Neverwinter Nights is pretty fun. It's storyline is very well developed, and the plot twists tend to be quite interesting. The storelines of most games generally tend to be on the cheesy side, as well as predictable. Neverwinter Nights does a good enough job at making you not quite sure what will happen next, which is what makes a good book interesting, and this is just taken a step further e.g. You are the main character, and instead of trying to visualize various things you can develop the story in a beautiful 3-d environment.
No I don't work for bioware:p I am just impressed with the game. It is very refreshing to play a game that has an interesting storyline and doesn't involve mindless busy work (e.g. Diablo, EverQuest, etc...). Back in the day most games, as I recall, were really quite fun. The developers had very little to work with, so there was no keeping you inticed with pretty graphics when you had 20x20 resolution Atari to deal with:p Most games now adays have very impressive graphics, I'll grant them that, but the game itself tends to get very old after the initial 'oooh, ahhhh' wears off:p
Neverwinter Nights is also multiplatform (including Linux) and powered by OpenGL;)
Well I watch CNN, and I often get annoyed by their obvious right-wing slants regarding Bush and the war. It hasn't been so bad lately, but it was just pathetic a few weeks ago. I think it would help if you actually watched the networks you're whining about instead of just plain whining about them.
For example, before they showed any of the peace protesters CNN would give a big long disclaimer about how "We know this will upset most of you, but we've decided to show it anyways," as they show a 10 second clip of some peace protesters, then they move on to "the people who support our troops" (yes that is a direct quote -- as though having an issue with policy means having an issue with the troops) and give a big long interview with some anti-anti-war protesters.
"If you feel the need to call it "whining," then by all means."
"You're just upset FoxNews is crushing CNN and all other news outlets ratings-wise."
I am?
I actually find it quite logical. The vast majority of the country is in support of Bush and the war, so it only makes sense that a network strongly pushing those same sentiments would have high ratings. This is also the very reason why no network is particularly liberal, at least regarding the war effort or Bush, because when over 80% of your potential viewers are in support of Bush and the war effort it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to piss them off by having a liberal sentiment.
However if you feel the need to portray me as 'angry' for whatever reason that may be, then do what you need to do:p. Whatever floats your boat;) It might anger one who does not understand statistics (or has no life for that matter, to be worrying about the ratings of news networks lol), but not I:). I'm very liberal myself, but if I were running a news network, and millions upon millions of dollars were at stake, I'd more than likely have our station portray a very conservative pro-war sentiment (I'd like to say that I would stick to my views, but I am also a realist;) ).
Actually I've found it to be extremely bias towards support of the war and support of Bush. So if that is what you consider to be liberal, then FOX must be a facist hitler-wet-dream.
When the Minnesota Wild hockey team was created, a company who's brand was "Minnesota Wild" sued the hockey team for trademark infringment. The hockey team's defence was that the name of the hokey team was "Minnesota Wild National Hockey Team" (or something similar), so therefor it 'clearly' did not infringe on any trademarks...
A trademark must be defended. They have already stated that they are aware of many other software programs that use the name. If you have rights to a trademark you cannot say "Well I don't care about Joe infringing on my trademark, but I'm going to sue the hell out of Mike for doing so," you defend it or you lose it, simple as that. Regardless of the rights they may have had to the name, they admittedly never defended it.
Nobody said that user base expressing their opinions was immature. What was considered immature by some was the tactic of just randomly spamming anything and everyone even remotely related to the Mozilla project, and at times being insulting on top of it.
If slashdot told everyone to randomly spam anyone and everything related to the Oregon's government, then it would be immature. But, as the IBPhoenix project has done, they are simply asking people to complain to the people that have the power to do something about it.
As evilviper said, all you gotta do is copy it to your TrueType fonts directory and it works just fine. No messing with X configs or even restarting it.
If Microsoft had its way all games would be xbox exclusives. If Sony had its way, all games would be ps2 exclusives. etc.... So the fact that Microsoft would have Doom III be an xbox exclusive is fairly stupid.
Because their supposed reason behind hiding the list is so that their software can block the most websites, or the most websites accurately. If the list was public then other software developers could just impliment the list as well and their software would no longer be unique. So it is a trade secret. I don't necessarly agree with it, but that is the logic behind it.
And what if the terrorist's target happens to be where you're at? Or your friends, or family? Oh yeah, that's right. Only the 'other' guys get attacked by terrorists.
No, however the government should not have this kind of control. You're basically asking me if I'd rather be secretly detained by the government indefinitely, or attacked by a terrorist. Either way it is likely that I will not be seen again (be that I am dead, or secretly held). And being that I am a firm believing in the idea that 'it is better to die standing than live kneeling', I would choose the latter. Although either way I'm kinda fucked.
What if the FBI got a tip about a guy a few days before his attack killed or maimed the people you love.
What if they 'got a tip' about someone I loved and they were 'disappeared by' the government. To be secretly held, for reasons that are to remain unknown to the public, and for an indefinite amount of time.
Several of the 9/11 terrorists were under surveillance for suspected terrorist activity, that sure stopped them from completing their plans.
If our FBI and CIA did their god damn jobs that would not happen. Detaining people for an indefinite amount of time, and giving them secret trials is not included in the process. The simple act of paying attention is. The Israeli intelligence agency contacted our CIA months before the 9/11 attacks to inform us that they tracked suspected terrorists entering our country. Because the CIA never communicated that to the FBI, nothing was done about it. They didn't do their god damn jobs, and we all know how well that works out.
But I'm sure, as you're holding your dying mother in your arms and looking at your slaughtered friends all around you, you'll be thinking, "Well, at least the terrorist's rights weren't infringed upon. That would've really sucked if he was held for 2 months before they finally found the evidence that he was planning this attack."
You are working under the assumption that if someone was taken, then they were a terrorist. If a true terrorist was taken and held, of course I wouldn't shed a tear over that. However, how do you know what classifies one as a potential terrorist? When one can be secretly taken, held indefinitely, given a secret military tribunal, and sentenced from there; how are you, or anyone else to know what the reasons why? The information wasn't public. For all we know they could have simply been removed out of political convenience. After all the shit we've done in the past half-century, 'take my word for it' is not very reassuring to me.
Overall nice work. However, the ugly bluish gray crap is just annoying, and the background effect on the tables does not display at all in IE, so I don't see the point in bothering the background-attachment: fixed, as even if that is replaced with a background of transparent PNGs it doesn't display correctly in IE anyways. However, at least you were willing to put your money where your mouth is.
Interestingly enough I ran across a bug in Mozilla's "overflow: auto" support while putting this page together. The unfortunate side-effect being that the scrollwheel on your mouse doesn't work to scroll the page in Mozilla. I was going to put together a workaround for that, but it appears you'd rather have it this way.
The Mozilla codemonkies should fix that bug. It's been around for quite a while. And you're right, there is no reason you should have to sit there and cater to buggy or non-standard compliant browsers. The Moz devs should do their job (e.g. get off their ass and fix the bug). In my opinion, a webmaster's responsibility is to ensure that they are spitting out standard compliant code, not to have to sit and find workarounds for bugs or non-standards compliance. So once you've done that much, in my book you're done. The rest of the job is up to the browser developers. It is unacceptable, in my opinion, to have to write browser specific code.
I don't think we are trying to define censorship here. The point was that it is ironic that those who claim to be so patriotic do not support the freedom of speech. That is not to say that they specifically do not support the first ammendment right to freedom of speech, but if their idea is to censor ideas that they do not agree with, then they do not support the idea of freedom of speech, if they don't support that ideal, then I quite frankly am unable to understand how they can call themselfs Americans.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/
Neverwinter Nights is pretty fun. It's storyline is very well developed, and the plot twists tend to be quite interesting. The storelines of most games generally tend to be on the cheesy side, as well as predictable. Neverwinter Nights does a good enough job at making you not quite sure what will happen next, which is what makes a good book interesting, and this is just taken a step further e.g. You are the main character, and instead of trying to visualize various things you can develop the story in a beautiful 3-d environment.
:p I am just impressed with the game. It is very refreshing to play a game that has an interesting storyline and doesn't involve mindless busy work (e.g. Diablo, EverQuest, etc...). Back in the day most games, as I recall, were really quite fun. The developers had very little to work with, so there was no keeping you inticed with pretty graphics when you had 20x20 resolution Atari to deal with :p Most games now adays have very impressive graphics, I'll grant them that, but the game itself tends to get very old after the initial 'oooh, ahhhh' wears off :p
;)
No I don't work for bioware
Neverwinter Nights is also multiplatform (including Linux) and powered by OpenGL
Well I watch CNN, and I often get annoyed by their obvious right-wing slants regarding Bush and the war. It hasn't been so bad lately, but it was just pathetic a few weeks ago. I think it would help if you actually watched the networks you're whining about instead of just plain whining about them.
For example, before they showed any of the peace protesters CNN would give a big long disclaimer about how "We know this will upset most of you, but we've decided to show it anyways," as they show a 10 second clip of some peace protesters, then they move on to "the people who support our troops" (yes that is a direct quote -- as though having an issue with policy means having an issue with the troops) and give a big long interview with some anti-anti-war protesters.
"If you feel the need to call it "whining," then by all means."
I call 'em as I see 'em.
http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/bugtraq030 3/122.html 0 4/98.html 0 3/347.html
;).
http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/bugtraq03
http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/bugtraq03
Not as pathetic as IE, although they are still unpatched and Mozilla Firebird(TM) does not feature them
"Most of Hollywood and the media is liberal"
;)
Well they aren't regarding the war effort at the moment. But I guess if it gives you something to whine about go for it
"You're just upset FoxNews is crushing CNN and all other news outlets ratings-wise."
:p. Whatever floats your boat ;) It might anger one who does not understand statistics (or has no life for that matter, to be worrying about the ratings of news networks lol), but not I :). I'm very liberal myself, but if I were running a news network, and millions upon millions of dollars were at stake, I'd more than likely have our station portray a very conservative pro-war sentiment (I'd like to say that I would stick to my views, but I am also a realist ;) ).
I am?
I actually find it quite logical. The vast majority of the country is in support of Bush and the war, so it only makes sense that a network strongly pushing those same sentiments would have high ratings. This is also the very reason why no network is particularly liberal, at least regarding the war effort or Bush, because when over 80% of your potential viewers are in support of Bush and the war effort it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to piss them off by having a liberal sentiment.
However if you feel the need to portray me as 'angry' for whatever reason that may be, then do what you need to do
Actually I've found it to be extremely bias towards support of the war and support of Bush. So if that is what you consider to be liberal, then FOX must be a facist hitler-wet-dream.
I don't watch FOX news, but if you're trying to say that CNN is liberal biased (in comparision maybe?) then holy shit...
When the Minnesota Wild hockey team was created, a company who's brand was "Minnesota Wild" sued the hockey team for trademark infringment. The hockey team's defence was that the name of the hokey team was "Minnesota Wild National Hockey Team" (or something similar), so therefor it 'clearly' did not infringe on any trademarks...
The hockey team won.
A trademark must be defended. They have already stated that they are aware of many other software programs that use the name. If you have rights to a trademark you cannot say "Well I don't care about Joe infringing on my trademark, but I'm going to sue the hell out of Mike for doing so," you defend it or you lose it, simple as that. Regardless of the rights they may have had to the name, they admittedly never defended it.
Nobody said that user base expressing their opinions was immature. What was considered immature by some was the tactic of just randomly spamming anything and everyone even remotely related to the Mozilla project, and at times being insulting on top of it.
If slashdot told everyone to randomly spam anyone and everything related to the Oregon's government, then it would be immature. But, as the IBPhoenix project has done, they are simply asking people to complain to the people that have the power to do something about it.
As evilviper said, all you gotta do is copy it to your TrueType fonts directory and it works just fine. No messing with X configs or even restarting it.
lol
"code that rewrites the offending morons websites like Opera did with MSN"
Care to elaberate?
what???
Looks like the mods don't understand the fine art of sarcasm :p
"How is this a troll?"
:p
Because you're an evil unpatriotic bastard
If Microsoft had its way all games would be xbox exclusives. If Sony had its way, all games would be ps2 exclusives. etc.... So the fact that Microsoft would have Doom III be an xbox exclusive is fairly stupid.
Because their supposed reason behind hiding the list is so that their software can block the most websites, or the most websites accurately. If the list was public then other software developers could just impliment the list as well and their software would no longer be unique. So it is a trade secret. I don't necessarly agree with it, but that is the logic behind it.
How much is it?
And what if the terrorist's target happens to be where you're at? Or your friends, or family? Oh yeah, that's right. Only the 'other' guys get attacked by terrorists.
No, however the government should not have this kind of control. You're basically asking me if I'd rather be secretly detained by the government indefinitely, or attacked by a terrorist. Either way it is likely that I will not be seen again (be that I am dead, or secretly held). And being that I am a firm believing in the idea that 'it is better to die standing than live kneeling', I would choose the latter. Although either way I'm kinda fucked.
What if the FBI got a tip about a guy a few days before his attack killed or maimed the people you love.
What if they 'got a tip' about someone I loved and they were 'disappeared by' the government. To be secretly held, for reasons that are to remain unknown to the public, and for an indefinite amount of time.
Several of the 9/11 terrorists were under surveillance for suspected terrorist activity, that sure stopped them from completing their plans.
If our FBI and CIA did their god damn jobs that would not happen. Detaining people for an indefinite amount of time, and giving them secret trials is not included in the process. The simple act of paying attention is. The Israeli intelligence agency contacted our CIA months before the 9/11 attacks to inform us that they tracked suspected terrorists entering our country. Because the CIA never communicated that to the FBI, nothing was done about it. They didn't do their god damn jobs, and we all know how well that works out.
But I'm sure, as you're holding your dying mother in your arms and looking at your slaughtered friends all around you, you'll be thinking, "Well, at least the terrorist's rights weren't infringed upon. That would've really sucked if he was held for 2 months before they finally found the evidence that he was planning this attack."
You are working under the assumption that if someone was taken, then they were a terrorist. If a true terrorist was taken and held, of course I wouldn't shed a tear over that. However, how do you know what classifies one as a potential terrorist? When one can be secretly taken, held indefinitely, given a secret military tribunal, and sentenced from there; how are you, or anyone else to know what the reasons why? The information wasn't public. For all we know they could have simply been removed out of political convenience. After all the shit we've done in the past half-century, 'take my word for it' is not very reassuring to me.
> It's quite similar to how you may not
> tape-record a conversation without my
> permission.
Very similar: that isn't true either.
In some states this is true.
http://www.opensecrets.org/ shows where conidates and parties are getting money. Which these days, sadly enough, is just as good as a voting record.
Overall nice work. However, the ugly bluish gray crap is just annoying, and the background effect on the tables does not display at all in IE, so I don't see the point in bothering the background-attachment: fixed, as even if that is replaced with a background of transparent PNGs it doesn't display correctly in IE anyways. However, at least you were willing to put your money where your mouth is.
Interestingly enough I ran across a bug in Mozilla's "overflow: auto" support while putting this page together. The unfortunate side-effect being that the scrollwheel on your mouse doesn't work to scroll the page in Mozilla. I was going to put together a workaround for that, but it appears you'd rather have it this way.
The Mozilla codemonkies should fix that bug. It's been around for quite a while. And you're right, there is no reason you should have to sit there and cater to buggy or non-standard compliant browsers. The Moz devs should do their job (e.g. get off their ass and fix the bug). In my opinion, a webmaster's responsibility is to ensure that they are spitting out standard compliant code, not to have to sit and find workarounds for bugs or non-standards compliance. So once you've done that much, in my book you're done. The rest of the job is up to the browser developers. It is unacceptable, in my opinion, to have to write browser specific code.
I don't think we are trying to define censorship here. The point was that it is ironic that those who claim to be so patriotic do not support the freedom of speech. That is not to say that they specifically do not support the first ammendment right to freedom of speech, but if their idea is to censor ideas that they do not agree with, then they do not support the idea of freedom of speech, if they don't support that ideal, then I quite frankly am unable to understand how they can call themselfs Americans.