Excellent!... I mean uh... Bad users! Bad!  Fun fact: if you check the Wikipedia page on CoH2, they try to attribute the 1.6/10 user score to a campaign against unfair representation of the Soviet government.  |
|
|
|
RTW2 rocking a 4.2/10 user score on Metacritic, 3rd lowest rating of recent PC releases. Sega's other recent published release, CoH2, is enjoying (one of?) the lowest ratings I've seen in a long time, at 1.6/10, the lowest of recent PC releases. These may be top contenders for the biggest all-time user/critic score discrepancies, too. RTW2 criticavg-useravg=3.9, CoH2 criticavg-useravg=6.4 which could well be a record. Good thing they got out of the hardware business to focus on games. (Some of the other worst let-downs in the past couple years include D3, which has cavg-uavg of 5.0, and SimCity Societies, with cavg-uavg of 2.2, though critics gave Societies a fairly low score of 6.3. Gone Home is also setting some records - very indie, but absolutely tanking with players, cavg-uavg of 5.0.) For reference, 2009 biggest discrepancies (note the gap closed a bit on almost all of these): http://www.metacritic.com/feature/game-critic-scores-vs-user-reviews (highest difference then was 4.9) |
|
|
|
*NSFW*
At least give people a warning before posting that shit, dude. |
|
|
|
From dictionary.com:
1. assay: to subject (a substance, such as silver or gold) to chemical analysis, as in the determination of the amount of impurity
Running an assay on a picture? Is that a joke? If not, can you do an assay of one of the animal parts available in the Marketplace for me?
Who are you and who is your friend?
So I can call bullshit on any thread and have it moved to "scam accusations"?
Good to know.
Losing respect for these forums day by day, SMH.
Really? After one of the more damning scammer accusations in the forum, you're going to use the Inaba defense? |
|
|
|
... Is xDeathwing a sock?
How is someone here for less than 6 months a staff member?
how is any of this related to xDeathwing's scam accusation? Just happened to look at his post history from this thread and noticed he almost never posts more than a sentence. If a sock, it'd be useful to know the other account. I figured it might be possible someone has that info, so just threw it out there. It's arguably off-topic, so I wouldn't fuss at all about it being removed. It'd make me consider you a little more suspicious, though. |
|
|
|
|
... Is xDeathwing a sock?
|
|
|
|
|
Why go crazy? It's starting to get cold, here. Just need a fan or two, and the heat's no longer wasted. Poof. ~100% efficiency.
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Edited my own post to try covering that a bit. If the boards can't fit in one unit, then it's not ambiguity being a problem at all, but explicit clarity which covered this exact kind of situation, right? The quote I posted shows punin indicating he was not (at that time) able to produce a 400GH/s unit, and that 16 boards make up a unit.
What is "fit in one unit"? To use more than 16 boards requires 2+ m-boards. All 400 GH/s orders shipped with additional m-boards. Hmm. Did anyone simply ask punin what he was calling a unit? I mean - maybe he's biased, but at least it'd give something to point to. ETA: site:bitcointalk.org "quote from: punin" "unit" Nothing yet... 7 more pages to go. Wish I had something productive to do, instead, heh. ETA2: Alright - how about this? ALERT!! ACHTUNG!! HUOMIO!!
We've spotted a minor (potentially major) security issue with the image that was distributed with the shipped units. The user pi and root both have some ssh credentials set. You should remove these so that no one can access your unit. (This should not be such big issue if you're behind NAT). (Again, I haven't kept up on this, so I don't know if this makes an indication) Is he referring here to one unit as one m-board? Can the m-board be accessed like that, or does it go through something else? |
|
|
|
More info from IRC... He claims that punin defined "unit" as not being the full 400 Gh/s in this post. I disagree; punin admits the single board did not meet expectations, but he never says the ordered unit won't. On the contrary, he says an additional board will be provided to make sure the delivered specs are met. It seems to me two boards comprise the full unit of this "first batch". Not the advertised design, but it does meet the advertised specs the bet mentioned. Furthermore, he also admits that he made this bet after he though the conclusion was certain (ie, reading that post), and that he was not prepared to lose. Betting when one is certain of the outcome is morally wrong unless the other party agrees knowing you are certain.This can clearly not be the case for everyone who bet before the forum post in question. So, I'm not at all sympathetic, as he basically tried to steal from the other betters. While I still wouldn't recommend trusting mircea_popescu (who runs bitbet), he clearly made the right decision in this case. Maybe. "I will ship your ordered hashrate regardless (ie. more hardware free of charge) until we fix this issue and can provide 400GH in one unit." If he didn't ship the additional boards by September 1st (I have no idea) which'd get a unit up to 400GH/s, then it couldn't be considered that 400GH/s units were delivered, right? 365GH/s delivered + more later =/= 400GH/s delivered. The additional boards were shipping with the original order. The individual boards were rated @ 25GH/s they seem to do on average 21GH/s. Starter kits (25 GH/s total vs 42 GH/s shipped): Advertised: 1 host + 1 board Shipped: 1 host + 2 boards Full Kit (400 GH/s total vs >400 GH/s shipped) Advertised: 1 host + 16 boards Shipped: 2 hosts + 18-21 boards (enough to ensure total output was >400 GH/s) Still the bet was poorly worded and hopefully people in the future will start making better worded bets. IF the bet was they will delivery hardware by date with <= 1 J/GH efficiency (as measured by 12VDC load) and <= $20 per GH (excluding shipping costs) it would be a clear "Yes. The OP complaint isn't that not enough hashing power was delivered or it wasn't efficient enough. His complaint is that on the 400 GH/s sales it shipped as 2 hosts + 18-21 boards instead of 1 host + 16 boards. Is 2 hosts + 18-21 boards "one unit"? I would say probably yes but bets should be worded better so there is absolutely no ambiguity. Thanks. Edited my own post to try covering that a bit. If the boards can't fit in one unit, then it's not ambiguity being a problem at all, but explicit clarity which covered this exact kind of situation, right? The quote I posted shows punin indicating he was not (at that time) able to produce a 400GH/s unit, and that 16 boards make up a unit. |
|
|
|
More info from IRC... He claims that punin defined "unit" as not being the full 400 Gh/s in this post. I disagree; punin admits the single board did not meet expectations, but he never says the ordered unit won't. On the contrary, he says an additional board will be provided to make sure the delivered specs are met. It seems to me two boards comprise the full unit of this "first batch". Not the advertised design, but it does meet the advertised specs the bet mentioned. Furthermore, he also admits that he made this bet after he though the conclusion was certain (ie, reading that post), and that he was not prepared to lose. Betting when one is certain of the outcome is morally wrong unless the other party agrees knowing you are certain.This can clearly not be the case for everyone who bet before the forum post in question. So, I'm not at all sympathetic, as he basically tried to steal from the other betters. While I still wouldn't recommend trusting mircea_popescu (who runs bitbet), he clearly made the right decision in this case. Maybe. "I will ship your ordered hashrate regardless (ie. more hardware free of charge) until we fix this issue and can provide 400GH in one unit." If he didn't ship the additional boards by September 1st (I have no idea) which'd get a unit up to 400GH/s, then it couldn't be considered that 400GH/s units were delivered, right? 365GH/s delivered + more later =/= 400GH/s delivered. Or maybe I'm misreading and the extra boards (which still fit with the ordered # of boards in a single unit?) were shipped with the number of boards ordered for 400 or more GH/s? |
|
|
|
|
That's a clear "no." The bet description isn't very long, but this is very explicit: "Devices must meet advertised performance (25 GH/s unit 40W, 400 GH/s unit 400W) in order to be accepted as valid."
All of the betting-on-real-events sites seem to have a murky track record on this, though... (not that it makes it okay - just not an isolated issue. Maybe the ops just don't take it seriously?)
ETA: Or is there evidence of at least five delivered units meeting the advertised specs? That would arguably change things.
|
|
|
|
They have too much time on their hands
Paid time is never a waste. (unless it doesn't pay enough) |
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't it make much more sense to just add "Bitcoin accepted" in the CL ad? That gives the added benefit of exposing new people to it, too.
|
|
|
|
What is your bitcoin address?
You can check transactions on blockchain.info
Thanks for the reply, so my "Master Public Key" is: f55c4d640fe2a77676262b38760148b01112c5e3e9ed4f4715f0e72e6b8a7e2843c94990d41f99d 308469d5155c56d379ae91498345b0778b7c884675b2efecc I went to the site you mentioned and put that in for a search and it said "Unrecognized search pattern" Don't use your "master private key" again. make a new one. people can use this to steal your coins from addresses made with this master key iirc. Electrum uses deterministic wallets. I wouldn't think it's any more dangerous than a watch-only wallet on Armory. I mean - ideally, you don't want people to know your pubkeys at all, but it's really not a huge deal. There are plenty of published addresses with thousands for months which haven't been broken. ETA: D&T trumps my response, as always. Assumed OP would switch key after resolution. |
|
|
|
also, check the thread where the forum does Sell ads they sell them for a lot of money they have no problem selling them because there are a lot of power house companies that will drop the money immediately and will also out Bid other competitors for the ad.
The funny thing is, forum ads don't account for even a fifth of the ads people see per thread. I could do without all the colored crap turning my monitor into My Little Pony barf, but my eyes (and probably everyone elses') are trained to gloss right past text below the signature bar - so whatever. (Maybe I don't write as well as I did, or lost all respect - but I was able to get 15 referral clicks in 2 months roughly a year and a half ago which has provided me a steady trickle of income. I tried the same referral link for about a month this year and accumulated 0 referrals.) |
|
|
|
It would be great if the trust rating of the person posting was displayed next to their thread post. So i dont have to click on the thread to see that it was posted by a scammer. That would be donation worthy to me  Huh. That could be useful. Maybe a checkbox option in profile menu to turn it grey like an ignored person's, or grey out the OPs name in thread-browsing, or red it out. Something simple to let people know there's something up before they even click without being too in-your-face. An option to automatically ignore people with a negative overall rating might be interesting, too. Maybe the server would maintain the list, a user can click "add negatively-repped members," and have the list populate from server data. This would also achieve the effect of graying out neg-repped OPs. |
|
|
|
ETA: Thread was a bad idea. Can't delete thread, so chose the most boring title I could imagine.  |
|
|
|
So on that logic, hyperinflation must be a massive net benefit for the economy?
You'll have to quote where you're getting that idea. Hyperinflation is no good since it would erode confidence in the USG's ability to keep things under control. Treasury bonds are still considered by too many as guaranteed safe. If confidence in t bonds drops, this awesome cycle can't continue. It's a delicate balancing act which makes everything work as intended. |
|
|
|
More of a concern perhaps, Iranian military are reportedly saying that any attack on Syria will certainly 'spill over' outside Syrian borders. And their supreme leader is quoted as saying: "Starting this fire will be like a spark in a large store of gunpowder, with unclear and unspecified outcomes and consequences,". If there is regime change in Syria, Iran would lose one of its few regional allies. It is not inconceivable that Iran might use regional aggression as an excuse to attack Israel. I've read some arguing he was referring to the Sunni/Shiite schism, and sectarian violence. Some news sources have portrayed the Syrian civil way as a Sunni uprising against a minority oppressor(al-Assad is a Shiite). Worth noting, Iran and Iraq contain ~50% of all Shiites in the world. If a military strike is perceived (or used in propaganda) as the US protecting a Sunni puppethood, it could cause all sorts of renewed conflicts. I wouldn't know. |
|
|
|
When does the congress vote on this?
September 9th, 2013. That is clear now. Well there is still time before those strikes. The administration has stated and restated it doesn't need Congressional authority to strike. Idunno if they'd still do it if Congress voted the plans down. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
