So if you deposit money by Bitcoin, you need to wait 7 days to withdraw them with their debit card ?
I haven't tried it myself yet, but going by the other responses here, yes, you need to wait for those 7 days, if you just want to withdraw the money; but apparently, you can also spend that money immediately, if you use their card to pay for things directly. As HostFat put it: Now it works even with EUR currency! Try it  To withdraw money from the ATM, it must be passed 7 days from the Bitcoin deposit. Anyway, you can use them instantly from the net+ card.
Withdrawing Bitcoins would be more useable, I assume serious Neteller users are those winning poker players who just withdraw money from Neteller.
But I understand it is first step because depositing Bitcoins means no risk for Neteller, while allowing to withdraw Bitcoins can be problem if the Neteller account is stolen...
for this exact reason I´m sure they won´t introduce Bitcoin withdrawals.
It will be a deposit-only method.Nevertheless great news (I also have the 1987 € per month limit by the way) Well, perhaps not; other payment processors, like Payza, have already introduced Bitcoin deposits and withdrawals (though they have some restrictions on the source of the funds you can use to withdraw through Bitcoin) - hopefully this is only the first step for Neteller.  |
|
|
|
Defector: 'USA Negotiating Team Mainly There to Speak on Iran's Behalf'An Iranian journalist writing about the nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran has defected. In an interview Amir Hossein Motaghi, has some harsh words for his native Iran. He also has a damning indictment of America's role in the nuclear negotiations. “The U.S. negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal," Motaghi told a TV station after just defecting from the Iranian delegation while abroad for the nuclear talks. The P 5 + 1 is made up of United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China, France, plus Germany. More... http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/iranian-defector-us-negotiating-team-mainly-there-speak-iran-s-behalf_901776.html That seems highly unlikely; of those 6 countries, the US has almost always had the most aggressive position towards Iran, so I'm not sure whom they would be convincing exactly, or what they would be convincing them of.
Iran deal worse than Israel feared, Netanyahu saysPrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Sunday against the emerging nuclear deal with Iran, as Iranian and Western officials in Lausanne, Switzerland were rushing to reach a framework agreement by an end-of-month deadline. “After the Beirut-Damascus-Baghdad axis, Iran is maneuvering from the south to take over the entire Middle East,” Netanyahu said at a cabinet meeting, one of the last for his outgoing government. “The Iran-Lausanne-Yemen axis is dangerous for mankind and must be stopped.” Netanyahu told ministers that he had spoken with Republican leaders in the US Senate and “conveyed our serious concern regarding the arrangement with Iran at the nuclear talks. This agreement confirms all our fears and exceeds them. More... http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-deal-worse-than-we-thought-netanyahu-says/ I was going to ask who still takes what Netanyahu says seriously, but then remembered Israelis just elected him and his party to lead the country again.  |
|
|
|
The forces that do not want a U.S. nuclear deal with Iran, nor any U.S. detente with Iran, are impressive.
Among them are the Israelis and their powerful lobby AIPAC, the Saudis and their Sunni allies on the Persian Gulf, a near unanimity of Republicans and a plurality of Democrats in Congress.
I can understand the Israelis and the Saudis opposing any deal with Iraq, but why Republicans? It should be obvious to all Americans that peace with Iran is in their country's best interests. Well, that would require far more foresight and concern for their country's interests than most politicians can muster - usually, where the next "campaign contribution" is coming from is all they really care about.  Incidentally, Israelis and Saudis are not all that different here: the vast mass of the population has very little to gain, and potentially a lot to lose, if negotiations with Iran falter; on the other hand, there's a lot of money to be made from conflict, or the threat of conflict (just look at "security" spending in Israel and compare it to the skyrocketing cost of living there), and it all tends to make the population far more malleable and controllable - thus ensuring those in power, stay in power. |
|
|
|
Responding to the developments, Mr Driessens said: ‘Looking back, I slowly start to be angry. I don’t understand how a serious company can let a depressed man pilot a plane.
How was the airline to know the pilot was depressed? There is no central database to store that information. Even if it was required to disclose the info to the current employer, a person could just switch jobs and be anonymous again. Should we set up a registry? How would that clash with privacy rights? Depression is a pretty private issue. I've been depressed in my life. I would be horrified if an entire forum found out about that, so I keep it a secret. I don't think you'd need to go that far; I imagine some form of regular psychological assessment of the flight crew, mandated by the company, would go a long way in helping to determine if they were fit to fly. Now, this wouldn't work in every scenario, of course, as there is a limit to what those tests can do; but it might be better than just expecting them to self-report, which often doesn't seem to happen, perhaps out of fear of losing the job, financial problems, and so on. |
|
|
|
[...]  [...] Am I the only one who doesn't really like the painting? I mean, I sort of like the "cat"; but shapes, colors, the transitions towards the middle - not so much (though it looks a bit better in a smaller scale, like above). Looking at his other paintings, I can't say my opinion changes. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this, but I didn't want to create a new thread only because of it - earlier today, I reported what to me is a double/spam post made by rockBTC in the Signature Campaign Overview thread, but it seems the report was refused. The post I reported was the following: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.msg10826463#msg10826463; which seems to me to be a duplicate of a previous post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.msg10808133#msg10808133. Now, I understand the second post was made over a day and a half after the first, but considering there is only one post in-between them both (so, the first post isn't buried or in any way hidden), the post made by ndnhc hasn't been acknowledged or acted on by Mitchełł (so, the first post wasn't forgotten), and the second post doesn't really add anything new, I think this is clearly spam - am I being too harsh? |
|
|
|
Absolutely bad idea. With more arms and funds in hand these guys not going to stop at some sort of borders. Iran is strong and organized but the rest of the Middle East and North Africa are in shambles and much easier to conquer. They will spread and with their local branches they will pretty much overrun the half of the world, from the Caucasus down to fuckin' Congo in few decades. I guess this idiot will keep writing stupid blog posts somewhere far far away, when the savages start banging our doors here in Europe.
Edit: Do you guys breeding these retards somewhere, or they are just occurring naturally?
I would just like to point out that what Chef Ramsay posted is originally from Thomas L. Friedman, in an Op-Ed in the New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/opinion/go-ahead-ruin-my-day.html), not the blogger he linked to in his post - but yes, apart from that, I agree that Friedman is an idiot.
O.K., so we learn to live with Iran on the edge of a bomb, but shouldn’t we at least bomb the Islamic State to smithereens and help destroy this head-chopping menace? Now I despise ISIS as much as anyone, but let me just toss out a different question: Should we be arming ISIS? Or let me ask that differently: Why are we, for the third time since 9/11, fighting a war on behalf of Iran? In 2002, we destroyed Iran’s main Sunni foe in Afghanistan (the Taliban regime). In 2003, we destroyed Iran’s main Sunni foe in the Arab world (Saddam Hussein). But because we failed to erect a self-sustaining pluralistic order, which could have been a durable counterbalance to Iran, we created a vacuum in both Iraq and the wider Sunni Arab world. That is why Tehran’s proxies now indirectly dominate four Arab capitals: Beirut, Damascus, Sana and Baghdad. ISIS, with all its awfulness, emerged as the homegrown Sunni Arab response to this crushing defeat of Sunni Arabism — mixing old pro-Saddam Baathists with medieval Sunni religious fanatics with a collection of ideologues, misfits and adventure-seekers from around the Sunni Muslim world. Obviously, I abhor ISIS and don’t want to see it spread or take over Iraq. I simply raise this question rhetorically because no one else is: Why is it in our interest to destroy the last Sunni bulwark to a total Iranian takeover of Iraq? Because the Shiite militias now leading the fight against ISIS will rule better? Really? More.. http://digbysblog.blogspot.de/2015/03/objectively-pro-isis.htmlDespite the awful background in his blog, I agree with digby - arming ISIS more than they are already, and have in the past been by the West, is insane. In my view, a better strategy would be to support the regional powers in handling the situation - within limits of course - because, after all, it's those regional powers that will have to live with the mess, if they screw up. Also, how exactly is Iran "on the edge of a bomb"? Other than Netanyahu, no one believes they will have a nuclear weapon "next week" (or whatever was the nonsense he came up with) - not even the CIA or Mossad believe that; in fact, to the best of anyone's knowledge, they really aren't working on one - and, with the current nuclear negotiations being successful, won't ever be. |
|
|
|
This^ ... is a bullshit. Back in 2012 we produced food what should have been enough for about 10 billion ppl for cca. 3000 kcal per day per person (1500-2000 cal is the recommended). The problem isn't the scarcity of food but the unbalanced distribution. The developed countries wasting more than 220 million tons of food every year (in 2009).
The already overpopulated also not true. The whole mankind would fit to area sized like Texas (and we would have cca. 96 square meter per person).
Of course we feel it overcrowded because on since 2008 more than half of humanity living in cities but outside the cities there are wast scarcely populated areas.
So the problem isn't the scarcity of food or the lack of living space all this shit happens because of unbalanced wealth distribution and shitty management.
I mostly agree with you here, but you also have to take into consideration what living standards people will have, not just access to food and other basic needs; and I'm not entirely sure we could sustain the current world population at the living standards rich, developed countries currently afford - well, not as they do it at the moment, or not for long anyway. But, if we get rid of the consumption driven economic model, prevent waste, and as you say, promote better management and wealth distribution, maybe then it would be possible. |
|
|
|
This is a loss for the people of Israel.
Netanyahu will continue to be an aggressor and run his country into the ground economically.
That's true, of course; on the other hand, there is no real guarantee that the Zionist Union would act any differently to the Likud party - their rhetoric is slightly different, but that may be as far as differences go. At least, with Netanyahu in power, the West is going to have a hard time white-washing Israel's actions, and just keeping the status quo. As far as I can see, the only possible change would come if one of the main parties was willing to share power with the Joint Arab Coalition - and that's obviously not happening any time soon. |
|
|
|
|
Hmm, weren't we supposed to wait for Bitdicesupport, or dogedice.me, to show up before re-enrolling?
Anyway, I suppose I might as well do so now, if they're okay with it - I would like to re-enroll:
Bitcoin Address: 1KnRA3dbGsAV8cw64sckjFz6uAEXJf2JCo
Post Count: 1622
|
|
|
|
New Version Released
Provably fair AI!
The dealer doesn't fire in random way. When there is a hit, he is hunting for a ship by firing on squares around the hit.
Payout line was changed too. Payout is determined as 98% of ratio of player's hits to dealer's hits. After beta-testing it will be decreased to 1% house edge only.
For tech info about provably fair AI, please see updated main post of this thread.
Give a feedback and Good Luck!
Good job with the new AI. I played 3 times against it, and didn't win once - it could also be the case that I suck at this game, now that I think about it, but well done anyway. As for new changes to the game rules, I would probably go with either the suggestion someone made earlier for making the game faster (or add a game mode that allows this), or the possibility to cash out during the game, maybe at the expense of some additional coins. I would also like to see a Player versus Player mode, but I suspect it would quickly turn into a programming battle, to determine who has the best bot... and that reminds me of AT Robots.  |
|
|
|
"Robots in the future will have constitutional rights and even "cyber psychiatrists" who will ease the cyber's anxiety of not being completely human, she said."
The idea of robots having constitutional rights is ridiculous. For one thing, animals have a consciousness and do not have constitutional rights. They have a consciousness, but are still property. A machine is also property. But I also don't buy that computers can acquire a consciousness, as opposed to merely being programmed to act like they have a consciousness. Those are two very different things.
That might indeed be the case for now; but assuming consciousness can one day be perfectly replicated by a program (so, taking a materialistic view here), what difference would remain between naturally arising biological consciousness and artificial consciousness? Provided the program was self-aware, aware of its environment and able to learn from and adapt to it, would there really be any practical point in distinguishing it from any other consciousness? Also, it's true animals don't have constitutional rights, or course; but they can't very well make a case for themselves, either through reason or force - a true AI, with human or higher level intellect, would probably fare better 1. Which leads me to the part I disagree with her: one of the likely advantages a true AI would have over life as we know it would be its ability to more quickly evolve its program; unlike us, with our biological limitations. So, I tend to doubt "cyber psychiatrists" dealing with "cyber's anxiety of not being completely human" will be a thing - as well as the idea of a slow, progressive merging between humans and cyberspace; at least after true AIs are created. 1 - assuming its values even resemble ours; I'm reminded of the Paperclip Maximizer here: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer. The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else.
—Eliezer Yudkowsky, Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk
|
|
|
|
As much as the dumb clown picks on me, I kinda feel sorry for him. So, I had this idea. Let BCT start a forum entitled Children and Morons. Posters who were constantly offensive - Decky often obliterates my posts simply by making numerous babbling posts that hide anything that I have to say - could be moved to the C and M forum for a number of days or months where they could ramble. They might even make good friends of some of their own kind in there, and decide to stay. Who knows, if they all type as fast as Decky, it might become one of the largest forums in BCT. Then, if one of us ever wants to drop by and say "hi," we would know where to find them. After their time was up, they could be allowed out into the "world" again... unless it was proven by their actions in C and M that they were as bad as or worse than before. Amusing idea, but I don't think that's how rehabilitation works. If we concentrate them in their own sub-forum, they'll just grow and grow, absorbing more "normal" members, until C&M is all that is left of the forum. 
At any rate, I haven't really followed what went on with Decksperiment, and to be honest, I don't usually read through his posts in any detail, much like I seldom do with BitMos, or BADecker (sorry BADecker ), or a few others, and when I do read through his posts, I often have a hard time following his reasoning. But I tend to agree with Lethn on this one: effectively censuring and banning him because of his abusive nature alone might do more harm than good, and would probably set a precedent for a number of other users to be banned. Further, there is no reason to believe that would actually solve anything, as creating/buying new accounts is not hard. Then again, I haven't really had to deal with him (or others like him) so far, so it might be easy for me to say this. |
|
|
|
Some special weapons might be interesting too. E.g. as you wrote to send the nuke, after that the dealer could send the nuke against the player. If both sides can use the same special powers, it's not necessary to recalculate odds. Very rough idea so far, but it has a value to take a note. Moving ships seems more problematic. Moving make sense when opponent hit a ship at the first time. After you move the hit ship, opponent should see the hit square is not a hit anymore. Otherwise you are a cheater Yes, for moving to work, a lot would have to be changed in the game, I guess. One way I see it being functional in this type of game is if board squares aren't considered only to be "shot at"/"not shot at", but rather "shot at N turns ago", perhaps with a numeric indicator, or a progressive change in color of said indicator in the targeted square, to show exactly how many turns passed since. This should give the player a way to determine how accurate the information he has about the board and ship positions is, and to adjust his tactics accordingly. I think this would make for a much deeper strategy game, but again, it would be a fundamental change in the way the game works. Anyway, a few more ideas of special abilities that could be included: Radar - temporarily reveals a small area of the board. More Guns - allow players to temporarily have more than one shot per turn. Reinforcements - I think I actually saw this in another battleship style game, but - call for additional ships, so you can keep on playing until they are destroyed. Considering the currently applied game rules, maybe allow only positioning ships in areas previously not shot at? |
|
|
|
So you would go threw the trouble of making new disposable emails to earn 7200sats an hour hitting that captcha running the risk of getting your computer infected.
I would go with what he is saying never trust a newbie money making scheme it will never end well and for less than a penny a day why run the risk?
Oh, don't get me wrong; I don't believe faucets are really worth the trouble, unless you have good marketing skills and can get the referrals, and/or some form of automating the collection of coins from several such sites. I was merely pointing out that there are easy ways to avoid the problems he was referring to, which can come not only from newbies on this forum, but just about any service that forces you to register an email address to be able to use. For that reason, I personally like to keep a few addresses in use, so that I know what should and shouldn't be received in each one, and can easily abandon them if needed. Also, the site I mentioned, Mailinator, is no trouble to use at all: you make up some random address; give it to whomever is asking; and check to see what you received in the site - great for non-private, temporary emails that you don't plan on reusing. |
|
|
|
Based on the fact that the post you quoted said that my inventory is limited I would think it should be reasonably inferred that sales are strong. I see; when reading that post, and considering you are planning on closing the thread, I just assumed you stopped creating/"growing" accounts for sale, some time ago (thus accounting for their scarcity, no pun intended), which I thought was not likely the case if there were finally good conditions for the business to actually improve (for the reasons previously described). |
|
|
|
The newbie having the bright idea to get around a potential ban is pretty smart and he gains your emails as well lets hope he does not do some fishing in future weeks/months. Never trust newbies money makers especially for a few satoshi it is hardly worth it is it guys? Well, you can always avoid getting put on these email lists by using expendable email addresses (you can create one in a couple of minutes after all), or simply by using the appropriate temporary email sites, like Mailinator ( http://www.mailinator.com - "Free. Disposable. Email."). |
|
|
|
A good addition might be special powers. Like being able to send a strike that takes out 4 spaces for a part of your winnings (percentages or a fixed number based on your starting bet).
I imagine recalculating odds and adjusting the AI to handle more options would be an issue, but I would also find it an interesting twist to the same old game - in fact, that reminds me - didn't "Sam & Max Hit the Road" have a battleship mini-game with specials? I'm pretty sure one of them was sending a "nuke", or something like that (took out 9 squares, if I remember correctly). It might be a good game to take ideas from baumi, if you're looking for some. EDIT: hmm, what about being able to move the ships? The interface would have to be changed, and it would fundamentally be a new game, but I always wanted to be able to do that, and not be called a cheater after. |
|
|
|
Bump. Inventory is extremely limited and once it sells out this thread will close.
Get your accounts while they are still available.
Are the accounts not selling well? I would have thought that with signature campaigns like Bit-x, a decent pay per post campaign with no post limit and no member limit, account selling would be booming - is that not the case, or did you just find a better business alternative? |
|
|
|
I wonder if some of you trade with very low amounts like $60 in BTC. Is there a chance that you can maximize that small amount by trading?
I tried doing so some months ago - just a small test amount, to see how I'd do. I did manage to increase it by some 5% - 10%, but not only do fees start getting to you with low amounts (though that depends on where you're doing the trading), but you also have less of a room to maneuver if something goes wrong. So, it might be riskier than it's worth. Anyway, I'm far from being a professional trader, or even a good one for that matter, so don't take my word for it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
