... meanwhile on anti-vax FB pages that I have gotten into, they are having measles-parties, mumps-parties, and the like. Intentionally exposing their kids to disease.
Sorry, shows how ignorant I am of how things have progressed in the bitcoin world after having stopped participating a couple of years ago. I was under the impression that turning bitcoins into anything else was difficult, but obviously I am not well informed. I tried selling a couple of fractional bitcoins on eBay and just got scammed (losing about $200 worth to thieves with stolen accounts). That's all I've done to try to liquidate them. I'll investigate the options you mentioned, thanks.
A couple of years ago when I first read the bitcoin whitepaper and was very impressed and excited (how can you read that and *not* be impressed and excited?) I proposed a slight change to the bitcoin protocol to add support for messages querying for "elided" blocks, i.e. a means for querying a peer for blocks only relevant to a given transaction (the history of all addresses relevant to and leading up to that transaction). The elided blocks would just be the full details necessary to allow a client to validate a transaction, with the Merkel tree being used to elide most of the data.
With a feature like this, a client would not need to download the entire block chain, they'd just need a) enough of the block chain to be able to validate elided blocks which wouldn't be much, and b) a peer willing to answer elided block queries for them. Since answering an elided block query takes real work (you have to have the entire block chain indexed in such a way as to make answering such a query efficient, which means storing alot of data, with proper indexes, and proper software, and connecting to the bitcoin transaction firehose, with the cost associated with that), I included a mechanism that would facilitate allowing the peer to 'charge' you for this service, using the same pseudo-anonymity of regular bitcoin.
The idea being that a client should not have to trust a third party to handle their transactions for them, which is the only feasable way to do bitcoin transactions now unless you want to download 15 GB - not really feasable in most circumstances - and connect to the firehose - also not feasable in most circumstances, and would be much less so were bitcoin to actually become used with any real transaction volume on a global scale. For a small fee (probably cents per transaction I would guess) you could use a system that didn't require you to trust any peers (unlike the current "we'll hold your wallet for you and do your transactions on your behalf" services that seem to have proliferated to make bitcoin actually feasable for clients).
I started to write it, but then gave up on it because I lost interest. All I got out of it was a couple of bitcoins I bought for fun, that made me about 2 grand (on paper of course, I never sold them and I don't really think it's possible to actually liquidate bitcoins into real money without serious work and headache).
I'll pay on GOG.com rather than free with DRM.
While I agree that the only reason to put acetominophen into opiates is to ensure that the drug cannot be taken beyond a certain dosage without damaging the patient's liver, I do wonder if the reason really is just a vindictive desire to harm addicts as others are stating.
More logical to me is the conclusion that the authorities just want doctors to have to be careful with their prescriptions. If there were no acetominophen doctors could be pretty liberal in how they prescribe dosages with little consequence. But add some acetophinophen, and now doctors have to be very aware that there is a certain maximum dosage built into the drug, and they cannot prescribe at a higher dosage without risking being fined or jailed or sued or whatever it is that happens to doctors that mis-prescribe dangerous drugs.
I suspect that the powers that be have decided that the maximum reasonably beneficial dosage of an opiate is X mg per day, and so they require that enough acetominophen be added so that X mg per day is also the maximum safe dosage. In doing so they limit the ability of any doctor to prescribe more than what they had believed was the maximum beneficial dose. Likely they chose X mg per day because studies shows that it was the dosage that would be beneficial in the majority of cases, and don't see the need for anyone to go above X mg per day and unnecessarily take a larger risk of addiction.
That sounds more reasonable to me than just wanting to hurt addicts.
I don't use illegal drugs and have no interest in doing so but
Lucky dog. I took a business trip to the U.K. and developed an abscess on the airplane. By the time I landed I was in excruciating, nearly panic inducing pain. And I had a week long business trip to attend to. I went to a public dentist and they wouldn't do anything for the pain - they gave me some antibiotic pills that they said should take care of the abscess in two or three days. And in the meantime? Just deal with the pain.
I maxed out on ibuprofin and acetominophen, alternating taking about 50% above maximum dose of each every two hours. I would get a slight relief, bringing the pain to almost bearable for about half an hour, and then it would go back up to full pain level. I would sit and rock back and forth in front of the computer in unbearable pain and focus enough energy to concentrate on my job for a few minutes at a time.
I didn't sleep for nearly two days (was badly jetlagged anyway) and not a morsel of food entered my mouth for about 50 hours.
This all started on Wednesday. On Friday night I started to feel a little better, was able to even fall asleep and then on Saturday I woke up and
When I got back to CA my doctor did a root canal. This was on a tooth that had already had a root canal 7 years earlier but his conclusion was "I guess I missed some nerve endings the first time around".
Alls well that ends well I suppose but
The new Thief has a similar level: a haunted asylum. It has a shock scare early on (you will predict it, too obvious) and a few chills within but isn't nearly as scary as Shalebridge, not by a longshot.
Shalebridge still freaks me out.
I played through Dishonored several times because I was needing a stealth fix. The method of gameplay does affect the outcome but the number of those outcomes isn't huge (think Mass Effect 3's Pick-A-Colour ending). Dishonored was far too easy, I play on the hardest difficulty and ghosted it ending with a happy cutscene ending, hardest and killed everyone where plague rats ran amok and the end cutscene was rather grim and everything in between.
The Blink spell and Dark Vision spells made the game a walk in the park.
It's a very good game and does pay homage to the Thief series in a few parts. If you see it on sale, it's worth a buy if only for another type of stealthy-type game.
System Shock 2 is available on GOG.com for both PC and Mac. It is one of the finest FPS/sneak/RP games you will ever play. It is still is my #1 spot.
Because I am such a wonderful person, email me (address is visible above) with a random bunch of junk text then reply to this post with the same junk and I'll gift you the game. You can be playing it in an hour...