Got 6 out of 11. Close fights, thought Misha did enough in the first round, and if he didn't get caught in that arm bar by being a little bit lazy, think he would have got the win. Ji Yeon Kim got robbed in my opinion, she out struck her opponent around 2-1 probably only losing the third round by damage. Otherwise, completely ridiculous judging I thought. Josiane Nunes did get the decision win, but nearly ended it on a few occasions, I had a double with her winning via decision and Makhachev submitting Green in the first round, so I was very close to a 1k+ win there.

The good news is my 10k accumulator is still running, being offered a 1.7k cash out now. Not taking it, quite confident on next weekend's picks, and  the Liverpool game is the only doubt for me now.

Yeah, I figured as much. I'm just not quite comfortable with the deception so it wasn't the issue with earning the merit for me, but the way they went about it. Hence why I wanted to get some feedback from the community. I'll leave it.

I'm sorry even though it would have ruined by accumulator Everton have played brilliantly, and I think that hand ball late in the match by Manchester City was absolutely a penalty for Everton. I was sweating during the call, but ultimately I disagree with the refs decision despite it helping me with the accumulator. Anyway, this game was anything, but comfortable to watch, however that's why I bet since it creates that much needed tension when your watching teams like Man City, and Everton .

It's for the sole fact we're rivals, I don't have anything else against Everton apart from that fact. Although, like I said it's unlikely to happen especially the shift your putting in against the league leaders right now.

I don't think it's much of a surprise, they're my favourite team to bet against. The amount of money I could have won if I had put singles on them. It's a weird one they're in a real rough patch, but generally the bookies are always favouring them which allows speculative betters to get some real value for their bets against them. A draw is usually what I go for.

Right. Man City are currently winning 1-0, cash out is £879 so as I said earlier I'm not cashing out for anything less than 1k, so I'm going balls to the ball with my current picks.

Anyhow, here's my predictions for the night:

Victor Altamirano
Ramiz Brahimaj (I'm very nervous about this fight now)
Alejandro Perez
Terrance McKinney
Josiane Nunes (decision because the odds are too good to pass up, but could be a knockout)
Ignacio Bahamondes
Armen Petrosyan
Joel Alvarez (tko or decision)
Ji Yeon Kim
Misha Cirkunov  
Islam Makhachev (submission, rear naked choke)

That's my predictions for tonight, some close fights in there, and to be honest this is a quietly stacked card. I'm expecting quite a few finishes tonight. I'd say it's safer to assume Nunes will find a finish, but the odds being 5.00+ for the decision are too hard to pass up for me.

I do believe the owner/president recently hinted that Khabib vs GSP in a grappling match could potentially take place. I assume this would be competitive, and therefore would count to their records. Khabib coming out of retirement in the first place will draw people in, but he would also be looking to make it 30-0 which is another way to draw in the fans, plus GSP has a decent enough fanbase to get some new eyes on the competition.

I don't know if it's going to happen or if that was just said in an attempt to garner some interest at the time, but the prospect of it would be huge for Eagle FC if they could make it happen.

Another point is the term "virus" is such a broad term these days, and is often used for unwanted programs, bloatware, adware, and all sorts these days since most of those are detrimental to the users experience either through collecting data or hogging computer resources. Unless, we get down nitty gritty in defining what types of viruses or what you personally consider a virus, and what sort of risks are associated with them when you compare Linux to Windows, it'll be hard to really get down to the differences between the two. Since, I think the definition of viruses' these days have been blurred because a security specialist will definitely have a different view point what defines something as a virus compared to the general consumer.

If your definition of viruses' is unwanted software, which could be detrimental to the computer itself then Linux is definitely as susceptible, since all it would take is downloading something from the internet, and then that either installs a dependency that touches upon the issues highlighted above or the program itself monitors or uses computer resources for something you didn't originally intend. The beauty of Linux is you usually have to authorise this by elevating admin privileges every time, where as this isn't the case in Windows. Although, it's also worth mentioning you can prevent this behaviour in Linux, and therefore make it less secure.

Businesses? Most will be using Linux servers to run their website etc. Most banks will be using Linux. Although, I do agree with you which I've partly hinted to in my above reply, that the attack surface is definitely in the favour of Linux, i.e Linux is much less targetted at least from a general consumer view point than Windows. However, most businesses will be using Linux in some capacity, whether that's using them directly themselves (less likely) or using products/services that run on Linux.

I'd speculate that your more likely to have script kiddies, and less sophisticated attacks on Windows than Linux. There's a certain technical requirement that needs to be met, since usually the more sophisticated you're the bigger targets you go for, therefore Linux predominately being used by businesses rather than your average computer user, it would likely be subject to more advanced attackers. I can't prove that, I don't have any data to back that up, it's largely an assumption on my part, but I think there's some logical merit to that.

Don't think I know many companies that offer servers to offer them via Windows, they're almost always exclusively Linux, since the overheads are much less especially running Linux in headless, and therefore they run more efficiently. Plus, there are more things you can do with a Linux operating system it being open source, so if you're providing servers you can optimise it based on client needs, as well as security.

I do know what your getting at though, most businesses at least lower level businesses won't be using Linux as their daily operating system, while they probably still do use Linux indirectly for hosting their websites etc.

My first gut feeling was Tsarukyan, but I'm going for Alvarez just because I think it's going to be a close fight, and I think the dog in Alvarez might make it into a dirty fight, which could result either in a knockout or him winning on points from sheer volume. Plus, the odds make sense from a betting perspective. I'll get my definite full list out later one closer to the event.

My thoughts exactly, I'm thinking that Alvarez will use the knees to keep Tsarukyan guessing, and being a little wary of just diving in, and he'll struggle to get the lift required to get a pretty long Alvarez down. Without takedowns I see Alvarez putting on a show on the feet.

Good odds on the under there for the main event. I don't see Green surviving beyond the second, and think it might be eyes shut in the first through a submission win. Still hoping for that rear naked choke. Thinking of putting a cheeky bet on for Makhachev with a stoppage in round 1 @ 8.00 odds, I just think it's such a mismatch in terms of wrestling ability.

What's everyone's opinion on leaving neutral trust on those that deleted, and posted again in an attempt to gain more merit? My thinking is that negative might be too harsh, but it should probably at least be recorded on their profile that they've looked to exploit certain users gratification in order to get more merit. I don't usually like the idea of using the trust system for merit related issues, but it just doesn't sit right with me that a user has attempted to artificially increase their merit count even if it's a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things.

I like to give most users the benefit of the doubt, so I expect that this was done in a way of saying thanks, or appreciating the vote. I don't think there was any other motives to it, at least at the start. I still probably am on the side of that other users voting were changing their votes based on the potential merit they could earn, rather than integrity.

Good work on figuring that out, I suspected that there were users that were going to try this, but didn't have time to check myself. This just confirms our suspicions.

Some have posted here since that they're going to refrain from rewarding merit based on users voting for them, although it's likely too late for the integrity of the votes, they are definitely standing up, and acknowledging that this could have been an issue. Again, the OP could potentially look at the voters, and exclude any votes they believe were artificially voted for due to looking to gain merit, I believe there was a rule that they could use their discretion for who can, and can't vote.

Although, I'm definitely not ridiculing them for rewarding merit, it's not something I would have seen as merit worthy, but I can understand from a different point of view that they want to show their appreciation, and if we take a look at the grand scheme of things the odd merit isn't a problem. The problem was, that other users voting saw this as an opportunity that they could abuse it, which not only artifically increased the votes for certain users, but it also could have potentially reduced the votes for other users in the running if that user was going to vote anyway.

For me, it was quite obvious in several categories that towards the latter end of the event, several voters were adjusting who they voted based on the merit, your little discovery only backed that up further.

Your family, yourself, and your situation definitely takes precedence here. Don't worry about it, and we're all hoping you, and your family remain safe.

Most of the time, operating systems are pretty secure. Vulnerabilities are patched out quickly, if your operating system is a stable, and updated version. What it comes down to is how you use your operating system, although Linux does have some advantages with chmod, and the default implementation in a lot of the distributions, for example non elevated permissions, or an operating system like Qubes OS might have the root account disabled entirely.

Basically, it varies from the distribution your planning on using. Definitely, some Linux distributions are absolutely more secure in their default implementation than Windows, though for most people who are security conscious, every operating system is decent, though there are definitely privacy concerns with Windows.

However, your still relying on hardware which is closed source, so still not exactly perfect. Although, I don't agree with you that Linux users don't fall for the same things that Windows users do. Linux is just an alternative, using Linux doesn't nesscatrily mean you understand security, and how it works. Especially, how easy some Linux distributions have become to use now. Maybe, a couple of years ago I would have somewhat agreed with you, but distributions like Ubuntu now are very easy to use without anyone knows anything about Linux, especially when they only use it for certain applications available in the Ubuntu Software, and web browsing.

Worth noting, that complexity doesn't mean more secure. Though, a distro which allows advanced configuration can be made to be more secure, or depending on the knowledge of the user editing it, could actually make it less secure.

I'm not a fan of saying that as a general rule of thumb Linux is safer, it wildly differs on how the user uses the computer, which can definitely range wildly among users. For example, if you're downloading from unverified, and untrustworthy sources, while probably not equally at risk (due to the attack surface that Windows has), however it should be assumed that you're at equal risk.

Although, Linux viruses definitely do exist, and even if we assume the possibility of a Linux virus gaining elevated permissions, there's still issues with exploiting programs that have vulnerabilities themselves. For example, your web browser which could potentially be a security risk. I would say that Linux is more hardened, due to some of the implementations of root, as well as the attack surface being much less than Windows. Although, bare in mind that there's definitely a legitimate risk for viruses etc, as Linux is still targetted by malicious users, since most servers are running on Linux. Most banks use Linux etc.

Right, partially correct I'd say, but ultimately security comes down to how you use the operating system, the credentials used, how you store those credentials etc.  

Yeah, if you're using legacy hardware then Linux will likely run out of box more than say Windows 10 would. Windows 10 needs additional work such as drivers etc, whereas Linux already has some decent coverage on the already implemented ones.

Which, if you aren't an advanced user is becoming simpler, and simpler as time goes on. Ubuntu, and the closer to Windows experience distros have come leaps, and bounds in recent years in terms of simplicity.

Can't be snow, most of the UK is around 10 Celsius nowhere near snowy conditions, with Brighton being in the South you'd probably expect it to be a little milder than most places. I'm reading it's due to a car crash on a motorway, the A23. It's a bit odd to be honest, I can't recall many games being postponed due to accidents on roads leading up to a game.  Might be a particularly bad accident though.

Looks like the accident happened a few hours ago according to the argus although I can't comment on their reliability, since I'm not overly familiar with them. Though, they're predicting a 45 minute delay, which is probably about normal.

The writing is on the wall for me, I think Norwich, Brentford, and Leeds will be relegated this season. I think Burnley will pull it off yet again, and while I do want to see Everton go down, I don't think it's going to happen. I think Watford have enough in them to secure safety for another season.

While Khabib alone isn't enough of a draw, the prospect of earning more money than the UFC in the long term could be. I'm still undecided on Eagle FC, when you think about them competing with Bellator, and the UFC. However, I do think organisations such as them will promote a more healthy pay structure in the UFC. I'm all for competition, as it does usually create better deals for the fans, and the fighters, which I think is desperately needed in the UFC. They've been dominate for so long, they can pretty much dictate to their fighters.

I think the rumour of Khabib stepping into the cage via Eagle FC again would be an excellent marketing move though.

I've always said I'd love to have Son here at Liverpool, fantastic player which I'm surprised Spurs have been able to keep a hold of. I actually think despite Kane being a decent player, I think Son complements him in such a way, that I think he would struggle in other teams without him. I'll be honest I was slightly worried about Man City getting Kane, but I do think he wouldn't have the same effectiveness without Son going with him.

I'm all for unity between the fans, I think there's a difference of hatred, and rivalry. However, I've seen a few Liverpool fans suggest they pity Everton, I definitely do not when it comes to their league position. We are rivals, we are suppose to banter each other. Although, I think it goes without saying if I was offered the league title or Everton getting relegated, I'd obviously prefer the league title. I'm not obsessed with Everton's demise, it would just be hilarious if they did get relegated, especially with the players they have at their disposal. They're by no means a bad team, they're just going through a rough spot.

Besides, I'd expect any Everton fan wanting to see us go through a rough patch again, and for a few decades bar a few competition wins sprinkled in, we've been pretty bad at times to watch. I remember when we had Voronin, and N'goo leading our lines, those were the days.

Scotland absolutely taking the game to France today. I think there was a argument for a penalty try, and potentially a yellow card around the 28 minute mark, but moments later Scotland scored a try anyway. France looking a little ill disciplined today, which I think ultimately might be what decides this match. I tell you what, if France could control their discipline issues they would be one hell of a team, they've largely looked unstoppable attacking today, but it's just these issues they can't sort out. I had them, and Ireland has favourites to win the Six Nations, but I think Ireland probably has the better chance looking at the issues of the French team.

10-12 to France with ten minutes left in the first half.

The tragic thing is, rapid adoption of Bitcoin will likely come from the misery of others. For example, with the Russian vs Ukrainian situation, regardless of what your view point is on the politics of it all, ultimately the people are the ones that are having the biggest impact, and will likely seek alternatives to fiat after having issues withdrawing their money after the attack. It's quite sad seeing people delay their evacuation to queue up outside a bank looking to withdraw their own money, and likely probably being rejected for whatever reason.

Also, it likely means that someone will have to lose money through a bank due to various reasons such as freezing etc, before they make the move. I was probably one of the lucky ones which discovered Bitcoin for other reasons other than losing money.

The issue is most people won't implement good enough security practices, and being responsible for your own money is a rather big responsibility which a lot of people won't be comfortable with. We can't change that, I know some people that would rather trust other people than themselves because of lack of knowledge. If we think about it, security is a big deal, but actually following, and understanding security is a bigger deal, which more often than not people don't have a grasp on. Whether this is through not having the motivation, education or simply being complacent. I don't know about others on this thread, but I've witnessed so called security experts with high positions in companies that are responsible for some pretty serious money, absolutely disregard the most basic security measures, so it does beg the question whether a average person who isn't security oriented would be willing to brush up on their security knowledge, and/or implement it properly.

Personally, I think by design Bitcoin is the best solution for storing your wealth I think we can all probably agree on that, and it's by a long margin when handled correctly better than any bank out there. However, I don't have faith that the majority who come to Bitcoin will follow the recommended ways of securing it, and that could potentially be a problem. Obviously, we try to make Bitcoin more user friendly, but because of the nature of it, there's a ceiling to how user friendly we can make it, Bitcoin will always have some sort of complexity because your looking after your own security. I don't think there's a solution to that.

He might get up from the extra motivation of being given the chance for the belts, but I would think Fury puts him down a few times once he gets hurt. This will be one of those fights where I'm absolutely bricking it before, and during fight just because in any sensible world Fury should win this nine times out of ten, but you just know boxing loves to throw up some wild results now, and again which would ruin the idea of a Usyk or Joshua fight for the belts in the future.

Only saving grace is Whyte has visibly declined in recent years, and while he definitely does have power he leaves himself very open. We either get a super motivated Whyte who takes note of his defensive issues or we get a lazy Whyte who swings big, and ultimately if he doesn't connect gets knocked out himself.

Gambling commissions always require KYC in some shape or form. Although, I know that some betting companies allow depositing/withdrawing a certain amount before documents being uploaded sometimes, however if you ever win big, you'll be required to submit further documentation. So, if you plan on winning regularly you'll need it.

Although, if a betting website doesn't ask you for KYC at some point, you can bet your buck they aren't licensed, since most countries will require KYC. There might be some which I'm unaware of, but I'd say the majority if not all would require it.

Good point, I sometimes put a 0-0 or 1-1 draw on when Manchester City play the lesser teams, as you get some insane odds. Usually a minimum of like 7.00, but often more. Today though, I just can't see anyway Everton get a point. They've been terrible, and betting against them this season has got me some cash out wins.

I'll be honest I do feel slightly spiteful when I say I'd like to see them get regelated, but that's what football rivalry is all about, right? . I mean the entire time Rafa was there was like a dream come true for me, almost like he went there to put them as low as possible, especially selling one of their best players .

I'm going for a 3-0 win by Man City. Don't see Everton seeing much of the ball, and I think they'll set up a low block to prevent the goal difference getting too insane, but ultimately let in a few.

Even though it benefits us for Everton to win, I can never bet in their favour, so I've gone for a Manchester City win, without conceding, and is a part of a larger accumulator which at the moment seems to be going well. I'm actually hoping Everton get regelated, as that would really rile them up. I wouldn't want them to stay down though, as I enjoy the derby matches we have with them. Its just Everton around two years ago when they started spending a lot on players thought they were now the kings of Merseyside, so it'll be nice for them to have a dose of reality. Obviously, they've already had that by losing so much, but I think I would enjoy them getting regelated just this one time.

You guys have got me really doubting my Ramiz Brahimaj pick . Just looked at my accumular, I've got Man City to win against Everton while retaining a clean sheet, then I have Ramiz Brahimaj, Islam Makhachev, Umar Nurmagomedov (5th of March), Devonte Smith (5th of March), and Marina Rodriguez (5th of March), and then finally Liverpool to beat Milan without conceding. That's for a little over £10k. Ramiz was originally one of my confident picks, with Liverpool, being my biggest concern on the accumulator. The annoying part even if I was going to cash out, Ramiz fights before most of the other fighters I've got, I'm currently being offered a £400 cash out, although it should be more, but this particular betting site doesn't really offer very good odds on cash out as I've already had two bet builders come in, and a couple of other football matches.

Depending on the Man City result, and what I'm offered I might cash out if I get a 1k+ offer, which I do doubt will happen.

Yeah, there's an element of risk there definitely. I just have a good feeling, his opponent isn't exactly without his issues, and I think he might just find that opening. The only problem is like tokeweed said the return isn't that great. I've got 10k riding on those selections above, plus Liverpool beating Milan in the Champions League, so I think I'm just going to stick with it, and hope for the best as I've already got a lot on the accumulator correct.