Somebody obviously hasn't learned that releasing a buggy product receives BAD REVIEWS and NEGATIVE FEEDBACK! Censoring that feedback isn't going to change the quality of the game. If there was more time spent improving the game rather than trying to engineer public opinion, they wouldn't have this problem.
How is shrinking the image/a bad scan going to make it look less realistic ? If anything, it should make it MORE realistic by obscuring any flaws.
Because realism is made or broken in the small details. The more small details you lose, the less realistic it will look. You don't realize that the details make the realism until they're gone.
Realism is achieved by the presence of flaws, not perfection. Computers do perfection easily - it's the flaws that have to be worked at.
I use them all over. You just have to repeat them enough to remember them. I used to use my CueCat (Cracked, naturally) to scan barcodes on common desktop items for my passwords. Eventually, I gave up on that and moved to just typing in the numeric string. I have yet to forget one of the 7 passwords I use in this method.
Wow, I guess that means using an eraser is out of the question, then?
Artists don't create something perfectly the first time around. It take a sketch, and then many refinings of that sketch to even begin a decent drawing.
Edit/undo is a tool. Just a particularly powerful one.
I'm an artist. I work in traditional media, as well as digital. I create 3D renderings, I paint digitally, and I color scanned drawings on the computer.
Does that make it less art? NO!
Art is the expression of creativity. If it's expressed through a pencil or a mouse, I don't care. The point is that someone is sharing a piece of their world with the rest of us.
Take one of those critics to see Final Fantasy and tell me what they think.
Introducing the BlockOfWood 1.0 web server! 100% security guaranteed! Sure, it doesn't have any features, but it won't get cracked into, or double your money back!:D
Not that there aren't "certain entities" out there that are trying.
Also, government funded access means you can pretty much forget about privacy. They can do whatever they want with your internet connection - sniff, monitor, log, terminate - they do own it, after all.
DSMs (That's Diamond Star Motors: Eclipses and Talons) have a fuel-cut programmed into their ECUs (Electronic Control Units) so that basically, when a combonation of gear/rpms is reached, the computer cuts fuel to the engine. This is mostly to keep you from destroying the engine, although it has the side effect of limiting speeds. Pisses off a lot of racers, but there are modified EEPROMS available to replace the factory one that has fuel cut removed.
Chances are, any government standard enacted would be done in firmware, which can be replaced relatively easily.
Yeah, but it's just so much fun for a newbie to wander into your game and proceed to wipe the floor with him!
In that system, you'd be playing against a lot of the same people all of the time, which eventually becomes boring. I play against my brother occassionally, but it's not as fun, becase I used to play against him so much that I know exactly how he operates - I can predict his moves before he makes them, and the same with me. We learn each other's styles, and as such, we never get anywhere. The only way one of us gets fragged is for us to get caught by suprise - a full eightball staring you in the face when you come around a corner will do it - but it makes for very slow matches. Eventually, it would be the same in the server system you propose. Players would improve at a relatively static pace to one another, and always be playing with each other. Boring. Part of the joy of online gaming is being able to win without knowing your opponent's style - it proves that you are a better player.
Cheating methods such as aimbots are cheap - no doubt about it. No argument there. So what can you do about it? One response is CSHP - but that's always being cracked. The very existance of the rules is always going to be a challange to someone to break the rules - to beat the system.
I personally love the UT mutator system - it allows cheats, but ensures that everyone has access to that cheat. If there were a way to do the same with clientside hacks, it would be wonderful. Someone with an aimbot wanders into a game and is promptly decapitated with a sniper rifle 14 times in a row. Kinda kills the initial rush of having an aimbot.
I imagine that with enough checking, client-sides could be nullified. For example, imagine that the game programs in a minimum bounce of 1 unit into the aiming reticle - that is, the player's view vector will always be undulating by one game unit - not enough to be noticible, but enough to provide a checking system. Then, the game notices that, somehow, that bounce is non-existant. The reticle is locked on a single point. Boom - cheater. Why couldn't something like this be implemented? Seems simple enough. Put inconsistancies into the code that will break down when an outside hack is used, much like a fuse.
I want the ability to filter images based on the domain and/or size (no more 1x1 web bugs).
Bad idea, here's why. A lot of webmasters use 1x1 transparents for good uses. Myself, I use them to create sites that render the same in IE and Netscape. Blank table cells aren't rendered in Netscape 4.x-, and if a non-breaking space is going to expand the cell to larger than what I want, it's a problem. So I drop a 1x1 in there. Similarly, I use them as absolute width holders. Browsers are really very good at ignoring table and cell widths - so you drop a 1x1 in there stretched to the padding size I need.
Also, if you do that, then the ad companies will come up with something else. Such as creating a layer 500x500 pixels, dropping their webbug in that, and setting the z-index to -1 so it doesn't show up or capture input.
Too easy to get around, too much functionality lost.
Now, disabling loading images <= a certain size across domains == good idea.
Just make sure you don't make it even harder for us to get a page to render correctly in multiple browsers.
What possibilities for abuse are here, though? Could someone not forge prior art to debunk a legitimate patent? Especially with the digital, things get a little slippery there.
Re:No, can't do that in a jar....
on
Star In A Jar
·
· Score: 1
My guess is that if you explode something a jar, it will become "rapidly expanding." Right before it becomes "flying shrapnel."
My analog watch can calculate 1+1 faster than that thing.
Shift key slip. You know what I meant:P
...but the sad thing is, you're probably right. We were working in Codewarrior (C++ Compiler) and a simple 20-line console app took about 130 seconds to compile. Then you had to get it to run. I think I spent more time in that class compiling than I did actually writing code.
You may be a very competent programmer now, but if you were to learn assembly language, you'd be an even better programmer.
Certainly, no argument there. I was simply making the point that it is not necessary to learn assembly in order to be a good programmer, as the parent poster claimed.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody obviously hasn't learned that releasing a buggy product receives BAD REVIEWS and NEGATIVE FEEDBACK! Censoring that feedback isn't going to change the quality of the game. If there was more time spent improving the game rather than trying to engineer public opinion, they wouldn't have this problem.
How is shrinking the image/a bad scan going to make it look less realistic ? If anything, it should make it MORE realistic by obscuring any flaws.
Because realism is made or broken in the small details. The more small details you lose, the less realistic it will look. You don't realize that the details make the realism until they're gone.
Realism is achieved by the presence of flaws, not perfection. Computers do perfection easily - it's the flaws that have to be worked at.
...karma whore here...
That's GREAT! I want to see the letter that comes back from that!
It's not that hard at all.
I use them all over. You just have to repeat them enough to remember them. I used to use my CueCat (Cracked, naturally) to scan barcodes on common desktop items for my passwords. Eventually, I gave up on that and moved to just typing in the numeric string. I have yet to forget one of the 7 passwords I use in this method.
Wow, I guess that means using an eraser is out of the question, then?
Artists don't create something perfectly the first time around. It take a sketch, and then many refinings of that sketch to even begin a decent drawing.
Edit/undo is a tool. Just a particularly powerful one.
I'm an artist. I work in traditional media, as well as digital. I create 3D renderings, I paint digitally, and I color scanned drawings on the computer.
Does that make it less art? NO!
Art is the expression of creativity. If it's expressed through a pencil or a mouse, I don't care. The point is that someone is sharing a piece of their world with the rest of us.
Take one of those critics to see Final Fantasy and tell me what they think.
Yeah, but you can switch to a different ISP in that case.
When there's only one option, though...
Well, at least they're not spending it on things like $20,000 toilet seats. It could be worse!
Introducing the BlockOfWood 1.0 web server! 100% security guaranteed! Sure, it doesn't have any features, but it won't get cracked into, or double your money back! :D
Not that there aren't "certain entities" out there that are trying.
Also, government funded access means you can pretty much forget about privacy. They can do whatever they want with your internet connection - sniff, monitor, log, terminate - they do own it, after all.
It it worth $44.95/mo to give up your privacy?
I read a pre-production script witha few extra scenes, for example one in which Obi-Wan lets his Lightsaber 'battery' run down
Shoulda used Energizer.
Anyone else remember that commercial?
DSMs (That's Diamond Star Motors: Eclipses and Talons) have a fuel-cut programmed into their ECUs (Electronic Control Units) so that basically, when a combonation of gear/rpms is reached, the computer cuts fuel to the engine. This is mostly to keep you from destroying the engine, although it has the side effect of limiting speeds. Pisses off a lot of racers, but there are modified EEPROMS available to replace the factory one that has fuel cut removed.
Chances are, any government standard enacted would be done in firmware, which can be replaced relatively easily.
No, no, the problem is, here in Arizona, the fricken' solar panels keep melting!
>> They're easy enough of a pest to get rid of. All you need is a big can of Raid...
But, isn't it your big RAID box that attracts them in the first place?
Yeah, but it's just so much fun for a newbie to wander into your game and proceed to wipe the floor with him!
In that system, you'd be playing against a lot of the same people all of the time, which eventually becomes boring. I play against my brother occassionally, but it's not as fun, becase I used to play against him so much that I know exactly how he operates - I can predict his moves before he makes them, and the same with me. We learn each other's styles, and as such, we never get anywhere. The only way one of us gets fragged is for us to get caught by suprise - a full eightball staring you in the face when you come around a corner will do it - but it makes for very slow matches. Eventually, it would be the same in the server system you propose. Players would improve at a relatively static pace to one another, and always be playing with each other. Boring. Part of the joy of online gaming is being able to win without knowing your opponent's style - it proves that you are a better player.
Cheating methods such as aimbots are cheap - no doubt about it. No argument there. So what can you do about it? One response is CSHP - but that's always being cracked. The very existance of the rules is always going to be a challange to someone to break the rules - to beat the system.
I personally love the UT mutator system - it allows cheats, but ensures that everyone has access to that cheat. If there were a way to do the same with clientside hacks, it would be wonderful. Someone with an aimbot wanders into a game and is promptly decapitated with a sniper rifle 14 times in a row. Kinda kills the initial rush of having an aimbot.
I imagine that with enough checking, client-sides could be nullified. For example, imagine that the game programs in a minimum bounce of 1 unit into the aiming reticle - that is, the player's view vector will always be undulating by one game unit - not enough to be noticible, but enough to provide a checking system. Then, the game notices that, somehow, that bounce is non-existant. The reticle is locked on a single point. Boom - cheater. Why couldn't something like this be implemented? Seems simple enough. Put inconsistancies into the code that will break down when an outside hack is used, much like a fuse.
I'll stop rambling now.
I want the ability to filter images based on the domain and/or size (no more 1x1 web bugs).
Bad idea, here's why. A lot of webmasters use 1x1 transparents for good uses. Myself, I use them to create sites that render the same in IE and Netscape. Blank table cells aren't rendered in Netscape 4.x-, and if a non-breaking space is going to expand the cell to larger than what I want, it's a problem. So I drop a 1x1 in there. Similarly, I use them as absolute width holders. Browsers are really very good at ignoring table and cell widths - so you drop a 1x1 in there stretched to the padding size I need.
Also, if you do that, then the ad companies will come up with something else. Such as creating a layer 500x500 pixels, dropping their webbug in that, and setting the z-index to -1 so it doesn't show up or capture input.
Too easy to get around, too much functionality lost.
Now, disabling loading images <= a certain size across domains == good idea.
Just make sure you don't make it even harder for us to get a page to render correctly in multiple browsers.
Nonono...you've got it wrong. You need to be suing the people who patent Stupid Patents© - I haven't patented anything that I know of.
Besides, I'm sure I can find prior art on your Stupid Patent©...not that it'll make any difference.
I'm not so sure this is in earnest - I'm under the impression that the government stopped caring about patents a long time ago.
However, if they ARE going to be accepting public input on prior art, this is absolutely wonderful. Finally, a weapon against Stupid Patents©.
What possibilities for abuse are here, though? Could someone not forge prior art to debunk a legitimate patent? Especially with the digital, things get a little slippery there.
My guess is that if you explode something a jar, it will become "rapidly expanding." Right before it becomes "flying shrapnel."
Zzzt! BOOM! AIEEEE!
In my experience, superheros function best in one piece, not umpteen billion small ones. But then, you never know.
Ta-da-daaaa! Dust Man!
When I use the abbreviation C/C++, I mean C (and|or) C++. Not that they're the same, but that they're similar enough that we can teach either one.
Just wait till a laser goes awry and one of the scientests goes supernova. That'll kill the project real quick.
My analog watch can calculate 1+1 faster than that thing.
:P
Shift key slip. You know what I meant
...but the sad thing is, you're probably right. We were working in Codewarrior (C++ Compiler) and a simple 20-line console app took about 130 seconds to compile. Then you had to get it to run. I think I spent more time in that class compiling than I did actually writing code.
Oh, the pain...
You may be a very competent programmer now, but if you were to learn assembly language, you'd be an even better programmer.
Certainly, no argument there. I was simply making the point that it is not necessary to learn assembly in order to be a good programmer, as the parent poster claimed.