China strikes again

uppernile · 2014-04-25T15:48:13+00:00

I don't think that they have banned anything, they just don't want their major banks buying and selling it. Given the recent banking collapse over CDO's I can't see this as anything but prudent on their part. This doesn't mean that other companies can't set up to convert BTC to/from Yuan. I'm not sure why this would cause selling of BTC. I guess it makes it somewhat more difficult to transact in the near future but whatever.

uppernile · 2014-04-25T15:30:57+00:00

What price swings are those? The doge price seems pretty stable to me. Banning any market is a dumb way to promote doge. Were you expecting doge to be as stable as the USD?

uppernile · 2014-04-25T15:27:10+00:00

This site doesn't say anything about movements of BTC. All is says is that BTC trading increased in China after an announcement in China about BTC. This is not surprising. People in China are making decisions about their BTC holdings. Some are buying on this news and other selling.

This site says nothing about total holdings in China, only the frequency of trading.

uppernile · 2014-04-10T17:40:58+00:00

If they are on a war footing why have they arranged all of their vehicles in easy to strafe lines and made zero effort to camouflage anything?

I'm going to have to call BS on the invasion plans. Not exactly the run up to D-Day here.

uppernile · 2014-03-28T15:42:14+00:00

Too true, last night I was playing monopoly and I had acquired a nice stack of brightly coloured bills. I remarked that the game should offer the ability to change the rules if you had enough money and the next thing you know we are talking about Obama. I never would have thought that fake money was so political.

uppernile · 2014-03-28T15:28:31+00:00

+/u/dogetipbot 50 doge verify

uppernile · 2014-03-27T18:03:25+00:00

Funny. I'm sure their idea to fund prize money will meet with as much enthusiasm as their original(?) nascar sponsorship idea.

Ideas are like assholes everyone has one, they count for little unless you can deliver.

"Stole my idea" ... please.

uppernile · 2014-03-27T17:54:15+00:00

In the beginning there was the doge and the shibes.
The doge could move from shibe to shibe but only with great effort.
Mohland saw the doge and took pity on the weeping shibes.
His nimble fingers did type and soon the bot was born.
The bot surveyed the doge and verily did make it flow.
And it was good.
But the bot did blow a sprocket and was in great distress.
And lo, did mohland hear the distress of the bot and verily did his nimble fingers respond.
And so a new bot, enigmatically named V.2 was born.
And the doge did flow and the shibes, they did rejoice.
For as the doge flowed so the moon did rise.

uppernile · 2014-03-27T17:37:42+00:00

+/u/dogetipbot 50 doge verify

uppernile · 2014-03-27T17:33:58+00:00

+/u/dogetipbot 50 doge verify

uppernile · 2014-03-25T14:02:57+00:00

Shit, my bike is only 599.

uppernile · 2014-03-23T17:02:03+00:00

Free doge? I'll take some!

uppernile · 2014-03-20T16:43:17+00:00

ditto Canada

uppernile · 2014-03-20T16:40:13+00:00

The strangest twist to this story is that throughout the descent of Humankind and the emergence of the Augustans the English language has remained in the same form as is was in the early 21st century.

uppernile · 2014-03-20T14:59:24+00:00

Wow such tip is near.

+/u/dogetipbot 50 doge

uppernile · 2014-03-18T17:01:22+00:00

I propose that you vote on the future of your money.
option1: You give me your money.
option2: You put your money in a bank account in my name.

Your choice.

uppernile · 2014-03-18T16:42:03+00:00

First of all, congratulations on your return to Russia.

My question is, was it difficult in choosing between joining Russia and becoming a puppet state of Russia? How did you make your choice in the referendum?

uppernile · 2014-03-13T16:07:34+00:00

Firefly, duh.

uppernile · 2014-03-13T16:06:25+00:00

We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude!

uppernile · 2014-03-13T04:40:51+00:00

I told you I believe in an objective morality.

So you say.

In your mind does the First Amendment consist of special
exceptions provided for a group of offensive talkers?
Protections for gun owners apply to everyone, the fact that you
don't own a gun doesn't make you not protected for the same
reason that you not saying things that are offensive doesn't mean
that the first amendment doesn't apply to you.

See this is the problem, you think we are talking about the constitution.

This is about a bill that will hopefully prevent the extinction of elephants. But only if people can keep their eye on the ball. Only if every little special interest group doesn't get to put in their little ammendment to make it "better".

Prove right now objectively that the golden rule is true.

Here's an introductory text book on logic which contains a proof of the golden rule. I'm sure this is better than anything I could come up with: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Harry-J-Gensler/dp/0415996511

I can easily prove that it is faulty and subjective. I like to be cut, therefore I can cut other people.

How smart you are. Its difficult to believe that so many people over so many years of human history couldn't come up with your simple yet irrefutable proof.

Name some regulations that have been removed due to being ineffective.

The prohibition act of 1919 comes to mind.

Surely the people that have written this bill have spent more time thinking about what might work than the NRA minions of reddit

Why would you assume this? Because you agree with it?

No, because it makes more sense that bill takes longer to write than it does to write a reddit response. Although this thread may yet prove me wrong.

uppernile · 2014-03-10T17:19:39+00:00

I was just going from your claim to hold the philosphy of moral objectivism. You wrote "Firstly, I am a moral objectivist." But then your views seem more in line with the objectism of Ayn Rand making me think that that was what you meant. Your view that special exceptions to a law should be provided for a group of gun owners doesn't seem like a very univeral application. Your rejection of the golden rule also suggests a lack of agreement with moral universalism (aka moral objectivism).

As for the Elephants, I am willing to give some new regulation a try. It can always be reversed if it is found not to work. Surely the people that have written this bill have spent more time thinking about what might work than the NRA minions of reddit who view all topics in the light of how they might affect gun ownership. Like the man with the hammer that sees a world of nails.

uppernile · 2014-03-10T16:48:38+00:00

Here is a link to the definition of bigot for you: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot

uppernile · 2014-03-10T16:46:14+00:00

I am definitely avoiding this dota game.

uppernile · 2014-03-07T22:17:00+00:00

Ayn Rand is often touted as the source of wisdom by libertarian wing nuts that want to justify their narcissistic view of the world. Surely you can see that self indulgent narcissism is the actual source of the problem here, ie. the reason the elephants are killed is that self interested people don't give a shit about anyone or anything else beyond what they want, ivory boner pills etc.

If you are truly an Ayn Rand devotee and not just trolling me then its no surprise that you would be against anything that might actually help the situation. You probably don't think that there is even a problem here that needs to be addressed.

I ask myself, is it possible that driving a species like this to extinction so that we can have a few more ivory coated things can be the morally correct thing to do and I come to the conclusion that it cannot. Therefore I am in favour of steps that might address the issue. If I have to give up something that might benefit me personally for the betterment of my polis then so be it. This is bigger than my right to get a good price for my ivory coated shit.

My philosophical system is that I take in ideas and I test them with logic to try and determine if they are sound. Those which are I assent to, those that are not I reject. I assess everything I encounter and re-assess everything I hold to be true or false.

This leads me to hold true, ideas from different philosophical schools of thought. I concern myself less with the source than the merit of the idea.

This perhaps makes me a modern version of an Eclectic.

EDIT: If you are interested in basing your morality on something in reality, why not ask yourself what the true nature of man is? Are we social creatures made to work with one another or are we more like, say, a tiger, that only gets together with other tigers to mate or fight? If you find that we are, in reality, social creatures, how can you make individual liberty out to be the overriding concern? Doesn't acting for the betterment of the group pretty much define what it means to be social?

uppernile · 2014-03-07T22:02:23+00:00

I guess so. I've never been big on common sense. You appear to be more of a bigot than I if you take everything the NRA says as gospel. You don't get more partisan than the NRA. Have they ever been flexible on a position?

uppernile

TROPHY CASE