The Sweetroll

I don't know how you found OptionHouse but it doesn't seem like the optimal broker to use if you just want to buy stock and not sell it for some time. Usually your bank can handle simple transactions like this, at least in the EU. I found this guide on OptionHouse's website if you want to stick with it: https://www.optionshouse.com/new-customers/trading-on-the-optionshouse-platform/how-to-place-an-order/
 
But this is still more complex with manually setting ask rates for an order in stead of just buying at the currently available traded price.
 
Lastly options isn't something you should even look at unless you know what you're up to.

As with any philosophical debate, I find the best route to finding an answer is to observe the definition of what we consider the topic interest. In this case, selfless. 
 
Having little to no concern for oneself.
 
Let's take the example Sweetroll provided...
 
So why is it a selfish act to save somebody whom you care about from a burning building?
 
In running into a burning building due to a concern of the state of the individual inside, you are casting away concern for your own immediate well-being in order to save that person. In this scope, this is a selfless act.
 
I feel that this isn't what OP is concerned with though, so let's observe OP's statement before returning to Sweetroll's scenario.
 
So let's talk about feelings to start off with. What are feelings? Feelings are the induction of an emotional state triggered by a mental response to an external stimuli. That is to say, feelings are a way of connecting with others.
 
When we talk about, "Good" feelings, we're typically talking about dopamine. As most people already understand, dopamine is released as a positive reinforcement for desirable behavior. Desirable behavior is any behavior that improves our ability to survive and thrive. So what does it mean to thrive? Thriving is security, it's abundance. Thriving is having more than we need available to us for our ensured survival as a system of organisms.
 
We sound an awful lot like animals, don't we?
 
So what separates us from animals then? Our ability to prioritize thriving over surviving. That doesn't sound like a very good evolutionary trait though, does it? What advantage would prioritizing thriving over surviving grant us? It improves our ability to connect with others, and it allows us to ignore our need to survive in order to ensure our ability to thrive. Long term versus short term survival. 
 
Things get a little more complicated here. See, this is theory, but theory cannot accurately predict the actions and reasoning behind all human thought. It all starts when we're just a small naked human. So as a baby, what do you think you're going to prioritize? Survival, or thriving? Well, survival doesn't get you very far, you're a baby after all. You can't exactly go and harvest berries or chase a bear down. So what do you do? You cry. You thrive. You encourage those around you to act on their own instinct to thrive by expressing your discomfort the only way you know how to, and continue to do so until the discomfort has been taken care of. As you grow, you observe more and more of how humans interact with one another, and eventually, you begin to get taught about how to properly interact with others. Things sort of go all over the place from there, but the general theme remains. We take action to thrive when we can, and survive when we cannot. Why do we work jobs when we already have a home and food? Well, we do that so that we can continue to have a home and food in the future. That said though, it is possible for us to fool our minds when it comes to thriving. When we help somebody, we can imagine that the person would do the same for us. This visualization triggers our want to thrive, which also results in positive reinforcement and a dopamine release despite having no direct effect on us.
 
So now that we know what it means to feel, let's go back to Sweetroll's statement.
 
Our question was, "Why is it a selfish act to save somebody whom you care about from a burning building?".
 
To which our new answer is:
 
It is a completely selfish act to save somebody whom you care about from a burning building because this individual plays a role in your ability to thrive, and thus, it is in your interest to ensure their well-being so that they may one day ensure yours.
 
Selfish.
 
So down to the philosophical question then: 
 
 
Without feelings and emotions, we have no reactions to external stimulus. If we remove our ability to feel the, "Good" feeling we get when we aid people, then there is no reinforcement for that behavior. This means that we won't seek aid from others, we won't seek to thrive, and we'll be concerned with nothing more than survival. In this sense, you are correct. There is no such thing as a selfless act, as selfless acts impede survival except when the possibility of thriving is present.
 
However, as I've stated earlier: 
It all depends on the scope of the situation. Though this is the essence that drives us, this is by no means the answer to the question regarding the selflessness of certain acts.
So you see, despite being selfish by nature, we are also capable of being selfless by choice. We know full well that helping a stranger on the street will not benefit us, and that it will not contribute to our ability to thrive. We are able to empathize and mentally visualize ourselves being in their shoes which plays on our will to thrive, resulting in a dopamine response. Did we gain anything from the encounter aside from said dopamine spike? No, we have only slightly impeded our ability to thrive.
 
In the end, the answer to the question of whether or not truly selfless acts exist is no.
 
In order to perform truly selfless acts, we would have to cease being humans. If all of our acts were selfless, then we would not be able to survive as none of the actions we would be partaking in would benefit us.
 
The concept of thriving depends on other people, and them being able to survive. It's an idea that's beneficial to everybody. If I can survive because you're thriving, then when I'm thriving, you can survive. It creates a safety net where we are able to rely on others when we need to, and provide aid to others when we are able.
 
Anyways, that's just my two cents I guess.

@The Sweetroll  I have a newer version of crystaldisk info, and even then, im using an ssd from a different vendor, so i can't accurately compare.  But if you look at the raw read error rate it has a value of around 4 million, which is kind of high. If you update to the latest crystaldisk and make another picture (and changing the raw values to decimal, its under Function-->advanced features --> raw values) It might display the error-rate a little better. Anyway, that's why the users in your swedish topic and me think your ssd is starting to fail . 

SSD can only accept so many writes to it before it fails. Its like putting something down with a pencil on a paper and than erasing it. After a while the paper is unusable and u have to use another one. If your pagefile or your virtual memory (your "backup" ram), or the program its trying to superfetch (load on your ram so you can access it faster)  is on that piece of paper, the ssd could get to a 100% trying to read what is still on that scrambled piece of paper. That's why I suggested disabling the page file and making a new one . If you reboot it gets written elsewhere. 
 

have you tried rebuilding the page file ? Maybe there is something wrong with that ? I'm speculating at this point, this is a really weird problem you have here...

Also , do you run any VM's or programs that mount .ISO's ? 

However income mobility is different now compared to how it was before.
 

 
EDIT: Now lots of numbers are crunched here, but there are far more factors that come into play in the grand scheme of things. 

Glad to know you baked your ethics in the oven with the Macbook, too.

He bought it with his money, and intentionally is bringing it because of it's glam factor. It is not a more productive keyboard than the one physically attached to the laptop. Unless the laptop keyboard has a hardware failure and does not work, it is completely unnecessary and a distraction to other people in the class. Especially if the class isn't one that really even needs a computer. 
 
If it's a programming class, then by all means, use it. Nobody should mind, they all should be typing away anyway. 
 
If it's during a lecture hours, then pay attention. If you make the argument you are taking notes with it, then disconnect it and use the (assumed working) keyboard on your laptop, and wait until lecture is over.

Elder scrolls oblivion. yeah it's pretty old but it still plays quite well and the quests are great, especially shivering isles 
 
also witcher 3 

I believe another company already stepped in and is offering a competing drug for free.
 
I believe most countries have some form of universal healthcare...
 
 
Haha, eh. I think if he makes the money he should be free to spend it on whatever he wants. I also believe the shareholders are somewhat to blame; I'm sure not a single one of them is complaining. You might as well say the same thing about every single drug manufacturer. Hell, you could go even further and blame yourself. Why don't you donate all of your disposable income to charity?

Since everybody else gave the predictable bullshit reason(Hurr dur cas Apl bad), I'll give you something at least halfway probable: So I believe that Wacom patented the use of inductive power for a pen and "paper" like device, which carries on through tablets(with the screen and apps, have to clarify since they call regular drawing devices tablets too). N-Trig, the ones behind the Surface's digital input, also have to use a battery in their pen. I have to imagine with Wacom dominating the digital pen input market that they have all sorts of patents, and its just easier for companies to work around these issues rather than licensing.

Mass Effect Series
Dragon Age Origins
Witcher Series
TES 3-5
Gothic 1+2
Fallout 3 / NV
Metro Series
Half Life 1+2 Episode1+2
Never Winter Nights
FarCry 1
Crysis 1
Dead Space
Deus Ex 1
Portal 1+2
Wing Commander 3
DotT

skyrim

This comment gave me cancer 10/10

I went a head and redid the political compass test aswell. Apperantly, I have become more libertarian and more left leaning as time as progressed.

I completly agree. Some the questions are way too broad and general to be answered correctly.
For example: "Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries"
How is anyone supposed to answer that? Some multinational corporations probably are exploiting developing nations, but most probably aren't
 
Your opinion on abstract art can actually help in identifying your political stance.
If you subscribe to the Randian objectivistic libertarianism, you will usually also reject the value of abstract art. 
This is due to it not representing any objectivly intelligible subject. Therefor it, in the Randian sense, it loses its right to call itself art.
- The Romantic Manifesto, Page 75
 
There are most likely plenty of people that still spank their children. It's even legal to do so in the UK, as long as the physical punishment falls under "reasonable punishment" : http://www.lawandparents.co.uk/smacking-children.html

The world doesn't revolve around you and your situation.

I've never understood the bashing in the first place. People can buy what they want. I want an Alienware for the road, so I bought an Alienware. I wanted a gaming desktop, so I picked the parts and put one together at home where the real demanding games are played. Then I wanted a show-case desktop, so I cut some tubes, bent them, and stuck some UV reactive fluid in them for shits and giggles. All of the above have a purpose, and they make me (the one who spent the money) happy.
 
That's what matters, not what others think of your purchase decision.

that's not how you earn money in business, you compete and if you try and make a deal to hold high prices you will get smacked by the goverment because those things are actually illegal.

I bet you will like to pay all the taxes once you start working for all this "free" healthcare, education and the high living standards of people who don't feel like working.
 
In my home country Finland (a Nordic country you seem to admire) the government spends roughly 56% of the national GDP. That means that of your pay over half goes to the government trough different taxes and if you take into account all the unemployed and pensioners this percent will be much higher for someone with a good job. Do you really think you're getting your money's worth? I'm amazed by how ignorant people can be with all these "free" government services when people like Milton Friedman have been preaching "there is no free lunch" for decades.

You have to understand the thing is relative. They earn a percentage of their whole business money. Thing is, we live in a free market, you CAN'T adjust what people pay to whom. 
 
Also the fact that athletes make more money doesn't necessarily mean doctors live bad lives, they live above average lives in pretty much all countries, it's above average. The same thing also applies, there are more doctors than athletes. There are also less bosses than employee's, does that mean boss should earn the same, if his skillset is unique in comparison to his employee's?
 
 
There is nothing stopping anyone from paying nurses more except nurses themselves, there are enough of them on the market with similar skills so no one is willing to pay them more than they are worth. If a day comes when there are less nurses than there is demand for they will get higher salaries and market will become saturated again.

Emerson, Lake & Palmer
David Bowie
Yes
King Crimson*
Pink Floyd
Genesis
Franz Ferdinand
Sparks
FFS
Kraftwerk
Mike Oldfield
Asia
 
*Not available on Spotify because Robert Fripp - as awesome as he is - won't put his music up on there for some reason.

I bet you will like to pay all the taxes once you start working for all this "free" healthcare, education and the high living standards of people who don't feel like working.
 
In my home country Finland (a Nordic country you seem to admire) the government spends roughly 56% of the national GDP. That means that of your pay over half goes to the government trough different taxes and if you take into account all the unemployed and pensioners this percent will be much higher for someone with a good job. Do you really think you're getting your money's worth? I'm amazed by how ignorant people can be with all these "free" government services when people like Milton Friedman have been preaching "there is no free lunch" for decades.

I bet you will like to pay all the taxes once you start working for all this "free" healthcare, education and the high living standards of people who don't feel like working.
 
In my home country Finland (a Nordic country you seem to admire) the government spends roughly 56% of the national GDP. That means that of your pay over half goes to the government trough different taxes and if you take into account all the unemployed and pensioners this percent will be much higher for someone with a good job. Do you really think you're getting your money's worth? I'm amazed by how ignorant people can be with all these "free" government services when people like Milton Friedman have been preaching "there is no free lunch" for decades.

Some Apple haters are just as zealous as the hardcore Apple fans they are attacking.

God help this world.