mki

Spartan Inner Circle Member
  • Content count

    852
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

mki last won the day on July 4

mki had the most liked content!

About mki

  • Rank
    Active Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    12482666

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,222 profile views
  1. Hey I quit. I'm not going to be on here anymore. It's nothing personal at all. I'm not upset, nobody pissed me off or anything. Sorry to BigMike about that one thread, I was just pissed and I did get upset there. I really didn't mean it the way you took it though. I'm serious, I shouldn't of asked. I reserve the right to appear, or come back when ever I feel like, but, usually in this point of my participation of a forum, I just try to get banned, which I'm actually not going to do that here. I have a lot of work to do and it was fun screwing around here, but I do have goals, so yeah. Kinda looked at my join date the other day and realized that I wasn't back where I like being financially speaking before I joined here and I'm still not back (of no fault to Mike or the forum.) I'm realized a lot of things about myself and tried to figure things business wise out as best as I could 'out loud' here, so I hope somebody can appreciate that. The obvious reality for me is that, I knew what I needed to do before I joined, I just wasn't doing it. So I'm going go do that, and I know I'll be busy. I'm not going to do that weird thing where I say "I liked so and so" because honestly I wouldn't of posted here if I didn't appreciate all of your opinions. PS: I really do have a 24 inch beard and look like an actual wizard. And no, regarding your opinion about that, I don't actually care
  2. I do not suggest eye drops for eye strain and neither does my eye doctor. The second part, yes absolutely. I was personally dealing with eye strain for a long time. I posted about this awhile ago here: http://spartanmarketingacademy.com/forums/topic/3432-swapped-monitors/ I can't quote myself across threads easily: "LOL headaches?... When everything starts strobing, your eyes are red, hurt, you get double vision, and then what you are trying to read turns into Chinese, let me know. Tip: When this sh-- starts, don't put eye drops in and think you're fine. You're hiding the symptoms and it will be much, much worse when the drops wear off." As far as the drops, maybe once in a while but certainly not regularly. I got a new monitor and it really did help dramatically. Again, low blue light. Then I just stopped doing work on my computer, starting outsourcing everything, and I just post to forums instead of doing work. My vision basically went back to normal during this time period and eyes stopped bothering me. That was fun but I'm officially opening my store tomorrow, so yeah... If I disappear from here and don't come back, it was nothing personal, but I'm probably not going to have time... Or if I do have time, I'll probably be on some dating app/facebook and not here.
  3. That's bullshit, he may have found a pattern to increase the odds of winning certain payout levels, but he didn't "crack the lottery." The jackpot ticket may not have followed the pattern, he has no idea. Also, he has no idea if that flaw existed throughout the run of tickets. If he tried it 100 times and won 90, well he did find a flaw, but that doesn't mean it would have kept working forever. It may have only effected a specific run of 100k tickets. There shouldn't be any way to "crack it". It should be a pre-computed table with a random start and non random end point, with each outcome being assigned a random number a single time. Giving them a perfect distribution. I do have a degree computer science but it's not a PHD or anything and I know that so, uh yeah... So GrandPrize{1} MinorPrize{49} Loose{50} Generate an array of [100] numbers, assign a random outcome to each number in the array, and subtract 1 from the prize level every ticket, once that's done, randomize the order. Print the run of tickets. There's only going to be 1 grand prize per run. The only advantage you could gain would be knowing if somebody hit the grandprize for that run of tickets, in which case, you can't, so it's really not worth it, which it isn't worth it anyways.
  4. I don't personally disagree with them, but I don't appreciate that they typically neglect to mention things like CO2 reacts with water or that most of that doomsday stuff isn't going to happen, because at around 450PPM, much of the Earth's population will be wiped out from one thing or another and the concentration should level out over time. It's already starting to happen in places like Africa. It would be great if they were a little more honest about it. "So yeah climate change, yeah it's a problem, but it's really not that big of a deal, because most likely before everything goes all planetary apocalypse mode, you'll have gotten cancer or some other disease and died, due to us pumping trillions of tons of carcinogens into the air and literal human shit and radioactive material into the ocean. Not to mention that certain cities have populations of people who live in an actual death cloud, so their life expectancy is only 50%, so when they start dropping dead thousands at a time, then maybe some countries will get the message, because those paper dust masks aren't doing shit and killing off millions of people, for 50 cent an hour jobs is probably not worth it, at a macroeconomic level. Teaching kids to save the planet was probably the wrong message, it should have been that we need to save our fucking selves..." Apparently 6.5 million deaths a year isn't enough to figure out what the problem really is. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/business/energy-environment/study-links-6-5-million-deaths-each-year-to-air-pollution.html And that doesn't factor in the deaths from people eating food that came from the ocean; that we've filled with plastic, human shit, toxic chemicals, and radioactive material.
  5. Honestly yeah. Combustion engines (the ones people want to drive) are 10-20% efficient, then you lose 50% of that power to the drive train. Electric motor is up to ~99% efficient and the problem is more about delivering that power to the wheels without losing traction. Tesla took the biggest disadvantage of an electric car, which is the weight of the batteries, and turned it into an advantage. Even the Honda super green engines are ~ 40% efficient. I'll be honest, who the hell wants to drive that? Toyota Prius: It's a piece of shit, it looks retarded, it has no power so you can't have any fun in this vehicle at all, and it's technically inefficient. "2017 PRIUS Take everyone by surprise." The correct configuration for this vehicle is zero cylinders. What they sell, is basically a pack of filtered cigarettes compared to unfiltered cigarettes. There's no advantage to having a hybrid engine regarding efficiency. It weights more and has less power. Just pick one, either your power comes from electrons, or 2,100-106,800 tiny bombs per second. If you want power, electrons seem like the way to go to me... Well, unless you want to take off the ground and fly... http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/motorsport/nio-ep9-electric-supercar-nrburgring-lap-record-production/index.html The Prius conversation is just like the SEO discussion I had in the private section: Does this make sense? At face value it seems like it might, but once one actually put some thought into it. No... It Doesn't... Make Any Sense. At all...
  6. Some of those cars run nitromethane. And yeah 1/4 mile = 25 gallons of fuel. They consume fuel at a rate that is faster than is required to enter orbit in a spacecraft. Compared to the weight of the vehicle obviously.
  7. Only channel I have subbed on YT is 1320 And I think Cleetus McFarland is going to win...
  8. You're driving a giant computer, that has more interior room, better handling, and 900 torque that goes 0to60 in 2.28 seconds. It's like driving a spaceship. You really think this isn't better? Fastest car on the street, zero emissions...
  9. I just like breathing clean air. When I go on vacation in the backwoods of Canada, it takes about 2 weeks to get used to the air. First you feel high, then lazy, then you feel great. Then when I come back to populated areas, I notice that the air literally stinks, and I don't want to even get out of my car. Then I think about how the vast majority of the planet's population is breathing air that stinks like shit all day long. Then I think about certain places in the world, where people basically live in shit. I don't know but I just think we should be more focused on, not breathing, drinking, and living in fucking shit. Is it really too much to ask for, I don't know, people to not pump millions of tons of shit into the air, the water, and the ground. I've always seen this as "people need to take some responsibility and clean up their shit." If people did that, I don't think we be having this "Earth Doomsday" discussion. I'm not going to get into the politics of this because it's totally ridiculous, it's one side blabbing about doomsday theories while the other comes up with excuse after excuse as to why they can't clean their own shit up. The whole "well, were cleaning up more of our shit then we used to" narrative, okay that's still not cleaning up after yourself. Whatever carbon emissions, stop being sloppy, go plant some trees, they scrub carbon. I don't think it's too much to ask. There's nothing more here to this. If people cleaning up after themselves isn't good enough, well then we're fucked. This shouldn't be about arguing about data models and theories, it should be about people and companies being responsible. There's also plenty of people in a position of step up, grab the reins, and do the right thing. Amazon did 1 billion sales in a day. Great offer people Prime or something if they go plant 10 trees. Each tree absorbs up to 1 ton of carbon over it's lifetime, great, 10,000,000 people x 10 trees = 100,000,000 less tons of carbon. But yeah, Jeff needs a new Yacht, so that's not going to happen. And he's got the whole "I'm not the one doing it so how am I responsible" argument.
  10. Okay so, if somebody throws acid (or boiling water) in your face, permanently disfiguring your face, potentially blinding you, and ruining your life, that crime should be attempted murder, and the penalty should be life in prison. Why would anybody throw acid in the face of a person while they are trying to steal their moped? Mace or pepper spray was too expensive? Or maybe if the plan was to steal mopeds, steal mopeds and not ruin people's lives? So, counting family members, how many lives got ruined or permanently changed forever? 5 victims, 2 criminals, and 4 family members each, so 35 lives for some bikes... Wow... I don't really know what to say. Maybe the charge should be something more serious like committing a terror attack. http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/14/europe/london-acid-attack/index.html
  11. I agree that's BS.
  12. Phone lines are two wires, typically (99% of the time) there's 4 wires to support two phone lines on the same cable. As far as your options, that really sucks for you. Satellite internet is bad. I would see if DSL is available but that's the best you're going to get, because it is pretty expensive to run cable past about 250 feet. In which case, they just lay the cable down and use a tool to push it into the ground. As far as Verizon throttling data and net neutrality. Were talking the ability for ISPs to throttle the provider, not the user. Me as a site owner and content producer, didn't sign a contract with Verizon to get my content served to their user. I signed a contract with my provider. In this case, Verizon acts as a carrier, they don't make money off of me or my business, or the provider I choose to use. About Net Neutrality and You: (I included a TLDR version below since this blew up into a pretty lengthy post.) Regarding the concept that net neutrality hurts investment in broadband and how this potentially effects you, who said you live in a rural area with limited internet options. Technically net neutrality will always effect broadband investment because, without net neutrality, cable companies gain the ability to charge providers for "high speeds". So the broadband companies would certainly want as many customers as possible, since now they make money from both the user and the provider. Which is cute, since now the providers of the content are now paying for Verizon for their network, which they use, to charge users for access to. Eliminating Title 2, creates an environment, where it's possible, that the broadband companies (which are basically monopolies at this moment) would basically become a money printing factory, since they have the ability to charge twice for the exact same data. And it's not like they wouldn't be running those cables not to offer their own services like cable TV. (This is another people point here.) I'm not saying it would work that way. But, in theory, it could. The rule that dictates how this works, goes away, so it can work anyway the giant cable companies want it to. Most likely, it would reduce costs for consumers slightly, while increasing costs for the providers and increasing availability of those services (So You Might Get Service.) It's important to remember, that the providers are already paying for the content and for the access to networks to get this content to their users. And now, thanks to Pai, the broadband companies can make money selling any private or personal information they collect during this exchange, as well, without your permission. To me, this is not a great solution to a non existent problem, and it feels like a combination of having equality stripped away and with the potential for a good dose of extortion as well. I personally don't understand why there's any expectation from the tiny minority of people who are legitimately against net neutrality and understand the problem, that it should be okay, for broadband companies to have any ability to charge content providers, or give unequal service to those who don't pay extra. It's not my business's role, to get the content from a random internet exchange point, to somebodies house. That's what Comcast does and they charge money for that service. I pay to get that content from my server, to that internet exchange point, then the user pays a broadband provider to get that data from that exchange point to them. This is how it should work... This isn't really about people's rights to free speech over the internet, which actually might get hurt really badly, it's more about Pai getting a spot in the boardroom of Comcast once he's done wrecking the FCC. A typical conservative comment: Why should I have to pay for somebody else's XYZ problem. I really get that. Great point. Okay, why would Netflix be financially responsible for effectively paying for Comcast to run a cable to your rural home, so they can sell you their services? It just doesn't make any sense... I really feel that it's a weird thing for really any American to be against net neutrality. I don't know, maybe it makes sense to Comcast, since they might feel like they're enabling Netflix to make money, while less people use their cable television services (which is kind of reality, what Netflix does is way cheaper, so it's hard to compete with it.) In which case, I could understand why the broadband companies would need to charge more for internet service, but since it's a bunch of pseudo-monopolies, then can't compete on price against each other if they do that. I'm not suggest that this isn't a screwed up problem for people in rural areas who want more broadband investment. But people have come up with other solutions, and it's not like there hasn't been more investment, it's that eliminating net neutrality is a massive transfer of power over the internet, from the FCC (who is using it's authority to force everyone to play fair), to the broadband companies, and it has the potential, to also lead to massive wealth transfer to those broadband companies. Which is the only reason there is any discussion about this, at all. THE TOO LONG DIDN'T VERSION: Without net neutrality, you might get more broadband options because broadband companies might choose to 'tax' content providers and collect that money. Along with a bunch of authority to do things like, potentially filter website content for political reasons. When Pai does what he was put there to do, expect a readjustment in tech company stocks. Since it won't be hard to identify the winners and losers that the FCC is picking...
  13. Not really the Mandela Effect but more like a Life is Stranger Than Fiction thing. I would find it highly ironic if Donald Trump's presidency was unintentionally brought down by a Jewish Gay Bear. Which, uhh.... I'm pretty sure that's what is happening here. Which I mean. Why not right? Why the hell not... Rob Goldstone is Deepthroat. Whoa boy. Got it... Okay... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rob-goldstone_us_59655b56e4b005b0fdc98967 Yeah I'm not definitely not getting any work done today... It has to be. This is it. This is how this ends.
  14. Yeah well. Nothing the administration has done is good for Americans as far as I can tell. People might think it is, but it isn't. Or they're trampling on the rights of certain groups, I guess because they can. I can't actually think of a reason. They're doing it because they can. I'm confident they're going gut net neutrality, they don't care what people think. The administration puts out material that is completely fabricated and any attempt to verify any of the facts, reveals that it's literally 100% bullshit. The federal government is now basically publishing NRA advertisements. These people would gut net neutrality even if people were 99% for it. And from what we found out on Monday, everybody should know by now, why they're operating that way. They were never honest because they can't be, and they never will be. The only thing I'm personally trying to figure out is who the "good guy" who leaked that information is. Because I think it was Bannon and if he's the "Good Guy" well I mean, that really says a lot about the rest of them. I realize this is my opinion and I'm not really trying to have a debate here or anything, but I'm trying my best to be realistic here. It is what it is. If Ajit Pai walks on the net neutrality issue, he's not going to do it until after a massive battle. They're legitimately discussing letting a bunch of Americans die and giving financial institutions the authority to rob their customers, I hope you don't actually think they have a conscious regarding people's broadband connection.