jaekwon

Lol. The US & China are like conjoined twins.

Yeah, that's what I used to think. I think that line of speculation is wrong though. Why exactly would world trade freeze? Just because China says that they don't want to value their bond holdings anymore doesn't mean that others will follow suit.

Consider that the cost may be astronomically high because it's possible to make marginally more. It's entirely possible that the same level of drug research can be done for much less money.

For instance, with patents there is an incentive to find a solution first. This probably raises the cost of research because (a) pharmas spend more time researching alternative medicines with different compounds with the same effect as existing drugs simply to get around pre-existing patents and (b) pharmas spend more money to rush research to patent it first.

Also, if clinical trials are the problem, India appears to be willing to help.

Yeah I don't think it would make much of a difference, with or without the Fed. They'd really have to try to spend the dollars & not just stick that money back into a bank, and the effects of that would be slow and noticeable in time for the US to react with some policy.

I'm pretty sure they don't want your respect. :)

I patched dogecoin to fix the transaction limit to prevent dust.

What I am realizing is that dogecoin, by virtue of being not so serious, is gaining more developer mindshare who want to experiment and learn. That's what makes it fun, and what gives it potential.

At the same time, it's just a bit strange that we take "innovation" for granted.

Think about it. The way we prod it forward, always stumbling away from our past.

Overall may be the biggest baddest religion man has ever seen.

Godliness is our final destination. That's significant, and possibly our own undoing.

Ah, yes, you're right. My understanding of unions is indeed limited in the ways that you pointed out.

Not sure I agree with your last statement. It depends... I don't think unions should be able to forcefully close down a shop if the owner can actually resume operations by firing all of the union members. On the other hand I'm completely alright with unions organizing and deciding to go on strike, in order to push for a bargain. I suppose I'm more comfortable with these boundaries because it "naturally" follows from ownership (the union can't shut down a factory because they don't own it) and respect for volition (the employer can't prevent people from willfully organizing).

I also understand that sometimes large corporations prefer to shut down a factory rather than sell the factory to the workers, in order to prevent competition. In this case I'm willing to concede that the workers should be able to purchase the factory from the corporation, as a judgement call that the livelihood of the factory workers are more important than whatever benefit the corporation sees.

But I am not willing to extend the liberties of a labor union to stifle the growth of another company that is winning in the free market. I believe there is more at stake in lost opportunity that way, and so I call such practice "backwards".

I'm probably missing a lot of subtlety here; like if the factory owner can fire all of the union workers during a strike, isn't that akin to the factory worker banning unions outright? I really don't know the answer.

The stuff you wrote above is pretty twisted. Forget for a moment about the gist of our argument, which I was looking forward to discussing, but no more because it devolved into ad-hominem attacks on me, of which you know next to nothing about.

I sense that what you wrote above represents a dominant line of thinking, where you look down upon others & their abilities, while putting violent destruction on the pedestal above and beyond what it actually merits. This leads me to think that you were abused physically and mentally at one point in your life, and it still affects your mindset today.

If so, I hope you can find a way to heal yourself. Perhaps adopt a pet if you don't have one. You'll be amazed what a dog can teach you.

The way I think of a union, it's an organization of employees who bargain with its employer.

Unless the entire taxicab industry is nationalized by law in France, it makes no sense to me that a taxicab union is protesting against another company disrupting their business. That's just being a thug.

You should have the right to organize for bargaining of salary. Imposing an artificial handicap on another business model is really backwards.

I created it while developing for a personal project. I found it useful so I thought I'd share it.

> The Gloobenstien. This is a device powered off farts. It is used to detect and avoid /b/ronies. You lose.

You parsed my sentence wrong or something. I challenged you to find a device that isn't built off of something non-war related. Mind the double negative. You do see the point I'm trying to make, no?

> I think my Borderline Personality Disorder has put me in my parents basement with no job and a huge list of ex-friends and lovers.

That's beside the point but, well, that sucks. Wait, things are starting to make sense.

> What do you mean, "you people", you racist melon farmer? Seriously though, thank you for the new script idea. A serial killer that kills killers via giant, killer death arena called the KILLER DEATH ARENA. It is perfect, because people are fascinated by death, and it is totally unbelievable [Harry Potter, Saving Private Ryan, Deathbed: the Bed the Kills People]. "We" tend to kill you guys. Tigers do not often hunt tigers, though they do attack them if their territories overlap.

You're absolutely right. I actually have no evidence to suggest that non-psychopaths are better or worst off than psychopaths. I was just hoping you'd disappear but I guess that didn't work.

> I will help build a tomorrow where our future cousins do not have to see each other as adversaries or competitors to make some fuckhead proud of all that he has "gained".

OK so you're clearly not a psychopath, so there's nothing more discuss about psychopathy per se. But I believe you are confused about something. There is, to this date, perhaps nothing quite as important as nation-state war and defense in determining the outcome of technological progress. But with the invention of the internet I hypothesize that we won't be seeing the kind of wars we have been seeing in the past -- it's much harder to convince enlightened people to kill another man.

So the battlefield is shifting away from the field to the infrastructure of computation, cryptocurrencies, and social media networks. Popular opinion is what will defeat the drones, not another drone army. And popular demand is what will drive technological innovation in the future, not national "defense" budgets. We've already lost, the world is constantly on the verge of a nuclear meltdown. What good is another killer weapon?

I have a personal troll!

Do you have the text for the dagger page?

yes. :)

BTW, also contact me if you want help investing in alt-coins. I'm going to start an alt-coin hedge fund.

Hey, I like your assessment ability. Contact me at jkwon.work@gmail.com, I have an idea I want to share with you.

I don't understand who does all the turing complete contract computation. Presumably the miners, but they're paid to do some useless proof-of-work work, not the turning complete computation of the contract.

Is there a dedicated forum or mailing list for further discussion?

> Maybe at the machine level. But there's nothing that stops a programming language a few levels above machine from requiring that every pointer be initialized with a reference.

What if the pointer is to a large structure (expensive to initialize), and I want a function that returns a pointer, which may fail to initialize?

Without a nil, developers would create structures that have a "valid" field. Nil just makes that more convenient, and the way Go does it is pretty good -- you can't cast it the same way you can in C/C++.

Nor can you name a single device that is not built off of something non-war related. If you refuse to admit your logical fallacies, then I have no point arguing with you.

You think that your psychopathy puts you in some elite category of non-labouring factory commander. It doesn't, it just makes you aberration to be tolerated until you all kill each other. Your failure to ground your value system into your nature -- a fellow human -- makes you an evolution inconsistency waiting to resolve itself. That is why you are outnumbered.

If not, you'll find that the future holds unexpected surprises for you as your pet machine comes to crush your frail body, only after realizing through trial and failure that you weren't able to transcend your physical nature.

Surely you're intelligent enough to see the distinction between Barber surgeons, grave robbers, and killing machines.

There's a whole world of applications for AI and machinery that we could be pooling our resources into, but instead we're funding a continuing war on "terror" abroad. There's no reason why the war is necessary, no reason why technological progress would be made faster in the art of killing vs anything else.

Perhaps you believe that perpetual war is unavoidable and necessary. We could argue that.

But the way I see it, war isn't necessary, and the technological progress we make by funding war is a slim silver lining at best on a double edged sword with no handle. So you see, I find this thread ridiculous. I think you guys are psychopaths. And you're outnumbered by the rest of us.

The key difference is in the violence. People sacrifice themselves voluntarily for the slim chance of gain and the real chance of progress, all the time. There's no reason to think that killing is a necessary or efficient method of finding progress.

Methinks you just like killing people. That's pretty psychopathic. Don't you have any friends?

The more civilians you kill, the more enemy you make, the more you need the military.

I tried to cancel my membership, but there's no way to do it online without giving them a call. They won't pick up if you call, you have to press 1 and 1 again to get a callback.

Shady and left a bad taste in my mouth. Would not try again.

I just want a DNS system. That is, I want to know whether what I am buying is original or not. Let the market decide whether they want the original or fakes. Even the original creator shouldn't have a say on whether other people buy and sell derivatives (or even direct copies!) of the creator's work.

The only thing I care about is truth. If you make a claim X, e.g. branding your item as in a trademark, then it should be true. But I see no harm in allowing products that do not make any false claim at all.

Abstract art doesn't belong to the creator. Once it's published it has a life of its own, like a mathematical proof of a theorem. The only thing that is yours is the claim that you did it. I wish the world worked this way. We'd see more innovation in everything.

The whole patent/copyright thing, I find absurd.

For patents, imagine if the population were a million times greater than it is now, some staggering number. Would you feel comfortable with a patent system then? Probably anything you could come up with would infringe marginally upon another's protected under a temporary monopoly. People would be shut out from selling anything at all, except those who already had resources to discover new inventions.

Copyright is different because perhaps the scope of possible interesting discoveries or inventions is much broader so anybody could participate and create something unique. But even then, who is the creator of abstract art to tell others to not derive joy or economic sustenance from his/her creations? As long as the transactions were based upon truth, e.g. no lying about who the creator is, ideally with correct attribution, then it's none of anybody else's business! If the consumer wants to purchase "fake" fan-fiction, just take it in stride. It does not affect you, your creative ability, nor your economic condition.

Sure.

But it was a strange thing to begin with. Why would anybody trust a cloud provider with sensitive information? Another way to look at the NSA -- they are hardening our security.

Yeah haha! Let's at least make the system consistent.

To be fair, then I'd also have to let the NSA keep records from "third parties", since I'm a Kopimist of sorts.

Actually, I'm OK with the NSA having my data. I'm not OK with them compelling third parties to HAND OVER data (e.g. PRISM) but I'm fine with them holding information that they gathered through other means as long as those means were acceptable. Tapping fiber optic cables is a gray line here.

All good as long as they allow me to evade them by taking privacy into my own hands. I want to be able to use, export, and import any encryption technology that I see fit.

Let's play ball.

Sounds like the judge is saying that what third parties can have, the NSA can have.

Ugh.

> the biggest problem is that the SHA1 digest of a message is not an authenticator of that message, because an attacker can generate the same digest given only the contents of the message.

Curious, if the secret token comes after the message & there is proper delimiters to separate the message from the secret, where is the vulnerability?

Take a look at this link: https://blog.jcoglan.com/2012/06/09/why-you-should-never-use...

Am I correct to think that the example cited is bad? It appears that it would be a strong MAC because of the reasons that I cited.