It would be really nice if we could talk about new tech without someone bringing up irrelevant considerations.
Bingo. I'm just waiting for someone to bring up the inevitable "what if there's an accident and the pellets get ruptured - there's the possibility of an explosion", while completely ignoring the fact that gasoline vapours are just as (perhaps even more) dangerous.
In the right hands, split screen can be a powerful tool, able to weave together two (or even more) seemingly disparate scenes into a cohesive whole that gives the viewer a sense of understanding of the story that can rarely be done any other way.
Or it can be an annoying gimmick that makes the viewer say "fuck, why do they have everybody talking at once?!?! I can only follow one of the conversations." When done this way, the viewer is annoyed because *at best* they miss 1/2 the dialogue, and are wondering if it's needed for the story. (At worst, the viewer missed *all* of the conversation because they're too busy trying to pay attention to both.)
Hulk is a perfect example of the latter. The split screen effects were *USELESS*. They were used *way* too frequently. They did not bring anything together, they looked like they were just put there to make it more "comic-book like".. - you know what? I *ALREADY KNOW* that you lifted this from a comic book, stop beating me over the head with it! Did they think that people would pay money to see it over and over in order to catch all the dialogue?
His response is basically "I can't answer that question. Ask another one."
Yes, how does that contradict what I said?
What I said was - he doesn't know enough about how a bot would answer, so he answers how he thinks it *wouldn't* answer. However it turns out (exactly as I said, and you repeated) that his answer is exactly what one would expect from a bot.
Note I didn't say that *YOU* don't know how a bot would answer, but how *HE* doesn't (there is a difference, you know.)
jmstriegel is supposedly trying to act human, yet his answers are exactly like a bot.
I mean, how hard can it be to show that you understand the question?
Actually, it looks to me like jmstriegel is trying hard to answer how he thinks a bot wouldn't respond. He knows he's being tested, and he responds with what he thinks will differentiate him from a bot.
If you didn't know you were being tested, and were asked that question, would *you* answer with a vague, nonsensical response? Probably not.
Which (I think) is why bots are so easy to spot - the designers come up with things that they think are good, but that real people would never say.
Truncating varchars is handy for webforms... you don't want to reject the data..
Yes, I do. That's why I set the length in the first place. If I wanted to truncate the data, I'd tell the DB to do that.
if you REALLY need the logic to reject things like blank inputs in web forms then you should be doing that in your application logic anyway
This is the problem with MySQL's cheerleaders - they believe that the app designer should re-invent the wheel, rather than expecting the DB to do the stuff that it's supposed to do.
Why on earth should I have to write extra code to check each input field, when I should just be able to send the results to the DB, and return the error message to the client if it fails?
just trying to relay the idea that in the context that mysql is usually used, these small quirks don't have a large impact.
The only reason that people believe that they don't have a large impact is because they don't actually understand the *reasons* for the correct behaviour. The attitude is "well, I'm a programmer, so I'll just program around the problems", rather than expecting the DB to handle it (like it's supposed to.)
However if your a small isp with little to no support staff mysql is the easiest to install and configure for average home users and small business on a server farm.
Umm, no.
If you belive this, then you're never really used it, because you don't know enough about it.
ISPs use it because their customers want it. Period.
Re:I tried plucker, and was sorely disappointed.
on
All About Geocaching?
·
· Score: 1
there are literally THOUSANDS of Geocachers who prefer to use Plucker for this
Uh, yeah. Then you'll have no problem pointing me to the place where this was discussed by those THOUSANDS, right?
And as the old saying goes, "Eat shit, 50 billion flies can't be wrong!"
the output file from the various Geocaching sites is XML
Umm, no, the output from Geocaching.com is HTML, not XML.
What did you find "useless" about it?
Besides the fact that Plucker's interface (on the palm) blows large, stinky goats, I hated having to edit the config file in order to tell it which caches I wanted (which meant visiting the website and selecting the cache pages) then dealing with the necessary levels of 'recursion' in order to get the correct amount of information, without Plucker attempting to download the entire internet.
What, exactly, do you have with a tool (like Geotoad) that's designed to do a specific job, and which does it well?
"Burger Time" is not a genre of game, such as an FPS or the like.
Irrelevant. The only reason that "FPS" is considered a genre is because there are so many of them. They're all the same. If you've played one, you've played them all. The only thing that might separate them is the storyline - and as there is no story to "Burgertime" (despite your claims otherwise) for all intents and purposes, the issues are the same.
Writing your own code is writing your own code. Period.
a clone with the same concept, similar graphics and storyline, and the same mechanics would probably be found infringing if tested in court.
Nice straw man. Please show me where I said anything about copyright infringement.
Fudd's, ethically, shouldn't have linked to his site without crediting
As this is pretty much what I said, I find it amazing that you think I'm "amazingly incorrect".
he did write a Burgertime clone, was he the original Burgertime creator? Does he have a notice posted giving the original creators of Burgertime credit? Nope.
Yes, because as we all know, when you write something yourself that is similar to an existing work, you must always give credit to the original.
That's why Unreal, CS, and all other non-ID created FPS games provide credit to ID software, right? And why the splash screens for MS Word and Wordperfect provide credit to the authors of Wordstar. And why all RTS games provide credit to Bullfrog for inventing Populous.
Fuddruckers LINKED to it. They did not do anything wrong!
*BZZT*, WRONG.
They did not "LINK" to it - they embedded it in their site. There is a *HUGE* difference between the two.
when sites like slashdot and fark link to tons of sites, should they be paying bandwidth to every site they link?
There is a difference between saying "there is a clever game on someone else's website at this address:", and saying "look at our clever game".
There is a difference between driving traffic to someone else's site, and presenting their content as your own. It's too bad you have such a clouded sense of right and wrong that you can't see that.
I don't think that's Diablo2 you're talking about.
Diablo2 never really had anywhere for them to hide - except for being able to see you before you could see them (off screen) - which wasn't always the case.
In DS, the monsters would be *hiding* in the bushes. As you walked along, you would get close to them, then they'd just "appear", along with some bushes rustling.
Diablo2 was a lot less linear than DS1 (if you can believe that!) and at least offered something to the "Monte Haul" type players.. in DS1 there was no way to get to a town to sell your loot - you had to wait until the end of the chapter. Which took away any of the fun that might have been there for item collecting.
The problem I had with DS1 was that playing it involved the following steps:
1. move forward a little bit along the predefined path until the hiding monsters run out at you. 2. kill the monsters. 3. goto 1.
If you strayed from this (say by moving forward too fast) you activate too many hiding monsters, and they kill you.
Why does *every* monster have to be hiding [in the bushes|behind a boulder|in a crevasse] waiting to ambush you?
The only reason I played DS1 to the end was because I couldn't believe that they'd actually make a game *that* boring - exactly the same pattern over and over, and I was hoping that things would change. I got to the final boss (a dragon, IIRC) I couldn't believe that the game was over.
Contrary to the lies you've been told, here's the scoop:
Some guys were unhappy with battle.net, so they reverse-engineered the protocol to write an emulator called bnetd, which they released under the GPL.
Blizzard didn't like it and sued them. The software authors tried to negotiate with them, but Blizzard wasn't having any.
Blizzard then filed a bogus lawsuit, using provably false assertions to make the authors look like pirates. Among the lies that they told the court was that bnetd included Blizzard copyrighted code, because some bugs operated the same (of course, this is provably false because the authors of bnetd had no way to *get* the battle.net code, and if it *really* was stolen and included in bnetd, they can just *LOOK AT THE DAMN SOURCE*, rather than having to conjure up some bullshit "the bugs are so similar that the only way they could have done it was by stealing our server code" argument.)
Unfortunately, the judge bought the Blizzard crap hook, line, and sinker, and ruled against the bnetd guys. Blizzard already won.
Anyone who's ever played a Blizzard game online knows how easy it is to congregate in a private channel and create a private, password-protected game.
And anyone who's ever played a Blizzard garm at the time that bnetd was being developed knows how easy it is to *NOT BE ABLE TO PLAY AT ALL* because the fscking servers weren't available.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be really nice if we could talk about new tech without someone bringing up irrelevant considerations.
Bingo. I'm just waiting for someone to bring up the inevitable "what if there's an accident and the pellets get ruptured - there's the possibility of an explosion", while completely ignoring the fact that gasoline vapours are just as (perhaps even more) dangerous.
As long as you're using the "royal we", then yes, you didn't get the joke. :o)
Hint: he's speaking literally. Think about it a little bit.
As others have said, Hulk was a steaming pile.
But as they haven't said, here's why:
In the right hands, split screen can be a powerful tool, able to weave together two (or even more) seemingly disparate scenes into a cohesive whole that gives the viewer a sense of understanding of the story that can rarely be done any other way.
Or it can be an annoying gimmick that makes the viewer say "fuck, why do they have everybody talking at once?!?! I can only follow one of the conversations." When done this way, the viewer is annoyed because *at best* they miss 1/2 the dialogue, and are wondering if it's needed for the story. (At worst, the viewer missed *all* of the conversation because they're too busy trying to pay attention to both.)
Hulk is a perfect example of the latter. The split screen effects were *USELESS*. They were used *way* too frequently. They did not bring anything together, they looked like they were just put there to make it more "comic-book like".. - you know what? I *ALREADY KNOW* that you lifted this from a comic book, stop beating me over the head with it! Did they think that people would pay money to see it over and over in order to catch all the dialogue?
Hulk sucked. It was just annoying to watch.
From the slashcode page:
this might bring savings of 10GB of bandwidth PER DAY, while making each reload a little faster for everyone
but why HTML 4 as opposed to XHTML 1 Strict?
Here is a good list of reasons why HTML4 is preferable to XHTML.
Slashdot going to CSS? Has hell frozen over!? Windows gone GPL!? What's next?
I'd answer, but I'm too busy trying to catch these damn flying pigs!
I was disappointed to see GigaByte didn't use MegaByte to make some subcomponent.
:o)
Maybe he was too busy trying to take over Mainframe?
His response is basically "I can't answer that question. Ask another one."
Yes, how does that contradict what I said?
What I said was - he doesn't know enough about how a bot would answer, so he answers how he thinks it *wouldn't* answer. However it turns out (exactly as I said, and you repeated) that his answer is exactly what one would expect from a bot.
Note I didn't say that *YOU* don't know how a bot would answer, but how *HE* doesn't (there is a difference, you know.)
You seem to be contradicting your own argument.
No, you are not understanding what I'm writing.
jmstriegel is supposedly trying to act human, yet his answers are exactly like a bot.
I mean, how hard can it be to show that you understand the question?
Actually, it looks to me like jmstriegel is trying hard to answer how he thinks a bot wouldn't respond. He knows he's being tested, and he responds with what he thinks will differentiate him from a bot.
If you didn't know you were being tested, and were asked that question, would *you* answer with a vague, nonsensical response? Probably not.
Which (I think) is why bots are so easy to spot - the designers come up with things that they think are good, but that real people would never say.
No, I'd believe they're a politician.
:o)
Either way, there'd be no real intelligence.
Truncating varchars is handy for webforms... you don't want to reject the data..
Yes, I do. That's why I set the length in the first place. If I wanted to truncate the data, I'd tell the DB to do that.
if you REALLY need the logic to reject things like blank inputs in web forms then you should be doing that in your application logic anyway
This is the problem with MySQL's cheerleaders - they believe that the app designer should re-invent the wheel, rather than expecting the DB to do the stuff that it's supposed to do.
Why on earth should I have to write extra code to check each input field, when I should just be able to send the results to the DB, and return the error message to the client if it fails?
just trying to relay the idea that in the context that mysql is usually used, these small quirks don't have a large impact.
The only reason that people believe that they don't have a large impact is because they don't actually understand the *reasons* for the correct behaviour. The attitude is "well, I'm a programmer, so I'll just program around the problems", rather than expecting the DB to handle it (like it's supposed to.)
Its just included in the default user account which is difficult if not impossible with posgresql unless you manually install it for each account.
Complete, utter bullshit.
PostgreSQL does *NOT* need to be "manually installed" for each user any more than MySQL does.
there are a ton of php and perl scripts and tools for users to use.
This is the reason why MySQL is more popular for ISPs - because there is a bunch of PHP code that runs only on it.
Its what ISP's prefer.
No, it's what ISPs offer. And they offer it because people ask for it.
However if your a small isp with little to no support staff mysql is the easiest to install and configure for average home users and small business on a server farm.
Umm, no.
If you belive this, then you're never really used it, because you don't know enough about it.
ISPs use it because their customers want it. Period.
there are literally THOUSANDS of Geocachers who prefer to use Plucker for this
Uh, yeah. Then you'll have no problem pointing me to the place where this was discussed by those THOUSANDS, right?
And as the old saying goes, "Eat shit, 50 billion flies can't be wrong!"
the output file from the various Geocaching sites is XML
Umm, no, the output from Geocaching.com is HTML, not XML.
What did you find "useless" about it?
Besides the fact that Plucker's interface (on the palm) blows large, stinky goats, I hated having to edit the config file in order to tell it which caches I wanted (which meant visiting the website and selecting the cache pages) then dealing with the necessary levels of 'recursion' in order to get the correct amount of information, without Plucker attempting to download the entire internet.
What, exactly, do you have with a tool (like Geotoad) that's designed to do a specific job, and which does it well?
"Burger Time" is not a genre of game, such as an FPS or the like.
Irrelevant. The only reason that "FPS" is considered a genre is because there are so many of them. They're all the same. If you've played one, you've played them all. The only thing that might separate them is the storyline - and as there is no story to "Burgertime" (despite your claims otherwise) for all intents and purposes, the issues are the same.
Writing your own code is writing your own code. Period.
a clone with the same concept, similar graphics and storyline, and the same mechanics would probably be found infringing if tested in court.
Nice straw man. Please show me where I said anything about copyright infringement.
Fudd's, ethically, shouldn't have linked to his site without crediting
As this is pretty much what I said, I find it amazing that you think I'm "amazingly incorrect".
like you maybe. I personally don't break into fits of rage at the slightest provokation.
/me throws chair
:o)
You F*CKING c*cksuker!! Where do you get off insulting me like that!?!?!?!
I'm Gonna kick your F*cking ASS!!!!!
(note: I hope you notice you're on my friends list
he did write a Burgertime clone, was he the original Burgertime creator? Does he have a notice posted giving the original creators of Burgertime credit? Nope.
Yes, because as we all know, when you write something yourself that is similar to an existing work, you must always give credit to the original.
That's why Unreal, CS, and all other non-ID created FPS games provide credit to ID software, right? And why the splash screens for MS Word and Wordperfect provide credit to the authors of Wordstar. And why all RTS games provide credit to Bullfrog for inventing Populous.
Fuddruckers LINKED to it. They did not do anything wrong!
*BZZT*, WRONG.
They did not "LINK" to it - they embedded it in their site. There is a *HUGE* difference between the two.
when sites like slashdot and fark link to tons of sites, should they be paying bandwidth to every site they link?
There is a difference between saying "there is a clever game on someone else's website at this address:", and saying "look at our clever game".
There is a difference between driving traffic to someone else's site, and presenting their content as your own. It's too bad you have such a clouded sense of right and wrong that you can't see that.
I found plucker to be nearly useless for geocaching.. at best, it was way too much trouble to be worth it.
I found Geotoad and Cachemate are a much saner way to go.
Cachemate isn't free (or Free), but if you're dropping a couple hundred (at a minimum) for a GPS+PDA, the extra $10 is definitely worth it.
Dude, check out the publisher.
If you're lamenting MS not publishing Linux software, I bet you're also saddened that Fox doesn't produce any french-language sitcoms.
I don't think that's Diablo2 you're talking about.
Diablo2 never really had anywhere for them to hide - except for being able to see you before you could see them (off screen) - which wasn't always the case.
In DS, the monsters would be *hiding* in the bushes. As you walked along, you would get close to them, then they'd just "appear", along with some bushes rustling.
Diablo2 was a lot less linear than DS1 (if you can believe that!) and at least offered something to the "Monte Haul" type players.. in DS1 there was no way to get to a town to sell your loot - you had to wait until the end of the chapter. Which took away any of the fun that might have been there for item collecting.
The problem I had with DS1 was that playing it involved the following steps:
1. move forward a little bit along the predefined path until the hiding monsters run out at you.
2. kill the monsters.
3. goto 1.
If you strayed from this (say by moving forward too fast) you activate too many hiding monsters, and they kill you.
Why does *every* monster have to be hiding [in the bushes|behind a boulder|in a crevasse] waiting to ambush you?
The only reason I played DS1 to the end was because I couldn't believe that they'd actually make a game *that* boring - exactly the same pattern over and over, and I was hoping that things would change. I got to the final boss (a dragon, IIRC) I couldn't believe that the game was over.
Contrary to the lies you've been told, here's the scoop:
Some guys were unhappy with battle.net, so they reverse-engineered the protocol to write an emulator called bnetd, which they released under the GPL.
Blizzard didn't like it and sued them. The software authors tried to negotiate with them, but Blizzard wasn't having any.
Blizzard then filed a bogus lawsuit, using provably false assertions to make the authors look like pirates. Among the lies that they told the court was that bnetd included Blizzard copyrighted code, because some bugs operated the same (of course, this is provably false because the authors of bnetd had no way to *get* the battle.net code, and if it *really* was stolen and included in bnetd, they can just *LOOK AT THE DAMN SOURCE*, rather than having to conjure up some bullshit "the bugs are so similar that the only way they could have done it was by stealing our server code" argument.)
Unfortunately, the judge bought the Blizzard crap hook, line, and sinker, and ruled against the bnetd guys. Blizzard already won.
Are you that stupid on purpose?
but there wasn't any legitimate use for bnetd besides "Bypassing Blizzard's CD-Key protection so that you could play your pirated Diablo 2 online".
Bullshit.
There was *NO* need, in any way, shape, or form, to have bnetd in order to play a pirated copy of Diablo2 online.
at all.
Diablo2 allowed anyone to play anyone else by direct connection. You didn't need bnetd to do it.
Anyone who's ever played a Blizzard game online knows how easy it is to congregate in a private channel and create a private, password-protected game.
And anyone who's ever played a Blizzard garm at the time that bnetd was being developed knows how easy it is to *NOT BE ABLE TO PLAY AT ALL* because the fscking servers weren't available.
Whoever modded you insightful is an idiot.