Silk Road forums

if they are line of sight go with an amplified directional antenna, otherwise amplified omni directional antenna.

The solution is to get a powerful enough group that they can use violence to enforce rules without being crushed. But they need to only enforce a single rule, which is nobody can initiate force against others. If people initiate force against others then they need to have escalating force used against them, slightly more than they have used against others. Militant libertarianism is the answer to the problems of the world, provided enough people support it for it to be meaningfully implemented.

Suffering is caused by bad humans having power over other humans. Imagine I have a magic notebook and if I write the name of anyone / group / type of person in it then they die. I think in such a case it would be fair to say that I have power over all of humanity, I can kill anyone or even everyone If I want to. However, if I only use this power to kill those who initiate force, despite having power over all of humanity, only bad people will be affected by me. I write the name of the DEA in the book and they all die, so in a way I have caused suffering, but people who do not  needlessly fuck over others for their own benefit have nothing to worry about. Is that really such a bad thing then, that I have power over everyone ?

People who fuck over others need to be stopped. It doesn't matter what the majority of people think , they are brainwashed or power hungry themselves. There is no moral need for people who are capable of stopping evil people, to wait for society to say it is okay to stop evil people.

The thing is in a libertarian society you are free to select your own defense agency. Who exactly is going to abuse you Astor? All you really say then is that libertarians can not gain enough power to protect themselves from evil people (which mostly boils down to everybody who is not a libertarian, although in their favor some of them are just brainwashed or idiots).

I really don't understand how some of you, like jpinkman, can be so infatuated with the government and statism. To me, the thought of majority rules just makes me cringe. It is like saying you are okay with the holocaust if the majority of people say it is okay, and anybody who tries to stop the execution of the Jews must be terrorists for going against the will of the people. You should realize that democracy is especially dangerous due to the fact that the majority is easily brainwashed, they 'think' with their emotions rather than logic and they are largely uneducated on any issues they would be voting on. It is a bunch of greedy, emotional, gullible, mystical, illogical, uneducated people deciding on the fate of themselves and their neighbors, And really they are so easily influenced that it becomes a bunch of sociopathic extremely greedy and fantatical (either to God or the collective) assholes who use the people to meet their own goals.

I am not at all for democracy. First of all, nobody has any right to tell me what to do so long as I mind my own business and don't fuck with other people. That alone is enough to justify me not bowing to the state, even if the majority of dumb fucks think that I should. Additionally, when the masses are ostensibly in charge (although they never are in reality, considering they are easily manipulated by the elites), they make stupid choices that result in not only me being oppressed, but in god damn everybody except the select few being oppressed. The elites can split society up into a thousand minority groups and get the majority to turn against them. But oh noez everybody is part of some minority group, so it is divide and conquer.

The solution is to take power away from the elites and away from the people, and to violently enforce libertarianism. Nobody has any reason to bitch about this happening, libertarianism permits everybody to do whatever the fuck they want so long as they do not initiate force against others. The people who do not want enforced libertarianism ALL fall into one of the following camps:

1. They want to steal money from others ("I am entitled to free health care and other shit!!111")
2. They want to tell other people what to do ("No drugs for you! No gay marriage for you! Worship my God or else!!!!")

it is that fucking simple. Because the majority of people want to hold a gun to their neighbors head and steal their shit, or hold a gun to their head and make them worship their God, or hold a gun to their head and make them follow their moral compass, they are against libertarianism. So only evil people are against libertarianism. Nobody is against libertarianism because they are afraid they will be oppressed, because there is absolutely no other ideology that is as freedom loving as libertarianism. No moral ideology can possibly be more freedom oriented than 'do whatever the fuck you want just don't hurt anybody other than yourself in the process'.

We need to have global libertarianism, and the people enforcing it need to gain so much power over the world that there is absolutely no chance of them ever losing it, democracy and the government and everybody else be damned.

Although researching it further is on the list of things to do for the Tor research community, nobody has any papers on it yet and nobody has as of right now researched this as far as I am aware.

So Ron,  would you say your dad was actively cruel towards you or just completely uncaring? Did he 'toy' with you? Or something else entirely? It must have had repercussions on you somehow unless your mom was aware of the condition and protected you somewhat.
Do you find yourself in relationships that are unhealthy today?

I just find these people completely fascinating, partly because I envy how they just don't care about anything other than themselves. I mean really, wouldn't it be a load-off your psyche to not be bothered by a conscience? Imagine the limitless activities you could engage in if you just didn't give a shit about feeling bad! On the other hand I don't understand how they 'fake' it through everything. Generally, they know they're different from 99% of everyone else and they wear a mask of what they think people expect. I mean we all do some acting day to day, but these guys take it a whole other level faking en entire range of emotions they know nothing about! Absolutely enthralling!

I believe that psychopaths have some understanding of emotion, however it is a theoretical understanding. Just like a male may have an understanding of female traits without experiencing them themselves. For example, I have theoretical knowledge that females are typically attracted to dominant personality types, desire emotional bonding more than sexual recreation etc....however these things do not apply so much to me. Essentially psychopaths have theory of mind, however they lack emotions themselves. They are still capable of mimicking appropriate emotions due to the fact that they theoretically know what is expected of them in certain situations, for example they know that if a relative dies they are supposed to feel sad. Thus, they will act as if they feel sad even though they don't. One of their primary tricks is to mimic those around them, so if they are with their normal brothers and sisters at their parents funeral, they will copy their behaviors and mannerisms, despite not having an emotional cause for displaying these mannerisms.

Autistic people on the other hand tend to have deficits in theory of mind, to various extents, depending on the severity of their Autism. They may struggle to determine what others are feeling or thinking in the first place. They have less theoretical knowledge of what they are expected to feel in social situations. They also tend to have blunted emotions, compared to neurotypical people anyway. There are actually a hand full of similarities between autism and psychopathy. Both rely on mimicking to an extent, psychopaths due to a lack of natural emotions as well as a desire to blend in, autistic people due to a lack of theory of mind and lack of theoretical understanding of how they are expected to behave in a social situation. Psychopaths are generally better at mimicking though, likely because of their superior ability to have a theoretical understanding of emotion.

In fact when Aspergers Syndrome was first introduced, it was originally called Autistic Sociopathy.

I have been diagnosed as being on the Autistic spectrum, however not with socipathy. I do feel as if my emotions are not as pronounced as a neurotypical persons. I feel that this is to my advantage in some ways, I strongly believe that many neurotypical people allow emotion to cloud their minds and turn them irrational. Think of the children propaganda has little to no effect on me, for example. Although an ability to be more logical is something I see as an advantage, there are some disadvantages to having less emotion than normal as well. I have trouble relating to / interacting with most normal people, although I prefer to interact and relate with more logical analytical and rational people anyway. I do sometimes find myself mimicking in social situations, but I am also quite certain that I have a strong theory of mind and theoretical understanding of social interactions and emotion, probably as I am quite high functioning and would likely be considered as having a mild form of savant syndrome (despite this not being a real diagnosis).

As you can see, this means that I am a strong systemizer and have deficits as an empathizer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizing_theory

However I have no difficulties with systematizing human emotion and having a decent theoretical understanding of emotion and theory of mind. Additionally, I do experience a wide range of emotion, although I do not think I do as much as an average human or as strongly as an average human. I also feel that although I can identify emotions in others to a decent although likely below average extent, that I am not strongly influenced by others emotions. Seeing a sad person is not likely to make me feel sad, and I guess that is what empathy is, so obviously I have deficits in empathy as compared to average humans. However, this is not always the case, it is just significantly more often the case for me than for average humans IMO.

The empathizing–systemizing (E-S) theory classifies people on the basis of their scores along two dimensions: empathizing (E) and systemizing (S). It measures a person's strength of interest in empathy (defined as the drive to identify a person's thoughts and feelings and to respond to these with an appropriate emotion); and a person's strength of interest in systems (defined as the drive to analyse or construct a system). A system in turn is defined as anything that follows rules, key classes of systems including mechanical systems, natural systems, abstract systems, and collectible systems. Rules in turn are defined as repeating, lawful patterns.

So in summary, I would not really consider myself to be a sociopath or psychopath, however if sociopathy is considered as a spectrum, I would say I am mildly autistic with some mild savant traits, and perhaps I could be considered as mildly sociopathic stemming from this.

edit:

    cognitive empathy (also termed 'theory of mind' or 'mentalizing') defined as the drive to identify another's mental states;
    affective empathy, defined as the drive to respond with an appropriate emotion to another's mental states.

I suppose you could say that sociopaths maintain cognitive empathy but lack affective empathy, whereas autistic people tend to lack theory of mind and affective empathy, or only theory of mind while maintaining affective empathy. However, I would define these things as

cognitive empathy: Theoretical understanding of others mind states
affective empathy: Desire/ability to respond appropriately to others mind states

with such definition it becomes more apparent that psychopaths maintain cognitive empathy but have a near total lack of affective empathy, where as those on Autistic spectrum tend to either have various degrees of deficit in both, or only have deficit in cognitive empathy while maintaining a closer to normal level of affective empathy (generally higher functioning autism I would say).

Quote from: kmfkewm on February 20, 2013, 02:56 am

Who cares if it looks suspicious... you can't go to jail for having an encrypted hard drive

For example in the UK you actually can:

Quote

First of all, references – the law is here. You will be sent to jail for refusing to give up encryption keys, regardless of whether you have them or not. Five years of jail if it’s a terrorism investigation (or child porn, apparently), two years otherwise. It’s fascinating – there are four excuses that keep coming back for every single dismantling of democracy. It’s terrorism, child porn, file sharing, and organized crime. You cannot fight these by dismantling civil liberties – they’re just used as convenient excuses.

http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/12/in-the-uk-you-will-go-to-jail-not-just-for-encryption-but-for-astronomical-noise-too/

You can't go to jail for having an encrypted drive in the UK, only for not giving up the passwords. Use deniable forms of encryption and make them prove you are not giving up keys.

No but you changed the parameters of the problem , before you specified that they cannot meet

In some countries in Europe the police are not allowed to do reverse stings. In the USA they are allowed to and they are fairly common at that.

DEA agents have full exception from controlled substance act. They are allowed to purchase, use and sell all controlled substances, in an undercover capacity.

5 business partners decides to make a bitcoin address as a backup plan, if anything happens any 3 of them will have to be enough to access the account, but none of them must know the full password for the brainwallet.
I think this can be done with Shamir's Secret Sharing Scheme, and a brainwallet, but the partners have to remain anonymous to each other so they can't meet IRL to make the brainwallet and share the secret.
It have to be done in a way that they can remain anonymous, and without involving anyone else (eg. an attorney )

Is there a way to do this?

Shamir secret sharing doesn't meet all of your requirements. You can use it so that the password is shared over five people, and three of them are required to reconstruct the password. Also, at least one of you will need to know the password to split it up into secret shares in the first place. Also you need to generate the proper keys to know the bitcoin address, thus you need to have a password to use with brainwallet in the first place, and therefor it is obvious that someone will know the password. It can be split up and shared with five people with secret sharing schemes, but yeah one will need to have the ability to know the full thing because it is split up from the whole thing in the first place.

SelfSovereignty gave the best solution I think.