Says it on the webstandards website, something about part of the test is to determine how the browser reacts to errors in the css. There's a standard for that too, apparently
I read that a while back, appears to be trollfood.
The more of those nested comments you read at the bottom, the more you wish you had never found the thread.
It wouldn't suprise me in the least if the author perpetrating the story is actually some nobody falsifying his identity.
Honestly a supposed author wrote the allegations, but they are completely foundless, and his responses to everyone else later on in the thread look like they're only designed to keep the thread alive, hence: troll.
It's because they probably didn't do too many duels in a fps.
1v1 or organized tffas in an FPS is awesome, just like you said: chess
free for all = anarchy & counterism
In a ffa it's hard to see the strategy involved when you pull off some insane stunt that kills your opponent and then someone frags you from behind as you finish over and over and over -- but, in organized matches you can kill your opponent many times before you die even once, which shows what a gap can exist between skill levels. Most people never get to this point in a FPS.
Lol ffa in chess world would be a huge game board and people just setting up in random corners, imagine 20 people for one match, very diluted strategy.
Someone is paying for the server you play on in a First Person Shooter (FPS) game. If there wasn't those people then you wouldn't have any multiplayer game mode to play for that FPS, except on your own connection if you host it -- and that is useless because upload speed is very slow (along with a lot of other factors such as you having a 0 ping, etc.)
With that said, back on GW: It's a great idea that these guys are innovating & putting original spins on what it takes to create a successful buisness model for a game.
Personally, I still like my saber only mode Jedi Academy because no aimbots, no point'n'click on the monster for 90 hours, and no snipers. Yes, there are glitches (wiggling or spinning your saber), but the entire idea is you have to be standing RIGHT next to your opponent to hit them. As far as competitive gaming goes, you can't go wrong with the Jedi Knight series. Every other fantasy game with competitive play has aimbots or interact with imaginary character/opponents crap.
It forces the parents to wonder why the hell this game they got their kid has a lid only they can open, so they read the side and the seriousness of the 'graphical images not suitable for children' etc. would be taken seriously.
This branch on this thread reminds me of when someone wants to buy a lottery ticket.
Person A) I'm going to buy a lottery ticket. Person B) The chances of you being successful by winning is 1 in a zillion? You're wasting your time & money. Person C) You shouldn't discourage him, what if he wins? Person A) Buys lottery ticket.
Wednesday night rolls up, or w/e they check ticket.
Person A) Ah I lost. Person C) Better luck next time. Person B) Told you, ya idiots.
Or alternatively:
Person A) I WON! Person C) Oh my god SHARE! Person B) Oh my god SHARE with me...PLEASE! Person A&C) That would be a waste of time & money, ya naysaying idiot.
My point is we're all just talking about is 'chance' and our preferred disposition to it, which is dependent on variables we can't control (by much) so just talk about the features or something.
It's not so much today's applications won't run too well on 8 year old hardware, but that most of today's applications that are created aren't tested thoroughly (if at all) on Windows 2000.
They are much different from a QA standpoint, even a few years ago I could take some random piece of software that worked fine on XP, throw it on 2K and watch these little creeper bugs crash the program even though the two OS's have the same kernel.
Besides, I would like to see the huge performance increase people say 2K has over XP. In my experience those two different OS's on the same hardware run very much the same performance if you make one small change: Turn off themes on XP.
1. I think you can't post a coherent thread in your current state, I barely made sense of four seperate sentences. 2. Please don't post high on Slashdot. 3. Please don't post drunk on Slashdot. 4. Please inform us of your profession and/or any other info that would support you know what you're talking about.
"Why is it there's this heavy tendency among some doctors to not believe the patient?"
As all professions where some sort of diagnosis needs to be made, this is seen by many as a failing solely on the Doctor's part. It's similar to Tech Support. (I do it for a living.)
Basically, when diagnosing something: The doctor is limited by the information he is given.
The problem in this case is usually some seemingly minor detail the patient knows of but can't communicate to the Doctor because a combination of the doctor failing to ask the correct question and of the patient not realizing this detail may be important.
Take a step back and realize that Doctors (and technicians) don't have individual tests that can check the subject for all known types of problems. Troubleshooting, or diagnosing usually requires some sort of historic account, too.
It would seem the patient's historic account does not include that one bit of info that a good doctor needs to properly diagnose this issue.
It sounds like he is taking the correct approach:
Keep Doctor shopping in the hopes the Doctor asks the correct question to diagnose. In the meantime keep researching and you may find some clue that will help you remember this detail.
From all the Doctors he has gone to I would guess the chances are very low this is a doctor issue. No, there is still some key detail in the patient's past the doctor needs knowledge of to properly diagnose.
Also, FOV stands for field of view for those who don't know.
I work with graphics, 3D specifically, a lot both in modeling and coding so I would assume I'm immune to just about anything a computer monitor can display, well -- except goatse.cx...
I also do very well on spatial relationship or mechanical tests. You know, tests on gears and such.
Just looking at the game engine itself I've noticed that the shadows and lighting in general is botched. It all seems to be from the same angles, or at least: the wrong angle(s). Obviously it's no Doom 3 engine-wise when comparing light or shadow realism. I haven't seen much testing yet to determine how Half-Life 2 does shadows. Seems because people can't recognize the fault consciously, they must do it unconsciously =)
"I suspect that if this technology has actually been around for 20 years, it has gotten good enough to be nearly impossible to bypass."
Stupid assumption. The method the government is using here is actually more like a measure. Just because it doesn't stamp out all counterfeiting on comercial printers in all cases doesn't mean it fails to stamp it out for a certain age group. Realistically, the technology has probably improved slightly, but ultimately it's still in the owner's possession so it can never truly be secure.
Also:
"Think about it: if counterfeiters wanted to pay some less-than-moral geek to fix this, wouldn't they be doing it already?"
Translation: foobar question.
You're saying the less-than-moral geeks are actually counterfeiters themselves. Counterfeiter first, geek second, please. Either way a counterfeiter is counterfeiting so what was the question again??
It would stand to reason that people who fear government or law enforcement's knowledge of their printer serial number would have to first suffer the loss of their printed material to one of these institutions.
Knowing that, one obvious example is shown:
Counterfeiting money.
Now, tell me, what kind of person wants to go to Kinko's to counterfeit money?
The newer XP CD's have SP1 on them (and now even SP2) which has the Internet Connection Firewall (ICF) (or Windows Firewall of Security Center) enabled by default.
For those of you stuck with older XP CD's just turn ICF on by Right-clicking My Network Places > Properties > Right-click connection > Properties > Advanced > ICF. Do this BEFORE you connect to the Internet, if you're using cable or some forms of DSL this means BEFORE you even plug it in.
Slashdot Mirror
yea 1st comment did.. RTFC
lolwned.
lol I have a similar thing for my hacks
//Close your eyes, this parts dirty. ..followed by nested if's or switch's, etc.
my classic is:
The errors are intentional.
Says it on the webstandards website, something about part of the test is to determine how the browser reacts to errors in the css. There's a standard for that too, apparently
..actually get this thing to work?
Last few times I tried it I could never get it to REALLY connect, just spurts, an image here, an image there.
I read that a while back, appears to be trollfood.
The more of those nested comments you read at the bottom, the more you wish you had never found the thread.
It wouldn't suprise me in the least if the author perpetrating the story is actually some nobody falsifying his identity.
Honestly a supposed author wrote the allegations, but they are completely foundless, and his responses to everyone else later on in the thread look like they're only designed to keep the thread alive, hence: troll.
It's because they probably didn't do too many duels in a fps.
1v1 or organized tffas in an FPS is awesome, just like you said: chess
free for all = anarchy & counterism
In a ffa it's hard to see the strategy involved when you pull off some insane stunt that kills your opponent and then someone frags you from behind as you finish over and over and over -- but, in organized matches you can kill your opponent many times before you die even once, which shows what a gap can exist between skill levels. Most people never get to this point in a FPS.
Lol ffa in chess world would be a huge game board and people just setting up in random corners, imagine 20 people for one match, very diluted strategy.
where's the spin!?
:)
there's no angle!
good luck next time
omg i'm ashamed to know that was an alanis morisette song >.
CURSE GIRLFRIENDS AND SISTERS!
'isn't it ironic?'
'don't you think?'
rofl
Someone is paying for the server you play on in a First Person Shooter (FPS) game. If there wasn't those people then you wouldn't have any multiplayer game mode to play for that FPS, except on your own connection if you host it -- and that is useless because upload speed is very slow (along with a lot of other factors such as you having a 0 ping, etc.)
With that said, back on GW: It's a great idea that these guys are innovating & putting original spins on what it takes to create a successful buisness model for a game.
Personally, I still like my saber only mode Jedi Academy because no aimbots, no point'n'click on the monster for 90 hours, and no snipers. Yes, there are glitches (wiggling or spinning your saber), but the entire idea is you have to be standing RIGHT next to your opponent to hit them. As far as competitive gaming goes, you can't go wrong with the Jedi Knight series. Every other fantasy game with competitive play has aimbots or interact with imaginary character/opponents crap.
mod parent up
that's actually not a bad idea
It forces the parents to wonder why the hell this game they got their kid has a lid only they can open, so they read the side and the seriousness of the 'graphical images not suitable for children' etc. would be taken seriously.
This branch on this thread reminds me of when someone wants to buy a lottery ticket.
Person A) I'm going to buy a lottery ticket.
Person B) The chances of you being successful by winning is 1 in a zillion? You're wasting your time & money.
Person C) You shouldn't discourage him, what if he wins?
Person A) Buys lottery ticket.
Wednesday night rolls up, or w/e they check ticket.
Person A) Ah I lost.
Person C) Better luck next time.
Person B) Told you, ya idiots.
Or alternatively:
Person A) I WON!
Person C) Oh my god SHARE!
Person B) Oh my god SHARE with me...PLEASE!
Person A&C) That would be a waste of time & money, ya naysaying idiot.
My point is we're all just talking about is 'chance' and our preferred disposition to it, which is dependent on variables we can't control (by much) so just talk about the features or something.
I'm sure he'll have it fixed soon.
g reasemonkey-update.html
http://greaseblog.blogspot.com/2005/07/mandatory-
..of a guy I was phone supporting whom lived in Queens, New York:
Him: "Ahhh it's hopeless.."
Me: "Nah, let's just try the next solution.."
Him: "Ya know what would fix this up good?"
Me: *chuckle* "What's that?"
Him: "A 2 lb. sledge. I tell ya, 2 lb. sledge fixes EVERYTHING.."
Me: rofl
The accent was priceless.. the word 'sledge' must have been invented in NY..
"I have a single Win2K box and it works with every single piece of software available."
Um, Graphics drivers?
Games?
User-friendly non-server network programs designed for XP?
Input device drivers?
Sara Lou's Cross-Stitch Plus!
You can't possibly claim you've tried every piece of software available. FUD indeed.
It's not so much today's applications won't run too well on 8 year old hardware, but that most of today's applications that are created aren't tested thoroughly (if at all) on Windows 2000.
They are much different from a QA standpoint, even a few years ago I could take some random piece of software that worked fine on XP, throw it on 2K and watch these little creeper bugs crash the program even though the two OS's have the same kernel.
Besides, I would like to see the huge performance increase people say 2K has over XP. In my experience those two different OS's on the same hardware run very much the same performance if you make one small change: Turn off themes on XP.
Yep, same thing happened to mine. Managed to ban it yesterday, though. =)
SNES9x was originally developed using Allegro (a cross-platform Game Programming library).
That's why SNES9X has all of the ports it does.
ZSNES handles all of its sound, video, and input without a third-party cross-platform library.
ZSNES used to be much more popular in the old days (~1997) because it was faster than SNES9X.
Also ty for the update! The 100% CPU utilization feature/bug being gone is a huge plus, alone!
Uh, well you asked for it:
1. I think you can't post a coherent thread in your current state, I barely made sense of four seperate sentences.
2. Please don't post high on Slashdot.
3. Please don't post drunk on Slashdot.
4. Please inform us of your profession and/or any other info that would support you know what you're talking about.
Thank you.
"Why is it there's this heavy tendency among some doctors to not believe the patient?"
As all professions where some sort of diagnosis needs to be made, this is seen by many as a failing solely on the Doctor's part. It's similar to Tech Support. (I do it for a living.)
Basically, when diagnosing something: The doctor is limited by the information he is given.
The problem in this case is usually some seemingly minor detail the patient knows of but can't communicate to the Doctor because a combination of the doctor failing to ask the correct question and of the patient not realizing this detail may be important.
Take a step back and realize that Doctors (and technicians) don't have individual tests that can check the subject for all known types of problems. Troubleshooting, or diagnosing usually requires some sort of historic account, too.
It would seem the patient's historic account does not include that one bit of info that a good doctor needs to properly diagnose this issue.
It sounds like he is taking the correct approach:
Keep Doctor shopping in the hopes the Doctor asks the correct question to diagnose. In the meantime keep researching and you may find some clue that will help you remember this detail.
From all the Doctors he has gone to I would guess the chances are very low this is a doctor issue. No, there is still some key detail in the patient's past the doctor needs knowledge of to properly diagnose.
Well, I'm 22 and have no problems.
I love the HL2 engine.
Also, FOV stands for field of view for those who don't know.
I work with graphics, 3D specifically, a lot both in modeling and coding so I would assume I'm immune to just about anything a computer monitor can display, well -- except goatse.cx...
I also do very well on spatial relationship or mechanical tests. You know, tests on gears and such.
Just looking at the game engine itself I've noticed that the shadows and lighting in general is botched. It all seems to be from the same angles, or at least: the wrong angle(s). Obviously it's no Doom 3 engine-wise when comparing light or shadow realism. I haven't seen much testing yet to determine how Half-Life 2 does shadows. Seems because people can't recognize the fault consciously, they must do it unconsciously =)
"I suspect that if this technology has actually been around for 20 years, it has gotten good enough to be nearly impossible to bypass."
/. Thank you.
Stupid assumption. The method the government is using here is actually more like a measure. Just because it doesn't stamp out all counterfeiting on comercial printers in all cases doesn't mean it fails to stamp it out for a certain age group. Realistically, the technology has probably improved slightly, but ultimately it's still in the owner's possession so it can never truly be secure.
Also:
"Think about it: if counterfeiters wanted to pay some less-than-moral geek to fix this, wouldn't they be doing it already?"
Translation: foobar question.
You're saying the less-than-moral geeks are actually counterfeiters themselves. Counterfeiter first, geek second, please. Either way a counterfeiter is counterfeiting so what was the question again??
Please try not to post high on
It would stand to reason that people who fear government or law enforcement's knowledge of their printer serial number would have to first suffer the loss of their printed material to one of these institutions.
Knowing that, one obvious example is shown:
Counterfeiting money.
Now, tell me, what kind of person wants to go to Kinko's to counterfeit money?
No video card specs. Useless.
Ah yes, RPC exploit used by blaster, netsky, etc.
The newer XP CD's have SP1 on them (and now even SP2) which has the Internet Connection Firewall (ICF) (or Windows Firewall of Security Center) enabled by default.
For those of you stuck with older XP CD's just turn ICF on by Right-clicking My Network Places > Properties > Right-click connection > Properties > Advanced > ICF. Do this BEFORE you connect to the Internet, if you're using cable or some forms of DSL this means BEFORE you even plug it in.