|
Can I sell you my whole account? It has Portal 2, CS:S, and TF2.
|
|
|
|
|
Ignore that guy, I'll pay 0.2 btc for your credit card info! No offers to fill out, no hassle!
|
|
|
|
Don't worry about it. Ideas aren't even worth a dime a dozen anymore.
Fair point - I should have mentioned I've actually got a service written and I'm just interested in someone who will make a web interface for it, so it's not just the idea I'd be contributing. But either way you guys pretty much confirmed my expectations, thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Am I wasting my time seeing if I can find a web developer who:
1) Is willing to invest time into a potentially risky project and get paid a percentage of profit instead of an upfront price
and
2) Knows at least a little bit about working with bitcoin from a web application
and
3) Can somehow guarantee they won't just take the idea if they think it's profitable
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if this is really unreasonable, but I might as well ask.
|
|
|
|
I'm tempted, as I quite enjoy SC2 and wouldn't mind getting better, my only concern is how ridiculously stupid the ranking system blizzard created is.
This new 1-match placement is crap. Even more than before. I placed into Platinum Rank 24 after one match against some horrible protoss after I hadn't 1v1'd for like 2.5 months. I placed into Platinum in 3v3 after losing my placement game to triple diamonds. Maybe when the ranking system makes more sense and I can get a grasp on how good and/or bad I actually am I could consider such a service.
Season 3?
How many games have you played? If you haven't played enough games, your league might be off and won't be adjusted until your predicted win rate matches your actual win rate to within a certain margin. After that, you'll be amazed to find that the matchmaking system is exceptionally good at matching people around your skill level, and your league will eventually reflect what that actually is. |
|
|
|
I might be down, I play zerg, diamond level. I basically 8 pooled my way there so I need to actually learn how to play lol.
... lmao how do you get to diamond 8 pooling? Anyone top rungs in gold should be able to handle that ... I can easily get to master rank with 6pool only... no joke. ppl just don't realize how strong rush is in this game. I think you're full of crap. I'll bet you 5 btc I could find one non-masters player of each race to play against you and beat your 6-pool even without them knowing that's what you're going to do. 6 pool is worthless. |
|
|
|
|
What is "quite cheap"? How much would it be for a tailored suit? I'd send you whatever measurements you need
|
|
|
|
I might be down, I play zerg, diamond level. I basically 8 pooled my way there so I need to actually learn how to play lol.
... lmao how do you get to diamond 8 pooling? Anyone top rungs in gold should be able to handle that ... I've beat gold players with mass queens and double-hatch-before-pool. nhodges's claim doesn't surprise me |
|
|
|
Title says it all. Cheaper than online subscription price and MUCH cheaper than newsstand price. http://www.spin.com/ |
|
|
|
|
Giving this one bump before I let it die
|
|
|
|
|
Just installed. Works fine on FF 5.0 (64 bit). Good collection of niche searches! The only problem I had was that opening the bar for the first time after loading the browser took several seconds - much longer than manually going to whatever site I wanted and searching there.
Registered with the name "toast".
Address: 1FvTzo8cC7czY6WuebqGWZk3CayLTmJnAs
(Do we have to email you, or is this post good enough?)
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen some people on this forum mention they're into sc2. Figured I should extend my services.
I'm a master level protoss, diamond (almost master) zerg, and maybe low diamond terran (my 1v1 is diamond right now because I've been practicing T a bunch and my MMR dropped like a rock). I've had repeat customers when I charged $20/hr, but I'll do 1 BTC/hr for bitcoin's sake.
I can't help you if you're already Masters, sorry.
If you're below diamond, I can estimate how long it will take me to coach you into diamond after one session and then can guarantee you I can get you in provided you actually try to apply what I teach.
|
|
|
|
|
Does this show up on my facebook in any way?
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, so we are on the same page. I misinterpreted some of what you were saying at first. Why I pressed the issue so hard is that some people I have been debating with lately are trying to convince me that conscious beings have intrinsic rights that exist outside of human perception - as if grass doesn't just reflect EM waves of a frequency we associate with green, but that the grass has an ethereal "greenness" that it radiates out for us to see. I wanted to know if there was some way to justify such a view of natural rights that didn't use religious or supernatural explanations of consciousness.
|
|
|
|
My point is that there is no widespread agreement that children should have that right independent of anyone's thoughts or feelings. How do you know? Before we understood what colors were, you could have argued that there was no green outside of someone's perception of green. Correct. "green" is the experience you associate with electromagnetic radiation with a certain frequency. The electromagnetic waves exist outside of your mind, the experience does not. There is nothing "green" about the EM waves. It is only their interaction with the brain that gives rise to the experience of green. There is widespread agreement ONLY BECAUSE most people have thoughts and feelings on the issue.
Of course. But imagine if you could somehow wipe everyone's thoughts and feelings about this issue away. If they started thinking about the issue, those thoughts and feelings would return and the widespread agreement would re-emerge. So something other than the thoughts and feelings must account for the thoughts and feelings. If nobody ever looked at the grass, the sensation of green and the agreement that the grass looks green goes away. But the grass is still green, and as soon as someone looks at it, they will see that it is green. The greenness of the grass is what explains why it looks green when people look at it, not the sensation they get when they look at it. The grass is still green only in the sense that because our brain would still function the same way, when we would see the same frequency of EM waves we would experience the same sensation. When you say 'wipe everyone's brains', I can think of two different things you could mean: 1) We also wipe everyone's ability to empathize and our protective instinct we have for kids. In this case, we would not suddenly conjure up the idea that kids should not be tortured. 2) We wipe everyone's memories and past opinions, but our evolution-given instinct to empathize and protect kids remains. In this case, we would think up the idea that kids should have the right to not be tortured. Edit: word order |
|
|
|
How do you explain the widespread agreement that children have the right not to be tortured for pleasure independent of anyone's thoughts or feelings on the issue? My point is that there is no widespread agreement that children should have that right independent of anyone's thoughts or feelings. There is widespread agreement ONLY BECAUSE most people have thoughts and feelings on the issue. |
|
|
|
|
I'm still not entirely convinced we're on the same page. When you say "change the environment, and the rights change", it is as if you're implying that rights are a characteristic of the real world, and humans look at it and interpret what the new correct set of rights are. It is as if there is some absolute right and wrong for any given situation, and unless you are "broken", you should be able to see it after giving it some thought. In other words, your ability to empathize gives you some new insight into outside world. I disagree. I think our ability to empathize and our protective instincts only drive us to make up rights that we convince our fellow humans to enforce, with no one set of rights being 'more correct' or closer to the 'real' set of rights. If humans had evolved without needing to protect themselves or their loved ones, there would be no empathy and consequently there would be no idea of rights.
|
|
|
|
|
When you're sending coins from your client, is the "from" address on the recipient's end obtained in the same way the address is obtained when you click the "new address" button on the client? In other words, if I am 100% sure that someone who sent me BTC did so from their bitcoin client, can I send their BTC back to them using the "from" address in my transactions list? I know as a merchant you're supposed to ask for a return address, but I think that's only because many people use e-wallets which could mess things up.
|
|
|
|
Wait, I'm supposed to somehow "perceive rights directly"? What? Yes, exactly. You are supposed to directly perceive that children have a right not to be tortured for pleasure just as you perceive directly that the sky is blue. If you say you do not, you are lying or broken. I do. The vast majority of other people do. If you don't, something's wrong with you. We don't know what yet -- perhaps you are "rights blind". My understanding is that when I say "you have a right to not get beaten up by your neighbors", I mean "we live in a society where we generally agree that we would like to not get beaten up and we also have the primal ability to empathize with other human beings, so our laws (both written laws and unwritten moral codes) tell us that we should not beat you up or else the rest of society will punish us." It seems like you're claiming these rights somehow exist intrinsically and that we only discovered them. That makes absolutely no sense to me. No, that's not what I'm claiming. A painting of the sky is just as blue as the sky, even though someone made the painting blue. And no matter what we agreed or what our society said or did, it would be just as obvious to a normal human being that children have a right not to be tortured for pleasure. (Though I can imagine no situations where this wouldn't be the case, I can't be 100% sure no such situations exist. I have seen none and cannot imagine any. But who knows.) We don't fully understand the source of this right yet, but that it exists is a directly-observable fact. Anyone with normal "rights vision" can see it. I'm being somewhat whimsical, but my point is quite serious. The vast majority of normal human beings (perhaps sociopaths can't) can directly perceive that other human beings have rights. You can make an argument that some of the rights we think we see are somehow illusory, just as our color vision can be fooled by many optical illusions. But you can't deny that we see what we see. Any arguments that claim we don't will simply be laughed at. Just as you would laugh at me if I tried to convince you that the sky and the grass actually look the same color to you. I think that it must take a really sick fuck to torture children for fun. I also would like to live in a society where children are not tortured for fun and where people who want to would be rehabilitated appropriately. I think children everywhere would agree with me. Therefore it is my opinion that we should make a legal social contract among all the people in this country to not torture children. We'll call this social contract a "right". We invented this right, and since most of us agree that it's a good one, we might even call it a more fundamental right. This right is particularly easy to "perceive" because most people come with the ability to empathize as a natural socio-biological mechanism for group preservation. But you're claiming that ALL rights should be "perceivable" as clearly as this one, as if they exist in nature and we can observe them. I do not see how you could support in the face of evidence to the contrary in the form of contradictory social norms and moral codes in different parts of the world (for example: oppressive moral codes in some middle eastern countries. Are you claiming that ALL of those people [who were born and raised to believe in a certain set of morals] have a broken "rights perception"?). |
|
|
|
But we can use them because we perceive them directly, just as we did with colors. If someone says "I believe I have a right to torture children for pleasure" or "The grass and the sky look the same color to me (under ordinary conditions)", all we can say is that they are either lying or somehow their perceptual mechanism is broken. It is impossible to convince a person that he does not see what he knows he does see.
Wait, I'm supposed to somehow "perceive rights directly"? What? My understanding is that when I say "you have a right to not get beaten up by your neighbors", I mean "we live in a society where we generally agree that we would like to not get beaten up and we also have the primal ability to empathize with other human beings, so our laws (both written laws and unwritten moral codes) tell us that we should not beat you up or else the rest of society will punish us." It seems like you're claiming these rights somehow exist intrinsically and that we only discovered them. That makes absolutely no sense to me. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
