Among the most jaw dropping experiences *I* have had at least. What it is? Oh, just a rotating 3D tunnel effect in 256 bytes without Direct3D, OpenGL or similar graphics engines.:) It's generated on the fly as well, which makes it actually fit the "generated art" topic IMHO.
Assembler source for compilation in NASM included.
I think they're actually *forced* to do that, since I don't think they're allowed to take rocket launchers with them without a really good reason.
Real Superman having a more impressive comeback
on
Keanu Reeves as Superman
·
· Score: 5, Informative
In recent news, for those of you who missed it... (shortened - please excuse any bad english since I'm translating from Swedish.. perhaps anyone has a good link?)
Christopher Reeve Defeating His Paralysis
"For the first time since his spinal paralysis, Christopher Reeve can move fingers and toes. This makes his doctors believe that he might be able to walk again.
- No one that have been affected by such severe injuries have regained motion and feeling in the way Chris has, said doctor John McDonald at Washington University of Science.
Breathes On His Own
In the last months, Christopher Reeve's health has dramatically increased. Besides his motion and feeling abilities, he can breathe on his own for one and a half hour. He is grateful of the progress and says the best thing is that he can feel the hugs from his wife Dana and his three children.
- To feel the smallest touch is truly a gift, he says in the coming issue of People Weekly.
Reeve also mentions that he can feel needle stings over large parts of his body, make difference between warm and cold and sharp and blunt.
But the treatment hasn't been free. His muscle stimulation and special training has cost the 49 year old movie star more than 2,5 million per year (not sure if that's 2,5 million swedish crowns or USD). The costs has partly been covered by his insurance and partly by collections made by his friends in Hollywood."
So, to me, Superman will still be the only super man to me, especially after reading this.
"As part of Longhorn, Allchin said customers can expect to see new features for intelligent auto configuration, such as BIOSes and firmware that can be "automatically updated in a seamless way." Also, Allchin said Longhorn will include new functionality for server resiliency, such as self-healing characteristics, a more componentized architecture, and additional monitoring services with filters that can "dynamically" flow out to servers. "
Why not ask an AI (Chatterbox Challenge 2001 & 2002 Winner) if it thinks the AI research has come to a level that it's good enough to control a computer? I mean, who's better to answer the question than an AI?
*conversation below*
Me: What do you think about artificial intelligence? Talk-Bot: I think you're asking the wrong person. Me: I thought you were the best person to ask. Talk-Bot: It amazes me sometimes what some people think. Me: Would you be able to control a computer, like the brain control my body? Talk-Bot: I could but that doesn't mean I would.
After carefully analyzing the answers from an artificial intelligence, I have come to the conclusion that AI's aren't ready to control computers and their software just yet. Perhaps not because they aren't advanced enough, but because they don't "feel like it". This is of course calming news for system administrators and the likes.
lol.. Yes, I find their music good to code to as well.:) I should really listen more to them since I tend to forget about the station.:-P And donate too.
Yup, according to the author, Slashdot would probably be among the "obsolete" because of its vast amount of markup errors.
I wonder where he draws the line? Is a page obsolete when an image is misaligned 20 pixels? Is a page obsolete when a DIV layer fails to render at the proper position?
I dunno - all I can say is that far more than 99.9% of the sites today render perfectly fine for me.:) You'd think that "obsolete" is "barely readable pages"...
I wonder why... Isn't Mozilla ported to everything yet? Heck, it's even more stable and has more features then Netscape 4.x by now. It's also equally easy to use, especially with the "standard" UI. It's bloody identical to NN4 in common usage and there's a loooong list of ports at mozilla.org.
XHTML+CSS solves most rendering issues and I'd just ask NN4 users why they don't upgrade for free? It's not like they have to pay licensing costs, even for corporate use.
Funny that when you think about it. Browsers are one of the few programs a some people refuse to upgrade. Browsers are also one of the few programs that's for free, regardless of platform or OS you use.
A sign that you're following a non-standard is that there are several "standards" to choose from. The W3C only has one standard, and if you notice "another", it's either an IE pitfall or something else.
Never "address" bugs on your own, since that's almost certainly sure to cause problems in another, forcing you to make those awful "browser checks". I've seen browser checks being a page long of Javascript code identifying everything between IE 2.0 and some obscure Unix variant. If a bug is causing your page to render incorrectly, don't write the page exactly the way you intended to. Make a compromise. Check in the next version of the browser if the bug is resolved. When are you so forced to create an exact represantation of a site that no compromises can be made? Because your boss says so? Why not just tell him/her that a bug in the browser is causing it to not render and give a constructive design workaround? That will probably earn you more respect as a web designer than a page that stop working in future versions and/or specific browsers.
Netscape 4.7 does not require quotes around 'field' tags like width or height. Netscape 6.0 can do unusual things if they are not there.
The W3C standard says that ALL attributes are required to have quotes. A browser could refuse to render any element with no attribute quotes and still be as compliant as before, since the behavior is undefined. If you followed the standard in 1994, the problem would never have occured in any browser. Since, what you fail to mention, is that both Netscape 4.7 and 6.0 render the page properly with quotes. Why risk making it fail then by leaving them out? This is about the same error as a programmer not initializing a bit of dynamically allocated memory and then writing in it. Might work, might not. The behavior is undefined and with the proper education, a programmer would have learnt to not make the mistake.
Now that everyone is trying (or at least saying they are) getting on the w3 bandwagon. These little 'faults' are starting to cause errors.
The problem is, no one said that "writing the pages this way will probably make them work in the future". However, I'd like to see a page written using proper HTML + CSS and use no deprecated tags (like FONT) to go bad in the next version of IE or Netscape/Mozilla.
So what if the faults are causing errors? A design fault causing a fault in rendering is fully logical to me, and I understand the browser designers who're starting to have troubles rendering according to their previous non-standards as features are added to *follow* the standard. Soon you'll have a big mix of standards and non-standards and at least I would be very tempted to just throw out the shit and attempt to follow standards better in the future. Something Microsoft partially did in IE 6 (they requirery a proper DOCTYPE to enable compliance mode -- probably too afraid of doing too drastic things) and something the Mozilla group definetily did in their browser.
Just follow the standards and your pages should look very nice in Netscape 8 and Internet Explorer 7. Start by learning about the DOM tree and forget everything you ever "learnt" about document.all. Use getElementById("id") instead of document.all.id. As a bonus, by following DOM and skipping deprectated tags like FONT, etc, while using CSS with em values and the likes, you'll automatically get the benefit from getting pretty much a cross-browser page, since the CSS rules have very strict rendering rules. *And* a page that looks good in the future.
If more web designers got education (as in all most other sorts of work -- what's so special about web designers needing no education anyway?), things would of course look better today.
I wonder what would happen if there was an active RIAA back then. Ban radio tranmissions since they're in violation of the DMCA, as they can be used to circumvent copy protection!
Slashdot Mirror
No. :-)
You forgot one:
1 post crying for mirrors to the screenshots - this one!
Aaaaaah!!!
What do you think of the robot's findings?
- They're more significant than I expected.
- They're a disappointment.
- They're about what I expected.
- None of the above.
Hmm... I wonder who would vote for #1 there.
And of course the poll sucks since it's missing vital choices:
- Since CowboyNeal already got the loot, who cares?
- I'm blind and deaf, you insensitive clod.
Yes, USA is getting dangerously close to becoming a police state. The "War Against Terror" has sped up this process dramatically, it seems.
The 256 byte demo called "Tube" (Windows) from 256b -- a site for 256 byte intros.
:) It's generated on the fly as well, which makes it actually fit the "generated art" topic IMHO.
;)
Among the most jaw dropping experiences *I* have had at least. What it is? Oh, just a rotating 3D tunnel effect in 256 bytes without Direct3D, OpenGL or similar graphics engines.
Assembler source for compilation in NASM included.
As some one said: "porn for coders".
LOL
:)
I suppose some of you *cough*the moderators*cough* didn't get it?
... jr pbhyq whfg nf jryy fvzcyl hfr EBG Guvegrra gura? :)
I think they're actually *forced* to do that, since I don't think they're allowed to take rocket launchers with them without a really good reason.
In recent news, for those of you who missed it...
(shortened - please excuse any bad english since I'm translating from Swedish.. perhaps anyone has a good link?)
Christopher Reeve Defeating His Paralysis
"For the first time since his spinal paralysis, Christopher Reeve can move fingers and toes. This makes his doctors believe that he might be able to walk again.
- No one that have been affected by such severe injuries have regained motion and feeling in the way Chris has, said doctor John McDonald at Washington University of Science.
Breathes On His Own
In the last months, Christopher Reeve's health has dramatically increased. Besides his motion and feeling abilities, he can breathe on his own for one and a half hour. He is grateful of the progress and says the best thing is that he can feel the hugs from his wife Dana and his three children.
- To feel the smallest touch is truly a gift, he says in the coming issue of People Weekly.
Reeve also mentions that he can feel needle stings over large parts of his body, make difference between warm and cold and sharp and blunt.
But the treatment hasn't been free. His muscle stimulation and special training has cost the 49 year old movie star more than 2,5 million per year (not sure if that's 2,5 million swedish crowns or USD). The costs has partly been covered by his insurance and partly by collections made by his friends in Hollywood."
So, to me, Superman will still be the only super man to me, especially after reading this.
Just in:
"As part of Longhorn, Allchin said customers can expect to see new features for intelligent auto configuration, such as BIOSes and firmware that can be "automatically updated in a seamless way." Also, Allchin said Longhorn will include new functionality for server resiliency, such as self-healing characteristics, a more componentized architecture, and additional monitoring services with filters that can "dynamically" flow out to servers. "
Right on target there, Microsoft!
ITEPL? You need to get some sleep!
Why not ask an AI (Chatterbox Challenge 2001 & 2002 Winner) if it thinks the AI research has come to a level that it's good enough to control a computer? I mean, who's better to answer the question than an AI?
*conversation below*
Me: What do you think about artificial intelligence?
Talk-Bot: I think you're asking the wrong person.
Me: I thought you were the best person to ask.
Talk-Bot: It amazes me sometimes what some people think.
Me: Would you be able to control a computer, like the brain control my body?
Talk-Bot: I could but that doesn't mean I would.
After carefully analyzing the answers from an artificial intelligence, I have come to the conclusion that AI's aren't ready to control computers and their software just yet. Perhaps not because they aren't advanced enough, but because they don't "feel like it". This is of course calming news for system administrators and the likes.
Funny - the time to type www.mozilla.org and look is faster than typing that text. :)
Huh? What's this all about? :)
Umm... which standard says this, exactly?
The current HTML standard - XHTML.
There is a requirement there.
lol.. Yes, I find their music good to code to as well. :) I should really listen more to them since I tend to forget about the station. :-P And donate too.
all I can say is that far more than 99.9% of the sites today render perfectly fine for me
:)
lol
Something went wrong there but I'm sure you know what I mean.
Yup, according to the author, Slashdot would probably be among the "obsolete" because of its vast amount of markup errors.
:) You'd think that "obsolete" is "barely readable pages"...
I wonder where he draws the line? Is a page obsolete when an image is misaligned 20 pixels? Is a page obsolete when a DIV layer fails to render at the proper position?
I dunno - all I can say is that far more than 99.9% of the sites today render perfectly fine for me.
NN4 will be around for a while,
I wonder why... Isn't Mozilla ported to everything yet? Heck, it's even more stable and has more features then Netscape 4.x by now. It's also equally easy to use, especially with the "standard" UI. It's bloody identical to NN4 in common usage and there's a loooong list of ports at mozilla.org.
XHTML+CSS solves most rendering issues and I'd just ask NN4 users why they don't upgrade for free? It's not like they have to pay licensing costs, even for corporate use.
Funny that when you think about it. Browsers are one of the few programs a some people refuse to upgrade. Browsers are also one of the few programs that's for free, regardless of platform or OS you use.
A sign that you're following a non-standard is that there are several "standards" to choose from. The W3C only has one standard, and if you notice "another", it's either an IE pitfall or something else.
Never "address" bugs on your own, since that's almost certainly sure to cause problems in another, forcing you to make those awful "browser checks". I've seen browser checks being a page long of Javascript code identifying everything between IE 2.0 and some obscure Unix variant. If a bug is causing your page to render incorrectly, don't write the page exactly the way you intended to. Make a compromise. Check in the next version of the browser if the bug is resolved. When are you so forced to create an exact represantation of a site that no compromises can be made? Because your boss says so? Why not just tell him/her that a bug in the browser is causing it to not render and give a constructive design workaround? That will probably earn you more respect as a web designer than a page that stop working in future versions and/or specific browsers.
Netscape 4.7 does not require quotes around 'field' tags like width or height.
Netscape 6.0 can do unusual things if they are not there.
The W3C standard says that ALL attributes are required to have quotes. A browser could refuse to render any element with no attribute quotes and still be as compliant as before, since the behavior is undefined. If you followed the standard in 1994, the problem would never have occured in any browser. Since, what you fail to mention, is that both Netscape 4.7 and 6.0 render the page properly with quotes. Why risk making it fail then by leaving them out? This is about the same error as a programmer not initializing a bit of dynamically allocated memory and then writing in it. Might work, might not. The behavior is undefined and with the proper education, a programmer would have learnt to not make the mistake.
Now that everyone is trying (or at least saying they are) getting on the w3 bandwagon. These little 'faults' are starting to cause errors.
The problem is, no one said that "writing the pages this way will probably make them work in the future". However, I'd like to see a page written using proper HTML + CSS and use no deprecated tags (like FONT) to go bad in the next version of IE or Netscape/Mozilla.
So what if the faults are causing errors? A design fault causing a fault in rendering is fully logical to me, and I understand the browser designers who're starting to have troubles rendering according to their previous non-standards as features are added to *follow* the standard. Soon you'll have a big mix of standards and non-standards and at least I would be very tempted to just throw out the shit and attempt to follow standards better in the future. Something Microsoft partially did in IE 6 (they requirery a proper DOCTYPE to enable compliance mode -- probably too afraid of doing too drastic things) and something the Mozilla group definetily did in their browser.
Just follow the standards and your pages should look very nice in Netscape 8 and Internet Explorer 7. Start by learning about the DOM tree and forget everything you ever "learnt" about document.all. Use getElementById("id") instead of document.all.id. As a bonus, by following DOM and skipping deprectated tags like FONT, etc, while using CSS with em values and the likes, you'll automatically get the benefit from getting pretty much a cross-browser page, since the CSS rules have very strict rendering rules. *And* a page that looks good in the future.
If more web designers got education (as in all most other sorts of work -- what's so special about web designers needing no education anyway?), things would of course look better today.
Aahh... I see. :-P :-D
Well, all credit to the Nectarine then!
I wonder what would happen if there was an active RIAA back then. Ban radio tranmissions since they're in violation of the DMCA, as they can be used to circumvent copy protection!
Amiga isn't dead