Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 10:01:49 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 [98] 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 ... 176 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Devcoin  (Read 369049 times)
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792



View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 05:30:46 PM
 #1941



Yes. I wasn't meaning necessarily disparaging adjectives. Think adjectives like hip, modern, classic, classical, intriguing, fantastical, lyrical, imaginative, and on and on and on, different ones appealing to different crowds. (Punky, gritty, visceral, explicit, stark, gothic, horrific, suspenseful... and on and on...)

-MarkM-


I think it will be ok.
Are you saying you are worried that someone might post an article they wrote in the 90s and we'll start getting "the wrong crowd"?

No, I meant a huge volume of material, suited to so many tastes that likely some would inevitably be distasteful to someone somewhere, would likely be what the modern internet readers would like, as no matter how weird their taste in reading material we'd have plenty of it for them. Smiley

-MarkM-

P.S. To which of my articles from the 90's are you referring Sir? Hahahahah j/k

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
1481061709
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481061709

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481061709
Reply with quote  #2

1481061709
Report to moderator
1481061709
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481061709

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481061709
Reply with quote  #2

1481061709
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
FinShaggy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


Google/YouTube


View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 05:31:32 PM
 #1942

Maybe what we could also consider, if there are some folk putting out huge bodies of work, could be to have a "writer's round" periodically that everyone who is not a (prolific) writer can expect in advance to get hardly any coins from because that round all the major writers get to dump huge amounts of writing on the wiki, so almost all the coins that round go to writers...

Personally I have not really tried hard yet to dig up all my old writings as my strategy was generally to make at least some effort to try to keep up with Unthinkingbit but without ending up driving him to pour out even more writing as an attempt to prevent me from dipping too deep into his accustomed stipend. Smiley

I figured if I end up driving him to ever greater volumes of output, that would just make me have to work harder to catch up, so I tried to mostly just not fall too far behind. Smiley

Also some of my stories and novels I am still not decided the best way/venue/copyright to use for them so not sure yet which I want to put into the free open source content domain.

-MarkM-


I like the idea of a "writers round" but I would like to see this kind of thing implemented by making sister sites...
Like, make a site JUST for writing completely original works, like books, novels poems etc.
Then have another site that pays people to post pictures
Then another that pays you per minute of video
And another that lets you sell your stuff like ebay
etc etc

If everyone is thinking outside the box, there is a new box.
FinShaggy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


Google/YouTube


View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 05:32:11 PM
 #1943



Yes. I wasn't meaning necessarily disparaging adjectives. Think adjectives like hip, modern, classic, classical, intriguing, fantastical, lyrical, imaginative, and on and on and on, different ones appealing to different crowds. (Punky, gritty, visceral, explicit, stark, gothic, horrific, suspenseful... and on and on...)

-MarkM-


I think it will be ok.
Are you saying you are worried that someone might post an article they wrote in the 90s and we'll start getting "the wrong crowd"?

No he means it's a good thing Smiley I am excited to start putting sci fi up next round  Grin

OHHHH,
Agreed. It is a good thing.

If everyone is thinking outside the box, there is a new box.
Balthozar
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
April 29, 2013, 05:32:21 PM
 #1944

I just thought of a flaw that could be executed to get paid multiple times for the same piece of work.

I'll use some of my work as an example:

My article titled Pavlov, I lets say the script runs, pays me for it, then I change it to Pavlov, Ivan. It would recognize that as a new page the next time the script is run. Can anyone think of how to prevent this? And if it can't be prevented, then I would propose that anyone caught doing this shall be banned from devtome forever.

http://devtome.com/doku.php?id=wiki:user:balthozar | Earn Devcoins by Writing | Virtual Currency Exchange
DVC:1kFhM8vtEzbZ43Z5wcadPvNrb4xFXbgze | YAC:YHjjwLgjVfsnANTeb9eKeU3rtyKsFNvVCq | BQC:bUu1W2JEQzVrbFvv3EU4gW6KY2J939JDe1 | WDC:WTqa866TFP6d9HWGpYm2AztDNNMFmQ365s | FRC:1N2x7s8F78WiSFCFQPszLqhWsP6Kk1RXVp | NVC:4KcR3Dcmxz1ZDLK3VA9oHxpG4C3oYMCPeV | FTC:6ugwSRQNXQKNb5EVwQVn4CLoZNpiitiQzt | PPC:PSnEL3tmJejkdAAwiBLxSqbCide1voSKXY
FinShaggy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


Google/YouTube


View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 05:33:18 PM
 #1945



Yes. I wasn't meaning necessarily disparaging adjectives. Think adjectives like hip, modern, classic, classical, intriguing, fantastical, lyrical, imaginative, and on and on and on, different ones appealing to different crowds. (Punky, gritty, visceral, explicit, stark, gothic, horrific, suspenseful... and on and on...)

-MarkM-


I think it will be ok.
Are you saying you are worried that someone might post an article they wrote in the 90s and we'll start getting "the wrong crowd"?

No, I meant a huge volume of material, suited to so many tastes that likely some would inevitably be distasteful to someone somewhere, would likely be what the modern internet readers would like, as no matter how weird their taste in reading material we'd have plenty of it for them. Smiley

-MarkM-


Agreed.

The more types of things people post, the more unique users/views will start showing up.

If everyone is thinking outside the box, there is a new box.
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792



View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 05:36:12 PM
 #1946

I just thought of a flaw that could be executed to get paid multiple times for the same piece of work.

I'll use some of my work as an example:

My article titled Pavlov, I lets say the script runs, pays me for it, then I change it to Pavlov, Ivan. It would recognize that as a new page the next time the script is run. Can anyone think of how to prevent this? And if it can't be prevented, then I would propose that anyone caught doing this shall be banned from devtome forever.

Implementation flaw if it happens.

Consider, we maintain a total number of words so far per writer.

You move your article,

Now the old aritcle is zero words and the new one all the words from old one.

Your new total words is still the same as your old total words...

This assumes tracking how many words each author had last round, and counting up their entire ouvre each round.

In short, we don't just go counting purportedly new stuff, we add up from scratch their entire body of contributions.

I'd be surprised is that is not basically how Unthinkingbit did it. Read the python scripts to check his work but he never struck me as the kind of scripter who'd make such a big loophole when there is such a simple, obvious, albeit brute force, way to do it.

(He might even have found a more elegant way aleviating the use of brute force, now I am curious exactly how he did do it, I never actually went and looked at the scripts to check.)

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
Balthozar
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
April 29, 2013, 05:38:51 PM
 #1947

I just thought of a flaw that could be executed to get paid multiple times for the same piece of work.

I'll use some of my work as an example:

My article titled Pavlov, I lets say the script runs, pays me for it, then I change it to Pavlov, Ivan. It would recognize that as a new page the next time the script is run. Can anyone think of how to prevent this? And if it can't be prevented, then I would propose that anyone caught doing this shall be banned from devtome forever.

Implementation flaw if it happens.

Consider, we maintain a total number of words so far per writer.

You move your article,

Now the old aritcle is zero words and the new one all the words from old one.

Your new total words is still the same as your old total words...

This assumes tracking how many words each author had last around, and counting up their entire ouvre each time around.

In short, we don't just go counting purportedly new stuff, we add up from scratch their entire body of contributions.

-MarkM-


Okay, this is true, because as I recall, you get paid for words you add to articles after rounds' end. Just kind of popped in to my head, I didn't really consider these facts before posting my worries.

http://devtome.com/doku.php?id=wiki:user:balthozar | Earn Devcoins by Writing | Virtual Currency Exchange
DVC:1kFhM8vtEzbZ43Z5wcadPvNrb4xFXbgze | YAC:YHjjwLgjVfsnANTeb9eKeU3rtyKsFNvVCq | BQC:bUu1W2JEQzVrbFvv3EU4gW6KY2J939JDe1 | WDC:WTqa866TFP6d9HWGpYm2AztDNNMFmQ365s | FRC:1N2x7s8F78WiSFCFQPszLqhWsP6Kk1RXVp | NVC:4KcR3Dcmxz1ZDLK3VA9oHxpG4C3oYMCPeV | FTC:6ugwSRQNXQKNb5EVwQVn4CLoZNpiitiQzt | PPC:PSnEL3tmJejkdAAwiBLxSqbCide1voSKXY
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792



View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 05:43:24 PM
 #1948

Still its possible he uses the wiki's "changes" info to figure it, that counts how many words people add to and subtract from articles. So its not impossible you were on to something. It just seems quite likely Unthinkingbit also thought of it, thus that he'd have looked for a way to prevent it, which would if no other way is possible at least lead to sheer brute force.

(He backs up the whole wiki by scraping the pages with curl, so he is known to use brute force already, for that.)

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
FinShaggy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


Google/YouTube


View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 05:44:04 PM
 #1949

I like the idea of a "writers round" but I would like to see this kind of thing implemented by making sister sites...
Like, make a site JUST for writing completely original works, like books, novels poems etc.
Then have another site that pays people to post pictures
Then another that pays you per minute of video
And another that lets you sell your stuff like ebay
etc etc

BTW.

I'm making a website where people will get paid in Devcoin. I get paid in June, so that's when the site will be coming up. Unless I can get some DVC supporters to sponsor.

If everyone is thinking outside the box, there is a new box.
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792



View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 05:49:21 PM
 #1950

The scripts should be checked to make sure they elegantly handle people's pages being removed, I guess.

That would require not only recording their previous number of words but their previous "high-water mark" number of words.

That way, a bunch of someone's pages could be deleted or grow smaller and it would simply dock their pay, as it were, up to the point where they are back up into an new total number of words beyond those they have already been paid for last time around before the deletions or summaries or whatever caused their total word count to shrink instead of growing in some particular round.

Actually maybe only high water mark is needed, in which case this already likely works, it just needs to not change their "previous total words" (which actually really would be their high-water-rmark number of words) downwards, only change it if it grows.

Hmm quite likely already done I guess; Unthinkingbit does seem pretty handy at writing scripts.

(His nickname is maybe misleading, he's not actually all that "unthinking" at all haha.)

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
WildElf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 9


View Profile
April 29, 2013, 06:05:12 PM
 #1951

Per unthinkingbit's request, please see two emails that I sent this morning in the attempt to clear up some of my postings:

Re: Did you write "Identity and Access Management"?
« Sent to: Unthinkingbit on: Today at 01:46:59 PM »
Yes, that paper is definitely mine as are the one's that are currently posted under my profile.

I was concerned about the other submissions that I saw there and realized after some investigation what occurred.

I had allowed my daughter to access my devtome account after I told her what it was that I was doing and she wanted to assist me as we are trying to get extra money to make ends meet.  What she did was post my "Identity and Access Management" paper to BigNerds and then took four to five other papers to post on the Devtome site in the effort to increase the word/share count.  You will see that this since been corrected and the articles removed.

Whatever action you wish to take at this point is completely up to you.  I have made the corrections on my end and can assure you that all further postings will be by me and will be genuine works.


This is what I meant in one of my forum posts about safeguarding my account.

Furthermore:

Re: Did you write "Identity and Access Management"?
« Sent to: Unthinkingbit on: Today at 05:48:37 PM »
Quote  Reply  Delete 
The writings that I posted were written anywhere between 2009 (when I started my grad program) - 2012 (when I graduated).  When I came across the Devtome site a few weeks ago, that is when I dug them out again, reformatted them for the wiki and posted them.


Again, I believe in this project and want it to be successful.  I hope that you can pardon this aberration.
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792



View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 06:18:44 PM
 #1952

Yep, these go in pnSeeds...  

unsigned int pnSeed[] =
{
  0xb73c9ac6,

is what I have for the first node you posted the other day.

I used http://www.webdnstools.com/dnstools/ipcalc to convert that integer to an IP address...

...It came out as "The IP Number 0xb73c9ac6 converts to the IP Address 183.60.154.198"

So, backward, it seems, assuming said site is doing it correctly.

Unfortunately it does not use hax itself when turning an IP into an integer:

" The IP Address 198.154.60.183 converts to the IP Number 3331996855."

But presumably that is merely cosmetic, the array of IPs-as-integer should work with decimal integers too assuming that is actually what they are showing there.

So, using their page on our four stable node IPs, I have arrived at

Code:
unsigned int pnSeed[] =  
{
        3331996855, 3331996733, 1815951733, 84535656,
};

But... was your version backward deliberately?

Does pnSeed actually need a bytewise-reversed version (different-endian, or something) ?

I think maybe it does want it byte-reversed, as I asked that site to convert the first of the ancient commented out ones from way back when we swiped bitcoin code to make devcoin, and is said it was 29.219.16.50, but watch:

Code:
nslookup 29.219.16.50
Server:         192.168.2.1
Address:        192.168.2.1#53

** server can't find 50.16.219.29.in-addr.arpa.: NXDOMAIN

[bitcoin@megabox bitcoin]$ nslookup 50.16.219.29
Server:         192.168.2.1
Address:        192.168.2.1#53

Non-authoritative answer:
29.219.16.50.in-addr.arpa       name = ec2-50-16-219-29.compute-1.amazonaws.com.

Authoritative answers can be found from:
219.16.50.in-addr.arpa  nameserver = pdns6.ultradns.co.uk.
219.16.50.in-addr.arpa  nameserver = pdns2.ultradns.net.
219.16.50.in-addr.arpa  nameserver = pdns5.ultradns.info.
219.16.50.in-addr.arpa  nameserver = pdns1.ultradns.net.
219.16.50.in-addr.arpa  nameserver = pdns4.ultradns.org.
219.16.50.in-addr.arpa  nameserver = pdns3.ultradns.org.
pdns1.ultradns.net      internet address = 204.74.108.1
pdns1.ultradns.net      has AAAA address 2001:502:f3ff::1
pdns2.ultradns.net      internet address = 204.74.109.1
pdns2.ultradns.net      has AAAA address 2610:a1:1014::1
pdns3.ultradns.org      internet address = 199.7.68.1
pdns3.ultradns.org      has AAAA address 2610:a1:1015::1
pdns4.ultradns.org      internet address = 199.7.69.1
pdns4.ultradns.org      has AAAA address 2001:502:4612::1
pdns5.ultradns.info     internet address = 204.74.114.1
pdns5.ultradns.info     has AAAA address 2610:a1:1016::1
pdns6.ultradns.co.uk    internet address = 204.74.115.1

So it looks like maybe that spew of addresses is probably a list of bitcoin nodes, and the array does need byte-reversed addresses.

Luckily it is easy to manually reverse the bytes of a ##.##.##.## format Ip address before typing it into that conversion website, so...

Code:
unsigned int pnSeed[] =   
{
//      3331996855, 3331996733, 1815951733, 84535656,
        3074202310, 1027381958, 1966685547, 1760102661,
};

(I left the non-reversed integers in there but commented out. Just in case.)

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
Unthinkingbit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 900



View Profile
April 29, 2013, 06:51:07 PM
 #1953

...Again i'm sure i'll write up an article for clarification on what is acceptable writing and what is not as few emails I have received on such issues and few posts in this thread regarding such issues.
I’d certainly be interested to know whether the intent of devtome to develop into a repository of information for information' sake and traffic volume, or for interests sake and targetted traffic?

It is a repository of information for information' sake and traffic volume. Anything that meets the content requirements can go in:
http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=earn_devcoins_by_writing#requirements

Quote
The distinction would make a difference to what I may write and submit. I'd like to make clear I'm not having a go at finshaggy or anyone else in particular, only that if the guidelines remain vague I'm sure some of us could dig out 20k word dissertations, essays, studies etc that would put most writers to shame in volume terms, but perhaps ourselves to shame in quality and interest terms.

The issue is quality. If someone wrote good dissertations, essays and fiction a while ago and is entering it all at once when they discover devtome, that's fine. If they're entering in bad writing, whether they wrote it before or are writing it now, that's a problem, and that's why we're moving towards revenue boost based on page views.

Once we get an impossible to game system for page views, we hopefully won't need a word limit. However, right now we don't have revenue boost at all, and there have been many requests for a word limit. I don't want to take away expected revenue, so the word limit should be higher then the highest number of words to date, also someone else told me in a private conversation about writing many words, and I told them to limit it to 80,000.

If people do want a word limit, we'll have a vote, and take the median of the result for every round after this one. Because I already told someone that they could write up to 80,000 words this round, if there is a word limit, this round it will be at least 80,000 words.

Edit: The 80,000 words was not my decision to make. I agree that it should be above 61,000 words this month, because changes should not be retroactive if possible, but I'll message the person who asked about writing a lot, and tell them about the new limit.


FinShaggy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


Google/YouTube


View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 06:55:42 PM
 #1954

have a vote, and take the median of the result for every round after this one. Because I already told someone that they could write up to 80,000 words this round, if there is a word limit, this round it will be at least 80,000 words.


If everyone is really so worried about it, I believe this is the best solution. A limit would fix the "Quantity over Quality" 'problem'.

If everyone is thinking outside the box, there is a new box.
psybits
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Crypto Addicto


View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 06:57:33 PM
 #1955

have a vote, and take the median of the result for every round after this one. Because I already told someone that they could write up to 80,000 words this round, if there is a word limit, this round it will be at least 80,000 words.


If everyone is really so worried about it, I believe this is the best solution. A limit would fix the "Quantity over Quality" 'problem'.


Yes, a limit of 80 000 words is fine with me. Enables enough for me spend a coffee fueled month pumping out something psychedelic and not hitting the word count wall - when I have the time!

FinShaggy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


Google/YouTube


View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 06:59:57 PM
 #1956

have a vote, and take the median of the result for every round after this one. Because I already told someone that they could write up to 80,000 words this round, if there is a word limit, this round it will be at least 80,000 words.


If everyone is really so worried about it, I believe this is the best solution. A limit would fix the "Quantity over Quality" 'problem'.


Yes, a limit of 80 000 words is fine with me. Enables enough for me spend a coffee fueled month pumping out something psychedelic and not hitting the word count wall - when I have the time!

It also allows for back files.

If you reach the limit one month, save it for next month. Eventually you might end up with a year of work ready to be posted Smiley

If everyone is thinking outside the box, there is a new box.
WildElf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 9


View Profile
April 29, 2013, 07:03:17 PM
 #1957

I would be fine with 80k per month so that has my vote
Unthinkingbit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 900



View Profile
April 29, 2013, 07:05:21 PM
 #1958

..
My views would be:
if a trans-script of an open source TV program then this should get 3/5 share for collated work,
if a complete trans-script of an copyrighted TV program then this posting should NOT be allowed,
if a part trans-script of an copyrighted TV program then this posting should be allowed within reason... say limit the earnings to max 1 share, or 3/5 share

For transcripts, that is someone else's work, so it must not go into devtome at all.

However, reviews of other work is an intermediate category. Reviews can be written faster than original work, and are not as valuable. I suggest another payment category besides the current Collated and Original. It would be Review, and its value would be decided by voting.

Should there be a Review category?

markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792



View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 07:06:06 PM
 #1959

If the vast majority of all shares are going to go to writing on devtome, that is going to water down the amounts allocated for hosting and for developers quite a bit.

I do not know if that is particularly important though, since bounties can be used to get stuff developed that might actually increase the value of the coins.

I still keep wondering though whether 1000 words is really 10 hours or 40 of hours of work, which is what one share normally apparently is expecting to be paying for.

When we hardly had any writers, and they were busy doing admin stuff, developing, or whatever so didn't even maybe get around to writing much, the dilution effect on the development and admin stipends wasn't so bad maybe, but if we are going to have maybe ten or twenty or thirty or more writers writing maybe ten or twenty or thirty (or much more) thousand words each in each round, that would start to put a big dent in admin and development stipends.

Just saying. Smiley

Disclosure: I get admin and developer stipends. Cool

-MarkM-

EDIT: My anecdotal "impression" was that writing articles totally from scratch on the spot making them up as I went I was making probably about a share an hour, sure as heck not a share per ten to forty hours. Maybe it was really more like a share every two hours. But I dunno, I didn't put many hours in on articles but some rounds I got quite a few shares for them. (More than for admin plus developer but for maybe less hours put in.)

(I am a poor guesser of time though. Maybe sometimes way more hours went by than I noticed? Hmmm....)


Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
FinShaggy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


Google/YouTube


View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 07:25:46 PM
 #1960


Should there be a Review category?


I'm thinking a "Deview.com".

We should be making sister sites for all this stuff and do it like:
Out of 180 mil total
100+ mil goes to Devtome
X mil goes to the review site per round, and is divided amongst the critics based on word count, then eventually traffic
X mil goes to picture submission site per round, each picture is worth X DVC or a share, then traffic eventually
X mil goes to video submission site per round, 1 min or 1 video is 1 share, then traffic eventually
etc


I'm not suggesting it be done this moment. I just think this is a better option than making sections.

If everyone is thinking outside the box, there is a new box.
Pages: « 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 [98] 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 ... 176 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!