someone really rich wants your dog... at least you'd have $2M to dry your tears.
Finally... there are no barriers to leaving at all... just barriers to taking your wealth with you... which this country helped you make... there is a legitimate claim to it. 
Yeah, ok...
 but you'll have to take the wife and kids too. 
What immigration issue?
 Immigrants wouldn't get basic income...
And there still doesn't seem to be a good reason to provide food stamps in the presence of BI either...
BI should replace most forms of welfare. 
I don't think immigrants should get this welfare..
 > Even illegal undocumented immigrants. As well as some other forms of welfare. If you make being a citizen worth guaranteed X$ per year, then many people will try to fake being a citizen just to get the X$. Existing citizens don't want to pay for non-citizens; so you have to have some way to reliably distinguish them. This means biometrics on an unprecedented scale. Are you OK with that?
And I'm pretty sure the government has a register of every citizen who would be eligible from the start... If they aren't on the register, they aren't getting a basic income... simple... If they try to claim as someone else, it would have to be as an existing citizen... that existing citizen would probably notice... no biometrics required.
> As for replacing other forms of welfare, I would still want to make sure that their existential needs are met. You're fine with throwing them a bunch of money and relying on personal responsibility to sort it out. But people on the full allotment of food stamps typically have alcohol, drug, or mental health issues. If they could act with the sort of responsibility you assume then they wouldn't be on food stamps to begin with. 
I'd allow basic income to be traded in for food stamps and more direct forms of welfare in cases where individuals opted for this or were shown to be in need of special help.
I'd normally allow alcoholics and drug addicts to chose alcohol or drugs over food and shelter... if they so desired. (I'd also legalise drugs, so they weren't so much of a burden too... that's another story). Just as I'd allow a gambler to gamble all their money... or them to put all their money into a hippy commune, than feed themselves.
The fact that basic income is a small amount paid frequently would lead people to feed themselves... hunger is still a huge motivator... even for the worst of addicts.
That said, I would give people the choice (or by force on court order), you can lose your basic income and get food stamps and care instead. 
/r/BasicIncome/
 --> http://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/ 
Not too surprised that procrasti matches with 
 procrastinate / procrastinator...
Actually is short for procrastinator...
procrasti the procrastinator...
Cause that was the username limit on the local doom server I was playing at during finals study break.
20 years later... still procrastinating. 
He knew the TRUTH and was going to tell...
 They had no choice.
Just another 'overdose'. 
FFS... Just cause I schooled you on /.
 doesn't mean you have to come running back here like a little lost child.
Fuck off and die already.
Anyway, it's quite clear he didn't die 'of addiction'... no... he died of taking too high a dose probably from one or more of the following factors:
  - unknown purity making it impossible to judge dosage.
  - possibly unkowningly taking fantanyl, when he thought he was taking heroin.
  - Bad setting, no supervision, no access to nalaxone.
All factors that have nothing to do with heroin, and everything to do with illegal heroin and prohibition.
When I said that every single problem with hard drugs is smaller than the negative effects of fighting them... to be more correct, I should say that every marginal increase in forceful means of prohibiting people from using drugs has a net negative marginal value on society... but you'd have to understand a little economics to understand this... so the simplified version works for you. 
Would be cool if there was an ANN or AI trained to
 guess meanings of words that it hadn't seen before...
Then get it to guess the meanings of some of these. 
I think I see your problem...
 You appear to be taking k5 seriously. 
You're an idiot...
 I got nothing against women...
But you're still a stupid bitch. 
WIPO: We will all go together when we go - Nukular
 http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/We-Will-All-Go-Together-When-We-Go-lyrics
-Tom-Lehrer/D0BCDDDE4BE0C12648256A7D0024F5BD 
This is a bad algorithm... it won't do 1024 bit
 numbers in any reasonable time.
You should try and work out the maths yourself from scratch... you should be easily able to factor 1024 bit numbers in a few seconds.
I do it all the time.
HINT: There's an easy answer to this that should become obvious after looking at the Riemann zeta function... just prove that the zero's lie on the 1/2 real line, where the imaginary's are prime integers... the rest just falls out from that.
Let me know how it goes. 
I'm sorry to hear you give up so easily...
 I was hoping you could implement the integer modulo log function with O(log(N)) complexity too, I'd be quite interested in your solution... best mail me that one directly... no point in cluttering up the comments here... Also... best not tell anyone... they'd just get jealous of your 1337 hacking skillz. 
LOL...
 not making fun of you... not directly...
Just saying that it would be nice to have some solutions to problems that would break 95% of all modern cryptography.
Don't feel too overwhelmed if it takes you a few days. 
Yep... some people think QC can solve these
 problems... in fact... bitcoin has some protection against QC... at least for addresses you haven't sent bitcoins from... cause they aren't supposed to be able to do the inverse hash function in reasonable time.
As for the many worlds theory... it's probably total rubbish... the Ashfar experiment I think sheds light (pun not intended... maybe a bit) on what's really happening. And the Ashfar (transactional) interpretation of QM sounds much more plausible... involving advanced and retarded waves interfering with each other to give the results of the standard two slit experiment. Basically waves travelling forward and backwards in time that determine the particle's actual path between quantum transactional events. It's very interesting.
As for the problems I mentioned.
If you can factor large numbers you break almost everything...
And many cryptographic functions (well, RSA, Diffie-Hellman, some others) are of the form 
 c = m^e % n
So doing the inverse, ie, integer module logarithm in reasonable time would break these too.
And some people think that the two might even be related... or at least give insight to each other.
You can probably break a few hashing algorithms too... maybe even bitcoin private keys become derivable from their addresses... Hence why you shouldn't tell anyone...
Have you seen the movie Hackers? Well... this is the type of math their chip would have solved. The implications would be huge.
Whilst QC might make factorisation feasible... if we can break the underlying maths... well I think there's far more payoff in that in terms of number theory and a whole heap of other mathematics... The riemann hypothesis, for example, is the corner stone of hundreds of mathematical papers and even a few physics papers... all starting with -- "Assuming the Riemann hypothesis is true..." and a handful with "Assuming it is false...". It is one of the most referenced unsolved problems in mathematics. That would be a game changer. 
True that...
 I still can't get my head around the fact that the sum of all integers is equal to the product of all primes... exactly equal... and not just because they are both infinite.
Ie, the sum of all numbers from 2 to infinity minus the product of all primes would be equal to minus 1. 
OMG... Such a pussy...
 You are suffering from oneitis... get over it. If there were truly such a thing as 'the one', the human race would have died out millennia ago.
But I do agree that more children should be abused... they make funnier adults. I hear you've been doing your part. Well done. 
wow such crypto
 many accounts
much trollings
wow 
Ask Reddit yesterday asked what is the appeal
 of anal sex...
I skimmed through the answers... but no one had put the obvious:
  * It's tighter
  * It's warmer
  * It's more degrading to women. 
WIPO: work? $
 
I once worked at a large electronics company
 That you have all heard of and own products of... There was a big corporate firewall there, of course... but the culture was, you weren't really part of the 'it-crowd', and considered a 'developer' (or whatever), until you'd found your way around it, through it or over it. Everyone had their own way, but you had to make your own... no one ran a firewall escape proxy or anything like that.
One guy was famous for having all sorts of hidden tunnels and shit throughout the infrastructure code he had written... well... he probably went too far... no one knew for sure wtf he had set up... a lot of that was replaced for obvious reasons... but his name would keep cropping up years after he left when someone found another backdoor or tunnel on some unknown server. A legend and a headache...
Well... the platform I worked on was an extremely small world type situation... a few years down the track I moved to a much more conservative company... an insurance company... The culture there was... any attempt at breaking corporate security was instant dismissal... ie, security at your desk asking you to cease and desist and pack up and leave... Minutes after the attempt... No warning, no second chances... And quite a few of the same contractors from the first job had been through there and gotten the boot for exactly that... not realising the corporate cultural differences.
I was extremely lucky myself... I was mid argument over drugs with CTS... and just had to get a reply done... I wrote it, but thought... nah... I'll post it home and fix it up and then post it here...
First attempt to mail it fails --- swear words or something... so I zip it... fail again... encrypt the zip... boom... job done, and I forget about it and go on.
For about two weeks people were making jokes about me using cocaine at lunch and shit that just didn't quite make sense... well... turns out of course that the three attempts had caught the attention of the security guys who printed a copy of the post which raised a whole heap of political questions all the way to the board of directors... where the decision was made that, as long as I wasn't using cocaine at work, I had every right to hold an opinion on the subject of legalisation...
I was in kind of key position where they didn't really want to march me straight out the door... which is why it went that way... but I got a talking down to by some HR person who filled me in on the details and told me not to do that again... or bye bye.
Still makes me laugh thinking that the board of directors of a largish insurance company actually spent some amount of time discussing my posts with CTS on drug legalisation. Half of them probably coked* up to their eyeballs pretending to be all morally outraged and shit... and others calmly considering the proposition and arguing that I had a point or at the very least the right to hold such an opinion... and then finally voting in favour of cocaine.
* : Pure conjecture, of course. 
Yeah, I've heard rumors of coke at work along the 
 way a few times... but no one's ever shouted me a big pile of coke, at least not in an office...
Although I did once open a small draw in an oak shelving unit in an office once to find it filled about a centimeter deep with a familiar looking white powder... but I closed it and pretended I hadn't noticed and moved on...
I probably should have got to know whoever's shelf that was a bit better... or at least had a quick taste just to make sure it wasn't chalk dust... you know... could be dangerous that much chalk dust.
Actually... the guy who sat by that shelf did hook me up with a wicked weed supplier. 
Just one strange thing I think worthy of mention..
 The guy who put the tunnels and backdoors throughout the corporate infrastructure... he always put his name to them...
It wasn't just an anonymous initrd script to start an ssh tunnel somewhere... or a bizarre java servlet running on their public web-apps... although it didn't necessarily state the purpose of the tunnel/code/backdoor... he would always clearly put his name on it and the date he created it...
The guy was good at his job, but he must have done this shit as some sort of uber-corporate trolling... funny as fuck.
Like I said, a legend and a headache. 
So... they worked it out about 2.5k years ago...
 and you still haven't caught on. 
Yes... you lack both of those too $
 
You didn't explain the "ti" bit.. 
 I'm not saying religion isn't interesting from a historical perspective... and all the latin and all that... or cultural perspective. Mostly, how the fuck did we end up here?
But you're crazy if you actually believe it... like literally.
There are heaps of proofs for the non-existence of a god... god's yes... cause then no-single god is anything more than something very powerful... as in -- not actually supernatural in any sense... all that supernatural bullshit, is bullshit... wherever you find it... paranormal I can accept.
So that leaves you only a couple of options... powerful demi-gods and no gods... and as I haven't met many demi-gods far greater than me... or seen any evidence of them... It seems to suggest no gods.
Just a cold hard universe following fields and waves moving in accordance with incredible approximation to mathematical equations and emergent phenomena... not all of which we currently know or understand.
And there are matrix like possibilities I suppose too... Descarte's deamon.
You may as well believe in Santa Claus [PBUH]...
But if it helps you psychologically... go for it.
Telepathy is more far more likely to exist than an actual god. It's at least in theory scientifically falsifiable I suppose.
Otoh... as moral fairy tales... they might also serve a purpose... the problem is... the morals themselves are confused and clearly not 'correct' from a modern perspective... You need a better basis than this to find your ethics and morality.
So there's that too.
If people actually followed the teachings of Jesus... as I understand them... it seems you wouldn't be going on about the finer points of Latin at all... and instead be out on the streets like MDC trying to find people who could use shelter and food... but wtf do I know? 
We hit 47C a couple of days ago... apparantly
 Fuck that was hot...
I got zero aircon... but I have systems that keep the place relatively cool... but even then... damn.
It took about 2 days, at about 4 in the morning... with the house fully open and the fan on full... it became cold enough to bear a blanket... Close up by 7 before it starts to get hot outside... and try to get more sleep. 
A few years back it topped 50 at the farm...
 Temps are usually hotter out there in the summer, and colder in the winter... I'm not sure what it got to when we hit 47 here... but at the time was only 42 or so in town.
There'd been a huge unseasonal downpour at the start of the summer... after all the harvesting had been done... well... it washed a whole heap of sheep shit into all the dams... normally the fields and embankments and other stuff stop that happening... 
So the dams were all rank with this sheep shit (water quality also killed all the marron - depressingly)... but 50C... fuck it... we were all swimming in those dams... happy as proverbial pigs in mud! 
No... fuck this guy... I hope his head falls off.
 He didn't even have the balls to stand up and say that Gravity sucks!!!
And he wants our sympathy?
Fuck him!
He's just another Grade A, Gravity loving asshole.
I hope a satellite falls on his neck. That will teach him an ironic lesson he won't soon forget.
Go get yourself a space MRI Mr Gravity Lover! 
I had a mole cut off my back...
 Apparently it is actually human and is now demanding welfare and robbing old people for crack money!
Should have expected it... he was black. 
I think so... yes...
 I have certain friends I believe I can communicate telepathically with...
If I face away from them, and telepath at them, they'll talk with me as if I was talking with them... They get confused when I tell them I'm not talking...
In fact, just today, she said to me... "Your lips don't move, but you're voice just comes out of your face."
I don't fully understand it... but I'm pretty convinced it is real... It's like a different way of thinking, projecting thoughts in your head... slowly, loudly... at other people.
If you listen you can hear them too... like a whisper in your head... or on the breeze.
These things you can practice... Tell people (in your head) to do specific actions... be completely normal and think the most outrageous things you can, watch their body language change... (You might have to shout in your head at first).
Fasting, sleep deprivation and drug use all seem to make it better... Probably by weakening our social training that we can't hear other's thoughts... Helping with the suspension of disbelief... Listen to the voices in the distance that you normally block out... maybe they are relevant after all.
There doesn't appear to be a limit to distance, at least on the scale of the diameter of the earth... and Faraday cages don't appear to work either... Maybe it isn't electromagnetic.
It has its drawbacks though... people probably think a lot of things about you they are too polite to say aloud... you better have a thick skin and be slow to react to criticism... for example. I'm sure it drives many to madness... in fact, I think it's a symptom of schizophrenia...
And most importantly... don't react to it... act completely normal the whole time... imagine the whole world was blind, and you started carrying on about all the things you can see... they'd lock you up... same thing here. 
On her 13th birthday*...
 If she has good ID and "looks" 18.
"Like OMG, you're just as boring as my stupid parents. All my friends have done it. Like my friend Emily said her brother's classmate, Jacky, the blond one, once did it in the back of her mum's boyfriend's pickup and it was like really sweet and like romantic but like hot at the same time, you know? I want it to be like that... And now she's so popular and everyone wants to know her...
How hard do I blow into your pee-pee?"
*: May depend on your jurisdiction. This is not legal advice. 
The great thing about being a dyslexic pedophile
 Is that by the time they turn 18... they're back in diapers! 
My God Mike... She's only 13
 YOU SICK FUCK!!! 
How many thousands of users have there been here?
 How many are left?
How many do we know actually died...
Quickly running the numbers in my head suggest that most k5 users are immortal... irrespective of their posting history. 
You are a cruel and heartless bastard, but here...
 P(Dead given not posting)
  = P(Not posting given dead) * P(Dead) / P(Not posting)
  = 1.0 * (5/93924) / ((93924 - 130)/93924)
  = 5 / (93924 - 130)
  = 5.3e-5
P(Random K5 user is immortal) ~= 99.9947%
I like our chances, most k5 users live forever... but all are dead inside. 
+1FP mentions procrasti
 I also agree that prostitution is rape...
I guess that's what makes it so much fun. 
I hope someone in my family notifies k5 of my
 passing...
I don't know any one of you fuckers personally... so that's out.
My late-gf would have... but there are technical problems with that plan. 
Thanks...
 Yeah... she died 2 years ago after about 10 years together... I documented it here and here.
Clearly, it's taken me quite some time to come to terms with everything. I left the UK... actually exactly 2 years to the day today... and moved back to australia to be with my family for a bit...
Actually... there's a 2 year rule on the UK indefinite leave to remain visa I have... I think I've just lost that as well... I wonder if they'll accept that as extenuating circumstances or not... that's depressing...
Is quite interesting how life can throw a curve ball at you, and how easily you can be knocked off track I suppose. I've fallen a long way in that time in many ways... certainly financially, but still a long way to go emotionally too... shit's all fucked up really... I would have thought I'd be more "over it" than I actually am by now...
Dammit... most of my work was in europe... not having a base in the UK is really gonna make things complicated... have to get sponsored and all that shit if I want to work there again... and I have friends there I want to see / be with... I've fucked up.
Oh well. 
Happy Whorable New Year
So... for those that don't know, there are like three main whores in my current life... The junkie whore, the crack whore and the 'ex' whore* . (next whore makes four).
Maybe you know about the junkie whore what stole my car... well... she was yelling out for me just before christmas... but bitch cost me too much for me to be letting her in... and well... her and the crack whore, who was chilling out with me, are a formidable couple and who knows what shit would go down.
* : As if there's such a thing... she got me the driver job... prides herself on once being a true 18 year old at the agency (number 1 prostitute in all [city redacted])... but $12k pair of personality enhancements later still leave her a negative proposition... She fucks like crap, but she drives me crazy... weired huh -- $12k looks great on some chicks I suppose.
So... spent the new year with the crack whore, the ex whore and my best mate... I was sorely disappointed that the junkie whore didn't respond to my psychic calls and form a new years penta-amorous-conglomoflaguration, preferably by the beach around a fire... in accordance with the law of fives and other semi-satano-erisian principles... but we made do.
I caught myself wondering if I had responded in the standard christmas cheer of forgiveness and welcoming just before the christmas, and accepted the call of the junkie whore, I would have been having a very interesting new years indeed... but 'such is life' and so. [the new year is just another fucking day really... who cares... god willing next year's utc troll will be on time... but my computer died, right...]
Anyway... I think somewhere my computer got destroyed... yes... and there are bitcoin on there... goddamn bitcoin.
Well... what else... oh yeah... so from like the day after boxing day till sunday I spent 24/7 with the ex-whore... goddamn that woman is fine, and she takes the piss the whole time... Yes... it's difficult when the crack whore comes around any time day and night... that bitch is one proper fucking cock blocking bitch... territorial to the core... I admire it.
Anyway... that's the problem on one level... the crack whore beats up the ex whore and steals her shoes and generally takes the piss, to my amusement... but the ex whore is all like, we can't fuck when some crack whore can be knocking on the door any minute... but fucking hell bitch you had plenty of opportunity and you didn't take it even when there was no crack whore around... you expect me to get rid of people from my life and you haven't even staked a claim? That's no excuse to be fucking your ex-bf you stupid slut.
So... they have each demonstrated various level so of psychic ability... the crack whore is by far the greatest psychic... and I believe that psychics are destroyed or at least go through a much harder path than non-psychics... (To be psychic is to be psychotic)... the less said the better... but fuck you narrow minded fucks.
On this note... we got pulled scoring yesterday, but we hadn't scored... lol!!! dumb motherfuckers... I'm sure you're reading this. Fuck you greyface!!! Make your own choices and leave us to ours!!
So... the crack whore is currently off scoring crack... she's promissed me half, but you never know with crack whores... I suppose... I'm thinking of fucking her, just to piss off the ex-whore... she want's the standard street rates... which she's already acknowledged she owes me...
But I hate the transactionality of it... which is why... of the three... she so far is unclaimed... and it kind of works that way... money bitch... I can fuck someone better I've never met before and won't have to talk to again, why would I pay you the same? I'm pretty sure I don't even want you in my house????
and here she is...
and as if to prove the psychic connection... no crack in sight... just some food... and a tired girl... all cracked out... maybe...
so, and that is how I survive... I suppose... trying not to judge, and always losing... in the space of two years, the crack whore I never fucked went from injecting several times a day to smoking, to choosing food... good for her... and me? fuck me...
oh yeah, she sent me the 'ex' whore too... I keep forgetting... she could make a good pimp.
trying to remember that we are all human... getting drunk and stoned, but not... whatever it is when you're on meth... and trying to find the next chick that can handle it...
See... there is something fundamentally wrong... this chick could be fucking me... but if she does... whatever it is that is is no more... right? that's all... it confuses me... the money gets in the way... of course I could pay her... she already owes me... but if I pay her... what's the fucking point? yet... if she fucked me, she'd probably get more than if I paid her? no? idiots... what can you expect?
then again... she knew today was the day...
if something has to change, it always will.
but, where the fuck did I go?
Oh yeah... I was going to go to new york... you know high frequency trading blah blah blah, the interview went well... but I never followed through... too busy getting...
Happy Whorable 2014 to yall!!!
P.S: I have a funny feeling I won't be getting laid tonight... There seem to be cops all around... they're bound to be setting traps... and it's making being a high level pimp and drug dealer difficult. (yeah, I was wrong, degrees are worth shit... sling crack and pound that pussy my niggers!!! free money for all!!!)
P.P.S: Shout out to my niggers and bitches tdillo, orion get your act together, trane the tranny fucker, holly hop drive and other random assorted delusional fuckwits and wannabes.
Sad, it's all true $
 
Yes and no...
 Pretty much, but I don't see how being arrested would help... other than being forced to conform to the norm... but why... what good would that do?
A year or two of hookers and drugs isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm not thieving, raping or harming anyone... my principles and actions are still based in free will.
I just get to explore an aspect of life I normally wouldn't have. 
Dude, I left my home country back in '97..
 I've been all over the shop... granted... there are many places I still haven't been... but not traveling is not a failure of mine.
I've even learned a couple of languages... at least on a very basic, survival, basis.
I've been back home now for nearly two years... part of the fun is relearning my own 'culture' (we have even less than you americans, but you get the idea).
Thanks for the sincere advice though. 
I blame vodka $
 
You're over thinking this.
 I said semi-satano-erisian...
law of fives is erisian, and in keeping with erisian principles, I get to make up whatever principles I want for any religion I chose.
Therefore, the law of fives stands as a semi-satano-erisian principle... no backsies. 
Dude, you seem like a smart chap...
 You must have known that the military is a tool of the wealthy and political elite, and not used as it is intended for national defense or even what some might consider morally correct actions...
Yet there are always people lined up to take the role of the soldier and blindly follow orders to destroy and kill, regardless of their belief in the mission.
Why would you chose that role? 
Well, I'm pretty sure I'm on record for being anti
 the iraq invasion and the whole 9/11 response in general...
but... depends on the problem... some problems can only be solved that way... I think... maybe not even then... who knows?
but you fought in iraq, or if you didn't... I assume, you would have gone if ordered to... and do all that killing and destruction and stuff... even though I assume you didn't agree with the war itself.
and I know it's off-thread slightly... but it's something that's always fascinated me... cause I don't understand it. 
You answer your own question...
 nationalized... The correct question is why the citizens of a first world nation shouldn't deserve free health care... but you can't expect one nation to provide health care for another.
On the economic point, a healthy population is a prosperous population... health has positive externalities.
On the first point, not everyone can work or get work... we should be aiming at a leisure society, where work is optional... and finally... you leave enough people hungry for long enough... you got real problems... it is better to feed the poor than have to defend from them.
The way you framed the problem sounds more like why don't we have one world government instead of rich and poor nations. 
You're economics is flawed...
 How can china be kicking ass economically if the people are suffering fro respiratory problems?
Oh, you mean like GDP and national debt and shit like that?
You've forgotten your microeconomic principles. Good health has high utility... I'm pretty sure I'm kicking most of shanghai's population in economic terms, even the ones much richer than I am... you understand this, right?
Health, education, sanitation, welfare and a few other things are positive externalities... and you know the free market underproduces positive externalities... that's the theory anyway. These things are rightly subsidised according to pigovian theory.
So... I'm not telling you how to live your life, but if you enjoy the benefits of a stable society, a civilisation with advanced infrastructure and functioning justice system that protects you and your property rights bring, you owe that society... and by rights, in accordance and proportion with the benefit you derive from it. 
That's a weired one...
 I'm not sure you could really class family as a positive externality... I mean... yes, a good family is worth a lot - and you don't chose them... but can you make families good by subsidising them?
Is a foster family as good as biological family? You can't force people to make bonds.
I think the adult individual and their dependents is the basic unit we should consider.
And, while I completely agree (and have stated before) that parents will do everything for their children (including working to death)... it does not invalidate any of my other claims.
[oblig ad hom attack goes here] 
These are not venal goals...
 Positive externalities are underproduced by the freemarket...
These things are positive externalities...
Your wealth is also protected by the state... you owe for that protection.
One thing that is protected would be the right to be free of things like respiratory disease causing pollution... That's clearly a negative externality... and should be taxed, regulated.
And if you really want to stretch it to the family... I'm sure parents don't see their children coughing up blood or dying of asthma as a benefit... or, similarly, suffering from some simple medical problem they can't resolve because they aren't currently employed.
What point of disagreement is there? 
Pigou doesn't suggest we ban anything...
 have you forgotten this already? 
And yet, the theoretical optimal approach...
 if pigou is correct...
would simply be to tax those things at the 'right' amount...
although banning, fines and jail act as a kind of lottery tax paid by those who get caught. 
Holy shit dude, are you retarded?
 Tell me the market for negative externalities?
Oh... you mean the free market FAILS in the presence of externalities?
Or did they just ignore that bit entirely in your Austrian philosophy? 
Right... but it is not a free market... correct?
 There's no price or market on tort... it's a government institution that gets to decide if people have been harmed. Who ultimately gets to arbitrate? The wealthy, pollution spewing, industrialists have a lot of power, maybe they will make good arbiters?
It is also difficult to organise... can the people of a polluted town all get their fair share of a class action suit against each of the polluters?
Possible, maybe, but not simple... far easier to put a tax on pollution.
Yet, you also have no solution to positive externalities...
I'm pretty sure Austrian idiots like yourself ignore externalities altogether to make their simple theories make sense. It certainly appears to be what you're advocating. 
The courts are a branch of government
 You think maybe we could have private courts?
This is just fucking craziness... you would make no tax / regulation of any kind, and then... make all the dead people's relatives sue in court, company by company and only win if they can actually prove harm?
It would be a field day for polluters... mercury in your fish, uranium in your drinking water... seriously wtf?
Do you even realise the effects externalities have on the free market? I mean, in theory, at least? And that there is a simple means of correcting them to bring them back in line with free market optimums? And the answer is taxes and subsidies... ie, pigou? That this is actually the optimum... there are no jobs lost either... because negative externalities are over produced, and we don't even want those fuckers doing those jobs then?
wtf is wrong with you? 
No... I don't get your point...
 Is it that fukishima isn't causing huge problems to fish? Is that your point?
Here's a Bastiat example of negative externalities --- window manufacturers should employ people to smash windows --- more window smashers are employed, more windows get made, there are more jobs in both the window smashing and window manufacturing sectors... there are more jobs... hooray!!
So we need no laws against window smashing... We can wait until someone is harmed by it, then they can try and work out which of the ever popular window manufacturer / smashers smashed their window... if they can prove it, they get a free window... hooray!!
No laws / regulations required.
You seem to be an idiot. 
Not realising bastiat wrote the broken window
 fallacy... that's a new one.
No shit, shit still happens... 
Let's give up the laws against murder... I heard murder still happen... all the laws do is impose an onerous regime on us that most certainly represses us... and it doesn't even stop murder!!!
You're still wtfing me out with your stupidity. 
I completely agree... terrorism is overrated...
 You might not have noticed, but terrorism is a convenient tool to scare and control the masses with...
You know... a War On [IDEA]... that can be used to justify all sorts of nonsense.
This isn't what I was talking about at all.
Yes... there is corruption in politics... doesn't mean there is no role for government. 
LOL -- as if corruption is limited to government..
 Government has mechanisms to change it... too many idiots are worried about shit like drugs and terrorists...
The change starts with you on that one.
But to think private enterprise doesn't have corruption... or that corruption in private enterprise isn't routinely stopped by government every single day... is proper retarded.
Dude... they would put arsenic in your cornflakes if they figured they could make a buck from it and wouldn't spend the rest of their lives in jail. 
Slavery is freedom huh?
 Why don't you opt to become a slave then? Cause you aren't allowed to?
The only reason you think it's crazy now is because regulation has made it so rare that it appears crazy to you... ever heard of snake oil salesmen? what the hell did you think they were doing? Yes... they often sold toxins directly to their customers, and people died.
However, often it isn't the consumer that they poison, but the populations near the factories... we're back to negative externalities again... Ever hear of Bophal? Where there aren't regulations and punishments, the dollar is all that matters, fuck everyone else.
Fracking companies right now are poisoning water supplies...
Don't be so stupid. 
why in G-d's name
 would merck kill their customers? IF THEY'RE DEAD THEY CAN'T BUY MORE OF MERCK'S SHIT.
Oh... it was a plan of the FDA all along!!! "MWAHAHAHAHAHA... the free market isn't killing people, we'll have to do something about that... MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!".
Your arguments aren't even consistent. For them to be logical, you'd have to now argue that is the purpose of the FDA... to force companies to kill people.
We're back at the laws against murder don't stop all murders, therefore they are useless stage. You have a poor grasp of economics, clearly. 
The FDA forced Merck to kill their customers?
 REALLY?
(Also -- how many gov-regulated fission plants have to melt down? -- pretty sure the answer so far in the US is precisely zero --- you're crazy). 
Houses aren't wealth... only money is...
 So homeless people wouldn't be any better off if they had a house... or could eat.
A homeless person with $1 in his pocket today is as wealthy as someone with a house in 1913 with $1 in his pocket... Cause money is wealth.
It's just obvious to anyone who knows from economics that wealth is money. 
I think you missed the /s tag
 That's my whole point...
Economists generally don't consider money itself to be wealth, its only value is in its ability to be exchanged for wealth. Very few rich people have cash and cash accounts that comprise the majority of their wealth.
Money is just the social lubricant to enable the efficient trade of goods and services... It is the goods and services that an economy has, or an individual has access to, that makes it or them wealthy.
So, you cannot just print wealth into existence... the real limitations on wealth are the labour and resources required to produce goods and services.
The very easy to understand example would be that, on average, no one would be better off if everyone was given a billion dollars a day printed by the government... Or at least, you wouldn't expect everyone to suddenly be living like billionaires just because everyone suddenly has billions of dollars... right? That's not too hard to understand, is it?
The price of blowjobs*  is gonna go up, fo sho!
Money isn't wealth.
* : If you think AI/VR/Robots/Challenges are going to fix this problem... you're missing something in your brain and cannot be helped. 
TIL: Asian periods are once every six months
 Unlike my now-ex-gfs cat, which is unlikely to have periods ever again, let alone walk.
I think these scratch marks might be infected... it's making masturbation very difficult.
DAMN YOU MDC!!! 
Next time please tell us when the price has spiked
 and when it has hit the bottom.
This would greatly simplify my trading.
Thank you. 
Well... you actually want to maximise growth
 which means you estimate the growth trend and variance of the price... or rather... attempt to estimate the price probability distribution function... (log normal is pretty close though, most of the time... with fatter tails than the normal, so include skew and kurtosis and some other shit... or just estimate it directly)...
Then... using something like the Kelly criterion, which is the application of Shannon's information theory to finance... extend it a bit... cause it's a distribution and not binary outcome...
You find the allocation, say between a 4% APR savings account, and bitcoin... that maximises the sum over (the probability of the outcomes multiplied by the log of the outcome)... apply the allocation, called rebalancing... and repeat this process as often as possible.
Adjust slightly if you're drawing a wage from it... cause now, you might want to maximise the arithmetic mean instead of the geometric mean... but you can probably ignore this.
You can send a tithe of your profits from this to: 1CFXkxCBnc2Gv6h9o4ZdN33vFohoXPZ2Dj.
Good luck. 
Bad Link
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory 
Add basic income, drop minimum wage...
 It could work. 
if __name__=="__main__":
 
  if sys.args[0] == "--testing": # not really, but
    run_tests() # You should probably use unittest or something.
  else:
    main()
You can of course create myshit.py and test_myshit.py if you like and even myshitlib.py... or some thing like that... w/e dude, get over it. 
__name__ tells you how the module was called...
 it is "__main__" if you launched that module directly...
and it is something else if the module was imported...
if __name__ is "__main__"... it's traditional I suppose to do something... test cases can go in here too... but an alternate file is okay too...
but that's your break statement... just wrap whatever the hell the app does in main()... is there are need to move the library code out?
I dunno... depends. 
Won't the earth end of the elevator be travelling
 around the earth about once a day?
That thing'll be moving pretty fast, right?
Well... looks like only 1.5x the speed of sound. So... can be done... You could land on it, I suppose.
Won't this generate sonic booms all over the planet?
And what would the G forces on a skyhook for it be?
Yeehaw!!! 
Racist much tranny fucker? $
 
The real solution to the worlds economic problems
 Capitalism with wealth redistribution.
Tax Wealth -- directly tax individual wealth... at a small percentage per year... over some threshold.
Remove min wage laws and other price controls in general... but don't forget negative and positive externalities exist... health, education, pollution...
Pay a basic income to everyone.
Let the system continue on and build the robots to let everyone, except the rich robot corp owners and the three engineers they need, retire... 
There'll be 12B other engineers to replace them...
 I don't think they'll dare. 
No shit...
 mission critical is now... what I described doesn't stop that working at all.
However, quite likely at some point in the future, the robots/ai will be more capable than most any human at most any task...
So... zero personnel self maintaining, repairing and decommissioning nuclear power stations could easily be a reality.
I still think we will need the market to direct the robots though... so capitalism will still reign supreme... and the system I described would allow that... and encourage it. 
Dude, I'm talking about the future...
 not what robots can do, but what robots will probably be able to do...
Robots that build factories that build solar powered robots that build factories that build solar powered farming robots...
Or just run them on nuclear... who cares...
At some point, I imagine, robots become even cheaper than 3rd world ag. workers... as we raise their standard of living beyond current first world standards. 
For sure...
 pretty sure I've had the go nuclear or go cold (or hot and flooded) debate with you before. 
No... I meant when there were 12B ppl on the 
 planet...
The robot engineers need about as much training as a burger king engineer...
Important decisions like whether to hit the red, green, blue or yellow button... and which hole to put the star shaped block in. The round one?
The robots will take care of the rest. 
Yeah, but they get paid like 10x basic income
 Those guys are elite motherfucker!!
Maybe only 1 of the 12B would actually qualify... 
6... It's another hot fucking Birak.
 That's for sure.
http://www.whalesandwildflowers.com.au/noongarseasons.htm 
Problem with real CIA agents
 is they also swear at 3am that they're not CIA agents... and paint anyone who says otherwise as being insane.
So, in some ways, it's hard to tell a schizophrenic from someone who has had interactions with the CIA. 
They see meaning where
 you can't...
Maybe the moon really is telling the cia to bug their cat's contract with monsanto... I mean, you've seen the contrail's right?!?
How can you sit there denying all this when it's right in front of your own eyes?
Maybe you just can't handle the truth!!!
Clearly you're a cia shill or another sleeping sheep.
WAKE UP SHEEPLE! 
I'm on to you Wise Craker
 aka - "Cia kreWser"
thinking you can hide in plain sight. 
It's obvious to anyone who can see the signs. 
John Nash leaked the fact that he was working for 
 the CIA to his wife...
He had to be dealt with...
I'm pretty sure they did some mkultra stuff on him to induce his psychosis and give them plausible deniability.
There's no doubt in my mind that his mathematics would have been very useful to them... and that he was an asset of theirs. 
You can pay for the abortion
 or you can pay for 20 years of welfare and another 40 years of health care, housing, crime and prison.
You can't force sterilize anyone either.
Pragmatism says pay for the abortion and birth control... 
Weed... caffeine... nicotene...
 and anything the girls bring over. 
Why does the add method modify self?
 Isn't it supposed to return a new object that is the result of the addition and leave the object the method is being called on alone?
Yes, and don't append an object to a list that might be modified elsewhere... unless that's what you want, and I don't think you do here. 
Actually, you found the bug and fixed it...
 I just gave a couple of pointers in the right direction...
These are fairly common errors I think when starting with python... you'll learn not to make them and to spot them pretty quickly.
Especially the everything*  is a reference to an object.
* : Except primitives, right? 
If you smoked crack and fucked trannys
 you're a crack smoking tranny fucker...
today...
forever and always. 
Your wife is withholding sex
 with her.
You can still have sex.
It's all about the attitude. 
self.shotgun_mouthwash() $
 
Do you want happiness inside you? $
 
This is true in 99% of cases.. good design and all
 that...
but the remaining 1% of the time... it's nice to be able to switch on type...
Maybe your function can take a string or an integer... I dunno... you can think of a reason... and you might convert the string to an integer in the function and continue on...
Or maybe, you might get an object, or an object encapsulated as an xml string...
Yes... messy... but sometimes it can be useful. 
If they got a basic income
 we wouldn't need to eat them.
End the artificial scarcity of thanksgiving turkey.
More turkeys die from forced over feeding than starvation.
There are more empty nests than homeless turkeys. 
If they got a basic income
 we wouldn't need to eat them.
End the artificial scarcity of thanksgiving turkey.
There are more empty nests than homeless turkeys. 
That would have taken effort $
 
HAHA - U CAN'T PROGRAM $
 
If he hadn't remained tough on crime and anti drug
 I could have respected this guy. 
Can you smoke crack on mount everest
 and suck cock in the Mariana trench at exactly the same time?
Man... your existence is very different to mine... 
I've only got one body and that can only be in one place at any given moment...
What's more... it takes time to move my body from one place to another.
But you can do all things at once... except, you know... actually understand economics. 
Yeah... funny thing is, I do...
 but I am a human, not a bot...
Maybe, that's how we differ. 
No you can't...
 Seriously... you can be in two places AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME?
If not, then choosing to be in any given place at any given time is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with being in another place at the same given time.
I'm not disputing you can be in two different places at two DIFFERENT times... that DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF CHOICE.
If you can, YOU ARE NOT HUMAN.
YO