Isnt this a F2P game?
Yes - the card unlocks goodies and credits to buy other goodies with. |
|
|
|
I always thought it would be amusing to have Minecraft mining be linked to bitcoin mining - even if it was somewhat superficial. Just the fun of the actual game and some of the practical benefits of bitcoin joined together would amuse me.
I could absolutely do this with my server the way I have it set up. We're already tracking each block mined in a mysql database as it is, so paying like 10 satoshis per block mined or placed (/give doesn't matter) is absolutely feasible and would probably be fairly easy. I think I'll start working on this. It'd be a good way to get people to use Bitcoins, and as an added bonus, more people are interested in playing on the server! |
|
|
|
Looks like we have a sale...  |
|
|
|
A: My house is 1,200 square feet.
B: I know, I measured it. I can paint it for $2,500.
A: Agreed.
-
Common mistake. If the house isn't 1,200 square feet, A and B are jointly responsible.
This is like the last case. Both parties, with sufficient information to realize otherwise, concluded that the loan portfolio was free from correlated risk. Patrick's agreement was based on that shared mistaken conclusion.
Using your example... Patrick is assuring the person paying for the paint job that the house is 1,200 square feet after measuring it himself. The house turns out to not be 1,200 square feet. It is PATRICK'S fault that the house is not 1,200 square feet, because HE was the one in the position to ensure the house was 1,200 square feet. It is NOT a common mistake, because those investing in Patrick had no choice of who to invest in, nor did they have any way to verify that they were not PPT's. Patrick was the ONLY one in that position, and he gave people false information. Sure, he didn't know it was false information at the time, but it is on him that the information ended up being wrong. To revise your example: A: I have no idea how big my neighbor's house is, but I want you to paint it. B: I measured it, and it is 1,200 square feet. I can paint it for $2,500. A: Agreed. B: Whoops - turns out you owe me $5,000, because I asked the home owner how big it was, and they said it was only 1,200 square feet. Turns out it's actually 2,400. A: No. Just, no. |
|
|
|
I find that when I try to speculate on price, I always lose. So I just buy and sell at market price now.
there's usually a 0.1 USD spread or so going on. More often than not, placing a bid/ask and waiting for a bit works out just fine. Only if I really want to sell/buy I take what the market offers. I suppose I just find it not worth it with the amounts of BTC I am dealing with. It'd be like $2 or something, and I didn't really care about trying to make that much, so I just buy or sell it immediately. |
|
|
|
For the record, he hasn't been operating for "so long". He has just been slimy, that specific sort of "bro"-ness that has the respective nitwits all enamored. Pirate did the exact same thing. In fact, pretty much all the people that fucked "the community" in the ass with a piece of raw pine did exactly the same thing. Buddy-buddy pays for scammers. And the people who paid them to do it bear no responsibility whatsoever, right? The people who loaned Patrick money made precisely the same mistake Patrick did. (Assuming Patrick is telling the truth about his default problems, which is plausible but not confirmed.) No. The people who loaned Patrick money made the mistake of trusting Patrick. And Patrick made the mistake of trusting whoever it was claimed to be a PTT. The people who loaned Patrick money did NOT have a choice of where it was invested. Because Patrick chose how to invest it, and because he offered a risk-free contract (i.e., a set payback amount and period, not a payback based on whether his investments panned out or not), Patrick is liable to his investors for the FULL amount that he promised he would pay. Patrick could have said "if the investments I am investing this money in default, then you will not be repaid", but he made no such specification in his contract. All he did was promise a certain payback over a certain period of time. And that's exactly what he should be held liable to. |
|
|
|
Money absolutely DOES buy happiness - it's just not generally happiness that lasts. My car makes me happy every time I drive it though, so sometimes it does last for a long time.  Generally, happiness can be better achieved by not aiming high (i.e., aiming to acquire more money or things than they can feasibly achieve within a given time period). Or, to put it another way, learning to be satisfied with what you have and what you are capable of having without having to take out a loan to get it. I dislike it when people just flat out state that "money doesn't buy happiness", because it simply isn't true (at least for most people). Most people would be happier if their house was paid for, and they didn't have to work a day longer in their life, but instead could focus on what they love to do. Most people would be happier if they could afford to take their date out to a nice restaurant more than once a month. Most people would be happier if they had a newer car, catered to their desires, instead of an 80's POS that makes them wonder if they'll be able to make it to work. Etc, etc, etc. When people try to buy happiness without having the money to do so is when it goes downhill fast. Taking out loans to buy things, specifically. Now there's a bad feedback loop to get stuck in! Anyway, just my two bitcents. |
|
|
|
Cool - I can play that game too.
(...)
I rest my case.
Rest well, because all you did was not to provide any evidence which indicates that IRC logs are accepted as direct evidence to determine that a contract was signed, even less that any court of law have relied on IRC logs to determine the legitimacy of a contract. All quotes you posted does not substantiate MPOE-PR claims. In fact it has been long established legal practice (where "long" means > 100 years) in both civil and common law that any exchange which shows agreement between businessmen of the sort they would normally employ in the usual course of their trade is sufficient and binding as a contract. These aren't retail investors dealing here. You are clever only to do claims. As I had already admitted, you fail to understand the meaning of evidence. Since you only have a IRC log, that does not count as contract, but as evidence for a mutual agreement. Without a physical or digital signature from both parties, there is not a method to determine if both parties have changed the contract after the initial agreement. That means you or Patrick cannot prove which party is providing the legitimate contract. Do you like old books? I suggest you read this before you send another 500 Bitcoins to an Internet user: Handbook of the law of contracts (Open Library) http://www.archive.org/stream/lawrencecontracts00clar#page/n3/mode/2upThe only point I was setting out to prove is that any agreement, with or without signature, can be upheld as a contract in a court of law. That includes handshake agreements, verbal agreements, and written agreements (and yes, IRC logs as well, since they are "written"). Proving identities might be tricky, but as long as that is done, any written agreement (which this certainly qualifies as one) can be upheld as a contract. |
|
|
|
I have been looking through a lot of old threads, being newish myself here. I had read the forums a bit while I read the technicals about Bitcoin before actually signing up though.
Seems like PatrickHarnett gets some special consideration among all those called into question, a few others have too. Seems like there is some sort of inner circle action going on here...
Is it because he has been around and operating for so long? It seems like there is a long history with this community continuing to trust someone even as others cast founded suspicions and doubts upon them and their actions. As the many suspicious things pile up until they ultimately disappear from the community with a large wallet of Bitcoins and then all the people who had defended them before lament that they never saw it coming and how surprising it was.
This appears to be fairly self destructive. Or at least, a self-perpetuating atmosphere of scamming even if those in question did not set out to scam anyone in the first place since as the issues pile up it becomes better to just grab everything and run as there is never any penalty for it other than a very late "scammer tag" on this forum. They probably just come back under a new name to start a new business too because why not? No one ever finds out they are a dangerous business partner until it's too late.
I think it's because it's black and white for some people, while white and black for others, which makes for a heated, lengthy thread topic. Nothing special about Patrick - the situation he is in is just special. |
|
|
|
Cool - I can play that game too. Believe it or not, the old-fashioned "handshake" began as a means for two people to assure one another that neither was carrying a weapon. Over the years, this simple gesture has evolved into a contractual symbol—or a guarantee—for an oral agreement. But in an era of phone-book sized contracts, fine print and legal battles, does time-honored handshake deal still carry any weight?
The answer is yes—as long as you can prove it in court. http://www.legalzoom.com/business-law/contract-law/oral-contracts-do-they-carryIf an e-mail or chain of e-mails clearly states an offer for entering into a deal with all of the material terms and the other side responds by e-mail accepting the terms, then there's a good chance that a valid contract has been formed — even though no signatures have been exchanged. So be careful. If all you intend is to negotiate the issues leading to a formal written and signed contract accepted by both parties, make sure you say that in your e-mails.
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/contracts-agreements/2378-1.html#ixzz2BfGZbzPEhttp://www.askdavetaylor.com/are_verbal_contracts_legally_enforceable.htmlI rest my case. |
|
|
|
|
Well, they have the waterblock heatsink that could be used. I bet that'd get some nice overclockz going.
|
|
|
|
Those are pretty cool TBH! I agree with impairment testing.
Much smarter than checking for evidence that you've sobered up, huh? Yes. I mean, I don't agree with illegal drug usage or anything (nor do I agree with marijuana usage, but w/e), but it does make sense to test on the capability for a person to do their job vs what they've done to themselves last night. |
|
|
|
That is only because alcohol is harder to measure than cannabis. Where I work, we sometimes have to take a random trip to the clinic for a pee test and alcohol breathilizer. So they are measuring alcohol use. And before I started this job I took the pee test and breathed into the machine. While few people would be drunk going into a job interview, I suppose doing the test screens out the real screwballs.
All a UA proves is that you used a chemical. It tests for metabolites. It proves that your system has processed a chemical. Testing for impairment instead of the presence of a chemical or its metabolites will catch not only the stoners and drunks, but also the ones who don't get enough sleep, or otherwise are a danger to their co-workers, and more importantly, not catch the people who had a beer or a joint last night after work and aren't impaired now. And how, exactly, would a company objectively test for impairment? Google is your friend. First result: http://workrights.us/?products=impairment-testing-does-it-workThere are several methods. I don't care to read a 200 page paper on the subject. Just give a quick summary - what are ways that a company can objectively test for impairment? One of the methods used: http://www.eyedynamics.com/products.htmAnother: http://www.bowles-langley.com/job-safety/And one more: http://www.pmifit.com/All three of these have proven results. Those are pretty cool TBH! I agree with impairment testing. |
|
|
|
That is only because alcohol is harder to measure than cannabis. Where I work, we sometimes have to take a random trip to the clinic for a pee test and alcohol breathilizer. So they are measuring alcohol use. And before I started this job I took the pee test and breathed into the machine. While few people would be drunk going into a job interview, I suppose doing the test screens out the real screwballs.
All a UA proves is that you used a chemical. It tests for metabolites. It proves that your system has processed a chemical. Testing for impairment instead of the presence of a chemical or its metabolites will catch not only the stoners and drunks, but also the ones who don't get enough sleep, or otherwise are a danger to their co-workers, and more importantly, not catch the people who had a beer or a joint last night after work and aren't impaired now. And how, exactly, would a company objectively test for impairment? Google is your friend. First result: http://workrights.us/?products=impairment-testing-does-it-workThere are several methods. I don't care to read a 200 page paper on the subject. Just give a quick summary - what are ways that a company can objectively test for impairment? |
|
|
|
Today was the delivery deadline for a bet on betsofbitco.in: http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=676.. the question was whether or not "A Butterfly Labs SC product will be successfully delivered to at least 1 end customer by November 7th, 2012", using the end of the day EST as the deadline. We're about two hours short of that, and should be well past the drop-off time for any commercial package service. Have any end users here received an SC product? (I get the impression the answer is "no", but thought it'd be nice to have a clear consensus to resolve the betting.) I created that bet, and bet that they would deliver. *le sigh* I'll concede they haven't delivered though. |
|
|
|
|
I'll give you 0.2 BTC if you don't get any other offers...
|
|
|
|
That is only because alcohol is harder to measure than cannabis. Where I work, we sometimes have to take a random trip to the clinic for a pee test and alcohol breathilizer. So they are measuring alcohol use. And before I started this job I took the pee test and breathed into the machine. While few people would be drunk going into a job interview, I suppose doing the test screens out the real screwballs.
All a UA proves is that you used a chemical. It tests for metabolites. It proves that your system has processed a chemical. Testing for impairment instead of the presence of a chemical or its metabolites will catch not only the stoners and drunks, but also the ones who don't get enough sleep, or otherwise are a danger to their co-workers, and more importantly, not catch the people who had a beer or a joint last night after work and aren't impaired now. And how, exactly, would a company objectively test for impairment? |
|
|
|
I'm 27 BTC bid for this laptop.
Sorry - no bids. I will NOT go any lower than 37 BTC, no exceptions. Well, unless the BTC price changes significantly.  |
|
|
|
pity it's US. good price : (
I'm really surprised it hasn't sold yet to be honest... I suppose eBay prices are inflated these days because no one wants to sell there? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
