>>Why not use Daemon-Tools >The recent revisions of Neverwinter Nights can >detect daemon-tools and they won't even start if >it is installed (even if the real cdrom is in a >real drive).
And that matters?
Every time the producers of any copy protection scheme tries to prevent people from making their legal backups by black listing DeamonTools, the makers of Deamon Tools update the program to avoid the blacklist - and usually add a few features.
A bother you say? To keep updating DT? Well, how often do you buy games? Once a month? How often do they update the blacklist? Not that often it seems.
... by stats and apperances: BattleField 1942 - lets hope that EA get the finger out and actually release som modding tools instead of procrastinating...
You miss his point entirely. He doesn't have a tivo, and he doesn't want to watch the stuff he records on the computer. He wants to watch it via his DVD on tv. therfore the more times he could reuse a cd the better.
Its a plugin? You still need Maya and Renderman? Which as far as I understand are horrendously expensive... so what does it really matter there is a free plugin?
. My point is, as soon as they fix one bug, another will surface. .... its not a bug - its how the games works. But by using macro programs you can go through the motions much faster than if you were clicking and pointing yourself.
I don't know why I'm compelled to respond to this troll
I'm nearsighted you jerk, not a troll. I am well aware of Jakob Nielson
It's Nielsen. Why don't you just write "Don't use HTML because it's too hard to read webpages when I telnet into port 80"
Because thats stupid bullshit, the other is a valid point.
You completely ignore the fact that stylesheets, when used properly, reduce bandwidth usage and increase usability.
No, I don't believe that I do. I agree about the reduced bandwith (even when used improperly) - I'm not sure what you mean about "usability" -however very few seem to use them properly.
If you've got cataracts are are so vastly intelligent,
I've never claimed that I was "vastly intelligent", just intimated that you and those of your ilk apparently are not very.
why don't you download a browser that will let you increase your font size instead of making generalizations and broad statements which are so easily proven wrong.
The statement is that a growing number of websites are abusing stylesheets by using fixed fontsizes making it hard to read for many people. This is fact. There is nothing to disprove there(nor have you). You can say "I don't care" or "just use 3-5 different browsers, you'll find one for all pages!" - you may have perfect vision today - you won't forever(statistically).
I also doubt that there are "millions" of people that are so dramatically affected.
Well, the number was a guess - but according to the American Optometric Association 30% of Americans are myopic - you do the math.
Even a 486 will run a browser that supports stylesheets. You'll just have to let go of the romantic notion that it's still 1996... it's called progress.
Yet another self-centeret edu kid, with an IQ of a dead rat and perfect vision no doubt. Its not called progress, its called regression - now hundreds, if not thousands of websites are unreadable to me and millions of others, because people use stylesheets badly.
Jakob Nielsen, who CNN called "Web usability guru" puts it this way:
Because most webdesigners use absolute font size, which means you can't resize it in browsers. Ie, you are stuck with a font size which is often too small (it is for me most of the time).
Jakob Nielsen (who you should know if you are a regular slashdot reader, if not search the slashdot archives), the man CNN calls "Web usability guru" (ironically they do it wrong as well), will tell you why Stylesheets "reduced readability of an increasing number of websites" - He will also tell you how to do it right. - Basically doing it right is to specify percentage weights so that the stylesheets DO cascade, instead of taking over. Some sites who do it wrong:
Why wrong? Because you can't adjust the font size in MSIE (its possible you use a minority browser which allows you to do this, but 99% of webusers can not adjust the size)
So you can argue the tag shouldn't read "don't use stylesheets" but "use stylesheets properly" - but that wouldn't work, everone thinks that he is using them properly and only the others do it wrong. Its a soundbite - and its not entirely wrong, almost all of the unreadable websites are unreadable because the "webmaster" was using stylesheets.
>So it's not style sheets you have a problem with then, it's idiot web designers.
True, but the sigs can only be very short. Writing something like "Use stylesheets correctly" would hardly work since everybody thinks they are doing it right.
>Mozilla lets you easly adjust the font size, even for the sites you mention.
I used to use it several years ago, but it failed on more and more pages, so i switched to MSIE... (guess that should have taught me not to tilt at windmills, eh?)
>Why do you think style sheets make web pages unreadable?
You wouldn't be a young fellow with an expensive monitor would you?
>Do you even know what style sheets are?
Of course, how else would i know they are the bane of the WWW today:
Because most webdesigners use absolute font size, which means you can't resize it in browsers. Ie, you are stuck with a font size which is often too small (it is for me most of the time).
Jakob Nielsen (who you should know if you are a regular slashdot reader, if not search the slashdot archives), the man CNN calls "Web usability guru" (ironically they do it wrong as well), will tell you why Stylesheets "reduced readability of an increasing number of websites" - He will also tell you how to do it right. - Basically doing it right is to specify percentage weights so that the stylesheets DO cascade, instead of taking over. Some sites who do it wrong:
>You have a valid point, but if Firefly rejects >idealistic conventions, it could be said to be >realistic, if only because the characters behave >true to the nature of people.
Which in YOUR OPINION means that people are a bunch of selfserving idiots who only want to kill and betray and maim, whereas Roddenberry imagined that Humans can actually GROW UP.
Lot of good points from meta-monkey (what's that? You are not really a monkey? Hm.. is a human a meta monkey?:-)
However:
>Where the hell else do you get 40 hours of >skilled labor for a measly $1,500?
I don't know if you can, but it sounds expensive to me.
And as for the quality, I suspect that to a large extent it is with photography like with many other fields: The professionals are more picky that the layman. In other words, a lot of people would be just as happy with the pictures a friend took.
>You're ripping off a small businessperson in >your community, face-to-face, out of about $500 >to $1,000.
I don't see how NOT hiring someone is ripping them off.
>You have to respect the photographer's copyright.
Why? Oh, the obvious answer is "Its illegal and they'll throw the book at you!" - but the obvious problem with that is usually people obey laws because they agree with them. But nowadays copyright seems to mean "getting lots of money for something you only did once" - I say, you pay a photographer the money, he takes some pictures you get them, AND THAT SHOULD BE IT. I find it directly amoral that he should have any say over them afterwards. Imagine Ford could dictate what you do with a car you bought from them, or the people who build your house could come by and ask you to leave - death to copyrights.
Slashdot Mirror
>>Why not use Daemon-Tools
>The recent revisions of Neverwinter Nights can
>detect daemon-tools and they won't even start if
>it is installed (even if the real cdrom is in a
>real drive).
And that matters?
Every time the producers of any copy protection scheme tries to prevent people from making their legal backups by black listing DeamonTools, the makers of Deamon Tools update the program to avoid the blacklist - and usually add a few features.
A bother you say? To keep updating DT? Well, how often do you buy games? Once a month? How often do they update the blacklist? Not that often it seems.
... by stats and apperances: BattleField 1942 - lets hope that EA get the finger out and actually release som modding tools instead of procrastinating...
You miss his point entirely. He doesn't have a tivo, and he doesn't want to watch the stuff he records on the computer. He wants to watch it via his DVD on tv. therfore the more times he could reuse a cd the better.
Definitely not
Are you nuts? Of course its going to far!
Thanks for your reply (and for taking it seriusly). I don't know much about hiend rendering, but obviously that's one heck of a saving.
Grow up a will you kid! Just because you know what the hell they are talking about doesn't mean we all do! It was a perfectly legitimate question!
Its a plugin? You still need Maya and Renderman? Which as far as I understand are horrendously expensive... so what does it really matter there is a free plugin?
... can you play GTA 3 on it??
Who cut the normal cut then? Didn't the director have any say in the matter?
No, they don't always. Most of the time its the people who pay the bill that have final say. This is not art remember, this is bu$ine$$
The Amiga was very Unix like :)
. My point is, as soon as they fix one bug, another will surface.
.... its not a bug - its how the games works. But by using macro programs you can go through the motions much faster than if you were clicking and pointing yourself.
I don't know why I'm compelled to respond to this troll
I'm nearsighted you jerk, not a troll.
I am well aware of Jakob Nielson
It's Nielsen.
Why don't you just write "Don't use HTML because it's too hard to read webpages when I telnet into port 80"
Because thats stupid bullshit, the other is a valid point.
You completely ignore the fact that stylesheets, when used properly, reduce bandwidth usage and increase usability.
No, I don't believe that I do. I agree about the reduced bandwith (even when used improperly) - I'm not sure what you mean about "usability" -however very few seem to use them properly.
If you've got cataracts are are so vastly intelligent,
I've never claimed that I was "vastly intelligent", just intimated that you and those of your ilk apparently are not very.
why don't you download a browser that will let you increase your font size instead of making generalizations and broad statements which are so easily proven wrong.
The statement is that a growing number of websites are abusing stylesheets by using fixed fontsizes making it hard to read for many people. This is fact. There is nothing to disprove there(nor have you). You can say "I don't care" or "just use 3-5 different browsers, you'll find one for all pages!" - you may have perfect vision today - you won't forever(statistically).
I also doubt that there are "millions" of people that are so dramatically affected.
Well, the number was a guess - but according to the American Optometric Association 30% of Americans are myopic - you do the math.
Even a 486 will run a browser that supports stylesheets. You'll just have to let go of the romantic notion that it's still 1996... it's called progress.
Yet another self-centeret edu kid, with an IQ of a dead rat and perfect vision no doubt. Its not called progress, its called regression - now hundreds, if not thousands of websites are unreadable to me and millions of others, because people use stylesheets badly.
Jakob Nielsen, who CNN called "Web usability guru" puts it this way:
Because most webdesigners use absolute font size, which means you can't resize it in browsers. Ie, you are stuck with a font size which is often too small (it is for me most of the time).
Jakob Nielsen (who you should know if you are a regular slashdot reader, if not search the slashdot archives), the man CNN calls "Web usability guru" (ironically they do it wrong as well), will tell you why Stylesheets "reduced readability of an increasing number of websites" - He will also tell you how to do it right. - Basically doing it right is to specify percentage weights so that the stylesheets DO cascade, instead of taking over.
Some sites who do it wrong:
http://www.cnn.com
http://www.microsoft.com
h
http://www.asus.com.tw/
htt
http://www.syfyportal.com/
Why wrong? Because you can't adjust the font size in MSIE (its possible you use a minority browser which allows you to do this, but 99% of webusers can not adjust the size)
So you can argue the tag shouldn't read "don't use stylesheets" but "use stylesheets properly" - but that wouldn't work, everone thinks that he is using them properly and only the others do it wrong. Its a soundbite - and its not entirely wrong, almost all of the unreadable websites are unreadable because the "webmaster" was using stylesheets.
They are terraforming the earth to their liking - preparing to move in!
(Or perhaps alienforming is more like it
>So it's not style sheets you have a problem with then, it's idiot web designers.
True, but the sigs can only be very short. Writing something like "Use stylesheets correctly" would hardly work since everybody thinks they are doing it right.
>Mozilla lets you easly adjust the font size, even for the sites you mention.
I used to use it several years ago, but it failed on more and more pages, so i switched to MSIE... (guess that should have taught me not to tilt at windmills, eh?)
Perhaps I should try it again.
>You should check out the Foresight Exchange >Basically it is an idea stock market [...]
:)
Hey, Nifty! Thanks for the link
>Why do you think style sheets make web pages unreadable?
t tp://www.nvidia.comp ://www.wiseeye.com/
You wouldn't be a young fellow with an expensive monitor would you?
>Do you even know what style sheets are?
Of course, how else would i know they are the bane of the WWW today:
Because most webdesigners use absolute font size, which means you can't resize it in browsers. Ie, you are stuck with a font size which is often too small (it is for me most of the time).
Jakob Nielsen (who you should know if you are a regular slashdot reader, if not search the slashdot archives), the man CNN calls "Web usability guru" (ironically they do it wrong as well), will tell you why Stylesheets "reduced readability of an increasing number of websites" - He will also tell you how to do it right. - Basically doing it right is to specify percentage weights so that the stylesheets DO cascade, instead of taking over.
Some sites who do it wrong:
http://www.cnn.com
http://www.microsoft.com
h
http://www.asus.com.tw/
htt
http://www.syfyportal.com/
Make a subject where the users can enter their predictions about the future - then we return in ten years and check it out :)
People always overrate the future, its the one constant..
Don't mention it.
...that the letters are so small...
>You have a valid point, but if Firefly rejects
>idealistic conventions, it could be said to be
>realistic, if only because the characters behave
>true to the nature of people.
Which in YOUR OPINION means that people are a bunch of selfserving idiots who only want to kill and betray and maim, whereas Roddenberry imagined that Humans can actually GROW UP.
Lot of good points from meta-monkey (what's that? You are not really a monkey? Hm.. is a human a meta monkey? :-)
However:
>Where the hell else do you get 40 hours of
>skilled labor for a measly $1,500?
I don't know if you can, but it sounds expensive to me.
And as for the quality, I suspect that to a large extent it is with photography like with many other fields: The professionals are more picky that the layman. In other words, a lot of people would be just as happy with the pictures a friend took.
>You're ripping off a small businessperson in
>your community, face-to-face, out of about $500
>to $1,000.
I don't see how NOT hiring someone is ripping them off.
>You have to respect the photographer's copyright.
Why? Oh, the obvious answer is "Its illegal and they'll throw the book at you!" - but the obvious problem with that is usually people obey laws because they agree with them. But nowadays copyright seems to mean "getting lots of money for something you only did once" - I say, you pay a photographer the money, he takes some pictures you get them, AND THAT SHOULD BE IT. I find it directly amoral that he should have any say over them afterwards. Imagine Ford could dictate what you do with a car you bought from them, or the people who build your house could come by and ask you to leave - death to copyrights.