EPTFriday, May 7th @ 1PM PST.
Saturday, May 8th @ 1PM PST.
You mean... PDT, when unsure use "PT"
HDH Invitational #1 - Page 178
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
alok
United States1 Post
Friday, May 7th @ 1PM PST. Saturday, May 8th @ 1PM PST. You mean... PDT, when unsure use "PT" | ||
|
NukemDukem
United States133 Posts
On May 07 2010 10:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: So now that the new patch has come out, which makes Phoenixes even MORE amazing (they now can shoot while moving), I think Nony is going to win this. Fine with me... he's the man. wow you only have to click move and it shoots for you. requires less skill | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On May 07 2010 10:02 Aether wrote: You must have a list of every possible variable. I guess you know the routing of all of the ustream servers, you know the state of their server boxes are all perfectly equal, that HD or Husky didn't make some kind of error in setting up the stream on their end, or one of the dozens of other intangible variables that could cause 2 streams from the same provider to behave differently. I guess if 2 people have internet from the same ISP, one couldn't possibly malfunction while the other works right? It would be retarded to even try to use the one that didn't fail unless we could definitively prove that it has no possibility of failing, because they are run the same way, by the same service, there can be no possible differentiating variable. We have evidence that suggests that there IS some difference, but since this isn't definitive proof, we shouldn't even consider exploring this evidence, instead we should use something we KNOW to be unstable. You are easily one of the dumbest people I've ever spoken to. Please shut your idiot mouth. Occam's razor says that it was just coincidence, and we should look for alternative solutions. There's no evidence to suggest that Husky/HD have a different service from GLHF, but there is evidence to suggest that many different u-streamers experience similar problems.... thus incorporating all conditions gives us the simplest solution: It was coincidence. If you come back with actual evidence to show us that Husky/HD have a different service (an example of such would be GLHF saying hey, we pay for special services), instead of intangible theories, then you will have a case. You are needlessly multiplying the complexity of the issue, when a simpler answer is available. | ||
|
Hrrrrm
United States2081 Posts
On May 07 2010 13:59 shinosai wrote: Occam's razor says that it was just coincidence, and we should look for alternative solutions. There's no evidence to suggest that Husky/HD have a different service from GLHF, but there is evidence to suggest that many different u-streamers experience similar problems.... thus incorporating all conditions gives us the simplest solution: It was coincidence. If you come back with actual evidence to show us that Husky/HD have a different service (an example of such would be GLHF saying hey, we pay for special services), instead of intangible theories, then you will have a case. You are needlessly multiplying the complexity of the issue, when a simpler answer is available. Actually all you have to do is look at Orb's transition to UStream for that evidence. Orb had made an account with Ustream about a year ago and hadn't used it to stream till about a week ago. His stream was smooth till it got to around ~400 people where it started giving connection problems to everyone trying to join over ~400. It's not a mystery that Ustream most likely places "inactive" accounts on low priority servers. Orb made a new account on Ustream and a couple of days later he was having ~1400+ viewers without an issue. More than likely since he created a new account he was given average/high priority. It's not that hard to see how a priority system would be implemented. The same with GLHF.tv. Their cast is heavily used and I'm sure that overtime the UStream guys see spikes of users and more than likely prioritized their stream. It's not a matter of them paying for special services but, UStream knowing that a specific stream has the capability of achieving X amount of viewers and allocating the appropriate resources for that. People forget that was probably the first time HDstarcraft went on UStream and got 5k+ viewers where as GLHF had gotten to that number at least two or three times before without an issue. I'm sorry but unless you are a psychic there is no way for you to know that a stream that's barely used will go to 5k+ overnight. I honestly don't care what ends up happening. Just posting my findings. | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On May 07 2010 14:22 Hrrrrm wrote: Actually all you have to do is look at Orb's transition to UStream for that evidence. Orb had made an account with Ustream about a year ago and hadn't used it to stream till about a week ago. His stream was smooth till it got to around ~400 people where it started giving connection problems to everyone trying to join over ~400. It's not a mystery that Ustream most likely places "inactive" accounts on low priority servers. Orb made a new account on Ustream and a couple of days later he was having ~1400+ viewers without an issue. More than likely since he created a new account he was given average/high priority. It's not that hard to see how a priority system would be implemented. The same with GLHF.tv. Their cast is heavily used and I'm sure that overtime the UStream guys see spikes of users and more than likely prioritized their stream. It's not a matter of them paying for special services but, UStream knowing that a specific stream has the capability of achieving X amount of viewers and allocating the appropriate resources for that. People forget that was probably the first time HDstarcraft went on UStream and got 5k+ viewers where as GLHF had gotten to that number at least two or three times before without an issue. I'm sorry but unless you are a psychic there is no way for you to know that a stream that's barely used will go to 5k+ overnight. I honestly don't care what ends up happening. Just posting my findings. Well, there's some additional evidence that makes the theory more plausible. Given that, it means that in a couple of days they will re-prioritize bandwidth and that HDstarcraft doesn't need to switch servers or accounts after all. | ||
|
ranirahn
Estonia34 Posts
http://www.7is7.com/otto/countdown.html?year=2010&month=5&date=7&hrs=13&ts=12&min=0&sec=0&tz=-360&lang=en&show=dhms&mode=r&cdir=down&bgcolor=#CCFFFF&fgcolor=#000000&title=HDH ROUND OF 8 | ||
|
Dragline
United States1 Post
On May 07 2010 10:02 Aether wrote: You are easily one of the dumbest people I've ever spoken to. Please shut your idiot mouth. Hilarious. You really don't seem to get what he is saying at all. You're making a huge assumption that because something worked a certain way one time that it will continue to work that way every time. It reminds me of people I've had to inform that their computer has an infection, and their angry response would be "I didn't use anti-virus on my last computer, and I never had any problems! You don't know what you're doing!" Unfortunately, GLHF TV wasn't perfect either. People were still having some issues of completely blank screens; either they had sound and no video, or video and no sound (or both); or ads that would completely overwhelm the stream; the stream would continue to play while the ad tried to play over it. So you're claim that GLHF TV will be the magical solution is not true. There were even people who were having some slight lag issues during the stream. The GLHF guys even mentioned some possible quick fixes that might help solve that last problem in between streams. Although they were suggestions that relied on people tweaking setting via their web browser, and/or router, but not actually anything that they could do on their end | ||
|
Aether
Canada123 Posts
On May 07 2010 14:22 Hrrrrm wrote: Actually all you have to do is look at Orb's transition to UStream for that evidence. Orb had made an account with Ustream about a year ago and hadn't used it to stream till about a week ago. His stream was smooth till it got to around ~400 people where it started giving connection problems to everyone trying to join over ~400. It's not a mystery that Ustream most likely places "inactive" accounts on low priority servers. Orb made a new account on Ustream and a couple of days later he was having ~1400+ viewers without an issue. More than likely since he created a new account he was given average/high priority. It's not that hard to see how a priority system would be implemented. The same with GLHF.tv. Their cast is heavily used and I'm sure that overtime the UStream guys see spikes of users and more than likely prioritized their stream. It's not a matter of them paying for special services but, UStream knowing that a specific stream has the capability of achieving X amount of viewers and allocating the appropriate resources for that. People forget that was probably the first time HDstarcraft went on UStream and got 5k+ viewers where as GLHF had gotten to that number at least two or three times before without an issue. I'm sorry but unless you are a psychic there is no way for you to know that a stream that's barely used will go to 5k+ overnight. I honestly don't care what ends up happening. Just posting my findings. Finally someone with some grasp of logic. There are a number of reasons two streams from the same service would behave differently, this is just one of many. It's such a ridiculous assumption to say that if one is unstable all of them must be unstable. It could be true, but to assume it without testing it is retarded, and to act like testing it is a stupid idea is beyond retarded. I feel like I'm back in my mineral saturation thread. It's amazing watching some people trying to work through steps of a problem logically. | ||
|
TotalBiscuit
United Kingdom5437 Posts
On May 07 2010 10:02 Aether wrote: You must have a list of every possible variable. I guess you know the routing of all of the ustream servers, you know the state of their server boxes are all perfectly equal, that HD or Husky didn't make some kind of error in setting up the stream on their end, or one of the dozens of other intangible variables that could cause 2 streams from the same provider to behave differently. I guess if 2 people have internet from the same ISP, one couldn't possibly malfunction while the other works right? It would be retarded to even try to use the one that didn't fail unless we could definitively prove that it has no possibility of failing, because they are run the same way, by the same service, there can be no possible differentiating variable. We have evidence that suggests that there IS some difference, but since this isn't definitive proof, we shouldn't even consider exploring this evidence, instead we should use something we KNOW to be unstable. You are easily one of the dumbest people I've ever spoken to. Please shut your idiot mouth. You've got real gall to accuse me of not taking into account every possible variable when your entire argument is based on the 'evidence' that GLHF worked once, therefore will work all the time. I guess that's what being a hypocrite does to you. Did I ever say we shouldn't consider exploring the evidence? No, you just got uber-defensive and starting hurling insults for no apparent reason. You are quite frankly a useless waste of space with no support in this thread and should consider not posting in it anymore before someone else makes that decision for you. Finally someone with some grasp of logic. There are a number of reasons two streams from the same service would behave differently, this is just one of many. It's such a ridiculous assumption to say that if one is unstable all of them must be unstable. It could be true, but to assume it without testing it is retarded, and to act like testing it is a stupid idea is beyond retarded. Nobody said this insufferable piece of shit and cheerleading someone who actually brought a theory to the table when you have yet to do so is pathetic. Latching onto someone who may have an inkling of understanding as to the situation because you absolutely don't shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that you never had a leg to stand on in this debate, you're a colossal hypocrite and you're here to argue for the sake of arguing. Where is YOUR grasp of logic? Why not be honest with everyone here, your interest is flaming and nothing more. Oh but please, let's continue to rely on a free streaming service that has proven itself TIME AND AGAIN to be unreliable, just because one time it actually did what it was supposed to. Let's not bother looking at long-term solutions for a rapidly growing scene and how to monetise it because Aether is too fucking retarded to understand any of them. Maybe that's because he's not involved in the scene and has no experience in it as anything other than a bystander and has literally zero say or influence in how they develop. | ||
|
Aether
Canada123 Posts
What happened here is I was explaining something very simple to you for a long time and someone who understood what I was saying came along and offered one possible example to help you understand the very basic point that I was making from the start. You needed someone to lay out specific examples in order to understand the underlying logic because you're not very clever. Tired of you now. Listening to people like you try to grasp basic logic is painful. | ||
|
ModernAgeShaman
Norway484 Posts
| ||
|
TotalBiscuit
United Kingdom5437 Posts
On May 07 2010 16:38 Aether wrote: Actually I did offer several possible explanations, the point is that laying out theories isn't necessary to understanding the logic of the problem, simply understanding that we don't have knowledge of all possible variables is enough. No you didn't, perhaps you might want to re-read your posts. Actually don't, judging by your previous posts, your grasp of reality is tenuous at best and you can't be expected to see things as they are. No, claiming 'we don't have enough knowledge so do this!' is about as dumb as saying 'a wizard did it' and then getting all offended that somebody didn't quiet agree with your 'logical' wizard theory. What happened here is I was explaining something very simple to you for a long time and someone who understood what I was saying came along and offered one possible example to help you understand the very basic point that I was making from the start. You needed someone to lay out specific examples in order to understand the underlying logic because you're not very clever. Tired of you now. Listening to people like you try to grasp basic logic is painful. You've apparently been tired of me for the last few pages yet you still continue to reply, pretending somehow that you're relevant to the discussion. What you were doing was getting defensive, hurling insults at all and sundry, pretending to be intellectual, espousing hypocrisy at every turn (I'm sorry, was that word too complex for you?), providing nothing constructive or reasonable and then when somebody finally comes along with a possible theory that may potentially correlate to your previous unfounded nonsense, you start humping their leg and using their argument to justify your non-argument. How lazy is that ladies and gents, this guy can't even defend his own tripe. You didn't have any logic, you guessed and thus far your guess is still on very shaky ground. That's an improvement, thanks to someone elses efforts not yours. Y'know, perhaps we should have a discussion with that guy instead and just leave you out of it? After all, you have nothing to add what-so-ever and it's not as if you're in any position of knowledge, experience or influence to make a difference anyway. What a wonderful idea. | ||
|
guitarizt
United States1492 Posts
| ||
|
FrogOfWar
Germany1406 Posts
On May 07 2010 15:51 ranirahn wrote: Is this correct? http://www.7is7.com/otto/countdown.html?year=2010&month=5&date=7&hrs=13&ts=12&min=0&sec=0&tz=-360&lang=en&show=dhms&mode=r&cdir=down&bgcolor=#CCFFFF&fgcolor=#000000&title=HDH ROUND OF 8 No, one more hour: On May 07 2010 00:55 Primadog wrote: Please note that The time posted is west coast time 1PM, which is actually PDT (Pacific Daylight Savings Time) or UTC/GMT -7 hours instead of PST (which is GMT-8). That time is 28 hours from the time of posting. You can see your relevant time zones and ETA here: http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/customcounter.html?month=5&day=7&year=2010&hour=1pm&min=0&sec=00&p0=137 | ||
|
Nilaus
Denmark159 Posts
On May 07 2010 17:41 guitarizt wrote: Does anyone know how soon the vods were out after the cast last time? I'm gonna watch the razer domination instead probably. Last time it was a few days for most of them. Due to the technical issues with the stream and the fact that the YouTube videos are much better quality and they can be watched from the iPhone; I am definitely watching Razor tonight. | ||
|
ranirahn
Estonia34 Posts
On May 07 2010 19:49 FrogOfWar wrote: No, one more hour: Thanx. Its 23:00 in my time and I was sure that live begin 22:00 in my time  I hope Husky and HD uses that global countdown clock link next time. These times what they give us telling me nothing at all. | ||
|
drooL
United Kingdom2108 Posts
| ||
|
Enox
Germany1667 Posts
On May 07 2010 20:33 schnibbel wrote: so, just to be 100% certain: in europe (germany) livestream is at 22pm right? yes, 22pm  | ||
|
ranirahn
Estonia34 Posts
| ||
|
Enox
Germany1667 Posts
| ||
| ||
