If you look at the your packet dump, you'll note that most of the POL stuff occurs over HTTP. (Find the random port it used, and tell Ethereal to decode it as HTTP.)
The HTTP server on the other end identifies it as Apache, version 1.3.26.
Apparently PlayOnline uses open source software.:)
I can't figure out what you're talking about, the Friends List is loaded over HTTP (or maybe HTTPS, I can't remember, I'll have to check when I get home).
Pretty much all of the PlayOnline Viewer related stuff occurs over either HTTP or HTTPS. It then gets handed off to a DLL when it connects to FFXI. (The new delay when it loads the main menu is caused because it now loads the main menu as a kind of XML "screen" file off the POL servers.)
I've watched it connect while running Ethereal, there's no port 25 stuff at all. As others have said, the Optimum Online port 25 block went into effect about a month ago.
Simple, it doesn't. The client includes an e-mail client, so if you read the required port list you'll see port 25 listed. A bunch of people then read that OO was blocking port 25 and decided this was the problem.
As it turns out, the PlayOnline viewer actually runs over HTTP and HTTPS. The Final Fantasy XI portion of the game runs over ports 50000+.
Bottom line, whatever the problem is, Port 25 isn't it.
1. PlayOnline is thoroughly stupid for using port 25 to connect to the network. Though shalt not retain ports under 1000, and well-known ones at that.
Ah, but it doesn't. I run on Comcast, so I was curious what might be causing the problem so I decided to run a packet sniffer and watch the game connect. It opened something on Port 5000 or so and did a bunch of miscellaneous stuff, including a bunch of HTTP transactions on non-standard ports. (I think - I need to recheck those logs and make sure it wasn't redirected to that port.) But it never touched Port 25.
This misunderstanding comes because if you read the "required open ports" you'll see them list Ports 25, 80, 110, and 443. A quick overview will see those listed as SMTP, HTTP, POP3, and HTTPS.
As it turns out, the PlayOnline client does include an e-mail client, to allow you to send and receive e-mail via an e-mail account that comes with the service. If you wish to send e-mail using that account, then port 25 comes into play.
It turns out that PlayOnline uses a bunch of Internet standards to run, including HTTP for downloading the menu pages and XML to describe those pages. HTTPS appears to be used for when you sign up for your account and various other features.
(You can actually view the SSL certificate when you enter a secured portion of the service. A "key" icon gets added to the Navigation mini-menu. Square-Enix also digitally signs all e-mail they send to their customers, and the e-mail client they use supports that, as well.)
My personal guess is that OO created a transparent HTTP proxy, and that's what's messing things up. A lot of the basic functionality in PlayOnline is actually done of HTTP/HTTPS.
Meh, I think I originally heard that factoid from some Star Wars Special Addition Making Of special, so it's entirely possible that it was Lucas revising history again.
He claimed in an interview about that scene that he originally wanted to do some sort of special effect to make the guy there be some sort of space alien but couldn't pull it off.
Maybe the interview is on the special discs? I don't know, because I don't actually care enough about Star Wars to buy the new DVD set.
That scene really was supposed to be in the original movie, though. They just didn't have the technology at the time to pull it off.
(The original idea, I think, was to replace the actor standing in for Jabba with a puppet shot on a blue screen.)
However, after it became apparent that they couldn't do that scene with current technology, they moved all the information learned in that scene to the scene with Greedo.
So, yes, the scene is totally redundant and looked wrong (because it was originally designed around a different Jabba) as shot. This is why the 1997 version had Han Solo step on Jabbas tail - Harrison Ford walked around the stand-in in the original shot, before they really knew what Jabba would look like.
Ultimately, it's one of those scenes that it's kinda neat to know that we can do it now, but serves no purpose any more since they basically wrote it out of the original movie. It's something that they could have done as a bonus feature or something, since it doesn't really offer anything new to the story.
I can't really find any good links on it, but it's mentioned several times if you search for it.
Well, if you click on any of the purchase links they offer for the expansion, you'll get taken to a preorder page. None of these sites actually indicate any reason for the delay. EBGames actually silently updated the shipping date without notifying any of the people who preordered.
I can completely understand that a hurricane can disrupt shipping, and accept that. I really, really wish that Square-Enix and the various stores that are offering pre-orders would actually tell us about this instead of requiring people to call up store managers to find out what's up.
I'm sure lots of things are still delayed from the aftermath of the hurricane. It's completely understandable. But it's really infuriating when companies won't just tell you what's going on and instead act as if things are proceeding exactly as planned.
I wrote my own extension, so yes, the update feature has worked for me in Firefox 0.9.3.
However, it's never displayed as an "Update Available" in the status bar like it's supposed to. If you double click on the "Update" area to make Firefox search for new updates now, it doesn't work either. In fact, the only way it does work is to go to Tools -> Extensions, specifically select my extension, and then choose "Update."
It's a document-scanner. I think its highest resolution is something like 600DPI, and my scan was at 300DPI. The idea was originally to scan in a bunch of old technical documents that were lieing around, not document comparison. I just kinda... borrowed it for this experiment.
Secondly, the original document it was being compared with was scanned at a lower resolution, so the higher resolution wouldn't really offer anything.
The original idea was to test the assertion that "187th" printed from a Word document would look the same as "187th" in the original document. The fact that it does and that it so closely matches the rest of the document is suspicious, to say the least.
I'm also glad no one caught my goof yet: the original says "sugarcoat it. Bush wasn't". I accidently transcribed that to "sugarcoat it: Bush wasn't." Whoops.
Simple: One's drawn using Microsoft's ClearType technology, the other was printed using a PostScript printer and then scanned back in to a PDF.
Nothing's been adjusted - WYSIWYG doesn't quite live up to that promise.:)
You should be able to get the same results by loading that RTF into any copy of Word with ClearType enabled. (Although I just tested, and it didn't happen on this machine. *sigh*)
It's possible it's another type face - the problem is that you can't just write it off as being simply dust on the lens, so to speak.
Zoom in closely on the 1 and look at the spots on the paper. The difference can easily be explained away if we assume that one of the random dots created during the scanning process wound up at the top of the 1.
It's just not really possible to make a really good comparison based on the scan of the original document - it's just blurry enough to make it impossible to really come up with what the font is.
However, the fact that the reproduction using Word comes so close is suspicious in and of itself. If it does use another font face, the font face is extremely similar to Times New Roman, and the margins are also practically identical. (Although it appears that maybe they were slightly wider and the font size slightly smaller - it's unclear.)
I posted this somewhere else, but just compare the original (note: mirrored on my site) with a scanned copy I made. The copy is simply a retyped version of the memo that I printed to a laser printer and then scanned using a sheet-feeding scanner - similar to a fax machine.
They look like they're identical, including the 187th part. The only thing my copy's missing is the dust and dirt on the paper.
I was curious about this, so I decided to check it out for myself. I retyped the memo into my copy of Word 2003, and printed out a copy.
I then scanned it back in and wound up with a document that looked surprisingly similar to the "original document." Specically, look at the "187th." It's practically identical.
Oh, and for added fun, try this animation I created showing a copy in Word fading in with the PDF. Note that the PDF is ever so slightly tilted, so things don't line up quite correctly after the first line. But the animation makes it very clear that the two are very similar.
No, he doesn't. He uses Konqueror, and therefore most likely uses KDE. Why should he have to install the GNOME desktop environment just to get fonts that don't suck to work with Firefox?
Oh, and I know he only needs the GTK2 libraries, but that's still a huge chunk of code to download and install to use for just one program.
Do you seriously need GTK+ support to get decent fonts? That's kinda - too bad. I thought the GTK2 stuff only made Firefox/Mozilla support styling the controls based on the current GTK theme, I didn't know it did anything with the fonts.
It reminds me of that terrible Comcast commercial I've seen a few times where an internet instructor named "Professor Web" is telling students to "stomp around the internet with reckless abondon"... AS IF IT'S A GOOD THING.
Better than the one where he suggests that students stop sending "LOL" in e-mails and instead send a video of themselves laughing.
Because a 2MB MPG is expressive enough to justify sending it instead of 3 bytes of text.
(Of course, I think video e-mail is worthless anyway, because half the point of e-mail is that it's like sending a letter, so it can be proof-read mistakes corrected. Much harder to do that with a video. Now a video-phone like system would be quasi-useful, but video e-mail?)
You can do something similar in a BAT script, although thanks to the way variables work in DOS, you need two of them. Basically:
buildCP.bat ----------- FOR %jar IN (%PATH_TO_LIBS%\*.JAR) DO CALL appendCP.bat %jar
appendCP.bat ------------ SET CLASSPATH=%CLASSPATH%;%1
Of course, the way I usually deal with the CLASSPATH is make ant deal with the CLASSPATH and then just package everything into a mega-JAR and distribute that.
I think most Java people object to the idea that Java is far slower than C or C++ code. It isn't.
It is, of course, slower - but it's like only 90% as fast as C code, as opposed to 50% as fast that some people seem to believe.
And anyone telling you that HotSpot will magically make Java faster than C is, of course, wrong. Thanks to Java's need for allocating many things, repeatedly, doing the same thing in Java as you do in C often requires many little memory allocations, and those still require extra processing time. The simple overhead of the language itself slows it down, no matter how wonderful HotSpot is.
Unless, of course, you have many instances when you need to count from 1 to 10000. Java with HotSpot can do for (i=0;i<10000;i++) { } on par with C.
Sure, Java Micro Edition can be small. Java Standard Edition has a base memory footprint of 4MB. No matter what you do, you have 4MB of crap that's only the base of the system. This does not include any of your code.
Not to mention that Java will always start with a base heap size of 2MB. Combined with the 4MB to store the base of the system, starting Java means that you will always lose 6MB of system memory allocated away to Java, not matter what the program does.
If the heap size ever grows, it will never be shrunk again. (In other words, if your app takes 64MB at some point, but then shrinks back to 4MB, the Java VM will still have 64MB allocated to it that it will never release back to the system.)
But don't take my word. Try it out for yourself. Compile that program and run it, and watch your memory usage.
Slashdot Mirror
Link works for me - brings me to the section exclusion bug.
4. Get bitten by this bug.
5. Whine about it in the comments.
If you look at the your packet dump, you'll note that most of the POL stuff occurs over HTTP. (Find the random port it used, and tell Ethereal to decode it as HTTP.)
The HTTP server on the other end identifies it as Apache, version 1.3.26.
Apparently PlayOnline uses open source software. :)
In fact, when I sent myself an e-mail, it connected on a port in the 3000 range. No port 25 in the mix anywhere.
I can't figure out what you're talking about, the Friends List is loaded over HTTP (or maybe HTTPS, I can't remember, I'll have to check when I get home).
Pretty much all of the PlayOnline Viewer related stuff occurs over either HTTP or HTTPS. It then gets handed off to a DLL when it connects to FFXI. (The new delay when it loads the main menu is caused because it now loads the main menu as a kind of XML "screen" file off the POL servers.)
I've watched it connect while running Ethereal, there's no port 25 stuff at all. As others have said, the Optimum Online port 25 block went into effect about a month ago.
As it turns out, the PlayOnline viewer actually runs over HTTP and HTTPS. The Final Fantasy XI portion of the game runs over ports 50000+.
Bottom line, whatever the problem is, Port 25 isn't it.
Ah, but it doesn't. I run on Comcast, so I was curious what might be causing the problem so I decided to run a packet sniffer and watch the game connect. It opened something on Port 5000 or so and did a bunch of miscellaneous stuff, including a bunch of HTTP transactions on non-standard ports. (I think - I need to recheck those logs and make sure it wasn't redirected to that port.) But it never touched Port 25.
This misunderstanding comes because if you read the "required open ports" you'll see them list Ports 25, 80, 110, and 443. A quick overview will see those listed as SMTP, HTTP, POP3, and HTTPS.
As it turns out, the PlayOnline client does include an e-mail client, to allow you to send and receive e-mail via an e-mail account that comes with the service. If you wish to send e-mail using that account, then port 25 comes into play.
It turns out that PlayOnline uses a bunch of Internet standards to run, including HTTP for downloading the menu pages and XML to describe those pages. HTTPS appears to be used for when you sign up for your account and various other features.
(You can actually view the SSL certificate when you enter a secured portion of the service. A "key" icon gets added to the Navigation mini-menu. Square-Enix also digitally signs all e-mail they send to their customers, and the e-mail client they use supports that, as well.)
My personal guess is that OO created a transparent HTTP proxy, and that's what's messing things up. A lot of the basic functionality in PlayOnline is actually done of HTTP/HTTPS.
He claimed in an interview about that scene that he originally wanted to do some sort of special effect to make the guy there be some sort of space alien but couldn't pull it off.
Maybe the interview is on the special discs? I don't know, because I don't actually care enough about Star Wars to buy the new DVD set.
(The original idea, I think, was to replace the actor standing in for Jabba with a puppet shot on a blue screen.)
However, after it became apparent that they couldn't do that scene with current technology, they moved all the information learned in that scene to the scene with Greedo.
So, yes, the scene is totally redundant and looked wrong (because it was originally designed around a different Jabba) as shot. This is why the 1997 version had Han Solo step on Jabbas tail - Harrison Ford walked around the stand-in in the original shot, before they really knew what Jabba would look like.
Ultimately, it's one of those scenes that it's kinda neat to know that we can do it now, but serves no purpose any more since they basically wrote it out of the original movie. It's something that they could have done as a bonus feature or something, since it doesn't really offer anything new to the story.
I can't really find any good links on it, but it's mentioned several times if you search for it.
It starts off blue, becomes black, then changes to green, then back to a dark blue, then bright blue again...
I can only assume their screenshot program has... issues.
Why? It's hard for me to remember a time before Star Wars. Possibly because I was born in 1981.
Well, if you click on any of the purchase links they offer for the expansion, you'll get taken to a preorder page. None of these sites actually indicate any reason for the delay. EBGames actually silently updated the shipping date without notifying any of the people who preordered.
I can completely understand that a hurricane can disrupt shipping, and accept that. I really, really wish that Square-Enix and the various stores that are offering pre-orders would actually tell us about this instead of requiring people to call up store managers to find out what's up.
I'm sure lots of things are still delayed from the aftermath of the hurricane. It's completely understandable. But it's really infuriating when companies won't just tell you what's going on and instead act as if things are proceeding exactly as planned.
< IBMcode
< IBMcode
< IBMcode
===
> SCOliarscode
> SCOliarscode
> SCOliarscode
> SCOliarscode
Either that, or nedit couldn't open such a large file and wound up with a (null) when it tried to malloc the entire SCO code base and IBM code base.
(Over-analysing jokes - it's not just for pendants any more!)
However, it's never displayed as an "Update Available" in the status bar like it's supposed to. If you double click on the "Update" area to make Firefox search for new updates now, it doesn't work either. In fact, the only way it does work is to go to Tools -> Extensions, specifically select my extension, and then choose "Update."
After that, it worked fine.
So... yes, it works. Sorta.
Secondly, the original document it was being compared with was scanned at a lower resolution, so the higher resolution wouldn't really offer anything.
The original idea was to test the assertion that "187th" printed from a Word document would look the same as "187th" in the original document. The fact that it does and that it so closely matches the rest of the document is suspicious, to say the least.
I'm also glad no one caught my goof yet: the original says "sugarcoat it. Bush wasn't". I accidently transcribed that to "sugarcoat it: Bush wasn't." Whoops.
Nothing's been adjusted - WYSIWYG doesn't quite live up to that promise. :)
You should be able to get the same results by loading that RTF into any copy of Word with ClearType enabled. (Although I just tested, and it didn't happen on this machine. *sigh*)
Zoom in closely on the 1 and look at the spots on the paper. The difference can easily be explained away if we assume that one of the random dots created during the scanning process wound up at the top of the 1.
It's just not really possible to make a really good comparison based on the scan of the original document - it's just blurry enough to make it impossible to really come up with what the font is.
However, the fact that the reproduction using Word comes so close is suspicious in and of itself. If it does use another font face, the font face is extremely similar to Times New Roman, and the margins are also practically identical. (Although it appears that maybe they were slightly wider and the font size slightly smaller - it's unclear.)
I posted this somewhere else, but just compare the original (note: mirrored on my site) with a scanned copy I made. The copy is simply a retyped version of the memo that I printed to a laser printer and then scanned using a sheet-feeding scanner - similar to a fax machine.
They look like they're identical, including the 187th part. The only thing my copy's missing is the dust and dirt on the paper.
I then scanned it back in and wound up with a document that looked surprisingly similar to the "original document." Specically, look at the "187th." It's practically identical.
Oh, and for added fun, try this animation I created showing a copy in Word fading in with the PDF. Note that the PDF is ever so slightly tilted, so things don't line up quite correctly after the first line. But the animation makes it very clear that the two are very similar.
Anyway, to sum up:
- Original document (mirrored on my site)
- Scanned copy I made - this is not an original, it is a copy I typed in Word, printed, and scanned back in to a PDF
Very supicious.Oh, and I know he only needs the GTK2 libraries, but that's still a huge chunk of code to download and install to use for just one program.
Do you seriously need GTK+ support to get decent fonts? That's kinda - too bad. I thought the GTK2 stuff only made Firefox/Mozilla support styling the controls based on the current GTK theme, I didn't know it did anything with the fonts.
Better than the one where he suggests that students stop sending "LOL" in e-mails and instead send a video of themselves laughing.
Because a 2MB MPG is expressive enough to justify sending it instead of 3 bytes of text.
(Of course, I think video e-mail is worthless anyway, because half the point of e-mail is that it's like sending a letter, so it can be proof-read mistakes corrected. Much harder to do that with a video. Now a video-phone like system would be quasi-useful, but video e-mail?)
But then SCO would be obligated to kill Microsoft, so they wouldn't be going after IBM anyway.
Of course, the way I usually deal with the CLASSPATH is make ant deal with the CLASSPATH and then just package everything into a mega-JAR and distribute that.
Not the best solution, granted, but...
It is, of course, slower - but it's like only 90% as fast as C code, as opposed to 50% as fast that some people seem to believe.
And anyone telling you that HotSpot will magically make Java faster than C is, of course, wrong. Thanks to Java's need for allocating many things, repeatedly, doing the same thing in Java as you do in C often requires many little memory allocations, and those still require extra processing time. The simple overhead of the language itself slows it down, no matter how wonderful HotSpot is.
Unless, of course, you have many instances when you need to count from 1 to 10000. Java with HotSpot can do for (i=0;i<10000;i++) { } on par with C.
Not to mention that Java will always start with a base heap size of 2MB. Combined with the 4MB to store the base of the system, starting Java means that you will always lose 6MB of system memory allocated away to Java, not matter what the program does.
If the heap size ever grows, it will never be shrunk again. (In other words, if your app takes 64MB at some point, but then shrinks back to 4MB, the Java VM will still have 64MB allocated to it that it will never release back to the system.)
But don't take my word. Try it out for yourself. Compile that program and run it, and watch your memory usage.