Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of Frost
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Frost

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
General / Re: A candidate that voluintaryists could support?
« on: December 30, 2009, 04:46:18 PM »
It would be safer to back it with a contract. Gambling is for suckers.

Place some money in escrow and they get it back at the end of their term if they only voted no?

2
General / Re: A candidate that voluntaryists could support?
« on: December 28, 2009, 03:43:37 PM »
Doesn't matter who you're voting for, the system stays the same; mandatory and enforced with (the threat of) violence.

True, even if we elected a hand full of these people the result may be more government as it would require more earmark bribes to pass legislation. However it could also be a wrench in the system to some extent and also might have PR utility.

3
General / Re: A candidate that voluintaryists could support?
« on: December 28, 2009, 03:20:51 AM »
Politician's promise? No thanks.

How about a contract? Then maybe.

It would be trivial to examine their voting record for consistency.

4
General / Re: A candidate that voluintaryists could support?
« on: December 28, 2009, 03:19:11 AM »
What if it was a vote to Repeal a law or In favor of legalizing pot?

The goal is to end the state, not tweak the politician scribble.

5
General / A candidate that voluntaryists could support?
« on: December 27, 2009, 07:07:07 PM »
Suppose that someone ran for office promising to only vote no, on everything. Would this avoid the moral problems of working in the system? Seems to me that it would.

6
General / Re: Distraction on the homefront
« on: November 20, 2009, 10:21:40 AM »
Its probably hard to take the life of an animal seriously when your forced to rationalize your killing of humans.

7
General / Re: Another Vaccine Victim (11/13/09)
« on: November 14, 2009, 02:55:52 AM »
post hoc ergo propter hoc

8
General / Re: Funniest vid I've seen all year! HAHAHAHA!!!!
« on: November 10, 2009, 12:42:49 PM »
Am I supposed to chose my own music for the last 4 minutes?

9
General / Cops, protection
« on: November 07, 2009, 10:35:02 PM »
We are pretty good about pointing out to people that cops have no obligation to protect you and are unlikely to be around when you need it any way. We should also point out that even if they do show up during a crime in progress you might be the one on the receiving end of their "services".

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/cityregion/22684964-57/story.csp


10
It turns out there is a reason for it. Apparently you can select a volume of water, say a quart, at the dispenser and it will dispense approximately a quart of water.

11
I just saw the stupidest design decision yet in an appliance.



This in an inlet valve for a refrigerator. It has 2 solenoids that open valves to send water to the dispenser in the door and the icemaker.

This one has an electronic board attached to it.

There is no possible rational justification for this board.

12
General / Re: Getting old.
« on: October 22, 2009, 03:11:55 AM »
Wishful thinking.

And FutureTimeline.net.

It can't be wrong.  It's from the future.


That time line is plausable, but so is this.

13
General / Re: Getting old.
« on: October 22, 2009, 01:35:09 AM »
Every time your cells split, they lose some DNA off the end of the chromosomes.

Ya I know...

You can't live forever.

Thanks for restating my position.

14
General / Re: Getting old.
« on: October 22, 2009, 01:31:46 AM »
The technology for making you live to ~130 is on the drawing board now.

[citation needed]

15
General / Re: Getting old.
« on: October 21, 2009, 10:21:30 PM »
What, are you contractually obligated to die within the next 2-3 decades?   :?

The cells in your brain already contain a "program" that is slowly self destructing. To change that without interrupting the continuity of existence of the network of neurochemistry that is you would require something like nanotech robots that could replace the nucleus of a neuron without destroying the cell. The nucleus would have to be extensively reprogrammed so solve the myriad of problems associated with unnaturally long life.

This technology isn't even on a drawing board anywhere.

If you posit a technological singularity you might as well say a wizard is going to do it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 30 queries.