|
I said 'about', he was more precise.
|
|
|
|
Youknowwhatelsewecouldgetridof?Whitespace.
W cld rmv ll vwls. tht mght b fn. Trolling much? That always gets you what you want. |
|
|
|
|
Do you have a rating anywhere?
|
|
|
|
Not to raise false hope, but have faith, he'll come back.. He sold me bitcoins about a month ago through paypal. I had no issues, he was worried I would scam him because he was late paying a loan once with IBB. It was rather silly, But I think hes just aloof, and will surface soon.  He should still wear a scammer tag until he corrects the error. |
|
|
|
Its a hardcoded driver issue on both ati and nvidia. The 32bit was for obvious reasons, the 64bit seems less clear why.
Exactly any claim of resource issue is BS. x86-64 supports 2^64 bit memory space. Current CPU only support 2^48 bit memory space. Windows further limits that to 2^44 bit memory space for some unknown reason but that is still more than enough. There is sufficient virtual memory space to map couple thousand video cards. You might think it BS, but its no BS on the part of the user. Its on the part of ati/nvidia. I'm sure it boils down to the fact that 99.9% of people aren't ready to use >8 gpu cores in a machine. Power, slots, temperatures, price are all concerns. They probably set it figuring it gave enough room and then haven't put much thought to it yet, sorta like the old y2k 'issues'. Write up your friendly GPU manufacturer and see what they have to say about it. |
|
|
|
If its the same issues as with windows its a hardware limit based on resources.
Both Windows and Linux are limited to 8 cores on 64bit and 4 cores on 32bit.
Either of you have a reference for that? It sounds like a BS answer made up by ATI developers who didn't want to try harder. There is no hardware limitation outside of the number of physical available ports. A software limitation I could see, as they'd possibly run out of address space in the 32bit drivers when looking at more than 32GB of VRAM  Its a hardcoded driver issue on both ati and nvidia. The 32bit was for obvious reasons, the 64bit seems less clear why. |
|
|
|
|
Both Windows and Linux are limited to 8 cores on 64bit and 4 cores on 32bit.
|
|
|
|
|
hexu sent a large Western Union for btc
+1
|
|
|
|
|
If it really isn't selling what is going on here.. I encourage the poster to send an email link to this thread to Demonoid and see what they have to say about it. I'd venture a guess that they would see it as selling, regardless of whether you call it trading, swapping, exchanging, bartering, selling, etc.
|
|
|
|
Granted almost half the time I've posted images it has been to troll or make fun of something, but the other half have been screenshots, charts, and legitimate on-topic images.
These forums don't need to become 4chan just to allow photos, and what kind of an admin can't restrict sizes?
I say we charge for photos and that will shut everyone up.
Want an avatar? Pay a one time fee of 2BTC.
Want a signature? Pay a one time fee of 2BTC.
Disabling features doesn't keep people from anything but productive communication. Try limiting who posts them instead.
Screw the one time fee. Make it an ongoing fee. Then you'll see who truly wants/needs a signature image vs those that just like to show off their e-penis hashrate. |
|
|
|
images may be off-topic, but they add colour, warmth and entertainment value that is hard to quantify.
without them, i imagine the forum a bland, boring, wall of text, and i will likely visit much less once i tie up a few loose ends.
This isn't Kindergarten. |
|
|
|
from business perspective sig buttons and banners are more valuable than avatars as long as there are some rules outlined.
i personally like idea where everyone can put small buttons for free and paying top advertisers allowed to put in their sigs wider banners
people who don't like images can disable them in their forum profiles.
There is a difference between don't show signatures and don't show signature images though. AFAIK, a person can't turn off one without the other. |
|
|
|
I don't like embedded images. They usually clutter up the discussion without much benefit. This is especially true of signature images: they take up more screen space than a few paragraphs, but they provide almost no value.
If you replace your signature image with a short direct link to an image, it would be easy for someone to write a GreaseMonkey script that expands these images.
But have you asked the COMMUNITY what it likes? Or do you just not care? Really? People complained HARD about having a text ad under the first posting on each page. How are signature image ads not intrusive but a single text ad be something to complain about? |
|
|
|
That's too bad.  I really liked dynamic userbars in signatures, like "I'm mining at deepbit.net with my 842.35 MH/s" They only took a few pixels and had that "live" feel to them. I couldn't care any less about where you are mining and at what rate. I especially don't want to see it every other message in a thread. |
|
|
|
a'Hoy Matey!
Howdy, did you get my irc pm? I just ping'd you on there. |
|
|
|
|
I think GLBSE makes it harder than it needs to be. His current system works very well.
I did this with Pirate for quite a while and never had any issues whatsoever. My interest payments were timely and I was always able to withdraw according to our terms. I only quit using him because I liquidated a large percentage of my working capital. I look forward to reinvesting with him.
|
|
|
|
I would never accept government provided smartcards with my personal private key!
The kind of idea I envisioned is if a private provider produced the entire run of ballots, which worked like lottery tickets. They had private keys (or pre-signed cryptographic messages) on them, and votes are cast simply by revealing a scratchoff and publishing the message underneath (e.g. it's a QR code that gets scanned). A vote is void if more than one competing message for the same candidacy is published. Now, we would have to trust the ballot provider. But suppose each time somebody voted, they rolled two dice, and double sixes meant their ballot should be submitted for audit. By this, I mean all keys would be revealed and published and the integrity of the ballot verified... then the voter gets a replacement ballot. This would mean on average, 1 in 36 ballots would be sacrificed for integrity checks. Slightly under 3% of the ballots would be subject to audit, but even such a small percentage would make it statistically impossible to rig them. Then I would double scratch all my opponents votes so they would get thrown out during an audit. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
